[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 5, Chapters 18 - 20]
[Chapter 19. The Committee of the Whole]
[B. The Chairman]
[Â§ 8. Rulings Relating to Amendments]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3310-3325]
 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                            B. THE CHAIRMAN
 
Sec. 8.--Rulings Relating to Amendments

    The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole is guided by the

[[Page 3311]]

precedents in determining whether a bill being considered in the 
Committee shall be read for amendment by sections or paragraphs. 
Generally, appropriation bills are read for amendment by paragraph and 
other bills are read for amendment by section, in the absence of a 
special rule providing otherwise.(14) Nonetheless, the 
Chairman's decision on this matter has been overruled on 
occasion.(15) Although it is ordinarily not in order to 
return to a section or paragraph that has been passed(16) 
(the Chairman may direct a return to a section when, by error, no 
action had been taken on a pending amendment.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Note to Rule XXIII clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 872 
        (1979); 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2341-2346.
            See Ch. 27, infra, for other precedents relating to 
        amendments.
15. Note to Rule XXIII clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 872 
        (1979); 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2347.
16. Rule XXIII clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 872 (1979); 4 
        Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4742, 4743.
17. Rule XXIII clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 872 (1979); 4 
        Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. 4750.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application or Effect of Proposed Amendment

Sec. 8.1 The Chairman does ordinarily not construe the effect of an 
    amendment.

    On Apr. 26, 1966,(18) during consideration of an 
amendment to H.R. 14596, making appropriations for the Department of 
Agriculture for fiscal year 1967, Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New 
York, declined to construe the effect of an amendment except to respond 
to a point of order alleging that it was legislation on an appropration 
bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 8968, 8969, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On page 35, strike all 
        language on lines 11 and 12, and insert the following:
            ``No funds appropriated by the Act shall be used to 
        formulate or administer a Federal crop insurance program for 
        the current fiscal year that does not meet its administrative 
        and operating expenses from premium income: Provided,''. . . .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        May I say that the gentleman from Illinois gave the matter 
    away, in my opinion, when he said that the purpose of his amendment 
    was to set premium rates that the Government would charge. I think 
    that shows clearly what is involved. This amendment provides that 
    no funds shall be used to administer this program under certain 
    condi

[[Page 3312]]

    tions. The program now in existence is based on contracts to which 
    the Government is a party. For us in this bill to try to prohibit 
    the handling of existing contracts on the part of the Government 
    would clearly be legislation. It not only would be legislation but 
    it would interfere with meeting obligations under existing 
    contracts and commitments on the part of the Government.
        For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the point of order 
    should be sustained.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Illinois desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Findley: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have offered is clearly a 
    limitation of funds, requiring that no funds be appropriated for 
    the administration or formulation of programs. Therefore, on the 
    basis of that it seems to me that the amendment is in order.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, if I may make one observation, the 
    amendment has to do with setting premiums and is quite clearly an 
    affirmative action.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Findley] has offered an 
    amendment at page 35, striking out all language on lines 11 and 12 
    and the amendment would add a new paragraph; to which amendment the 
    gentleman from Mississippi has made a point of order on the ground 
    that it is legislation on an appropriation act. . . .
        It might be said that the effect of any proposed amendment is 
    truly not within the competence of the Chair. But a reading of this 
    language indicates to this occupant of the chair that there is here 
    sought an express limitation on the funds appropriated by the 
    pending bill and the Chair, therefore, overrules the point of 
    order.

Sec. 8.2 The Chair may construe the purpose of an amendment to 
    determine whether it is a limitation on an appropriation and 
    therefore in order, but may refuse to rule on its application or 
    construction with respect to a provision in the bill.

    On May 15, 1957,(19~) during consideration of H.R. 7441, 
making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture, Chairman Paul 
J. Kilday, of Texas, declined to pass on the construction of a proposed 
amendment after a point of order was made alleging that it was 
surplusage and ineffective because of a previously adopted amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 103 Cong. Rec. 7023, 7033, 7034, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                           Acreage Reserve, Soil Bank

            For necessary expenses to carry out an acreage reserve 
        program in accordance with the provisions of subtitles A and C 
        of the Soil Bank Act (7 U.S.C. 1821-1824 and 1802-1814), 
        $600,000,000: Provided, That no part of this appropriation 
        shall be used to formulate and administer an acreage reserve 
        program which

[[Page 3313]]

        would result in total compensation being paid to producers in 
        excess of $500,000,000 with respect to the 1958 crops.

        Mr. [Burr P.] Harrison of Virginia: I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Harrison of Virginia: On page 21, 
        strike out all following the word ``program'' in line 2 and 
        strike out all of line 3. . . .

        So the amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Reuss: On page 21, line 4, change 
        the period to a comma and add the following: ``or in total 
        compensation being paid to any one producer in excess of $5,000 
        with respect to the 1958 crops.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the committee having stricken out or prohibited 
    the use of any money for any 1958 program, now to provide that 
    money shall be limited to $5,000 per participant where no money can 
    be used for the 1958 program is the question. If it is in order, 
    Mr. Chairman, I should like to renew my point of order that to put 
    a limitation on the amount to be given to a participant, when the 
    committee has just adopted an amendment prohibiting the use of any 
    money, strikes me as being surplusage and subject to a point of 
    order. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.
        First, the Chair wants to call attention to the fact that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Harrison] did 
    not strike out all of the proviso. It struck out only that portion 
    of the proviso on page 21, line 2, beginning after the word 
    ``program'' to and including ``$500,000,000'' in line 3. So that 
    the proviso now reads:

            Provided, That no part of this appropriation shall be used 
        to formulate and administer an acreage reserve program with 
        respect to the 1958 crops. 

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
    Reuss] strikes out the period, inserts a comma, and adds the 
    language ``or in total compensation being paid to any one producer 
    in excess of $5,000 with respect to the 1958 crops.''
        While it may be because of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Virginia having been adopted that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin would be ineffective, still 
    the Chair believes, it being a limitation upon the purpose for 
    which the funds are appropriated, that it is in order and that the 
    point of order should be overruled.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, do I understand then that it is the 
    judgment of the Chair that it would not apply back to the $600 
    million?
        The Chairman: The Chair is not going to pass on the 
    construction of the language whether this amendment is adopted or 
    not.
        The point of order is overruled.

Sec. 8.3 The Chairman does not rule on the effect of amendments on 
    other provisions in

[[Page 3314]]

    a bill, or their consistency with provisions of the bill already 
    passed in the reading for amendment.

    On June 28, 1967,(1) during consideration of amendments 
to H.R. 10340, authorizing appropriations for the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration, Chairman John J. Flynt, Jr., of Georgia, on 
two occasions overruled points of order on the ground that the Chairman 
does not rule on the consistency of amendments or their effect on other 
provisions of a bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 17755, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill contained an overall appropriation (on page 1, line 5, as 
mentioned below) which was to be divided among various specified 
projects, including an amount for sustaining university programs (on 
page 2, line 22, as mentioned below). The ``consistency problem'', as 
raised by Mr. Joseph E. Karth, of Minnesota, was that the total figure 
for the overall appropriation would not equal the sum of all the 
appropriations for the various specified projects if an amendment 
changed only the figure for one of the specified programs. The 
proceedings were as follows:

        Mr. [Richard L.] Roudebush [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Roudebush: On page 2, line 22, 
        strike the amount ``$30 million'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        the amount ``$20 million''.

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roudebush] is 
    recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
        Mr. Karth: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Karth: Mr. Chairman, now that the amendment is here, I 
    again renew my request for a ruling as to whether or not the 
    amendment that the gentleman proposes to make on page 2 can be 
    legitimately made without changing his figure on page 1. I raise 
    that point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman make a point of order to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana?
        Mr. Karth: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state this point of order.
        Mr. Karth: My point of order is, If the gentleman proceeds with 
    his amendment as it has been read by the Clerk, reducing the amount 
    on line 22 by $10 million and he does not change the total on line 
    5 of page 1, it seems to me that the amendment is not in proper 
    order.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman state his point of order in a 
    form on which the Chair can rule?
        Mr. Karth: The point of order I raise, Mr. Chairman, is against 
    the amendment.

[[Page 3315]]

        The Chairman: On what basis?
        Mr. Karth: On the basis that it is not a properly drawn 
    amendment, that it does not affect the bill as it otherwise would 
    if it were proper.
        The Chairman: The Chair overrules the point of order. The Chair 
    does not make rulings on the consistency of language in amendments 
    offered to the bill.
        The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roudebush] is recognized for 5 
    minutes.
        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Indiana yield to the 
    gentleman from Texas?
        Mr. Roudebush: No, Mr. Chairman. I should like to make my 
    remarks.
        Mr. Eckhardt: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment offered has the effect of changing the figure on page 1, 
    line 5, by reducing it $10 million, and, therefore, affects line 5, 
    which has already been amended at a previous time.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.
        The Chair will state, that the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Texas is substantially the same point of order made 
    by the gentleman from Minnesota. The Chair does not rule on the 
    question of whether an amendment to one point would amend another 
    point in the bill.
        The present amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana 
    relates to line 22 on page 2 and has no effect at this time on line 
    5, page 1.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order of the 
    gentleman from Texas.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roudebush] 
    in support of his amendment.

Interpretation of Amendment

Sec. 8.4 The meaning of an amendment that is technically in order is 
    not a matter to be passed on by the Chairman.

    On Oct. 12, 1966,(2) during consideration of H.R. 51, 
the Indiana Dunes Lakeshore bill, Chairman John J. McFall, of 
California, declined to interpret an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 112 Cong. Rec. 26205, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. Edward] Roush [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Arizona [Mr. Udall].
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment to the substitute amendment offered by Mr. Roush: 
        Page 2, line 6, strike out the period at the end of Mr. Udall's 
        amendment and add the following: ``excluding therefrom the one 
        mile of lakefront known as Ogden Dunes Beach and adding thereto 
        the area known as the Burns Bog Unit as shown on a map with the 
        same title, dated January 1965 and bearing the number `NL-ID-
        7001A' which map is also on file and available for public 
        inspection in the office of the Director of the National Park 
        Service, Department of the Interior.''

[[Page 3316]]

        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana 
    [Mr. Roush].
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield for the purpose of propounding a parliamentary 
    inquiry?
        Mr. Roush: I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Indiana will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that all of the 
    units of this proposed national park are fixed by reference to a 
    map, is it in order to offer language in indefinite terms that 
    would undertake to alter that?
        The gentleman from Arizona offered an amendment which referred 
    to another map, which is a matter of record.
        I do not know and I do not know whether anybody else knows just 
    what is meant when reference is made to Ogden Dunes or Burns Bog 
    units.
        The Chairman: The Chair would reply that the Chair is not in a 
    position to construe the amendment. The amendment technically is in 
    order and it is up to the Member offering an amendment to construe 
    the amendment for the benefit of the Members.

Ambiguity of Amendment

Sec. 8.5 The Chair does not rule on whether an amendment is ambiguous.

    On July 5, 1956,(3) during consideration of H.R. 7535, 
authorizing federal assistance to the states and local communities in 
financing an expanded program of school construction to eliminate a 
national shortage of classrooms, Chairman Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, stated the practice of the Chair in ruling on the 
ambiguity of an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 102 Cong. Rec. 11873, 11875, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Powell: On page 26, after line 12, 
        insert a new title IV:
            ``That there shall be no Federal funds allotted or 
        transferred to any State which fails to comply with the 
        provisions of the Supreme Court.''

    After debate, an amendment to the amendment was offered as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California] to 
    the Powell amendment: Strike the word ``provisions'' and insert the 
    word ``decisions.''
        Mr. [Ross] Bass of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bass of Tennessee: I make the point of order that the 
    amendment is not germane to the bill.
        The Chairman: It is certainly germane to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from New York to substitute the word ``decisions'' 
    for the word ``provisions.'' The Chair so rules.
        Mr. Bass of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, a further point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 3317]]

        Mr. Bass of Tennessee: I make the point of order that the word 
    ``provisions'' is ambiguous and has no meaning whatever and would 
    make the amendment not germane.
        The Chairman: The Chair does not rule on the question of 
    ambiguity. It is a question of germaneness solely, and the Chair 
    has ruled that the amendment is germane.

Consistency of Amendments

Sec. 8.6 The Chairman does not rule on the consistency of amendments.

    On Aug. 16, 1961,(4) the Committee of the Whole by 
teller vote of 197 ayes, 185 noes, agreed to the following substitute 
amendment to H.R. 8400, the Mutual Security Act of 1961, authorizing 
appropriations to the President:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 107 Cong. Rec. 16060, 16073, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Dalip S.] Saund, of California, as a 
    substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Morgan, of 
    Pennsylvania: On page 7, strike out line 13 and all that follows 
    down through line 7 on page 9, and insert in lieu thereof the 
    following:

            Sec. 202. Capitalization.--(a) There is hereby authorized 
        to be appropriated to the President not to exceed 
        $1,200,000,000 for use beginning in the fiscal year 1962 to 
        carry out the purposes of this title, which sums shall remain 
        available until expended.

    The following day, Aug. 17, 1961,(5) the Committee again 
met, with Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, in the Chair, to consider other 
amendments to the same bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 16188. See 119 Cong. Rec. 25828, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., 
        July 25, 1973; 103 Cong. Rec. 13501, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 
        2, 1957; and 95 Cong. Rec. 11994, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 
        22, 1949, for other rulings that the Chairman does not rule on 
        the consistency of amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: When the Committee rose on yesterday the Clerk 
    had read through section 202 ending in line 13, page 3 of the bill.
        If there are no further amendments to section 202, the Clerk 
    will read.
        Mr. [Laurence] Curtis of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Curtis of Massachusetts: In 
        section 202 add a new subsection to be numbered (b), and re-
        letter the other subsections accordingly, to read as follows:
            ``(b) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the 
        President without fiscal year limitation to carry out the 
        purposes of this title not to exceed $1,000,000,000 for the 
        fiscal year 1963, and not to exceed $1,000,000,000 for the 
        fiscal year 1964.''

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, in order to see if we can 
    find out where we are at, I would like to know first what becomes 
    of the amendment that was adopted on yesterday. It is in the bill. 
    There is no provision in this amendment which strikes it out. Does

[[Page 3318]]

    it remain in the bill; and if it does not remain in the bill, how 
    does it get out?
        The Chairman: That provision adopted yesterday remains in the 
    bill; and, as the Chair understands the situation, it would not be 
    affected by this amendment. This amendment would be in addition to 
    that which was acted on yesterday.

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, the two amendments are in 
    direct conflict. We have adopted one amendment which says that this 
    shall be for 1 year by direct appropriation, then we adopt another 
    amendment, both of which the Chairman informs us will be in the 
    bill. In the other amendment we made it a 3- or 4-year proposition 
    and cut the appropriation. . . .
        Mr. [E. Ross] Adair [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I should like 
    to urge a further point of order against the proposed amendment, 
    first, on the basis that the subject matter of that amendment was 
    acted upon yesterday and therefore it is not appropriate to reopen 
    the matter at this time. Second, if I understood the place in the 
    bill to which it is offered, since we already have a section (b) in 
    there, it would be section (c), and I urge the Chair that it is not 
    germane at that point. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Curtis] offers an 
    amendment to section 202 of the bill to which the gentleman from 
    Virginia makes a point of order.
        Permit the Chair to say that it is not the province of the 
    Chair to rule on whether matters are consistent or not. That is 
    within the judgment of the committee. The amendment adopted 
    yesterday included the deletion of paragraph (b) of section 202 as 
    a part of the amendment. So, the Chair will say that there is at 
    the moment no paragraph (b) in the bill. This is new material. It 
    is germane to the subject of section 202, and the Chair overrules 
    the point of order.

Sec. 8.7 The Chairman does not rule on the consistency of a proposed 
    amendment with another amendment already adopted.

    On July 25, 1973,(6) during consideration of H. R. 8480, 
the Impoundment Control Act, Chairman Dante B. Fascell, of Florida, 
declined to rule that a proposed amendment was inconsistent with an 
amendment which had already been adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 119 Cong. Rec. 25828, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. See 119 Cong. Rec. 41306, 
        41308, 41688, 41689, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 13, and 14, 
        1973, respectively, for a similar ruling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Anderson of Illinois: On page 11, 
        after line 10, add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 109. The foregoing provisions of this title shall 
        take effect on January 1, 1974.''

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.

[[Page 3319]]

        Mr. Bolling: The point of order is that the amendment is not 
    germane.
        Mr. Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard on 
    the point of order, I think perhaps the distinguished gentleman 
    from Missouri and my colleague on the Committee on Rules has not 
    correctly understood the amendment, because it is not the amendment 
    that says that the foregoing provisions of this title; namely, 
    title I, shall take effect on the effective date of this 
    legislation which improves congressional control over budgetary 
    outlay and the receipt totals in a comprehensive manner but merely 
    fixes a date and says that the provisions of title I shall not 
    become effective until January 1, 1974.
        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, then this amendment should have been 
    offered at a different place as an amendment to the Heinz 
    amendment, or else it is in effect a redundancy.
        Mr. Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard 
    further on the point of order, as I understand the Heinz amendment 
    it has the effect of making it merely a 1-year bill. In other 
    words, the antiimpoundment provisions would expire at the end of 
    the current fiscal year. My amendment says that title I, the 
    antiimpoundment provision, does not commence, does not become 
    effective as a matter of law until January 1, 1974.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Anderson) provides that title I shall take effect on January 1, 
    1974. The amendment is objected to because of inconsistency and 
    also because it is not germane. The Chair cannot rule on the 
    consistency of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Anderson) but the amendment certainly fixes a date certain 
    which is not an unrelated contingency. The amendment is germane and 
    therefore the Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. Sec. 8.8 While an amendment may not change an amendment already 
    agreed to, an amendment that involves similar but not identical 
    subjects to follow the adopted amendment is in order; and the Chair 
    will not rule on the consistency of those amendments.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(7) during consideration of H.R. 11450, 
the Energy Emergency Act, Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
overruled points of order in part on the ground that the Chairman does 
not rule on the consistency of amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 119 Cong. Rec. 41725-30, 41740, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William R.] Roy [of Kansas] to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: 
    Page 36, line 23, strike out the quotation marks.
        Page 36, insert after line 23 the following:
        ``(9)(A) This subsection shall not apply to the first sale of 
    crude oil or petroleum condensates produced from any lease within 
    the United States by

[[Page 3320]]

    a seller (i) who produced such oil or condensate, (ii) who 
    (together with all persons who control, are controlled by or who 
    are under common control with, such seller), produces in the 
    aggregate less than 25,000 barrels per day of crude oil and 
    petroleum condensates, averaged annually, and (iii) who is not a 
    refiner or marketer or distributor of refined petroleum products 
    (or a person who controls, is controlled by, or is under common 
    control with such a refiner, marketer, or distributor).
        ``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A)--
        ``(i) a person produces crude oil or petroleum condensates only 
    if he has an interest in the production thereof which permits him 
    to take his production (or share thereof) in kind, and
        ``(ii) the term `control' means control by ownership.'' . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Roy) to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
    Staggers). . . .
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    189, noes 194, not voting 49, as follows: . . .
        Amendment offered by Mr. [Joe] Skubitz [of Kansas] to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: 
    Page 36, line 23, strike out the quotation marks.
        Page 36, insert after line 23 the following:
        ``(9) This subsection shall not apply to the first sale of 
    crude oil described in subsection (e)(2) of this section (relating 
    to stripper wells).''. . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Skubitz) to the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
    Staggers).
        The amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Robert D.] Price of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Price of Texas to the amendment in 
        the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: Page 36, 
        line 23, strike out the quotation marks.
            Page 36, insert after line 23 the following:
            ``(9)(A) This subsection shall not apply to the first sale 
        of crude oil or petroleum condensates produced from any lease 
        within the United States by a seller (i) who produced such oil 
        or condensate, (ii) who (together with all persons who control, 
        are controlled by or who are under common control with, such 
        seller), produces in the aggregate less than 5,000 barrels per 
        day of crude oil and petroleum condensates, averaged annually, 
        and (iii) who is not a refiner or marketer or distributor of 
        refined petroleum products (or a person who controls, is 
        controlled by, or is under common control with such a refiner, 
        marketer, or distributor).

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Conte: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that we have 
    already considered the amendment before today. It was the Roy 
    amendment, and therefore a point of order should lie against it.

[[Page 3321]]

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I would like 
    to be heard also on the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that as the Chair 
    understands the amendment the figure has been changed, therefore it 
    is not the same amendment since the figure has been changed.
        Mr. Dingell: May I be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I would like 
    to speak against the point of order.
        The Chairman: May the Chair suggest that the Clerk complete the 
    reading of the amendment, and then I will recognize the gentleman 
    on his point of order.
        The Clerk read the remainder of the amendment, as follows:

            (B) For purposes of subparagraph (A)--
            (i) a person produces crude oil or petroleum condensates 
        only if he has an interest in the production thereof which 
        permits him to take his production (or share thereof) in kind, 
        and
            (ii) the term ``control'' means control by ownership.

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Massachusetts will be heard on 
    his point of order.
        Mr. Conte: Mr. Chairman, I insist on the point of order even 
    though the amendment changes the figures. The amendment is now in 
    the third degree, and therefore the point of order should be 
    upheld.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order on the 
    grounds that this is again bringing before the Committee a portion 
    of the bill which has already been amended. As the Chair recalls, 
    we adopted the Skubitz amendment, which dealt with the same subject 
    matter, and at the same place, and I submit, regardless of the 
    point of order raised by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Conte) that this is a violation of the Rules of the House as an 
    attempt to redo action earlier taken by the Committee with regard 
    to the Skubitz amendment, which was likewise dealing with the 
    limitation on the coverage of the particular section to include 
    coverage of people who operate stripper wells.
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I speak against the point of order. 
    The Skubitz amendment dealt in an entirely different subject 
    matter. The Skubitz amendment dealt with oil produced by well, not 
    oil produced by producer, and provided that in those cases of wells 
    producing less than, as I recall, 10 barrels per day, these should 
    be exempted.
        The amendment here is not dealing with stripper wells. It has 
    nothing to do with wells. It has to do with the size of the 
    producers. Therefore, this subject matter has not been previously 
    covered. This does not change the Skubitz amendment at all, and it 
    deals with a different subject.
        Of course, the point of order with respect to the proposition 
    that this is in the third degree is frivolous, because this is 
    introduced as an additional amendment, and the amendment is 
    different materially from the 25,000 barrels.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I again note, with the assistance of 
    the Chair, that the Skubitz amendment and the amendment now before 
    us appear at precisely the same place in the bill.

[[Page 3322]]

        Mr. Chairman: For the reasons stated by the gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) because the Chair does not rule on the 
    inconsistency of amendments, and the fact that the number of 
    barrels involved in this amendment is different from that in the 
    former amendment, the Chair overrules the points of order, and the 
    amendment will be voted on.

Propriety of Considering Amendment Identical to a Previously Passed 
    Bill

Sec. 8.9 The Committee of the Whole and not the Chair decides whether 
    it may consider an amendment consisting of the exact language 
    agreed to in a bill previously passed by the House.

    On May 13, 1946,(8) during consideration of Senate Joint 
Resolution 159, to extend the Selective Training and Service Act, 
Chairman Alfred L. Bulwinkle, of North Carolina, stated that the 
Committee of the Whole, not the Chair, would decide whether an 
amendment to the resolution would be considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 92 Cong. Rec. 4957, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, etc., That section 16(b) of the Selective 
        Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended, is amended by 
        striking out ``May 15, 1946'' and inserting ``July 1, 1946.''

        Mr. [Dewey] Short [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Short: Strike out all after the 
        enacting clause of Senate Joint Resolution 159 and insert the 
        following:
            ``That so much of the first sentence of section 3(a) of the 
        Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended, as 
        precedes the first proviso is amended to read as follows:
            `` `Sec. 3. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this act, 
        every male citizen of the United States, and every other male 
        person residing in the United States, who is between the ages 
        of 20 and 30, at the time fixed for his registration, or who 
        attains the age of 20 after having been required to register 
        pursuant to section 2 of this act, shall be liable for training 
        and service in the land or naval forces of the United States. . 
        . . ' ''

        Mr. [Walter G.] Andrews of New York: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment just offered by the gentleman 
    from Missouri on the ground that the exact language in another bill 
    has been acted on favorably by the House.
        Mr. Chairman: The Chair states to the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Andrews] that that is a matter for the committee to pass on, 
    not the Chair man. The Chair overrules the point of order.

Constitutionality of Proposed Amendment

Sec. 8.10 The Chairman does not rule on the constitutionality of 
    proposed amendments.

[[Page 3323]]

    On Aug. 19, 1965,(9) during consideration of an 
amendment to H.R. 9811, the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965, Chairman 
Oren Harris, of Arkansas, overruled a point of order that an amendment 
was unconstitutional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 111 Cong. Rec. 21016, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
        offer an amendment.
            The Clerk read as follows:
            Amendment offered by Mr. Whitten: Page 14 following the 
        word ``follows'' in line 15 add the following: ``For such 
        period as the Secretary of Agriculture shall carry out the 
        provisions of the Export Sales Act of 1956 (7 U.S.C. 1853) the 
        following changes shall be made in the Agricultural Adjustment 
        Act of 1938, as amended.'' . . .

        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, may I 
    state my point of order?
        Mr. Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Cooley: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment not because of germaneness, but because it is an 
    unconstitutional and unwarranted delegation of the power of 
    Congress to some unknown person or to some unknown agency to make 
    the determinations contemplated by the gentleman's amendment. We 
    have no right to delegate this authority to any other person. . . .
        Mr. Chairman: Does the gentleman from Mississippi wish to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of 
    order. Certainly I do not believe that there is any case where the 
    Congress does not have a right to set the terms and conditions upon 
    which any legislation may become affected. The law to which I 
    referred is on the statute books and the reference made to it says 
    that the provisions of this act shall be effective only as this 
    other law is carried out.
        Mr. Chairman, I think that certainly an objection might be in 
    order, but I do not think there is any question insofar as the 
    point of order is concerned. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Mississippi offers an amendment to this 
    title which the Clerk has reported which proposes to amend title 
    IV, section 401.
        The Chair has had occasion to observe the provisions of the law 
    included in title VII of the United States Code to which the 
    amendment refers, imposing the duty on the Secretary of Agriculture 
    in carrying out certain provisions of the program.
        The gentleman from North Carolina raises a point of order on 
    the question that the amendment is unconstitutional--on the grounds 
    of unconstitutionality. Of course that is a matter on which the 
    Chair does not pass. That is a matter for the Committee to 
    determine and, therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Authority to Allocate Debate Time on Amendments

Sec. 8.11 Where the Committee of the Whole fixes the time for closing 
    debate on pending amendments, the Chair notes the names of the 
    Members

[[Page 3324]]

    seeking recognition at the time the limitation is agreed to and 
    divides the time equally between them.

    On Aug. 18, 1949,(10) during consideration of H.R. 5895, 
the Mutual Defense Assistance Act of 1949, Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of 
Arkansas, noted the names of Members seeking recognition and allocated 
the time equally among them after the Committee of the Whole fixed the 
time for debate on pending amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 95 Cong. Rec. 11760, 81st Gong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Kee [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on the pending amendments and all 
    amendments thereto close in 1 hour.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from West Virginia?
        There was no objection. . . .

        Mr. [Earl] Wilson of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Wilson of Indiana: There were a certain number of us on our 
    feet when the unanimous-consent request was propounded. After the 
    time was limited, about twice as many people got on their feet to 
    be recognized.
        The Chairman: The Chair is endeavoring to ascertain those 
    Members who desire to speak, and has no disposition to violate any 
    rights of freedom of speech.
        Mr. Wilson of Indiana: Further pressing my point of order, is 
    it in order after the time is limited for others to get the time 
    that we have reserved for ourselves? I would like to object under 
    the present situation.
        The Chairman: Permit the Chair to answer the gentleman. If the 
    gentleman from Indiana will ascertain and indicate to the Chair the 
    names of the Members who were not standing at the time the 
    unanimous-consent request was agreed to, the gentleman will render 
    a great service to the Chair in determining how to answer the 
    gentleman.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rich: That is not the duty of the gentleman from Indiana. 
    That is the duty of the Clerk.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania and the Chair 
    both understand that, but apparently all Members do not. The Chair 
    is endeavoring to do the best he can to ascertain those who desire 
    to speak under this limitation of time. Now permit the Chair to 
    ascertain that.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Will the Chair, with the assistance of 
    the Clerk, advise me how many Members have asked for time, and how 
    much time each Member will be allotted?
        The Chairman: Each of the Members whose names appear on the 
    list

[[Page 3325]]

    will be recognized for 2 minutes, there being 30 Members on their 
    feet at the time and debate having been limited to 1 hour.