[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[C. Recognition on Particular Questions]
[Â§ 19. For Offering and Debating Amendments]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 9980-10030]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                 C. RECOGNITION ON PARTICULAR QUESTIONS
 
Sec. 19. For Offering and Debating Amendments

    Recognition to offer an amendment in the House is governed by Rule 
XIV, clause 2 and the precedents developed thereunder. In Committee of 
the Whole, Rule XXIII, clause 5 is the governing authority.

                            Cross References
Amendments and their consideration in general, see Ch. 27, supra.
Amendment or other provision establishing ``commemoration'' as 
    prohibited, see Sec. 18, supra.
Amendments and management by reporting committee, see Sec. 26, infra.
Chair's protection of rights of Members seeking to offer amendments 
    under limitation on five-minute debate in Committee of the Whole, 
    see Sec. 22, infra.
Losing control by yielding for amendment, see Sec. 33, infra.
Points of order against amendments after offered but before debate 
    begins, see Sec. 20, infra, and Sec. 9, supra (late points of 
    order).
Priority of manager of bill in debate, see Sec. 14, supra.
Recognition for amendments under the five-minute rule, see 
    Sec. Sec. 21, 22, infra.
Rights of opposition to offer amendment after rejection of essential 
    motion, see Sec. 15, supra.
Special orders limiting amendments which may be offered, see Ch. 21, 
    supra.
Yielding for amendments, see Sec. 30, 
    infra.                          -------------------

Must Be Recognized To Offer Amendment

Sec. 19.1 A Member wishing to offer an amendment must first be 
    recognized by the Chair for that purpose.

    On Sept. 21, 1967,(8) Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, 
asked unanimous consent that it be in order on a certain day, or 
thereafter, 
to consider a joint resolution mak-ing continuing appropriations. Mr. 
Frank T. Bow, of Ohio, under a reservation of objection, inquired 
whether such a resolution would be subject to germane amend

[[Page 9981]]

ment. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, answered that 
amendments would be in order. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Idaho, then raised a 
parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 113 Cong. Rec. 26370, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, 
    I would 
    assume the Speaker could add to 
    that the statement [that amendments would be in order]: ``If the 
    gentleman is recognized for the purpose of offering an amendment.''
        Mr. Speaker, as a parliamentary inquiry is that not correct?
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman restate his parliamentary 
    inquiry?
        Mr. Gross: The parliamentary inquiry is this: That the 
    gentleman could offer an amendment if the Speaker recognized the 
    gentleman for that purpose?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the question answers 
    itself. The answer would be yes, subject to the right of 
    recognition, it is a question within the discretion of the 
    Speaker.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See also Sec. 21.4, infra (a Member desiring to offer an amendment 
        under the five-minute rule must seek recognition from the 
        Chair, and may not be yielded the floor for that purpose by 
        another Member).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seeking Recognition

Sec. 19.2 In order to obtain recognition to offer an amendment, a 
    Member must not only be standing but must also actively seek 
    recognition by addressing the Chair at the appropriate time.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Oct. 26, 1983,(10) during consideration of the Department of 
Defense appropriations for fiscal year 1984 (H.R. 4185):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 129 Cong. Rec. 29430, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman:(11) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

            For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
        and modernization of aircraft, equipment including ordnance . . 
        . and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
        and machine tools in public and private plants . . . 
        $9,994,245,000. . . .

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Nichols) 
    seek recognition?
        Mr. [William] Nichols [of Alabama]: Yes; I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment relating to page 20, line 9, 
    of the bill.
        The Clerk proceeded to read the page and line numbers of the 
    amendment.
        Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I raise a point of order against the amendment. We have 
    already passed that section.
        Mr. Nichols: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet at the time.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman was on his 
    feet

[[Page 9982]]

    but did not know that he was seeking recognition.
        Mr. Nichols: Mr. Chairman, I was at the microphone. I was 
    standing. I was prepared to offer my amendment had the Chairman 
    recognized me.
        The Chairman: The Chair will have to make the observation that 
    the gentleman from Alabama was not seeking active recognition. The 
    Chair recognized the gentleman was on his feet but did not notice 
    that he was seeking recognition by any vocal expression. . . .
        Mr. Nichols: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
    permitted to offer my amendment at this point.
        [Objection was heard.]

Sec. 19.3 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole advised Members 
    that they must be on their feet seeking recognition at the proper 
    time in order to protect their rights under the rules to make 
    points of order or to offer amendments.

    On Apr. 14, 1970,(12) Chairman Chet Holifield, of 
California, made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 116 Cong. Rec. 11649, 11650, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair wishes to say that the Chair is most desirous 
    of occupying this chair with dignity and with fairness to all 
    concerned. There were other amendments that the Chair had been told 
    would be offered, and the gentlemen who came and told the Chair 
    were not on their feet seeking recognition, nor did they address 
    the Chair at the time, and therefore the Chair was in the position 
    of allowing the Clerk to continue to read.
        If the Members do not protect their own rights and use the 
    rules of the House to their advantage, the Chair is not here to 
    protect them when they do not insist on their own rights at the 
    proper time.

        The Chair says this with no degree of reprimand, but the Chair 
    is the servant of the House, and the Chair will try to be fair.

Sec. 19.4 A Member who is not standing and addressing the Chair at the 
    time a paragraph in an appropriation bill is read is precluded from 
    offering an amendment to that paragraph after subsequent paragraphs 
    have been read.

    On Apr. 14, 1970,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
reading for amendment H.R. 16916, the Office of Education 
appropriations for fiscal 1971. Mr. Marvin L. Esch, of Michigan, 
offered an amendment to a paragraph on page 3, after the Clerk had read 
past page 4, line 17. Mr. Daniel J. Flood, of Pennsylvania, made a 
point of order against the amendment on the ground it was offered too 
late. He stated that Mr. Esch had not been on his feet at the

[[Page 9983]]

proper time and did not address the Chair. Mr. Esch responded that he 
had been on his feet addressing the Chair at the proper time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 11648, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chairman Chet Holifield, of California, suggested that Mr. Esch ask 
unanimous consent that his amendment, although untimely, be considered, 
but Mr. Flood objected to the request. The Chairman sustained the point 
of order:

        The Chair is constrained to uphold the point of order of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania. The Chair wants to be fair, but the 
    gentlemen in the Chamber that wish to offer their amendments must 
    be on their feet.

Sec. 19.5 A point of order against an amendment, on the grounds that 
    the section to which it is offered has been passed and is therefore 
    not subject to amendment, will not lie where a Member was on his 
    feet seeking recognition to offer the amendment at the appropriate 
    time.

    On Apr. 3, 1957,(14) Mr. Harold D. Cooley, of North 
Carolina, offered an amendment to a section of the bill pending in the 
Committee of the Whole. Mr. John Taber, of New York, made a point of 
order against the amendment on the ground that it was offered too late, 
the Clerk having read past the section to which the amendment 
pertained. Mr. Cooley stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 103 Cong. Rec. 5034-36, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It was not passed. My amendment was at the Clerk's desk, but 
    the Clerk was reading so rapidly that he passed that section 
    inadvertently.

    Chairman Aime J. Forand, of Rhode Island, overruled the point of 
order:

        The Chair is ready to rule on that point. The gentleman from 
    North Carolina was on his feet while the Clerk was reading. The 
    Clerk continued to read before the gentleman had a chance to offer 
    his amendment.
        The gentleman was entitled to recognition.

 Member Must Offer Amendment From Floor in Addition to Placing With 
    Clerk

Sec. 19.6 Members must be in 
    the Chamber and offer their amendments from the floor at the proper 
    point to the bill as it is read, and it is not sufficient to merely 
    place such amendments at the Clerk's desk.

    For example, on Apr. 1, 1947,(15) Mr. Sam Hobbs, of 
Alabama, offered an amendment to an appro

[[Page 9984]]

priation bill. Mr. John Taber, of New York, made the point of order 
that the amendment came too late, the Clerk having read beyond the 
portion of the bill sought to be amended. Chairman George A. Dondero, 
of Michigan, sustained the point of order. Mr. Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, then inquired as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 93 Cong. Rec. 2987, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, as I understand it this amendment was on the 
    Clerk's desk and the fact it was not reported was due to the 
    Clerk's failing to see the amendment. The parliamentary inquiry is: 
    Does it come too late when the amendment was on the desk?

    The Chairman responded:

        The gentleman from Alabama was not present to protect his 
    rights and the Clerk continued to read beyond the point where the 
    amendment should properly have been offered.

    Likewise, on June 13, 1947, Chairman Thomas A. Jenkins, of Ohio, 
responded as follows to a parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, when the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from California was voted on, I 
    had on the Clerk's desk an amendment to strike out the last three 
    or four lines of that paragraph. Was that amendment out of order?
        The Chairman: No. In answer to the inquiry of the gentleman, 
    the Chair will state that the Chair has no information as to 
    amendments on the Clerk's desk or what they contain. That 
    information is brought to the attention of the House and the Chair 
    when a Member sends up the amendment, rises and addresses the Chair 
    stating that he offers an amendment. The gentleman from Michigan 
    did not do that, or at least the Chair did not hear 
    him.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 6984. For similar rulings, see 110 Cong. Rec. 2290, 2291, 
        88th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 6, 1964; 95 Cong. Rec. 12258, 12269, 
        81st Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 25, 1949; 95 Cong. Rec. 5505, 5506, 
        81st Cong. 1st Sess., May 3, 1949; and 95 Cong. Rec. 2307, 81st 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 11, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chair's Authority To Structure Orderly Amendment Process; Discretion in 
    Order of Recognition

Sec. 19.7 While the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may, through 
    the power of recognition, encourage the orderly offering of 
    amendments to a pending amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    which has been read in its entirety, a unanimous-consent request, 
    not contemplated by the special order governing the procedure, to 
    read the substitute for amendment by sections is not in order.

    On Mar. 25, 1975,(17) it was demonstrated that, where 
the

[[Page 9985]]

House has by special rule provided for reading by sections in Committee 
of the Whole of a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as 
an original bill, any amendment offered thereto must be read in its 
entirety, 
and the Committee may not by 
unanimous consent order that an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute for the committee amendment be in turn read by sections 
for amendment. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 8490, 8491, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 4222, to amend the National School Lunch Act and Child 
        Nutrition Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: 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. 
        O'Hara: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the 
        Committee to the text of the bill, H.R. 4222, insert the 
        following:
            That this Act may be cited as ``The National School Lunch 
        Act and Child Nutrition Act of 1966 Amendments of 1975''.

                            school breakfast program

            Sec. 2: Section 4(a) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 is 
        amended by inserting immediately after ``and June 30, 1975,'' 
        the following: ``and subsequent fiscal years''.

        Mr. O'Hara (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with and 
    that it be printed in the Record.
        The Chairman:(18) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object. For all intents and purposes it now appears 
    that the original committee substitute, made in order by the rule, 
    is to be junked and instead we are being asked to consider this new 
    substitute which the gentleman from Michigan has just now offered. 
    The original rule on this bill provided that the committee 
    substitute be read for purposes of amendment, as is usual. If the 
    gentleman now obtains unanimous consent to consider his substitute 
    as read and open to amendment, all sorts of confusion can result. 
    No one will have any control over what amendments will be presented 
    and in which order and debate may be cut off.
        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

        Mr. Bauman: I yield to the gentleman.
        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, while it is being read in the Record 
    it will not be open to amendment section by section. It would be 
    open to amendment when the entire amendment is read.
        Mr. Bauman: That is precisely what we object to. . . .
        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, this is 
    significant to what the gentleman is talking about. If the 
    substitute is read, it is my understanding of the rules of the 
    House that we cannot stop at the end of each section for 
    amendments, but the entire substitute has to be read before it 
    would be open for amendments.

[[Page 9986]]

        May I inquire of the Chairman, is that right?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I 
    wonder if the gentleman from Michigan would make a unanimous-
    consent request that his amendment be read section by section. This 
    would accomplish the purpose we are after.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Chair would not 
    entertain a request of that nature. The amendment must be read in 
    its entirety under the rules of the House, if the gentleman from 
    Maryland insists upon his objection. The Chair would encourage that 
    amendments be made to each section once it has been read, but it 
    cannot be open for amendment prior to the reading.

Sec. 19.8 The order of recognition to offer amendments is within the 
    discretion of the Chair, who may either base his initial 
    recognition on committee seniority or upon the preferential voting 
    status of the amendments sought to be offered; thus, where both a 
    pending amendment and a substitute therefor are open to perfecting 
    amendments, the Chair has the discretion of first recognizing 
    either the senior committee member, or a junior committee member 
    whose amendment would be first voted upon, where both amendments 
    could ultimately be pending at the same time.

    The following proceedings occurred during consideration of the 
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979 in the 
Committee of the Whole on May 15, 1979: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 11135, 11136, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20) For what purpose does the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling) rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk.
        The Chairman: Is this to the Udall substitute?
        Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk 
    to the Udall-Anderson bill, which is actually a series of technical 
    amendments which I will ask unanimous consent to offer en bloc. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: Since there is no other amendment pending to the 
    Udall substitute, the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio may be 
    offered. . . .
        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, assuming 
    there is an amendment to be offered to the so-called Breaux-Dingell 
    merchant marine version, that would take precedence over an 
    amendment to the so-called Udall-Anderson interior bill?
        The Chairman: The Chair has the option either to recognize the 
    senior Member first or to first recognize that Member seeking to 
    offer the amendment which will be preferential and first voted 
    upon.

[[Page 9987]]

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Huckaby [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    amendments at the desk for the Breaux-Dingell bill.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the 
    amendments.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Mr. Seiberling was senior to Mr. Huckaby on the Committee on 
        Interior and Insular Affairs, but Mr. Huckaby's amendment was 
        to be voted on first and he represented the majority position 
        on the committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don H.] Clausen [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Chairman, what is the parliamentary situation? Is there an 
    amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling) 
    or the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby)?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Seiberling) sought recognition to amend the Udall substitute, 
    but the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby) has an amendment to 
    the Merchant Marine and Fisheries amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, and he will be recognized. The Chair will recognize the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling) later for the purposes of 
    offering his amendment. . . .
        Mr. Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments to the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendments.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Huckaby's amendments to the original 
amendment were subsequently agreed to.(2) Mr. Seiberling 
then indicated that he had amendments to the substitute, and Mr. 
Huckaby that he had further amendments to the original amendment. As 
noted above, the Chair would have discretion to recognize either 
Member; but the Chair indicated that in either case, the question would 
not be put on amendments to the substitute until all amendments to the 
original amendment had been disposed of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 125 Cong. Rec. 11152, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 19.9 Although perfecting amendments take priority over substitute 
    amendments in the matter of voting, it is within the discretion of 
    the Chair as to who he will recognize for submitting either kind of 
    amendment.

    On Dec. 15, 1937,(3) Chairman John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry on recognition for 
offering amendments in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 82 Cong. Rec. 1590, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, and I do so to propound a parliamentary 
    inquiry as to the order in which amendments are to be offered. The 
    amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey is now 
    pending. Would not perfecting amendments have priority of 
    consideration over a substitute amendment?

[[Page 9988]]

        The Chairman: The Chair has no knowledge of what amendments may 
    be offered; but ordinarily a perfecting amendment has precedence 
    over a motion to substitute insofar as voting is concerned. If the 
    unanimous-consent request is granted, it is the understanding of 
    the Chair that amendments will be offered section by section.

        Mr. Boileau: Nevertheless, it is the amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey that would be before the House.
        The Chairman:  That is before the Committee now.
        Mr. Boileau: Would not perfecting amendments have priority over 
    an amendment to substitute?
        The Chairman: So far as voting is concerned, yes.
        Mr. Boileau: I appreciate that fact, but may I propound a 
    further parliamentary inquiry, whether or not a Member rising in 
    his place and seeking recognition would not have a prior right to 
    recognition for the purpose of offering a perfecting amendment to 
    the amendment now pending?
        The Chairman: It does not necessarily follow that such Member 
    would have a prior right. Recognition is in the discretion of the 
    Chair.
        Mr. Boileau: I recognize it does not necessarily follow, but I 
    am trying to have the matter clarified. Therefore I ask the Chair 
    whether or not a Member who qualifies as offering a perfecting 
    amendment does not have prior right of recognition in offering such 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair has tried to be as helpful as he could, 
    but the Chair does not feel he should estop himself of his own 
    discretion in the matter of recognitions.
        Mr. Boileau: Does the Chair then rule that is within the 
    discretion of the Chair rather than a right of the Member?
        The Chairman: In answer to the gentleman's inquiry, the Chair 
    is of the opinion it is within the province of the Chair whom the 
    Chair will recognize, having in mind the general rules of the 
    House.

Preference in Recognition to Committee Members

Sec. 19.10 The order of recognition to offer amendments 
    is in the discretion of the Chair, and preference is given to 
    members of the committee reporting the bill who are on their feet 
    seeking recognition.

    On June 29, 1939,(4) Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, 
ruled that although a Member had been recognized to offer an amendment, 
the Chairman would in his discretion have first recognized a member of 
the committee reporting the bill if he had been on his feet seeking 
recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 84 Cong. Rec. 8311, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
            Priority of recognition generally, of members of reporting 
        committee, see Sec. 13, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I have an

[[Page 9989]]

    amendment at the Clerk's desk which I would like to offer at this 
    time.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Knutson: Strike out all of section 
        1 and insert the following----

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York] (interrupting the 
    reading of the amendment): Mr. Chairman, would it be in order for 
    the committee members to be recognized first to offer amendments?
        Mr. Knutson: I have already been recognized.
        The Chairman: If there is any member of the committee seeking 
    recognition, he is entitled to recognition.
        Mr. Fish: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recognized.
        Mr. Knutson: I already have the floor, and have been 
    recognized.
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Knutson] has already been recognized.
        The Chairman: Recognition is in the discretion of the Chair, 
    and the Chair will recognize members of the committee first. Does 
    the acting chairman of the committee seek recognition?
        Mr. [Sol] Bloom [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
    ask whether the committee amendments to section 1 have been agreed 
    to?
        The Chairman: The only one the Chair knows about is the one 
    appearing in the print of the bill, and that has been agreed to.
        Mr. Bloom: In line 16, there is a committee amendment.
        Mr. Knutson: Mr. Chairman, I was recognized by the Chair.
        The Chairman: The Chair feels that inasmuch as members of the 
    committee were not on their feet and the gentleman from Minnesota 
    had been recognized, the gentleman is entitled to recognition.
        The Clerk will continue the reporting of the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Minnesota.

Sec. 19.11 The order of recognition to offer amendments is within the 
    discretion of the Chair, but in practice he generally recognizes 
    members of the committee handling the bill in the order of their 
    seniority.

    On July 23, 1970,(5) Chairman Chet Holifield, of 
California, recognized Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, to offer an 
amendment to an appropriation bill reported by the Committee on 
Appropriations. Mr. Charles R. Jonas, of North Carolina, objected that 
he had already been recognized to offer an amendment. Chairman 
Holifield advised Mr. Jonas that he intended to recognize members of 
the Committee on Appropriations in the order of their seniority and 
that Mr. Mahon was a more senior member of the committee than Mr. 
Jonas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 116 Cong. Rec. 25635, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 19.12 When a paragraph of a bill is open to amendment 
    at any point, the Chair may 


[[Page 9990]]

    recognize Members to offer amendments in a sequence in accordance 
    with their committee rank.

    On July 23, 1970,(6) Chairman Chet Holifield, of 
California, recognized Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, a member of the 
Committee on Appropriations which had reported the pending bill, to 
offer an amendment to the pending paragraph. The Chairman then answered 
a series of parliamentary inquiries on the prior rights of ranking 
members of the reporting committee to recognition to offer amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 25635, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas [of North Carolina]: May I respectfully 
    remind the Chair that I was recognized, and that the Chair allowed 
    a point of order to intervene only, and I had been recognized. The 
    Chair ruled that since a point of order had been made, the Chair 
    would dispose of the point of order first.
        The Chairman: The Chair respectfully states that the point of 
    order did intervene following the gentleman's recognition. The 
    Chair intends to recognize members of the committee in the order of 
    their seniority. The Chair, therefore, recognized the gentleman 
    from Texas. The Chair will later recognize the gentleman from North 
    Carolina.
        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michel: Did the Clerk read through the section concluding 
    with line 3, page 39?
        The Chairman: It is the understanding of the Chair that he did.
        Mr. Jonas: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Jonas: I respectfully ask the Chair to rule that my 
    amendment does precede the amendment that will be offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas. My amendment goes to line 5, page 38, and my 
    information is that the amendment to be offered by the gentleman 
    from Texas comes at a later point in the paragraph.
        The Chairman: A whole paragraph is open to amendment at the 
    same time. Therefore, the line does not determine the order of the 
    amendment.

Chair's Discretion To Recognize Minority or Majority Member

Sec. 19.13 In recognizing members of the committee reporting a bill to 
    offer amendments in the Committee of the Whole, the Chairman has 
    discretion whether to first recognize a minority or majority 
    member.

    On June 4, 1948,(7) while the Committee of the Whole was 
con

[[Page 9991]]

sidering H.R. 6801, the foreign aid appropriation bill, for amendment, 
Chairman W. Sterling Cole, of New York, recognized Mr. Everett M. 
Dirksen, of Illinois (a majority member), to offer an amendment. Mr. 
Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, objected that the minority was entitled 
to recognition to move to amend the bill. The Chairman responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 94 Cong. Rec. 7189, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the rules of the House, any member of the committee may 
    offer an amendment, and it is in the discretion of the Chair as to 
    which member shall be recognized.

Manager of Bill Offering More Than One Amendment

Sec. 19.14 Recognition to offer amendments is first extended to the 
    manager of a bill, and the fact that the Committee of the Whole has 
    just completed consideration of one amendment offered by the 
    manager does not preclude his being recognized to offer another.

    On Apr. 6, 1967,(8) Robert W. Kastenmeier, of Wisconsin, 
was the Member in charge of H.R. 2512, being considered for amendment 
in the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Kastenmeier had offered an 
amendment, which was adopted by the Committee. He then immediately 
offered another amendment. Mr. Byron G. Rogers, of Colorado, made a 
point of or-der against recognition for that 
purpose, and Chairman John H. Dent, of Pennsylvania, overruled the 
point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 113 Cong. Rec. 8617, 8618, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: The gentleman from Wisconsin just 
    offered an amendment, and certainly I as a member of the committee 
    ought to have the privilege of offering an amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Wisconsin is manager of the 
    bill. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. For the prior rights of the manager of the bill being considered, 
        see Sec. 14, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As to Right of Proponent To Further Amend

Sec. 19.15 A Member may offer 
    an amendment to his own amendment by unanimous consent only; but in 
    the event of objection to a unanimous-consent request to modify a 
    pending amendment, any Member other than the proponent of the 
    amendment may offer a proper amendment in writing thereto.

    On Apr. 9, 1979, during consideration of H.R. 3324, the Inter

[[Page 9992]]

national Development Cooperation Act of 1979, an amendment was offered 
as follows,(10) with subsequent efforts to modify it:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 7755, 7756, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: 
        On page 23, line 10, strike all of Section 303(a) and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following new Section 303:

            ``Sec. 303. (a) Section 533 of the Foreign Assistance Act 
        of 1961 is amended to read as follows:
            `` `Sec. 533--Southern Africa Program
            `` `(a) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated to 
        carry out this chapter for the fiscal year 1980, $68,000,000 
        shall be available (only) for the countries of southern Africa 
        and for--
            `` `(1) a southern Africa regional refugee support, 
        training, and economic planning program to address the problems 
        caused by the economic dislocation resulting from the conflict 
        in that region;
            `` `(2) education and job training assistance;
            `` `(3) a southern Africa fair and open election program to 
        address the problem resulting from the conflict and internal 
        strife in that region.
            `` `Such funds may be used to provide humanitarian 
        assistance to African refugees and persons displaced by war and 
        internal strife in southern Africa, to improve transportation 
        links interrupted or jeopardized by regional political 
        conflicts and to provide support to countries in that region.
            `` `(b) In furtherance of the purposes of this section and 
        the foreign policy objectives of the United States the 
        President may appoint a team of impartial observers to observe 
        elections in southern Africa and report to Congress:
            `` `(1) as to whether all of the people of southern Africa 
        and all organized political groups were given a fair 
        opportunity to participate fully in the election without regard 
        to ethnic identity or political affiliation; and
            `` `(2) on the extent of public participation in the 
        election, including the extent to which disruptions in the 
        election process due to guerrilla activities may have affected 
        public participation in the election and the extent to which 
        eligible voters expressed opposition by voluntarily refraining 
        from voting in the election.
            `` `(c) Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated to 
        carry out the purposes of this section, $20,000,000 shall be 
        made available to the government of Zimbabwe/Rhodesia which is 
        installed in that nation as a result of the election held in 
        April 1979, which election may be evaluated and reported upon 
        by observers as provided for in this section.' ''

    Mr. Paul Findley, of Illinois, inquired as to the effect of certain 
language: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 7760.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
    number of words.
        Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the author of the amendment could 
    shed a little light on the effect of the language.
        For example, section (c) at the bottom of the amendment has 
    been brought into question, and several speakers have indicated 
    that this mandates the provision of $20 million to the Government 
    of Rhodesia under certain circumstances. . . . [T]he lan

[[Page 9993]]

    guage I have in my hand contains the word, ``may,'' and it is 
    written in. The word, ``shall,'' is stricken in two different 
    places in that last paragraph.
        I wonder if that is the form in which the amendment now pending 
    before this body appears? Does it say, ``may'' or ``shall''?
        Mr. Bauman: I believe, as it is before the committee at the 
    Clerk's desk, it says that $20 million shall be made available, but 
    I would be amenable to a change, if that comforts the gentleman.
        Mr. Findley: Is the gentleman asking unanimous consent to 
    modify the amendment?
        Mr. Bauman: No; I will leave that to the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Findley).
        Mr. Findley: Then, Mr. Chairman, may I also ask this: 
    Concerning the effect of the language on the first page of the 
    amendment which would seem to set aside $68 million exclusively for 
    the countries of southern Africa, could the gentleman shed any 
    light on this question? To what extent would this amendment alter 
    the provision of aid which is contemplated by the original bill?
        Mr. Bauman: The language in section (a) is not, for the most 
    part, the language of the gentleman from Maryland but, rather, the 
    language of the bill. But last year, when this southern Africa fund 
    was created, it specifically earmarked the funds only for southern 
    African countries. Without any notice in the report of this bill, 
    that ``only'' was taken out, and the language before us, on page 23 
    of the bill, is--

             . . . shall be available for the countries of southern 
        Africa and for a southern Africa regional, refugee support . . 
        .

        Mr. Findley: Is it the gentleman's intention that the amendment 
    now pending not tie the hands of the President in any single 
    respect?
        Mr. Bauman: Only that it would provide him the opportunity, and 
    indeed the responsibility, if he refused, of using these observers 
    in the instance of any elections that occur, so that the Congress 
    and the public of the United States could judge whether or not 
    these elections were free and open and fair. . . .
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, just to bring this to a head, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the word ``shall'' which appears in two 
    places in the last paragraph of the amendment be changed to 
    ``may.''
        The Chairman: (12) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Illinois?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Elliott Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        The gentleman will have to submit an amendment in writing if 
    the Chair is to consider it.

    An amendment was offered by Mr. Solarz: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 7763, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Solarz: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solarz to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Bauman: On page 2 of the amendment, strike out subsections 
        (b) and (c).

[[Page 9994]]

    The Solarz amendment was agreed to, whereupon Mr. Bauman sought to 
offer an amendment: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 7764.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Maryland ask unanimous 
    consent to offer an amendment to his pending amendment?
        Mr. Bauman: Am I not in order, Mr. Chairman, to offer an 
    amendment to an amendment once it has been offered?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that that requires unanimous 
    consent.
        Mr. Bauman: Then, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Rousselot) will offer the amendment.

    amendment offered by mr. rousselot to the amendment offered by mr. 
                             bauman, as amended

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rousselot to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Bauman, as amended: Immediately after the last sentence 
        of subsection (a) of section 533 of the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Bauman, as amended, add the following:
            (b) In furtherance of the purposes of this section and the 
        foreign policy objectives of the United States the President 
        may appoint a team of impartial observers to observe elections 
        in southern Africa and report to Congress;
            (1) as to whether all of the people of any such southern 
        African nation and all organized political groups were given a 
        fair opportunity to participate fully in the election without 
        regard to ethnic identity or political affiliation; and
            (2) on the extent of public participation in the election, 
        including the extent to which disruptions in the election 
        process due to guerrilla activities may have affected public 
        participation in the election and the extent to which eligible 
        voters expressed opposition by voluntarily refraining from 
        voting in the election.
            (c) of the amounts authorized to be appropriated to carry 
        out the purposes of this section, $20,000,000 may be made 
        available to the 
        government of Zimbabwe/Rhodesia which is installed in that 
        nation as a result of the election held in April 1979, which 
        election may be evaluated and reported upon by observers as 
        provided for in this section.

    (In response to a point of order that the Rousselot amendment was 
identical to language just stricken, the Chair ruled that the amendment 
was proper because the change in language from ``shall'' to ``may'' was 
a substantive change.)

Priority of Members of Committee To Make Points of Order Against 
    Amendments

Sec. 19.16 Members of the committee reporting a bill have priority of 
    recognition to make points of order against proposed amendments to 
    the bill.

[[Page 9995]]

    On Mar. 30, 1949,(15) Mr. Henry M. Jackson, of 
Washington, and Mr. Carl T. Curtis, of Nebraska, simultaneously arose 
in the Committee of the Whole to make a point of order against a 
pending amendment on the ground that it constituted legislation on an 
appropriation bill. Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, recognized Mr. 
Jackson in preference over Mr. Curtis since Mr. Jackson was a member of 
the committee which had reported the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 95 Cong. Rec. 3520, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chair Determines Whether There Are Points of Order to Remainder of Bill 
    Before Recognizing for Amendments

Sec. 19.17 Where the remainder of a general appropriation bill is, by 
    unanimous consent, considered as read and open for amendment at any 
    point, the Chair first ascertains whether there are any points of 
    order to the remainder 
    of the bill before recognizing Members to offer amendments.

    For example, on July 30, 1962,(16) the procedure below 
was followed in the consideration of a bill and amendments thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 108 Cong. Rec. 14998, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the remainder of the bill 
    be considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: And also open to points of order 
    at any point, I take it?
        Mr. Thomas: Yes. . . .
        The Chairman: (17) Is there objection to the 
    gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Are there any points of order to be made to the 
    remainder of the bill?

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language on page 27, beginning in line 24 and running through line 
    12 on page 28, as being legislation on an appropriation bill.

Point of Order Must Be Decided Before Recognition To Offer Amendment

Sec. 19.18 Unless reserved, a pending point of order against an 
    amendment (on the grounds it constitutes 
    an appropriation on a legislative bill) must be decided prior to 
    recognition of another Member to offer 
    an amendment to the challenged language.

    On May 18, 1966,(18) Mr. Charles R. Jonas, of North Caro

[[Page 9996]]

lina, made a point of order against certain language in a committee 
amendment offered by the Committee on Banking and Currency to H.R. 
14544, the Participation Sales Act of 1966. Wright Patman, of Texas, 
chairman of the committee, stated that he had a substitute amendment to 
the committee amendment which would correct the objectionable language. 
Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, advised Mr. Jonas and Mr. Patman 
that the point of order, unless reserved, must be disposed of before 
Mr. Patman could be recognized to offer the amendment correcting the 
challenged language. Mr. Jonas reserved his point of order and the 
substitute amendment was offered and agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 10894-96, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Amendments Before Floor Amendments

Sec. 19.19 Where a bill is considered as read and open 
    for amendment at any point, committee amendments are considered 
    before the Chair extends recognition for amendments from the floor.

    On July 18, 1968,(19) Mr. Thomas E. Morgan, of 
Pennsylvania, asked unanimous consent that a bill being considered in 
the Committee of the Whole be considered as read and open to amendment 
at any point. There was no objection. Before Chairman Charles M. Price, 
of Illinois, extended recognition to Members to offer amendments from 
the floor, committee amendments were read and considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 22094, 22095, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Committee amendments to that portion of a 
bill or resolution which has been read are normally considered before 
recognition is granted to offer other amendments, unless the committee 
amendment is given lesser priority, as in the case of a motion to 
strike out the pending section, which is held in abeyance until 
perfecting floor amendments are disposed of.

Minority Committee Member Usually Has Preference Over Nonmember

Sec. 19.20 Although minority members of the committee reporting a bill 
    under consideration usually have preference of recognition over 
    nonmembers, the power of recognition remains in the discretion of 
    the Chair.

    On July 19, 1967,(20) in the Committee of the Whole, 
Chair

[[Page 9997]]

man Joseph L. Evins, of Tennessee, recognized Mr. Edmond Edmondson, of 
Oklahoma, for a parliamentary inquiry and then recognized him to offer 
an amendment to the pending bill. Mr. William C. Cramer, of Florida, 
made the point of order that William M. McCulloch, of Ohio, the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, which had reported 
the bill, had been on his feet seeking recognition to offer an 
amendment at the time and that members of the committee reporting the 
bill had the prior right to be recognized. Chairman Evins did in fact 
subsequently recognize Mr. McCulloch, but overruled the point of order, 
and stated that in fairness he was attempting to recognize Members on 
both sides of the question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 113 Cong. Rec. 19416, 19417, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instance Where Chair Recognized Nonmember of Committee

Sec. 19.21 Members of the committee reporting a bill usually have 
    preference of recognition to offer amendments but the Chair has 
    recognized another based on his failure to see a committee member 
    seeking recognition.

    On Aug. 10, 1949,(1) Chairman Harold D. Cooley, of North 
Carolina, answered parliamentary inquiries on the subject of 
recognition in the Committee of the Whole to offer amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 95 Cong. Rec. 11196, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter E.] Brehm [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have been 
    standing on my feet seeking recognition ever since the Speaker 
    requested the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Cooley] to occupy 
    the chair. Moreover, I am a member of the committee. I think my 
    amendment should have preference.
        The Chairman: The Chair had recognized the gentleman from North 
    Carolina even before recognizing the gentleman from Michigan.
        Mr. Brehm: I feel that the Chair was in error in so doing, 
    because I am a member of the committee and the gentleman from North 
    Carolina is not, and I was on my feet prior to the time the 
    gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Redden] asked for recognition.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized 
    to offer his amendment.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.], of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Does the Chair rule that a member 
    of the committee does not have preference in recognition when two 
    Members, one not a member of the committee, are seeking recognition 
    at the same time?
        The Chairman: The Chair did not see the gentleman from Ohio on 
    his feet at the same time. The Chair had recognized the gentleman 
    from North Carolina, then the Chair recognized

[[Page 9998]]

    the gentleman from Michigan to submit a consent request. The 
    gentleman from Ohio will be recognized in due time.
        The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from North Carolina.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. For the Chair's power of recognition generally, see Sec. 9, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Amendments to Special Rule; Nonsubstantive Amendment Acted on 
    Before Debate

Sec. 19.22 Where a privileged resolution providing for the 
    consideration of a measure is reported by the Committee on Rules, 
    with committee amendments to the resolution, the amendments may be 
    reported and acted upon before the Member managing the measure is 
    recognized for debate thereon.

    On Aug. 19, 1964,(3) the Committee on Rules reported 
House Resolution 845, providing for the consideration of H.R. 11926, 
limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts in apportionment cases, 
which bill had not been reported by the committee to which referred. 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, directed the Clerk, after 
the reading of the resolution, to read the committee amendments 
thereto. The amendments were then agreed to and the Speaker recognized 
Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, the manager of the resolution, for 
one hour of debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 110 Cong. Rec. 20213, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: If the committee amendments to a resolution 
are substantive in nature, they may be reported and remain pending 
during the hour of debate in the House.

Anticipating Recognition

Sec. 19.23 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may advise a 
    Member that he will recognize that Member, at a subsequent point in 
    the proceedings, to offer a substitute for an amendment.

    On July 12, 1962,(4) Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of 
Arkansas, stated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, that he would 
recognize a Member at the proper time to offer an amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 108 Cong. Rec. 13391, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Michael A.] Feighan [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    substitute amendment. Is it proper for me to offer the amendment at 
    this time?
        The Chairman: The Chair will recognize the gentleman at the 
    proper time.

Sec. 19.24 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole does

[[Page 9999]]

    not anticipate the order in which amendments may be offered nor 
    does he declare in advance the order of 
    recognition, but where he knows a Member desires recognition to 
    offer an amendment, he may indicate that he will protect the 
    Member's rights.

    On Sept. 8, 1966,(5) Chairman Edward P. Boland, of 
Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry as to the order of 
recognition for offering amendments un-der the five-minute rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 112 Cong. Rec. 22020, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert G.] Stephens [Jr., of Georgia]: It is my 
    understanding that the procedures will be for the Minish amendment 
    to be considered and after the Minish amendment is disposed of then 
    I will offer a substitute and it is my understanding I will be 
    recognized immediately after the amendment for the purpose of 
    submitting that substitute. Is that the correct parliamentary 
    situation?
        The Chairman: Recognition, of course, is within the discretion 
    of the Chair, but the Chair will protect the gentleman's 
    rights.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. When debate is limited under the five-minute rule in the Committee 
        of the Whole, the Chairman often protects the rights of Members 
        who seek recognition; see Sec. 22, infra.
            The Chair may also protect the rights of Members not in the 
        Chamber when the limitation is agreed to (see Sec. 22.4, 
        infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Member May Not Yield for Amendment

Sec. 19.25 A Member recognized under the five-minute rule may not yield 
    to another Member to offer an amendment (thereby depriving the 
    Chair of his power of recognition), but he may by unanimous consent 
    yield the balance of his time to another Member who may thereafter 
    offer an amendment.

    The proposition described above was demonstrated in the Committee 
of the Whole on Oct. 30, 1975,(7) during consideration of 
H.R. 8603, the Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1975:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 34442, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Cohen asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
    his remarks.)
        Mr. [Pierre S.] du Pont [IV, of Delaware]: Mr. Chairman, will 
    the gentleman yield?
        Mr. [William S.] Cohen [of Maine]: I yield to the gentleman 
    from Delaware.
        Mr. du Pont: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair will state that the 
    gentleman from Maine cannot yield for the purpose of the 


[[Page 10000]]

    gentleman from Delaware offering an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cohen: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the 
    balance of my time to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. du Pont).
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Maine?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Delaware is recognized for 2 
    minutes.

                      amendment offered by mr. du pont

        Mr. du Pont: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read the amendment as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. du Pont: Page 32, immediately 
        after line 26, add the following new section:
            Sec. 16. (a) Chapter 6 of title 39, United States Code, is 
        amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section: 
        . . .

Sec. 19.26 A Member recognized under the five-minute rule may not yield 
    to another Member to offer an amendment, as it is within the power 
    of the Chair to recognize each Member to offer amendments.

    On Apr. 19, 1973,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering a bill for amendment under the five-minute rule. Chairman 
Morris K. Udall, of Arizona, refused to allow a Member with the floor 
to yield to another to offer an amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 119 Cong. Rec. 13240, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Don H. Clausen [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk. However, at this time I want to yield to the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Bingham) who has another appointment, 
    so that he may offer his amendment at this time.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Don H. Clausen) he cannot yield for that purpose. 
    If the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bingham) were here, the Chair 
    would recognize him.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See also 119 Cong. Rec. 41716, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 14, 1973; 
        119 Cong. Rec. 41171, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 12, 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chair Declined Recognition for Amendment Where Member Obtained Floor 
    for Debate

Sec. 19.27 The Chair declined to recognize a Member to offer a 
    substantive amendment where the Member had obtained the floor to 
    debate a motion to strike out the last word.

    On July 28, 1965,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering for amendment under the five-minute rule H.R. 77, reported 
by the Committee on Education and Labor. Mr. William H. Ayres, of Ohio, 
ranking minority member

[[Page 10001]]

of the committee, moved to strike out the last word and was recognized 
by Chairman Leo W. O'Brien, of New York, for five minutes. During that 
time, Mr. Ayres offered an amendment, but the Chairman declined to 
further recognize Mr. Ayres for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 18631, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Several majority members of the Committee 
on Education and Labor were seeking recognition to offer amendments.

Member May Not Offer Amendment in Time Yielded for Debate

Sec. 19.28 A Member may not 
    be recognized to offer an amendment during time yielded for debate 
    only.

    On Feb. 2, 1955,(12) Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana, 
called up at the direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 
63, authorizing the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to investigate 
certain aspects of the Veterans' Administration. Mr. Madden yielded 
three minutes' time for debate to Mrs. Edith Nourse Rogers, of 
Massachusetts. Mrs. Rogers indicated she wished to offer an amendment 
to prohibit the Committee on Veterans' Affairs from investigating any 
matter under investigation by another committee of the House. Mr. 
Madden stated that he did not yield for the purpose of having such an 
amendment offered. Speaker Pro Tempore Robert C. Byrd, of West 
Virginia, ruled that Mrs. Rogers did not have the right to offer an 
amendment in time yielded her for debate only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 101 Cong. Rec. 1076-79, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Offered While Motion To Strike Pending

Sec. 19.29 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, but the perfecting amendment may 
    be offered and voted on before the question is put on the motion to 
    strike.

    During consideration of H.R. 10024 (depository institutions 
amendments of 1975) in the Committee of the Whole on Oct. 31, 
1975,(13) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 34564, 34565, 34566, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 10002]]

        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]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        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: (14) That is true, if any are offered. 
    . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Spark M. Matsunaga (Ha.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] 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.

May Not Offer Amendment When Recognized for Parliamentary Inquiry

Sec. 19.30 A Member recognized to propound a parliamentary inquiry may 
    not, having secured the floor for that limited purpose, then offer 
    an amendment.

    On Mar. 12, 1964,(15) Chairman Chet Holifield, of 
California, ruled that where a Member was recognized for a 
parliamentary inquiry, recognition was limited to that purpose and that 
the Member so recognized could not then offer an amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 110 Cong. Rec. 5140, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [August E.] Johansen [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Johansen: I direct this inquiry to the Chair as to whether 
    it will be in order if I secure recognition to offer an amendment 
    to the amendment in the nature of a substitute for the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio.
        The Chairman: Of course, the gentleman, if he is recognized, 
    may offer an amendment.
        Mr. [James H.] Morrison [of Louisiana]: A parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman secured recognition first and 
    asked the parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman has not been recognized, except for 
    a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Morrison: The gentleman has a substitute amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman made the parliamentary inquiry as 
    to

[[Page 10003]]

    whether he could offer an amendment, and the Chair responded that 
    the gentleman could offer an amendment if he was recognized.

Amendments Made in Order by Special Rule

Sec. 19.31 Where a special rule adopted by the House makes in order a 
    designated amendment to a bill in Committee of the Whole but gives 
    no special priority or precedence to such an amendment, the Chair 
    is not required to extend prior recognition to offer that amendment 
    but may rely on other principles of recognition such as alternation 
    between majority and minority parties and priority of perfecting 
    amendments over motions to strike.

    On June 21, 1979,(16) during consideration of H.R. 111, 
the Panama Canal Act of 1979, the Chair, after recognizing the manager 
of the bill to offer a pro forma amendment under the five-minute rule, 
recognized the ranking minority member to offer 
a perfecting amendment, prior 
to recognizing another majority member seeking recognition on behalf of 
another committee with jurisdiction over a portion of the bill to move 
to strike that portion, where the motion to strike was made in order 
but given no preferential status in the special rule governing 
consideration of the bill. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 15999, 16000, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the last word.
        Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time with so many Members in the 
    well and on the floor to ask as many Members as possible to try to 
    stay on the floor throughout the next hour and 50 minutes. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: Page 187, strike out line 
        19 and all that follows through line 20 on page 189 and insert 
        in lieu thereof the following:

                             Chapter 2--IMMIGRATION

            Sec. 1611. Special Immigrants.--(a) Section 101(a)(27) of 
        the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)), 
        relating to the definition of special immigrants, is amended--

        Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York] (during the reading): 
    Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a point of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, at the time that the last amendment was voted on, 
    I was on my feet seeking to offer an amendment on behalf of the 
    Committee on the Judiciary with respect to striking in its entirety 
    section 1611 of the bill.

[[Page 10004]]

     The right to offer that amendment is granted under the rule, in 
    fact on page 3 of House Resolution 274. I want to ask the Chair 
    whether I am entitled to be recognized or was entitled to be 
    recognized to make first a motion, which was a motion to strike the 
    entire section before amendments were made to the text of the bill.
        The Chairman: (17) Unless an amendment having 
    priority of consideration under the rule is offered, it is the 
    Chair's practice to alternate recognition of members of the several 
    committees that are listed in the rule, taking amendments from the 
    majority and minority side in general turn, while giving priority 
    of recognition to those committees that are mentioned in the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Holtzman) is a member of 
    such a committee, but following the adoption of the last amendment 
    the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy), the chairman of the 
    Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, sought recognition to 
    strike the last word. Accordingly, the Chair then recognized the 
    gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) to offer a floor amendment, 
    which is a perfecting amendment to section 1611 of the bill.
        The rule mentions that it shall be in order to consider an 
    amendment as recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, to 
    strike out section 1611, if offered, but the rule does not give any 
    special priority to the Committee on the Judiciary to offer such 
    amendments, over perfecting amendments to that section.
        Ms. Holtzman: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard further? The 
    gentleman said that he was going to recognize members of the 
    committees that had a right to offer amendments under the rule 
    alternately. I would suggest to the Chair that no member of the 
    Committee on the Judiciary has been recognized thus far in the 
    debate with respect to offering such an amendment and, therefore, 
    the Chair's principle, as I understood he stated it, was not being 
    observed in connection with recognition.
        The Chairman: The Chair would observe that the Chair is 
    attempting to be fair in recognizing Members alternately when they 
    are members of committees with priority and that the rule permits 
    but does not give the Committee on the Judiciary special priority 
    of recognition over other floor amendments, which under the 
    precedents would take priority over a motion to strike.
        Second, the Chair would like to advise the gentlewoman from New 
    York that recognition is discretionary with the Chair and is not 
    subject to a point of order. Does the gentlewoman have any further 
    comment to make on the point of order?
        The Chair overrules the point of order and recognizes the 
    gentleman in the well.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The amendment offered by Mr. Bauman struck 
out section 1611 of the bill and inserted a new section, whereas the 
amendment made in order under the rule on behalf of the Committee on 
the Judiciary was an amendment to strike that section; thus adoption of 
the Bauman amendment precluded the offering of the Judici

[[Page 10005]]

ary Committee amendment. It would have made little difference if Ms. 
Holtzman was recognized first, since the Bauman amendment could have 
been offered as a perfecting amendment while the Holtzman motion to 
strike was pending and if the Bauman amendment was adopted the motion 
to strike would have necessarily fallen and would not have been voted 
on.

    If the Holtzman amendment, and the amendments to be offered on 
behalf of the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Post Office and Civil 
Service, had been committee amendments formally recommended in reports 
on H.R. 111, they would have been automatically considered by the 
Committee of the Whole, but only the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries had formally reported H.R. 111.

Recognition for Amendments Under Special Rules--Committee Amendments 
    and Other Amendments Under Modified Closed Rule

Sec. 19.32 Where a bill consisting of several titles was considered as 
    read and open to amendment at any point under a special ``modified 
    closed rule'' permitting germane amendments only to certain 
    portions of titles 
    but permitting committee amendments to any portion of the bill, the 
    Chair first recognized a Member to offer committee amendments to 
    title I and then recognized other Members to offer amendments to 
    that title.

    On Aug. 7, 1974,(18) during consideration of the Federal 
Election Campaign Act of 1974 (H.R. 16090) in the Committee of the 
Whole, Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, made the following 
statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 120 Cong. Rec. 27258, 27259, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: No amendments, including any amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute for the bill, are in order to the bill 
    except the following:
        In title 1: Germane amendments to subsection 101(a) proposing 
    solely to change the money amounts contained in said subsection, 
    providing they have been printed in the Congressional Record at 
    least 1 calendar day before being offered; and the text of the 
    amendment to be offered on page 13, following line 4, inserted in 
    the Congressional Record of August 5, 1974, by Mr. Butler.
        In title 2: Germane amendments to the provisions contained on 
    page 33, line 17, through page 35, line 11, providing they have 
    been printed in the Record at least 1 calendar day before being 
    offered; and the amendment printed on page E5246 in the Record of 
    August 2, 1974.

[[Page 10006]]

        In title 4: Germane amendments which have been printed in the 
    Record at least 1 calendar day before they are offered, except that 
    sections 401, 402, 407, 409 and 410 shall not be subject to 
    amendment; and the text of the amendment printed on page H7597 in 
    the Congressional Record of August 2, 1974.
        Amendments are in order to any portion of the bill if offered 
    by direction of the Committee on House Administration, but said 
    amendments shall not be subject to amendment.
        Are there any Committee on House Administration amendments to 
    title I?
        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr.] of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    three committee amendments to title I of the bill and I ask 
    unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New Jersey?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the committee amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendments: . . . 

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendments offered by the 
    gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Thompson).
        The committee amendments were agreed to.
        The Chairman: Are there further committee amendments to title 
    I?
        Mr. [Pierre S.] du Pont [IV, of Delaware]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment to title I.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. du Pont: Page 2, line 16, strike 
        ``$5,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$2,500''.

        Mr. du Pont: Mr. Chairman, as required by the rule adopted by 
    the House today, my amendment was published at pages E5306 and 
    E5307 of yesterday's Record.

Recognition To Offer Amendments Printed in Record

Sec. 19.33 Where a special rule restricts the offering of amendments to 
    those printed in the Record but does not specify the Members who 
    must offer them, the right to propose amendments properly inserted 
    in the Record inures to all Members; thus, under a special rule 
    permitting only germane amendments printed in the Record for at 
    least two calendar days to be offered to a designated title 
    of a bill, and prohibiting amendments thereto, a Member was 
    permitted to offer a pro forma amendment to that title (``to strike 
    the requisite number of words'') where that amendment had been 
    inserted in the Record by another Member, and at a time when no 
    substantive amendment was pending.

    The proceedings described above occurred on Mar. 26, 
1974,(19) in the Committee of the Whole dur

[[Page 10007]]

ing consideration of H.R. 69, a bill to amend and extend the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 120 Cong. Rec. 8229, 8233, 8243, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20) When the Committee rose on 
    Tuesday, March 12, 1974, all time for general debate on the bill 
    had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the rule, no amendment shall be in order to title I of 
    the substitute committee amendment printed in the reported bill 
    except germane amendments which have been printed in the 
    Congressional Record at least 2 calendar days prior to their being 
    offered during the consideration of said substitute for amendment, 
    and amendment offered by direction of the Committee on Education 
    and Labor, and neither of said classes of amendments shall be 
    subject to amendment.
        Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk will now read by titles the 
    substitute committee amendment printed in the reported bill as an 
    original bill for the purpose of amendment.
        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 this 
        Act may be cited as the ``Elementary and Secondary Education 
        Amendments of 1974''.

                               TABLE OF CONTENTS
        TITLE I--AMENDMENTS OF TI-TLE I OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY 
        EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 . . .

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order. Under the rule the motion is not in order unless he 
    has printed the motion in the Record.
        The Chairman: The Chair overrules the point of order. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky was printed in the 
    Record.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I submit to the Committee that the 
    motion I heard was to strike out the requisite number of words. If 
    the gentleman from Kentucky has not had that motion printed in the 
    Record, he is not entitled to 5 minutes under the rule.
        The Chairman: That amendment was printed in the Record.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, how many times does he get to use it?
        The Chairman: As many times as it is printed in the Record.
        Mr. Bauman: I thank the Chairman.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, had inserted five 
pro forma amendments in the Record, and Mr. Perkins offered one of the 
five. Pursuant to 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2874, the Chair stated 
that, without objection, the pro forma amendment would be withdrawn at 
the conclusion of Mr. Perkin's five-minute speech, in order to avoid 
putting the question on the pro forma amendment and to permit re-
offering of that amendment at a future time to title I.

[[Page 10008]]

Amendment in Nature of Substitute Was Offered From Floor, Not Under 
    Special Rule

Sec. 19.34 Pursuant to a special rule providing for the consideration 
    of the text of a bill as an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, to be read 
    by titles as an original bill immediately after the reading of the 
    enacting clause of the bill to which offered, the Chair recognized 
    a Member to offer the amendment in the nature of a substitute from 
    the floor before it could be considered under the rule.

    On Sept. 19, 1974,(1) Chairman Thomas M. Rees, of 
California, recognized James T. Broyhill, of North Carolina, who then 
offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 120 Cong. Rec. 31727, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Chairman: When the Committee rose on Tuesday, September 17, 
    1974, all time for general debate had expired.
        Pursuant to the rule, immediately after the reading of the 
    enacting clause, it shall be in order to consider the text of the 
    bill H.R. 16327 as an amendment in the nature of a substitute for 
    the bill, and said substitute shall be read for amendment by title.
        The Clerk will read the enacting clause.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled. . . .

        Mr. Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, under the rule, I 
    offer the following amendment in the nature of a substitute, which 
    is to the text of the bill (H.R. 7917).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Broyhill of North Carolina: That this Act may be cited as the 
        ``Consumer Product Warranties-Federal Trade Commission 
        Improvements Act''.

                      TITLE I--CONSUMER PRODUCT WARRANTIES

                                   definition

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Broyhill was a minority member of the 
committee and had introduced the bill made in order by the rule. The 
Chair recognized him when the chairman of the then Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce did not immediately seek recognition. 
It should be noted that the Chair could have considered the amendment 
to be pending and could have directed that it be read by title as an 
original bill without being offered from the floor.

[[Page 10009]]

Right To Offer Amendment After Expiration of Debate Time

Sec. 19.35 Where a special rule governing consideration of 
    a bill in Committee of the Whole limits debate on each amendment or 
    on each amendment thereto to a specific amount of time, equally 
    divided and controlled, the expiration of time on an amendment does 
    not preclude the offering of an amendment thereto, debatable under 
    such time limitation.

    On May 4, 1983,(2) the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration House Joint Resolution 13, calling for a freeze and 
reduction in nuclear weapons. House Joint Resolution 13 was being 
considered pursuant to a special rule agreed to on Mar. 
16,(3) and a special rule providing for additional 
procedures for consideration, agreed to on May 4.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 129 Cong. Rec. 11086, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. H. Res. 138, 129 Cong. Rec. 5666, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. H. Res. 179, 129 Cong. Rec. 11037, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. (including 
        the division of time as described above).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solarz to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Hunter: In the section proposed to be added to the 
        resolution by the Hunter amendment, strike out all that follows 
        ``prevent'' through ``crews'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``safety-
        related improvements in strategic bombers''.

        Mr. [Robert E.] Badham [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, it occurs to me that all time for the proponents 
    and all time for the opponents of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), has been used up.
        Is it not true, under the rule, that we must now vote on that 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: No. The Chair will advise the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Badham), that it is true that all time relative to 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Hunter), for and against, has expired, but under the rule another 
    amendment can be offered, and is being offered, and 15 minutes are 
    allocated to the proponent of the amendment and 15 minutes are 
    allocated to an opponent of the amendment.

--Amendments Not Printed in Record May Be Offered, Not Debated

Sec. 19.36 After the expiration of debate under the five-minute

[[Page 10010]]

    rule on a bill and amendments thereto, amendments not printed in 
    the Record may still be offered but are not subject to debate.

    During consideration of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 4389) in the Committee 
of the Whole on June 27, 1979,(6) the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 125 Cong. Rec. 17036, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendments offered by Mr. Early: Page 15, line 5, strike out 
    ``$961,158,-000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$970,-158,000''. . . 
    .
        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, what happened to those Members who 
    were on their feet with amendments that were not printed in the 
    Record when the Chair acknowledged those Members? Were they all 
    shut out from being recognized?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that any 
    Member can still offer an amendment.
        Mr. Michel: But they cannot speak on the amendments; is that 
    correct?
        The Chairman: That is correct, with the exception of a 
    unanimous-consent request.

Motion To Suspend Rules ``With Amendments''

Sec. 19.37 While it is not in order to offer an amendment to a bill 
    being considered under a motion to suspend the rules, the Speaker 
    may recognize a Member for a motion to suspend the rules and pass a 
    bill with amendments.

    On June 16, 1952,(8) Mr. Robert L. Doughton, of North 
Carolina, offered a motion to suspend the rules and to pass a bill with 
amendments. Mr. Carl T. Curtis, of Nebraska, made a point of order 
against the motion, on the ground that under the precedents a motion to 
amend could not be invoked pursuant to a motion to suspend the rules. 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 98 Cong. Rec. 7287, 7288, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . There can be no amendment offered to the motion to 
    suspend the rules and pass a bill, but it is entirely in order for 
    the Speaker to recognize a Member to move to suspend the rules and 
    pass a bill with amendments and recognition for that is entirely 
    within the discretion of the Chair. The Chair can recognize a 
    Member to move to suspend the rules on the proper day and pass a 
    bill with an amendment that has been authorized by a committee, or 
    if the Chair so desires he

[[Page 10011]]

    can recognize a Member to move to suspend the rules and pass a bill 
    with his own amendment.

Appropriation Bills: Limitation Amendments

Sec. 19.38 When a general appropriation bill has been read, or 
    considered as read, for amendment in its entirety, the Chair (after 
    entertaining points of order) first entertains amendments which are 
    not prohibited by clause 2(c) of Rule XXI, and then recognizes for 
    amendments proposing limitations not contained or authorized in 
    existing law pursuant to clause 2(d) of Rule XXI [adopted in Jan. 
    1983, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.], subject to the preferential motion 
    that the Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill to 
    the House with such amendments as may have been agreed to.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Oct. 27, 1983,(9) during consideration of H.R. 4139 
(Departments of Treasury and Postal Service appropriations for fiscal 
1984):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 129 Cong. Rec. 29630, 29631, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Christopher H.] Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order at 
    this time to offer a change in the language that would not be 
    considered under the House rules to be legislating on an 
    appropriations bill?
        The Chairman: The Chair will first entertain any amendment to 
    the bill which is not prohibited by clause 2(c), rule XXI, and will 
    then entertain amendments proposing limitations pursuant to clause 
    2(d), rule XXI.
        Mr. Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        Mr. [Bruce A.] Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    a point of order against the amendment.

        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey: On page 49, 
        immediately after line 2, add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 618. No funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
        available to pay for an abortion, or the administrative 
        expenses in connection with 
        any health plan under the Federal employees health benefit 
        program which provides any benefits or coverages for abortions. 
        . . .

        Mr. Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be 
    heard on my point of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that this amendment 
    constitutes a limitation on an appropriation and cannot

[[Page 10012]]

    be considered by the House prior to the consideration of a motion 
    by the Committee to rise.
        The Chairman: The Chair must indicate to the gentleman that no 
    such preferential motion has yet been made.
        The gentleman is correct that a motion that the Committee rise 
    and 
    report the bill to the House with 
    such amendments as may have been adopted takes precedence over an 
    amendment proposing a limitation.
        Mr. Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, then I move that the 
    committee do now rise. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . It would be more appropriate if a motion to 
    rise and report the bill to the House 
    with such amendments as have been adopted, pursuant to clause 2(d), 
    rule XXI were offered instead. . . .
        Mr. [Edward R.] Roybal [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the 
    House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the 
    amendments be agreed to and that bill, as amended, do pass.
        [The motion was rejected.]
        Mr. Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey: On page 49, 
        immediately after line 2, add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 618. No funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
        available to pay for an abortion . . . .

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Smith was the only Member seeking 
recognition to offer a limitation after the preferential motion was 
rejected and could have been preempted by a member of the 
Appropriations Committee or a more senior member offering an amendment 
since principles governing priority of recognition would remain 
applicable. A Member who has attempted to offer a limitation before the 
motion to rise and report is rejected is not guaranteed first 
recognition for a limitation amendment.

Amending Committee Amendment in Nature of Substitute Under Hour Rule; 
    Motion To Recommit With Instructions

Sec. 19.39 Where there was pending in the House under the hour rule a 
    resolution and 
    a committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute, 
    the Chair indicated that an amendment to the committee amendment 
    could be offered only if the manager yielded for that purpose or if 
    the previous question were rejected, and that a motion to recommit 
    with instructions containing a direct amendment could not be 
    offered 
    if the committee substitute were adopted (since it is not in order 
    to further amend a measure already amended in its entirety).

[[Page 10013]]

    On Mar. 22, 1983,(11) after House Resolution 127 was 
called up for consideration in the House, Speaker Pro Tempore John F. 
Seiberling, of Ohio, responded to several parliamentary inquiries, as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 129 Cong. Rec. 6447, 6448, 6455, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Annunzio [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on House Administration, I call up a privileged 
    resolution (H. Res. 127), providing amounts from the contingent 
    fund of the House for expenses of investigations and studies by 
    standing and select committees of the House in the 1st session of 
    the 98th Congress.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the resolution.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 127

            Resolved, That there shall be paid out of the contingent 
        fund of the House in accordance with this primary expense 
        resolution not more than the amount specified in section 2 for 
        investigations and studies by each committee named in such sec-
        tion . . . .
            Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute: Strike 
        out all after the resolving clause and insert:
        That there shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the 
        House in accordance with this primary expense resolution not 
        more than the amount specified in section 2 for investigations 
        and studies by each committee named in such section . . . .

            Sec. 2. The committees and amounts referred to in the first 
        section are: Select Committee on Aging, $1,316,057; Committee 
        on Agriculture, $1,322,669; Committee on Armed Services, 
        $1,212,273. . . .

        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        If this Member from California would now offer an amendment to 
    the total in this resolution . . . would that amendment now be in 
    order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would rule that the 
    amendment would be in order if the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Annunzio) would yield to the gentleman from Califor-nia. . . .
        Mr. Dannemeyer . . . What if we were successful in defeating 
    the previous question with respect to this issue? If we did, would 
    an amendment to reduce spending consistent with what I stated 
    previously then be in order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman 
    if the previous question were defeated a germane amendment to the 
    committee amendment would be in order at that time. . . .
        Mr. Dannemeyer: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        We have a motion to commit which is available at the conclusion 
    of a matter of this type. Is the procedure under which this process 
    is now considered by the floor such that the motion to commit can 
    be used with instructions to reduce spending by a certain amount or 
    is it a motion to recommit without instructions?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute is agreed to no further di

[[Page 10014]]

    rect amendment could be made by a motion to recommit.

Chair May Recognize Manager for Request To Limit Debate Before 
    Amendment

Sec. 19.40 The Chair may recognize the manager of a bill to request a 
    limit on debate on a pending portion of the bill before recognizing 
    a Member to offer an amendment thereto.

    On Dec. 4, 1979,(12) the following proceedings occurred 
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission authorization bill (H.R. 2608):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 125 Cong. Rec. 34516, 34518, 34519, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (13) Is there any further debate on 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Harris)? 
    If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Virginia (Mr. Harris).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The Chair will indicate that we believe there is 
    one additional amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Texas 
    (Mr. Gonzalez).
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, then I would 
    ask unanimous consent that all debate on this bill and all 
    amendments thereto close at 4:15.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Arizona?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Members standing at the time the unanimous 
    consent request was granted will be recognized for 10 seconds each.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).
        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Tex-as]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez: Page 11, after line 15, 
        add the following new title:

                      TITLE IV--PROTECTION FOR INSPECTORS

            Sec. 401. Section 1114 of Title 18, United States Code is 
        amended by inserting ``any construction inspector or quality 
        assurance inspector on any Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
        licensed project,'' after ``Department of Justice.''.

    After debate on a point of order, Mr. Gonzalez made a parliamentary 
inquiry:

        The Chairman: . . . The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) is 
    recognized for 40 seconds.

        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I would like now to interpose my 
    parliamentary inquiry with regard to the time allotted me. . . .
        Why should I be limited to a motion that was made subsequent to 
    the knowledge that I had a pending amendment to offer?
        Had I known that I would come under that limitation on a 
    subsequent motion, though I had not been recognized for the purpose 
    of amendment, because the gentleman from Arizona was recognized 
    anticipatorily on a mo

[[Page 10015]]

    tion I had no knowledge was going to be made. If I had known, I 
    would have objected to the unanimous-consent request, because I 
    wanted the opportunity to offer the amendment and be given at least 
    5 minutes, that is the customary time allotted a Member.
        Let me say this, in order to avoid any kind of an argument. How 
    much net time will I have to present this amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman has 1 minute and 20 seconds on his 
    amendment. . . .
        With regard to the parliamentary inquiry, the Chair would 
    indicate that he first recognized the chairman, the gentleman from 
    Arizona as manager of the bill, that the gentleman made a 
    unanimous-consent agreement with regard to limitation of time and 
    that there was no objection.
        Therefore, the gentleman is recognized for 1 minute and 20 
    seconds on his amendment.

May Not Debate Amendment Not Yet Offered

Sec. 19.41 Only one amendment to a substitute may be pending at one 
    time, and amendments which might be subsequently offered may not be 
    debated while another amendment is pending.

    On May 15, 1979,(14) during consideration of the Alaska 
National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979 (H.R. 39), the 
following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 125 Cong. Rec. 11178, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (15) The question is on the amendments 
    offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby) to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the Committee on 
    Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    were agreed to.
        Mr. [Peter H.] Kostmayer [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have two amendments.
        The Chairman: Are these amendments to the Merchant Marine 
    Committee amendment?
        Mr. Kostmayer: To Udall-Anderson.
        The Chairman: There is already an amendment pending to the 
    Udall substitute. Another amendment to the Udall substitute is not 
    in order at this point.
        Mr. Kostmayer: Well, Mr. Chairman, they can be spoken on now 
    and voted on later; is that correct?
        The Chairman: They are not in order at this time.

Recognition for Debate as Not Precluding Point of Order

Sec. 19.42 Mere recognition for debate on an amendment does not 
    preclude a point of order against the amendment before the Member 
    recognized has begun his remarks.

[[Page 10016]]

    On July 30, 1955,(16) the House was considering a 
Consent Calendar bill under the five-minute rule. Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, 
of Michigan, offered an amendment and was recognized by Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, to debate his amendment. Before Mr. Hoffman began 
his remarks, Mr. Henry S. Reuss, of Wisconsin, made a point of order 
against the amendment on the ground that 
it was not germane. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, made a point of order 
against the point of order on the ground that Mr. Hoffman was 
recognized before the point of order was made. The Speaker overruled 
the point of order, noting that Mr. Hoffman had not begun his remarks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 101 Cong. Rec. 12408, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker then requested Mr. Reuss to reserve his point of order 
so that Mr. Hoffman could explain his amendment. Mr. Reuss did so until 
the conclusion of Mr. Hoffman's five minutes' time.

Chair's Discretion in Allocating Time

Sec. 19.43 Where debate on an amendment has been limited and equally 
    divided between the proponent and a Member opposed, and the Chair 
    has recognized the only Member seeking recognition in opposition to 
    the amendment, no objection lies against that Member subsequently 
    yielding back all the time in opposition.

    On May 4, 1983,(17) the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration House Joint Resolution 13, calling for a freeze and 
reduction in nuclear weapons. House Joint Resolution 13 was being 
considered pursuant to a special rule agreed to on Mar. 
16,(18) and a special rule providing for additional 
procedures for consideration, agreed to on May 4.(19) Mr. 
William S. Broomfield, of Michigan, rose in opposition (20) 
to 
an amendment (1) offered by Mr. Henry J. Hyde, of Illinois, 
to a substitute amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 129 Cong. Rec. 11077, 11078, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. H. Res. 138, 129 Cong. Rec. 5666, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. H. Res. 179, 129 Cong. Rec. 11037, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. 129 Cong. Rec. 11078, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. Id. at p. 11077.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Broomfield: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman is recognized for 15 
    minutes in opposition to the amendment, for purposes of debate 
    only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Broomfield: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
    time.

[[Page 10017]]

        Mr. Hyde: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and 
    request a vote.
        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, we have 
    15 minutes in order to oppose the amendment?
        The Chairman: No one stood up on that side of the aisle, and 
    the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) represented to the 
    Chair that he opposed the amendment and was recognized for 15 
    minutes in opposition, and he yielded back the balance of his time, 
    as did the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). . . .
        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, my inquiry is this: This side, which opposes the 
    amendment, has been foreclosed an opportunity, not on this 
    amendment but on the previous amendment, to have 15 minutes in 
    opposition to the amendment because a Member on that side who voted 
    against an amendment that was hostile to the exact amendment said 
    he was opposed to it.
        My parliamentary inquiry is, Mr. Chairman, is that in order?

        The Chairman: As the Chair previously explained, no one on the 
    majority side of the aisle rose in opposition to that amendment. 
    The Chair looked to the other side of the aisle and the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) rose, represented that he was in 
    opposition to the amendment and was recognized.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Had another Member also been seeking to 
control time in opposition at the time the first Member was recognized 
and yielded back, the Chair would have allocated the time to that 
Member so that it could have been utilized.

Chair Does Not Distinguish 
    as Between Members of Full Committee and Subcommittee

Sec. 19.44 The Chair in giving preference of recognition to members of 
    a committee reporting a bill does not distinguish between members 
    of the full committee and members of the subcommittee which handled 
    the bill.

    On Apr. 7, 1943,(3) Chairman Luther A. Johnson, of 
Texas, recognized Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of Wisconsin, in opposition to a 
pro forma amendment. Mr. Keefe was a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, which had reported the pending bill. Mr. John H. Kerr, 
of North Carolina, objected that he sought recognition as a member of 
the subcommittee which had handled the bill. The Chairman stated as 
follows on the priority of recognition: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 89 Cong. Rec. 3067, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. Compare Sec. 13.7, supra (Chairman extended priority to offer 
        amendments to members of subcommittee handling a bill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As the Chair understands it, a member of the Committee on 
    Appropria

[[Page 10018]]

    tions has the same right as those who are members of that committee 
    who happen to be members of a subcommittee. That is the 
    parliamentary procedure, as the Chair understands it. The Chair has 
    recognized the gentleman from Wisconsin. Had he not done so, he 
    certainly would have recognized the gentleman from North Carolina.

Extending Five-minute Debate--Proponent of Amendment Offering Pro Forma 
    Amendment

Sec. 19.45 Under the five-minute rule, the proponent of a pending 
    amendment may of-fer a pro forma amendment thereto (for additional 
    debate time) only by unanimous consent.

    During consideration of the nuclear weapons freeze resolution (H.J. 
Res. 13) in the Committee of the Whole on Apr. 13, 1983,(5) 
the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 129 Cong. Rec. 8382, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elliott C.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words.
        The Chairman: (6) Without objection, the gentleman 
    from Georgia (Mr. Levitas) is recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: 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 ask-ed for recognition, and without 
    objection, he was recognized for 5 minutes.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Technically, the proponent may rise in 
opposition to a pro forma amendment offered by another Member in order 
to secure an additional five minutes.

Where Five-minute Debate Continues on Subsequent Day--Proponent May 
    Speak Again Only by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 19.46 When the Committee of the Whole resumes consideration of an 
    amendment which had been debated by its proponent on a prior day, 
    the proponent may speak again on his amendment only by unanimous 
    consent.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Dec. 12, 1979,(7) during consideration of S. 423 (Dispute 
Resolution Act):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 125 Cong. Rec. 35529, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (8) . . . When the Committee of the 
    Whole rose on Tues

[[Page 10019]]

    day, December 11, 1979, section 3 had been considered as having 
    been read and open to amendment at any point, and pending was an 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kindness).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Gladys Noon Spellman (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For what purpose does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kindness) 
    rise?
        Mr. [Thomas N.] Kindness [of Ohio]: Madam Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words.
        Mr. [Robert W.] Kastenmeier [of Wisconsin]: Madam Chairman, I 
    have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Kastenmeier: Madam Chairman, has the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Kindness) not already been recognized to speak for 5 minutes 
    on his amendment? I believe he has already spoken on his amendment 
    during the course of this debate.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kindness) is 
    recognized for 5 additional minutes in support of his amendment.
        Mr. Kastenmeier: Madam Chairman, reserving the right to object, 
    I will not make an objection, but I do note that this is the second 
    time the gentleman has spoken on his amendment.
        Madam Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
        The Chairman: Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Kindness) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
        There was no objection.

Speaking Twice on Same Amendment

Sec. 19.47 While a Member may not speak twice on the same amendment, he 
    may speak 
    in opposition to a pending amendment and subsequently offer a pro 
    forma amendment and debate the latter.

    On June 30, 1955,(9) Mr. James P. Richards, of South 
Carolina, was managing a bill under consideration in the Committee of 
the Whole. He had spoken in opposition to a pending amendment and had 
then gained the floor by offering a pro forma amendment. Mr. H. R. 
Gross, of Iowa, objected that Mr. Richards could not speak twice on the 
same amendment. Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, ruled that Mr. 
Richards properly had the floor and could offer a pro forma amendment, 
gaining time for debate, where he had already spoken in opposition to 
the pending amendment.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 101 Cong. Rec. 9614, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. For the prohibition against one Member speaking twice to the same 
        question, see Rule XIV clause 6, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 762 (1995). On speaking twice to an amendment under the 
        five-minute rule, see Sec. 21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 19.48 While a Member may not be recognized to speak twice on the 
    same amendment, he may rise in opposition to a pro forma amendment 
    and accomplish that result.

[[Page 10020]]

    On July 20, 1951,(11) Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of 
Arkansas, answered a parliamentary inquiry on recognition to debate 
amendments in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 97 Cong. Rec. 8566, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, is it in 
    order for a Member to talk twice on the same amendment?
        The Chairman: A Member may rise in opposition to a pro forma 
    amendment and accomplish that result, if he desires to do so.

Sec. 19.49 In the Committee of the Whole the Member in charge of the 
    bill having spoken on an amendment may be recognized to speak again 
    on 
    the amendment when debate under the five-minute rule has been 
    limited, abrogating the five-minute rule.

    On Nov. 14, 1967,(12) Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, 
manager of a bill being considered in the Committee of the Whole, moved 
that all debate on the pending amendment conclude at a certain time, 
and the motion was agreed to. Chairman John J. Rooney, of New York, 
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the allocation of time under the 
limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 32343-44, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Erlenborn: I have noticed in the past, and again at this 
    time, that when a unanimous-consent request to limit debate has 
    been made, Members who have already been recognized to debate the 
    issue are again recognized under the unanimous-consent limitation. 
    I wonder if this is in order. The Chairman just announced that the 
    gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the committee, would be 
    recognized again, though he has already debated on this amendment. 
    I wonder if Members can be recognized for a second time to debate 
    the same amendment merely because a unanimous-consent request is 
    made to limit time.
        The Chairman: The Chair must say to the gentleman that when the 
    unanimous-consent request was made and agreed to it abrogated the 
    5-minute rule.

Recognition for Debate Where Amendment Tree Is Full

Sec. 19.50 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.

[[Page 10021]]

    On Oct. 1, 1974,(13) during consideration of House 
Resolution 988 (to reform the structure, jurisdiction, and procedures 
of House committees) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded 
to the following parliamentary inquiries:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 120 Cong. Rec. 33338, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 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 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 is voted upon.
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I have another parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        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.
        Mr. Eckhardt: I thank the Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
    number of words.

Sec. 19.51 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

[[Page 10022]]

    be offered and voted upon without debate unless printed in the 
    Record pursuant to clause 6 of Rule XXIII; 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.

    During consideration of the Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1976 (H.R. 
9464) in the Committee of the Whole on Feb. 5, 1976,(15) the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 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).
        The Chairman: (16) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, as I understood 
    it, the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman 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: Let the Chair add this: the Chair has said it 
    once, and would like to say it again. Before we vote on the Smith 
    substitute, amendments to the Krueger amendment are debatable if 
    offered.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: I understand that, Mr. Chairman. My 
    questions were with reference only to how we get to the Smith 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: 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. . . .
        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. . . .

[[Page 10023]]

        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. Brown of Ohio: And they must be printed as amendments to 
    the Smith amendment. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: That is correct. . . .
        Mr. [Robert] Krueger [of Texas]: . . . 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.
        Mr. Krueger: Mr. Chairman, does the 5-minute rule apply also to 
    any possible amendments to the Smith substitute?
        The Chairman: 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.

Sec. 19.52 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a bill and the permissible degree of 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

[[Page 10024]]

    seeking to offer amendments could be first recognized.

    The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole relating to 
consideration of H.R. 13367 (a bill to amend and extend the State and 
Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972) on June 10, 1976,(17) 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 122 Cong. Rec. 17380, 17381, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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]: . . . I do not remember 
    the bill being open at any point to amendment.
        The Chairman: (18) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 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, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. 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, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Pickle: 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?
        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: I do not have control of the 
    time. I think the answer, obviously, is that he will 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: Members standing at the time the motion was made 
    will be recognized for approximately 1 minute and 55 seconds each.

Debate Where Point of Order Is Reserved

Sec. 19.53 Once a point of order has been reserved against an amendment 
    and debate has commenced under the five-minute rule, the Chair will 
    permit the proponent of the amendment to utilize the time allotted 
    him before hearing arguments on the point of order.

[[Page 10025]]

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Mar. 21, 1979: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 5779-81, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20) When the Committee rose on 
    Tuesday, March 20, 1979, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss) 
    had been recognized to offer an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Butler Derrick (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Weiss: Page 3, insert after line 5 
        the following:
            Sec. 5. (a) Section 3(b) of the Council on Wage and Price 
        Stability Act is amended by striking out ``Nothing in this 
        Act'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Except as provided in 
        section 8, nothing in this Act''. . . .

        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss).
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Moorhead) 
    will be protected on his reservation of the point of order.
        Mr. [Ted] Weiss [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on 
    the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I am today offering an amendment to H.R. 2283, 
    the Council on Wage and Price Stability Reauthorization Act.
        My amendment would give the President standby authority to 
    impose wage, price, and related economic controls. . . .
        Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I would now like to 
    insist on my point of order against the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss).
        The Chairman: The Chair will point out that the time is under 
    the control of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss).
        Mr. Weiss: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Marks) had asked if I would yield to him, and I am pleased to yield 
    to him at this point.
        Mr. [Marc Lincoln] Marks [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    thank the gentleman for yielding. . . .
        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Weiss) has expired.
        The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Moorhead). . . .
        Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Weiss).

Recognition To Speak in Support of Amendment Before Another Recognized 
    To Offer Substitute

Sec. 19.54 Under the five-minute rule, a Member is entitled to 
    recognition in support of his amendment prior to recognition of 
    another Member to offer, and speak, to a substitute therefor.

    On July 17, 1962,(1) Mr. Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
offered

[[Page 10026]]

an amendment to the pending bill, which was being read for amendment 
under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole. Chairman B. 
F. Sisk, of California, recognized Mr. Aspinall. Mr. James E. Van 
Zandt, of Pennsylvania, then inquired whether it was in order at that 
time to offer a substitute amendment (before Mr. Aspinall had begun his 
remarks). Chairman Sisk indicated that Mr. Van Zandt could not be 
recognized until Mr. Aspinall had had an opportunity to be heard on his 
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 108 Cong. Rec. 13795, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recognizing Member Favoring Committee Amendment Before One Opposed

Sec. 19.55 In recognizing members of the committee reporting a bill, 
    the Chair generally recognizes a member in fa-vor of a committee 
    amendment prior to recognizing a member thereof who is opposed.

    On Jan. 30, 1957,(2) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering House Joint Resolution 117, to authorize the President to 
cooperate with nations of the Middle East, under a resolution 
permitting only committee amendments (Committee on Foreign Affairs). A 
committee amendment was offered, and Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, a 
member of the committee, rose in opposition to the amendment. Pursuant 
to a point of order, Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, extended 
recognition to Mr. Frank M. Coffin, of Maine, a member of the committee 
who authored and supported the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 103 Cong. Rec. 1311, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recognition To Oppose Amendments--Debate on Amendment Printed in Record 
    in Addition to Speaking Under Limitation on Time

Sec. 19.56 Pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6, a Member may be recognized 
    for five minutes in opposition to an amendment which had been 
    printed in the Record and debated by its proponent for five 
    minutes, notwithstanding a prior allocation of time to that Member 
    under a limitation on the pending proposition and all amendments 
    thereto.

    On July 25, 1974,(3) during consideration of the Surface 
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974 (H.R. 11500) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the Chair

[[Page 10027]]

overruled a point of order, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 120 Cong. Rec. 25221, 25222, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to 
    the amendment.
        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona has spoken 
    for a minute and 20 seconds already.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that under the rule, when 
    the amendment has been printed in the Record, the author of the 
    amendment gets 5 minutes in support of his amendment and an 
    opponent gets 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment, regardless 
    of a time limitation.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Debate in Opposition to Amendment to Bill on Pri-vate Calendar--
    Recognition 
    of Member of Committee

Sec. 19.57 Recognition for debate in opposition to an amendment to a 
    bill on the Private Calendar goes first to a member of the 
    committee reporting the bill.

    On Dec. 14, 1967,(5) during the call of the Private 
Calendar, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, extended 
recognition to oppose an amendment to a private bill to Mr. Michael A. 
Feighan, of Ohio, a member of the reporting committee, over Mr. Durward 
G. Hall, of Missouri, not a member of the committee, and stated ``a 
member of the committee is entitled to recognition.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 113 Cong. Rec. 36535-37, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recognition After Rejection of Previous Question

Sec. 19.58 In response to parliamentary inquiries the Speaker advised 
    that if the previous question on a privileged resolution reported 
    by the Committee on Rules were voted down, the resolution would be 
    open to amendment, and that the Chair would recognize for that 
    purpose the Member who appeared to be leading the opposition.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(6) Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, 
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 1013, 
establishing a Select Committee 
on Standards and Conduct. Mr. 
Pepper was recognized for one 
hour and offered a committee 
amendment to the resolution, 
which amendment was agreed to.

[[Page 10028]]

 Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, then answered a series of 
parliamentary inquiries on the order of recognition should Mr. Pepper 
move the previous question and should the motion be defeated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 112 Cong. Rec. 27725, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, if the previous 
    question is refused, is it true that then amendments may be offered 
    and further debate may be had on the resolution?
        The Speaker: If the previous question is defeated, then the 
    resolution is open to further consideration and action and debate. 
    . . .
        Mr. [James G.] Fulton of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, if the 
    previous question is refused and the resolution is then open for 
    amendment, under what parliamentary procedure will the debate 
    continue? Or what would be the time limit?
        The Speaker: The Chair would recognize whoever appeared to be 
    the leading Member in opposition to the resolution.
        Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania: What would be the time for debate?
        The Speaker: Under those circumstances the Member recognized in 
    opposition would have 1 hour at his disposal, or such portion of it 
    as he might desire to exercise.
        Mr. [Cornelius E.] Gallagher [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gallagher: If the previous question is voted down we will 
    have the option to reopen debate, the resolution will be open for 
    amendment, or it can be tabled. Is that the situation as the Chair 
    understands it?
        The Speaker: If the previous question is voted down on the 
    resolution, the time will be in control of some Member in 
    opposition to it, and it would be open to amendment or to a motion 
    to table.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. The rule requiring recognition to pass to the opposition after 
        rejection of the previous question is subject to one exception 
        (see Sec. 15.22, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 19.59 If the previous question is voted down on a resolution 
    before the House, recognition to offer an amendment passes to the 
    opponents of the resolution, and the Chair first recognizes a 
    Member of the minority party, if opposed.

    On July 20, 1939,(8) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
managing a resolution to authorize an investigation, moved the previous 
question on the resolution. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, 
answered parliamentary inquiries on the order of recognition to be 
followed should the previous question be rejected:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 84 Cong. Rec. 9591, 9592, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: If the previous question 
    is voted down, will that open up the resolution to amendment?
        The Speaker: Undoubtedly.

[[Page 10029]]

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: If I understand the situation correctly, 
    if the previous question is voted down, the control of the measure 
    would pass to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Keller]; and the 
    resolution would not be open to amendment generally, but only to 
    such amendments as the gentleman from Illinois might yield for. Is 
    my understanding correct, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: If the previous question is voted down, it would 
    not necessarily pass to the gentleman from Illinois; it would pass 
    to the opponents of the resolution. Of course, a representative of 
    the minority would have the first right of recognition.

Rejection of Previous Question Prior to Adoption of the Rules--Seating 
    of Member-elect

Sec. 19.60 Recognition to offer an amendment to a resolution called up 
    prior to the adoption of rules and relating to the seat of a 
    Member-elect passes to a Member leading the opposition to the 
    resolution if the previous question is rejected.

    On Jan. 10, 1967,(9) at the convening of the 90th 
Congress and before the adoption of standing rules, Mr. Morris K. 
Udall, of Arizona, called up a resolution (H. Res. 1), authorizing the 
Speaker to administer the oath of office to challenged Member-elect 
Adam C. Powell, of New York, and referring the question of his final 
right to a seat to a select committee. Pending debate on the 
resolution, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, answered 
parliamentary inquiries on the procedure of consideration and 
recognition for the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 113 Cong. Rec. 14, 15, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    further parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is voted down would, 
    then, under the rules of the House, amendments or substitutes be in 
    order to the resolution offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
    Udall]?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Louisiana [Mr. Waggonner] that any germane amendment may be in 
    order to that particular amendment.
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, one further parliamentary inquiry. 
    . . .
        Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House would the option or 
    priority or a subsequent amendment or a substitute motion lie with 
    the minority?
        The Speaker: The Chair will pass upon that question based upon 
    the rules of the House. That would be a question that would present 
    itself to the Chair at that particular time.
        . . . However, the usual procedure of the Chair has been to the 
    effect that

[[Page 10030]]

    the Member who led the fight against the resolution will be 
    recognized.

    Mr. Udall moved the previous question on the resolution, and the 
motion was rejected.
    Speaker McCormack then recognized Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, the 
Minority Leader, to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
the resolution.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at pp. 24-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------