[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 25. Appropriation Bills]
[B. Reporting and Consideration of Appropriation Bills]
[Â§ 11. Consideration and Debate; Amendments]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5118-5144]
 
                               CHAPTER 25
 
                          Appropriation Bills
 
       B. REPORTING AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS TEXT
 
Sec. 11. Consideration and Debate; Amendments

Motion to Close Debate

Sec. 11.1 A motion to fix the time of general debate on an 
    appropriation bill is not in order prior to resolving into the 
    Committee of the Whole; but after there has been debate in the 
    Committee of the Whole and the Committee rises, the motion is in 
    order in the House.

    On Feb. 18, 1947,(14) a Member addressed Speaker Joseph 
W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, as follows and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 93 Cong. Rec. 1138, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 1968) 
    making appropriations to supply urgent deficiencies in certain 
    appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1947, and for 
    other purposes; and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that general debate be limited to 1 hour, to be 
    equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
    Cannon] and myself.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from New York?
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, is this the bill that contains the cuts of 
    appropriations for OPA?
        Mr. Taber: Yes.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Then I object, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Taber: The House may go into the Committee of the Whole and 
    later, after debate has occurred, rise, and then a motion would be 
    in order to close debate; but otherwise a motion would not be in 
    order at this time to close?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York states the situation 
    accurately. The House must first go into Committee and have general 
    debate, and then rise and fix the time of debate by vote.

Consideration of Senate Amendments

Sec. 11.2 The House has considered Senate amendments to a

[[Page 5119]]

    general appropriation bill in Committee of the Whole under the 
    five-minute rule.

    On July 12, 1945,(1) a Member addressed Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 91 Cong. Rec. 7474, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 91 Cong. Rec. 
        7226, 7227, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., July 5, 1945. For further 
        discussion see Ch. 32, House-Senate Relations, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3368) 
    making appropriations for war agencies for the fiscal year ending 
    June 30, 1946, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments. 
    Pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
    dispense with general debate.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Missouri?
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object, that is satisfactory to me. That would not mean, 
    of course, that there could be no debate on amendments?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Amendments will be considered under the 
    5-minute rule.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Missouri?
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion of the gentleman 
    from Missouri.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
    bill (H.R. 3368) making appropriations for war agencies for the 
    fiscal year ending June 30, 1946, and for other purposes, with 
    Senate amendments, with Mr. Sparkman in the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This procedure is different from 
consideration in the House as in Committee of the Whole, where motions 
under Rule XVI clause 4 are in order.

Terms of Debate

Sec. 11.3 Before consideration of the general appropriation bill, 1951, 
    containing all the appropriations for the various agencies of the 
    government, it was agreed by unanimous consent that general debate 
    run without limit to be equally divided between the Chairman and 
    ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and 
    that following the reading of the first chapter of the bill not to 
    exceed two hours general debate be had before the reading of each 
    subsequent chapter, one-half to be controlled by the chairman and 
    one-half by the ranking

[[Page 5120]]

    minority member of the subcommittee in charge of the chapter.

    On Apr. 3, 1950,(2) a Member addressed Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, as follows, and the proceedings were as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 96 Cong. Rec. 4614, 4615, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    7786) making appropriations for the support of the Government for 
    the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes; and 
    pending that I ask unanimous consent that time for general debate 
    be equally divided, one-half to be controlled by the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Taber] and one-half by myself; that debate be 
    confined to the bill; and that following the reading of the first 
    chapter of the bill, not to exceed 2 hours general debate be had 
    before the reading of each subsequent chapter, one-half to be 
    controlled by the chairman and one-half by the ranking minority 
    member of the subcommittee in charge of the chapter. . . .
        Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I will 
    not object, except to say that I trust and am sure the majority of 
    the Members of the House hope that the chairman of the full 
    committee, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] will not make 
    points of order against Members on the ground that they are 
    speaking out of order when so much is involved in this bill. I 
    think we should have the greatest leeway to discuss these things.
        The Speaker: The Chair would think that this appropriation bill 
    actually being 11 bills in one, and covering everything in the 
    Government, a Member speaking on the bill would have a rather wide 
    range.
        Mr. Jensen: I thank the Speaker. I was hoping the Speaker would 
    say just that.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentlman 
    from Missouri?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 11.4 During the consideration of the general appropriation bill, 
    1951, terms of consideration were agreed upon, including: that a 
    chapter then under consideration be considered as read and open to 
    points of order and amendment; and that a certain Member be 
    authorized to offer a blanket amendment to a part of the chapter.

    On Apr. 27, 1950,(3) the following unanimous-consent 
requests were made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 96 Cong. Rec. 5910, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that--
        The chapter on agricultural appropriations be considered as 
    read and open to points of order and amendment; that the gentleman 
    from Min

[[Page 5121]]

    nesota [Mr. H. Carl Andersen] have consent to offer a blanket 
    amendment relating to administrative expenses;
        That when the House adjourns on Friday it adjourn to meet on 
    Monday next;
        That no debate be in order on Friday, Monday, and Tuesday 
    except general debate;
        That general debate on the civil functions appropriations bill 
    be confined to Tuesday;
        That when the House adjourns on Tuesday next all general debate 
    be concluded on the entire bill.

    There was no objection to the request.

House as in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 11.5 On numerous occasions the House has by unanimous consent 
    provided for the consideration of a nongeneral appropriation bill 
    in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.

    On June 14, 1962,(4) the following request was made in 
the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 108 Cong. Rec. 10481, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. 8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with 
    the unanimous-consent agreement of yesterday, I ask for the 
    immediate consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 745), 
    making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 1962; and I 
    ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that it be considered in the 
    House as in Committee of the Whole.
        The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
        The Speaker: (5) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Sec. 11.6 Unanimous consent was granted that a joint resolution 
    providing supplemental appropriations for the Department of Labor 
    be considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole.

    On Mar. 24, 1964,(6) the following proceedings took 
place in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 110 Cong. Rec. 6096, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Speaker, in 
    accordance with the unamimous consent granted yesterday, I call up 
    House Joint Resolution 962, making a supplemental appropriation for 
    the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, for the Department of Labor, 
    and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the joint 
    resolution be considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole.
        The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution
        The Speaker: (7) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Rhode Island?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

[[Page 5122]]

        The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:

             Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        following sum is appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury 
        not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
        1964, namely:

                              department of labor

                         Bureau of Employment Security

            Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees and ex-
                                   Servicemen

            For an additional amount for ``Unemployment compensation 
        for Federal employees and ex-servicemen'', $42,000,000.

Suspension of the Rules

Sec. 11.7 The two Houses having been unable to agree on all provisions 
    of the 1943 agriculture appropriation bill, the House adopted a 
    motion to suspend the rules and pass a new bill containing matters 
    in the original bill not in controversy.

    On July 2, 1942,(8) a Member addressed Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 88 Cong. Rec. 5953, 5954, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 7349, which I send to the 
    Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            A bill making appropriations for the Department of 
        Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1943, and for 
        other purposes.

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a second 
    be considered as ordered.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Georgia [Mr. Tarver]?
        There was no objection.

    After some discussion,(9) the rules were suspended and 
the bill was passed.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at pp. 5954-60.
10. Id. at p. 5960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments--Reading Bill

Sec. 11.8 General revenue and appropriation bills are considered by 
    paragraph for amendment and all other bills are considered by 
    sections, including bills making appropriations for specific 
    purposes.

    On May 21, 1940,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering House Joint Resolution 544,

[[Page 5123]]

a relief appropriation bill. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 86 Cong. Rec. 6542, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. For discussion of 
        amendments generally, see Ch. 27, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, this bill comes from the 
    Appropriations Committee. Ordinarily bills coming from the 
    Appropriations Committee are read by paragraph. Bills coming from 
    other committees are read by sections. I want to ask the Chairman, 
    so that all Members may know as we approach the reading of the 
    bill, how this bill will be read, so that they may know where to 
    offer amendments.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state, in response to the 
    parliamentary inquiry presented by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Taber], that it is the understanding of the Chair that, under the 
    rule, general revenue measures and appropriation bills are 
    considered by paragraph and that all other measures are considered 
    by sections. Consequently, the pending bill will be considered by 
    sections and amendments offered by sections rather than by 
    paragraphs.

Sec. 11.9 Appropriation bills are read by paragraph and amendments are 
    in order only to the paragraph just read, not to the entire subject 
    matter under a heading in an appropriation bill.

    On Jan. 17, 1940,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7922, an independent offices appropriation bill. 
Proceedings took place as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 86 Cong. Rec. 442, 443, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. See also 116 Cong. Rec. 
        11648, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 14, 1970 (proceedings relating 
        to H.R. 16916).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Luce [of Massachusetts]: A parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Lindsay C. Warren (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Luce: May I ask where the proper place would be to insert 
    an amendment before the next part of the bill headed by capitals?
        The Chairman: The Chair was unable to hear all of the inquiry 
    by the gentleman from Massachusetts.
        Mr. Luce: May I ask how far the bill has been read?
        The Chairman: Down through the bottom of page 50. The only 
    paragraph under the heading ``United States Housing Authority'' 
    that would now be subject to amendment would be the last four lines 
    on page 50.
        Mr. Luce: Mr. Chairman, if I recollect the practice of the 
    House, it has always been to include everything under a heading for 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: It has been the practice of the House from time 
    immemorial to read appropriation bills by paragraphs

Sec. 11.10 The rule of germaneness applies to amendments to 
    appropriation bills; and an amendment proposing a specific 
    appropriation must be

[[Page 5124]]

    offered when the paragraphs dealing with that subject are being 
    considered

    On Jan. 31, 1938,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8181, a District of Columbia appropriation bill. An 
amendment was read and a point of order raised as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 83 Cong. Rec. 1307-09, 75th Cong. 3d Sess. For discussion of 
        amendments generally, see Ch. 27, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        public utilities commission

        For two commissioners, people's counsel, and for other personal 
    services, $76,000, of which amount $1,620 shall be available for 
    the employment of a secretary to the people's counsel, and not to 
    exceed $5,000 may be used for the employment of expert services by 
    contract or otherwise and without reference to the Classification 
    Act of 1923, as amended.
        Mr. [Vincent L.] Palmisano [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the language on page 7, line 3, after 
    ``$76,000'', beginning with the words ``of which'' and ending with 
    the word ``amended.''. . .
        The Chairman: (16) In the opinion of the Chair, very 
    clearly this is an attempt to impose legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, and the point of order is therefore sustained. 
    . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For general advertising, authorized and required by law, 
        and for tax and school notices and notices of changes in 
        regulations, $9,000: Provided, That this appropriation shall 
        not be available for the payment of advertising in newspapers 
        published outside of the District of Columbia, notwithstanding 
        the requirement for such advertising provided by existing law. 
        . . .

        Amendment by Mr. [Alfred N.] Phillips [Jr., of Connecticut]: On 
    page 11, line 13, after the period, insert two new paragraphs as 
    follows:
        ``For the employment of a secretary to the People's Counsel 
    before the public utilities commission, $1,620.
        ``For the employment of expert aid to the People's Counsel, 
    $5,000.''. . .
        Mr. Palmisano: Mr. Chairman, I made a point of order against 
    the language on page 7, line 13, after the figures ``$76,000'' to 
    the end of the paragraph, which point of order was sustained on the 
    ground that it was legislation in an appropriation bill. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut would restore 
    the language that was stricken out on the point of order; not only 
    that, but we have passed that particular section and the amendment 
    comes too late. . . .

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Maryland bases his point of 
    order on two grounds. . . .
        The second ground raised by the gentleman from Maryland, that 
    the amendment comes too late, and the point of order raised by the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma, that the amendment is not germane to the 
    paragraph offered, the Chair will be forced to sustain.

When Paragraph Is Considered Passed

Sec. 11.11 In reading a general appropriation bill under the

[[Page 5125]]

    five-minute rule, a section or paragraph is considered as having 
    been passed for an amendment when an amendment in the form of a new 
    section or paragraph has been agreed to. On appeal, the Chair's 
    ruling that the adoption of an amendment adding a new paragraph 
    precludes further amendments to the prior paragraph of the bill was 
    sustained.

    On Jan. 23, 1942,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6448, a supplemental appropriation bill for national 
defense. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 88 Cong. Rec. 606, 607, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Tennessee Valley Authority Fund: For an additional amount for 
    the Tennessee Valley Authority fund, fiscal year 1942, for (1) the 
    construction of a hydroelectric project on the French Broad River 
    near Dandridge, Tenn., (2) the purchase or building of transmission 
    facilities needed to connect this project to the existing 
    transmission system of the Authority, and (3) the acquisition of 
    land necessary for and the relocation of highways in connection 
    with the accomplishment of the above project; $30,000,000, to be 
    available for the administrative objects of expenditure and subject 
    to the conditions specified under this heading in the Independent 
    Offices Appropriation Act, 1942.
        Mr. Lambertson rose.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I offer the 
    following amendment, which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Page 4, after 
        line 9, insert:

                             ``Department of State

            ``Transportation Foreign Service: For an additional amount 
        for Transportation, Foreign Service, fiscal year 1942, 
        including the objects specified under this head in the 
        Department of State Appropriation Act, 1942, $800,000.''

        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this 
    amendment is to make provision for a deficiency which was not 
    foreseen, and which has occurred as the result of the declaration 
    of war. We have in all parts of Europe and Asia diplomatic and 
    consular representatives and attaches who must be brought home, 
    together with their families and clerks and office staffs. They 
    have to be shifted as a result of a change in the status brought 
    about by the declaration of war. In the original appropriation 
    there was something in excess of $700,000 in this fund--an amount 
    which would have sufficed under normal conditions, but under recent 
    developments there have been such heavy expenditures that only 
    about $17,000 remains, which is insufficient to carry the Service 
    beyond the 1st of the month. I offer this amendment to make 
    provision for the unexpected deficiency.
        The Chairman: (18) The question is on agreeing to 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. J. Bayard Clark (N.C.).

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

[[Page 5126]]

        The amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. [William P.] Lambertson [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    an amendment at the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lambertson: Page 3, line 22, 
        strike out lines 22, page 3, to and including line 9 on page 4.

        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order 
    that the amendment comes too late. We have passed that paragraph. 
    We have adopted an amendment since the paragraph was read and it is 
    no longer subject to amendment.
        Mr. Lambertson: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet standing alone 
    before the gentleman from Missouri rose. The Chair recognized the 
    gentleman from Missouri, but I had the floor ahead of him.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, it is my 
    impression that the gentleman from Kansas was on his feet, and, 
    seeing that the chairman of the subcommittee rose, he deferred to 
    him to offer an amendment first.
        The Chairman: The chairman of the committee was recognized by 
    the Chair. The Chair asks the gentleman from Missouri if he insists 
    upon his point of order
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I must 
    insist on the point of order.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on 
    the point of order?
        The Chairman: Certainly.
        Mr. Taber: The gentleman from Kansas was on his feet asking for 
    recognition at the time and on top of that the amendment was 
    offered by the gentleman from Missouri, but that would not preclude 
    this amendment from being offered. This is an amendment to strike 
    out the previous paragraph. The amendment that the gentleman from 
    Missouri [Mr. Cannon], added was an amendment adding an additional 
    paragraph.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman did not 
    address the Chair at all. He at no time addressed the Chair until 
    after the Clerk had concluded the reading of the new paragraph and 
    the committee had adopted it.
        Mr. Lambertson: I beg your pardon; I did. I did stand and I did 
    address the Chair. I was standing before he ever started to get up.
        The Chairman: The Chair was aware of the fact that the 
    gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Lambertson] was on his feet, and the 
    Chair would like to overrule the point of order, but feels that 
    technically the point of order is well taken, and it being insisted 
    upon by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the Chair 
    is constrained to sustain the point of order.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I appeal from the decision of the 
    Chair.
        The Chairman: The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair 
    stand as the judgment of the Committee?
        The question was taken; and on a division [demanded by Mr. 
    Taber] there were ayes 75 and noes 62.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed Mr. Cannon of 
    Missouri and Mr. Taber to act as tellers.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported there 
    were ayes 126 and noes 89.

[[Page 5127]]

        So the decision of the Chair was sustained.

Sec. 11.12 If an amendment affects, in part, a paragraph of an 
    appropriation bill not yet read by the Clerk, but no point of order 
    is made against the amendment, it is considered, but further 
    amendments to intervening portions of text that have not been read 
    are not precluded.

    On Apr. 3, 1957,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6287, the Departments of Labor, Health, Education, and 
Welfare, and related agencies appropriation bill. At one point the 
Clerk read as follows, and the proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 103 Cong. Rec. 5018, 5019, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas M.] Pelly [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Aime J. Forand (R.I.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Pelly: I did not understand that the Clerk had read beyond 
    line 17. May I inquire if this amendment includes the figure on 
    line 20?
        The Chairman: The amendment that the gentleman from Louisiana 
    offered was addressed to the language beginning on line 5 but does 
    touch on a sum included in the next paragraph beginning on line 18.
        Mr. Pelly: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk which 
    would apply to line 17. If this amendment were acted on, would that 
    prevent my amendment from being offered at the end of the paragraph 
    which begins on line 5 and ends on line 17?
        The Chairman: The amendment of the gentleman applies to that 
    portion between line 15 and line 17?
        Mr. Pelly: That is correct.
        The Chairman: It would be in order, because the Clerk has not 
    read the next 3 lines, 18, 19, and 20.
        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: May I be heard, Mr. 
    Chairman?
        The Chairman: Yes.
        Mr. Fogarty: It was my understanding that the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Louisiana went down to and included the 
    language at the end of line 20 on page 25.
        The Chairman: The amendment does go down that far, but the 
    Clerk has not read those last three lines.
        Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that 
    further amendments cannot be offered to the language before line 20 
    on page 25, because the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Louisiana [Mr. Hebert] takes in 3 places in the bill and goes down 
    to and including the paragraph ``Salaries and expenses'' where his 
    amendment offers to cut the amount in line 20.
        The Chairman: The statement the gentleman makes is correct, but 
    the fact remains no point of order was made when the amendment was 
    read.
        Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, the point I was trying to make is 
    that there were no objections raised when the amendment was offered 
    and considered down through line 20.
        The Chairman: The portion of the gentleman's amendment having 
    to do

[[Page 5128]]

    with those three lines, lines 18, 19, and 20, can have no effect 
    until those lines are read and then considered.
        Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Fogarty: Is the gentleman's amendment in order when he has, 
    in one amendment, sought to cut three places in the bill, from 
    lines 5 to 20?
        The Chairman: No point of order was raised against it.
        Mr. Fogarty: I thought that would be a concession that those 
    lines had been read, the lines down to and including line 20.
        The Chairman: It is no concession until such time as that 
    portion of the bill is read
        Mr. Pelly: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, if no 
    objection were made, would that preclude the consideration of my 
    amendment which begins on line 17, following the action on the 
    amendment of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hebert]?
        The Chairman: No.

Unanimous Consent To Offer Amendment

Sec. 11.13 An amendment to a paragraph of an appropriation bill which 
    has been passed during the reading of the bill may be offered only 
    by unanimous consent.

    On Apr. 14, 1970,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the education appropriation bill (H.R 19616) 
a point of order was raised against an amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 116 Cong. Rec. 11648, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. See also 118 Cong Rec. 
        21118-22, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., June 15, 1972 (proceedings 
        relating to H.R. 15417).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Marvin L.] Esch [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Esch: Strike out lines 17 and 18 
        on page 3 and insert in lieu thereof the following ``titles I, 
        III, IV (except part F), part E of title V and title VI of the 
        Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, title I, including 
        section''.
            And, on line 2 of page 4, strike out ``$899,880,000'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``$992,100,000''

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on precisely the same grounds. 
    The Clerk has now read past page 4, line 17, ``Community 
    Education.''
        The gentleman was not on his feet. He did not address the 
    Chair. The amendment is clearly out of order.
        Mr. Esch: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet, and as soon as the 
    Clerk read ``higher education'' I said, ``Mr. Chairman.''
        Mr. Chairman, I sincerely object to the fact that I am not 
    given recognition. I was on my feet, having recognized the 
    experience of the previous Member.
        As soon as the Clerk read ``higher education,'' I said ``Mr. 
    Chairman'' twice.
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair would like to protect 
    the gentleman in his

[[Page 5129]]

    rights. If the gentleman did address the Chair, the Chair did not 
    hear the gentleman at that point. The gentleman may make a 
    unanimous-consent request that his amendment be considered although 
    the Clerk had passed it at the time he was recognized by the Chair, 
    and, if there is no objection, the amendment can be considered 
    under those circumstances. Does the gentleman make such a request?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Esch: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my 
    amendment be considered.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Michigan?
        Mr. Flood: Mr. Chairman, I must protect the bill. I am pained, 
    but I must object.
        The Chairman: 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.

Amendment Affecting Previous Line in Paragraph

Sec. 11.14 The pending paragraph of an appropriation bill being read 
    under the five-minute rule is open to amendment at any point; thus, 
    a senior member of the committee reporting the bill may be 
    recognized to offer an amendment, even though an amendment proposed 
    by another Member affects a line occurring earlier in the 
    paragraph.

    On July 23, 1970,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 18515) the following 
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 25635, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk.
        The Chairman: (4) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Jonas: 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.

[[Page 5130]]

        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.

Language Previously Stricken

Sec. 11.15 A point of order having been sustained against an entire 
    paragraph in an appropriation bill, it is in order to offer an 
    amendment at that point in the bill to insert a new paragraph 
    containing the stricken language excepting those provisions which 
    were held in violation of the rules.

    On July 23, 1970,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R 18515), a 
point of order was raised against the following amendment, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 116 Cong. Rec. 25634, 25635, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: on 
    page 38, line 1, insert the following:

                         Office of Economic Opportunity

                          economic opportunity program

            For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
        Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-452, approved 
        August 20, 1964), as amended, $2,046,200,000, plus 
        reimbursements: Provided, That this appropriation shall be 
        available for transfers to the economic opportunity loan fund 
        for loans under title III, and amounts so transferred shall 
        remain available until expended: Provided further, That this 
        appropriation shall be available for the purchase and hire of 
        passenger motor vehicles, and for construction, alteration, and 
        repair of buildings and other facilities, as authorized by 
        section 602 of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964: Provided 
        further, That this appropriation shall not be available for 
        contracts under titles I, II, V, VI, and VIII extending for 
        more than twenty-four months. . . .

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, the point of order against the 
    amendment is that all of the language to which the amendment 
    addresses itself on page 38 of the bill, H.R. 18515, has been 
    stricken.

[[Page 5131]]

        Mr. Chairman, there is no way that we can amend something that 
    is not before the House.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) has 
    offered a separate amendment to insert a new paragraph, and the 
    amendment is in order.
        The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) is recognized for 5 
    minutes in support of his amendment.

Changing Figures in Bill

Sec. 11.16 To a bill making appropriations for the District of Columbia 
    that were to be chargeable against revenues of the District for the 
    ensuing fiscal year, an amendment increasing the amount of the 
    appropriation for certain items included in the bill was held to be 
    in order.

    On June 14, 1954,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriations bill 
(H.R. 9517), which made appropriations for the government of the 
District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in 
part against the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1955, a point of order was raised against an amendment, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 100 Cong. Rec. 8191, 8192, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Dewitt S.] Hyde [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hyde:
            On page 22, line 20, strike out ``$1,124,365'' and insert 
        in lieu thereof ``$1,393,665.''
            On page 22, line 20, strike out ``$135,406'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$404,706.''

        Mr. [Earl] Wilson of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation 
    upon an appropriation bill. There is no authority of law for the 
    District of Columbia to enter into a new activity of this kind, and 
    a new business venture. Therefore, the subcommittee saw fit to 
    eliminate that from the bill, and I make a point of order against 
    it.
        The Chairman: (8) Permit the Chair to make this 
    statement. The amendment, which is before the Committee and which 
    the Chair now has before him, simply increases the amount of money 
    in the bill. Does the gentleman from Indiana make a point of order 
    against increasing the amount of money in the bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. J. Harry McGregor (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wilson of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression 
    that it was for the purpose of starting the District of Columbia in 
    the parking business. If I may reserve my point of order until the 
    gentleman explains what the purpose of his amendment is, of course 
    I will be in a better position to speak against it. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I still insist on the point of order on the 
    ground that the appropriation is not authorized by law.
        The Chairman: The Chair is of the opinion that if the money is 
    unauthorized it is ineffective. The Chair is also

[[Page 5132]]

    of the opinion that the money can be used only for the items 
    included in the bill and as authorized by law.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: If a ceiling had been specified on total 
authorized expenditures, an amendment which had the effect of exceeding 
that total would not have been permitted. The amounts added to the 
appropriation here did not cause a specific authorized total to be 
exceeded, and the Chair took the view that the increase in the 
appropriation would apply only to items included in the bill and 
already authorized.

Sec. 11.17 Where the House has adopted an amendment changing a figure 
    in an appropriation bill, it is not in order to further amend such 
    figure.

    On Mar. 11, 1942,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6736. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 88 Cong. Rec. 2270, 2272, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cochran: On page 7, line 5, after 
        the word ``law'', strike out ``$144,973,700'' and insert 
        ``$128,273,700.''

        (The amendment was adopted.)
        Mr. [James] Domengeaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    the following amendment, which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 7, line 5, strike out ``$144,973,700'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$145,933,700.''

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that there has been a 
    change already in this figure and another change cannot be 
    considered.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman is correct. The 
    figure cannot now be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.18 Where a figure in an appropriation bill has been agreed to 
    (and hence cannot be altered by an amendment proposing a further 
    change in amount), an amendment inserted following the figure 
    agreed upon and providing funds ``in addition thereto'' is in order 
    if authorized.

    On June 5, 1959,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7509, a bill making appropriations for the civil 
functions administered by the Department of the Army. The Clerk read as 
follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 105 Cong. Rec. 10057, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. (Fred) Wampler [of Indiana]: On page 
    21, line

[[Page 5133]]

    7, after the amount shown add the following: ``And in addition 
    $52,000 for the following projects: Sugar Creek, West Terre Haute, 
    Clinton, and Conover Levee.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    language has been once amended.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York must have 
    misunderstood the reading of the amendment, because it follows the 
    amount and does not alter the amount.

        The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes in 
    support of his amendment.

Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 11.19 Where an appropriation bill is being read by paragraphs, a 
    subsitute for several paragraphs of the bill may be offered to the 
    first paragraph modified by the amendment only if notice is given 
    that, if the amendment is agreed to, motions will be made 
    subsequently to strike out the remaining paragraphs affected 
    thereby.

    On July 29, 1969,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 13111, a Departments of Labor and Health, Education, 
and Welfare appropriation bill. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 21217, 21218, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: 
        On page 25 strike out line 9 and all that follows on page 25 
        and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            ``For carrying out titles II, III, V, VII, and section 807 
        of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 
        amended, section 402 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
        Admendments of 1967, and title III-A and V-A of the National 
        Defense Education Act of 1958, $254,163,000. . . . ''

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that the paragraph which it amends has not 
    yet been read. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, when the amendment was offered, the Clerk had 
    finished reading the paragraph which begins on line 9, page 25, and 
    concludes on line 24, page 25.
        At that point amendments to that paragraph were in order. But 
    the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois does not change so 
    much as a comma in that paragraph; it repeats it absolutely 
    verbatim. It is not an amendment to that paragraph. It is only in 
    subsequent paragraphs that any amendment is made.

[[Page 5134]]

        I would make the point of order, Mr. Chairman, that the 
    gentleman from Illinois will have to wait until that paragraph is 
    read before he can offer an amendment to it.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman from Illinois 
    on the point of order.
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, I submit that really all I am doing 
    is adding to the first paragraph; therefore, it is very much in 
    order.
        The Chairman: The Chair has considered the arguments both for 
    and against the point of order. The Chair sees no inconsistency in 
    the gentleman's amendment repeating the paragraph on page 26 which 
    the Clerk had not yet read. It is a different paragraph, but the 
    Chair feels that the following paragraph can be consolidated with 
    an amendment to the total paragraph. . . .
        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, under the rules of the House, when a 
    bill is to be read by paragraph and a Member wishes to amend a 
    paragraph that has been read and several succeeding paragraphs he 
    is permitted to offer an amendment at the time the first of those 
    paragraphs is read that he wants to amend and then at the same time 
    give notice that if his amendment, which goes beyond the first 
    paragraph and into several others, is adopted he will move to 
    strike the succeeding paragraphs.
        In the first place, the gentleman from Illinois gave no such 
    notice, but let us not dwell on that. Let us dwell on the danger of 
    upholding the amendment he is offering.
        The gentleman from Illinois, I am sure, will agree that he 
    makes no change whatsoever in the paragraph just read; absolutely 
    no change.
        If the Chair is going to hold that one can offer an amendment 
    at any place one wants in the bill in order to get a provision that 
    comes a page later, or two pages later, or 10 pages later--and that 
    is what he has done; he has offered an amendment here that changes 
    nothing but gets at something on the next page--and if we are going 
    to say that the precedents of this House say one can offer an 
    amendment any place and repeat some language until it gets to the 
    thing he wants to amend, we are heading for legislative chaos, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        I believe this is a very serious problem, and I most earnestly 
    ask the Chair to carefully consider his ruling, because otherwise 
    it might be possible to offer an amendment to repeat the language 
    for the next 25 pages until it gets to the things one seeks to 
    change. I believe it is terribly important that this amendment be 
    considered out of order, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair is 
    presented with a most difficult ruling at this time. He has 
    resorted to a precedent in ``Hinds' Precedent,'' volume V, page 
    404, paragraph 5795, which reads as follows:

            When it is proposed to offer a single substitute for 
        several paragraphs of a bill which is being considered by 
        paragraphs, the substitute may be moved to the first paragraph 
        with notice that if it be agreed to, motions will be made to 
        strike out the remaining paragraphs.

        The Chair notes that the gentleman from Illinois did not give 
    such notice. The amendment goes beyond the para

[[Page 5135]]

    graph which has been read and in effect modifies a paragraph which 
    has not yet been read.
        The Chairman, therefore, sustains the point of order.
        The amendment in the form in which it is offered is not in 
    order.

Sec. 11.20 Where an amendment in the nature of a substitute for several 
    paragraphs of an appropriation bill has been agreed to and notice 
    has been given that motions would be made to strike out ensuing 
    paragraphs of the bill as read, the paragraphs are subject to 
    perfecting amendments while such motions to strike are pending.

    On June 15, 1972, during consideration of the Departments of Labor 
and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (15) 
Mr. William D. Hathaway, of Maine, offered an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute, as follows: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 15417.
16. 118 Cong. Rec. 21106, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hathaway: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the 
    paragraph of the bill just read which is a single substitute for 
    several paragraphs of the bill dealing with the Office of 
    Education, and I hereby give notice that if the amendment is agreed 
    to I will make motions to strike out the remaining paragraphs 
    beginning with line 14 on page 19 and extending through and 
    including line 17 on page 21.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hathaway: On page 19, strike out 
        lines 6 through 13 and substitute in lieu thereof: . . .

    The amendment was agreed to.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 21118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently,(18) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 21119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hathaway: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the paragraph 
    beginning on line 16, page 20, and extending down through line 8 on 
    page 21.
        The Chairman: (19) Without objection, the motion is 
    agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman reserving the 
    right to object, I would like to make a parliamentary inquiry.
        . . . I have an amendment at the desk which would, on page 21, 
    line 1, strike out the words after ``1974'' down through the word 
    ``Act'' on line 3. Is it possible to offer that amendment now that 
    the Hathaway amendment has been adopted?
        The Chairman: It is possible.
        Mr. Quie: Mr. Chairman, I offer that amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Quie:
            On page 21, line 1, strike out all that follows after 
        ``1974'' through the word ``Act'' on line 3.

        The Chairman: The Chair was of the impression that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Maine had been agreed to, 
    striking out the

[[Page 5136]]

    paragraph to which the amendment is offered. . . .
        Mr. Quie: In my copy of the Hathaway amendment it was not 
    stricken out. If that is correct, the Hathaway amendment would put 
    a period after ``1974'' on line 1 and strike out the rest. It was 
    my understanding the Hathaway amendment put a period after the word 
    ``Act'' on line 3 and struck out the proviso, which is the rest of 
    line 3 down through line 8.

    It then appeared that the Chairman had not heard Mr. Quie's 
reservation of objection. The following exchange occurred:

        The Chairman: The Chair would have to rule that the gentleman 
    rose too late. The motion had been offered by Mr. Hathaway, and 
    there was no objection and it was acceded to.
        Mr. Quie: Mr. Chairman, the Chair asked if there was any 
    objection, and I reserved the right to object, which I am still 
    reserving, and on that I asked my parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The Chair must state that the Chair did not hear 
    the gentleman say he was reserving the right to object on the 
    Hathaway motion. . . .
        The Chair will recognize the gentleman on the basis of his 
    statement which the Chair did not hear.
        The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Minnesota.

    Further objection was made to the Quie amendment, however: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 118 Cong. Rec. 21119, 21120, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, my point 
    of order is that the committee has just agreed to this.
        The Chairman: The committee has agreed to what?
        Mr. Flood: The position taken by my friend, the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Quie). I have here, for instance, that we voted not 
    to exceed $18 million for research and training, under part C of 
    said 1963 act. Now I had the clear impression, I am sorry to say, 
    that the committee just agreed to this. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the first amendment 
    offered by Mr. Hathaway on page 19, was to the paragraph beginning 
    on line 7 and that amendment was a substitute amendment, and was 
    agreed to.
        Now we still have to read each one of the paragraphs of the 
    bill duplicated or modified by the Hathaway amendment, and a 
    perfecting amendment to those paragraphs is in order even though a 
    motion to strike out is first offered.
        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is if a motion to 
    strike has been made, is it not then out of order to try to amend 
    the paragraph that the motion to strike applies to?
        The Chairman: The Chair would have to rule that a perfecting 
    amendment is in order although a motion to strike is pending. 
    Therefore the Chair rules that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Quie) is in order on the basis that 
    it is

[[Page 5137]]

    a perfecting amendment to the paragraph to which the motion to 
    strike is pending.

Separate Votes in House on Amendments

Sec. 11.21 Separate votes have been demanded on amendments adopted in 
    the Committee of the Whole.

    On Apr. 4, 1957,(1) H.R. 6287, the Departments of Labor 
and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriation bill was being 
considered in the House after amendments had been adopted in the 
Committee of the Whole. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated: 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 103 Cong. Rec. 5162, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. Note: The Committee on Appropriations furnished printed forms 
        containing all 18 amendments to the bill adopted in the 
        Committee of the Whole, with further pertinent information. 
        Fourteen rollcalls occurred in one day with respect to such 
        amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The unfinished business is the further consideration of the 
    bill H.R. 6287, which the Clerk will report by title.
        [The Clerk read the title of the bill.]
        Separate votes having been demanded on all amendments adopted 
    in the Committee of the Whole, the Clerk will report the first 
    amendment on which a separate vote was demanded.

Recommittal of Bill With Instructions

Sec. 11.22 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a 
    bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting 
    clause be stricken and that the bill be recommitted to the 
    Committee on Appropriations with instructions was held not to be in 
    order in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Apr. 3, 1957,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6287, the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, 
and Welfare appropriation bill. The Clerk read a motion as follows, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 103 Cong. Rec. 5013, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman moves that the Committee do now rise, report the 
    bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting 
    clause be stricken and that the bill be recommitted to the 
    Committee on Appropriations with instructions that it be reported 
    back to the House within 5 days with amendments which will indicate 
    the places and amounts in the budget where the committee believes, 
    in view of the statements made in the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the State of the Union, that substantial reductions may best be 
    made and will meet the views of the House with the least 
    curtailment

[[Page 5138]]

    of efficient administration by the Departments affected.
        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on the motion. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island care to be heard on the point of order? The Chair is ready 
    to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, as I remember the reading of the 
    motion, there is a matter of wording contained therein that is not 
    permissible under the rules governing procedure in the Committee of 
    the Whole, but would be allowed under the rules of procedure in the 
    House.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard?
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I want 
    to point out that there is a precedent for the motion and the rules 
    cite a precedent where that motion has been held to be proper in 
    the Committee
        The Chairman: The Chair is not familiar with that precedent, 
    but the rules of the House provide that certain language contained 
    in the motion made by the gentleman from Michigan could be 
    entertained in the Committee of the Whole, but the balance of the 
    motion would only be appropriate in the House. For that reason, the 
    Chair sustains the point of order

    Parliamentarian's Note: While the motion that the Committee rise 
and report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
bill be recommitted may be in order when the bill is being considered 
under the general rules of the House (see 4 Hinds' Precedents 
Sec. Sec. 4761, 4762; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2329), it is not in 
order in the form presented above (where inconsistent motions are 
joined) nor is it in order when a bill is being considered under a 
special rule (see 96 Cong. Rec. 12219, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 10, 
1950).

Sec. 11.23 On occasion a general appropriation bill has been 
    recommitted with instructions to report back forthwith with an 
    amendment; the bill has then been so reported, the amendment agreed 
    to, the bill again ordered engrossed and read a third time, and the 
    bill passed, in that order.

    On June 8, 1945,(5) during consideration in the House of 
H.R. 3368, a war agencies appropriation bill, the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 91 Cong. Rec. 5832, 5833, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 97 Cong. 
        Rec. 6533, 6534, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., June 13, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (6) The question is on the engrossment 
    and third reading of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and 
    was read the third time.

[[Page 5139]]

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
    to recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Taber: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Taber moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
        Appropriations with instructions to report the same back 
        forthwith with an amendment reducing the Office of War 
        Information by $17,000,000, to apply to the estimates for 
        activities in Europe and the United States.

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
    previous question on the motion to recommit
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit.
        The question was taken; and the Chair being in doubt, the House 
    divided, and there were--ayes 120, noes 108.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and 
    nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 133, nays 128, not 
    voting 166. . . .
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the 
    instructions of the House, I now report back to the House the bill 
    H.R. 3368, the war agencies appropriation bill, with the amendment 
    incorporated in the motion to recommit, and with the recommendation 
    that the amendment be agreed to and the bill as amended do pass.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            [Amendment reducing the Office of War Information by 
        $17,000,000, to apply to the estimates for activities in Europe 
        and the United States.]

        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
    question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third 
    reading of the bill.
        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and 
    was read the third time.
        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and 
    nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 252, nays 2, not 
    voting 178. . . .
        So the bill was passed.

Sec. 11.24 A deficiency appropriation bill has been recommitted with 
    instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment.

    On Apr. 1, 1948,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6055. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings 
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 94 Cong. Rec. 3994, 3995, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri) moves to recommit the bill 
    to

[[Page 5140]]

    the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the 
    bill back forthwith with an amendment as follows:
        On page 10, line 7, strike out ``$300,000,000'' and insert in 
    lieu thereof ``$400,000,000.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
    previous question on the motion to recommit.
        The previous question was ordered.
        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 199, nays 154, not 
    voting 78. . . .
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the instructions of 
    the House, I report the bill back with an amendment which is at the 
    desk.
        The Speaker: (8) The Clerk will read the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 10, line 7, strike out ``$300,000,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$400,000,000.''

        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.

Reduction of Total Appropriation

Sec. 11.25 The House has agreed to a motion to recommit an 
    appropriation bill with instructions to the Committee on 
    Appropriations to report back forthwith with an amendment reducing 
    the total appropriation to a figure not to exceed 95 percent of the 
    budget estimates.

    On July 18, 1967,(9) during consideration in the House 
of H.R. 11456, a Department of Transportation appropriation bill, the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 113 Cong. Rec. 19273-75, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:
        Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin] moves to recommit the bill 
    to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to that 
    committee to report it back forthwith with the following amendment: 
    On page 18, immediately following line 15, insert a new section as 
    follows:

            ``Sec. 702. Money appropriated in this Act shall be 
        available for expenditure in the fiscal year ending June 30, 
        1968, only to the extent that expenditure thereof shall not 
        result in total aggregate net expenditures of all agencies 
        provided for herein beyond 95 per centum of the total aggregate 
        net expenditures estimated therefor in the budget for 1968 (H. 
        Doc 15).''

        The Speaker: (10) Without objection, the previous 
    question is ordered on the motion to recommit
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand 
    the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.

[[Page 5141]]

        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 213, nays 188, not 
    voting 30. . . .
        So the motion to recommit was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, 
    pursuant to the instructions of the House, in the motion to 
    recommit, I report back the bill H.R. 11456 with an amendment.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            On page 18, immediately following line 15, insert a new 
        section as follows:
            ``Sec. 702. Money appropriated in this Act shall be 
        available for expenditure in the fiscal year ending June 30, 
        1968, only to the extent that expenditure thereof shall not 
        result in total aggregate net expenditures of all agencies 
        provided for herein beyond 95 percent of the total aggregate 
        net expenditures estimated therefor in the budget for 1968 (H. 
        Doc 15).''

        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.

Sec. 11.26 A motion to recommit an appropriation bill with instructions 
    to the committee to reduce the amount of the appropriation by $50 
    million is in order; but the committee, if the motion is adopted, 
    may not report the bill back to the House with an amendment 
    proposing a change in the amendments adopted by the House.

    On May 15, 1939,(11) the House was considering H.R 6260, 
a War Department civil functions appropriation bill. The Clerk read as 
follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 84 Cong. Rec. 5535, 5536, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [D. Lane] Powers [of New Jersey] moves to recommit the bill 
    to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the 
    same back forthwith with amendments reducing the total amount of 
    the bill $50,000,000
        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the motion to recommit undertakes to do 
    indirectly what cannot be done directly.
        The amount carried in this bill, with these amendments, totals 
    $305,000,000. Part of it is for the Panama Canal, part for 
    cemeterial expense, part for the Signal Corps and Alaskan 
    Communications Commission, part for rivers and harbors, part for 
    flood control, and part for the United States Soldiers' Home. Of 
    the amount of $305,000,000, $277,000,000 is for rivers and harbors 
    and flood control, leaving only $28,000,000 for all of these other 
    governmental activities. A reduction of $50,000,000 would take away 
    a large part of the money carried in the two amendments voted in 
    the House last Wednesday. A motion to recommit to do this cannot be 
    done. This motion to recommit attempts to do indirectly what cannot 
    be done directly. It proposes a second vote on the same 
    propositions that were voted on last

[[Page 5142]]

    Wednesday, therefore is subject to a point of order.
        The Speaker: (12) The Chair may state, in connection 
    with the point of order made by the gentleman from Mississippi, 
    that the Chair understands the purpose of the motion to recommit, 
    one motion to recommit always being in order after the third 
    reading, is to give to those Members opposed to the bill an 
    opportunity to have an expression of opinion by the House upon 
    their proposition. It is true that under the precedents it is not 
    in order by way of a motion to recommit to propose an amendment to 
    an amendment previously adopted by the House, but the motion now 
    pending does not specifically propose to instruct the Committee on 
    Appropriations to do that. The Chair is inclined to the opinion 
    that the motion to recommit in the form here presented is not 
    subject to a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair overrules the point of order. . . .

        Mr. [Dewey] Short [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, the motion is 
    simply to reduce the bill $50,000,000.
        The Speaker: The Chair understands the rule to be that the 
    House can adopt a motion to recommit with instructions to reduce 
    the amount of the appropriation by $50,000,000, but the committee, 
    if this motion should be adopted, could not report the bill back to 
    the House with an amendment proposing a change in the amendments 
    adopted by the House.

Prohibition on Use of Appropriations

Sec. 11.27 The House has agreed to a recommittal motion which sought a 
    prohibition on the use of funds in a supplemental appropriation 
    bill (providing funds for the Department of Agriculture) to finance 
    the export of agricultural commodities to the United Arab Republic.

    On Jan. 26, 1965,(13) the House was considering House 
Joint Resolution 234. The Clerk read a motion to recommit and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 1194, 1195, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois] moves to recommit House 
    Joint Resolution 234 to the Committee on Appropriations with 
    instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith with 
    the following amendment: On page 2, line 13, strike the period at 
    the end of the sentence and insert the following: ``: Provided, 
    That no part of this appropriation shall be used during the fiscal 
    year 1965 to finance the export of any agricultural commodity to 
    the United Arab Republic under the provisions of title I of such 
    Act.''
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: (14) The question is on the motion to 
    recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, on that I ask for the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 204, nays 177, not 
    voting 53. . . .
        So the motion to recommit was agreed to. . . .

[[Page 5143]]

        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the 
    instructions of the House, I report back to the House, House Joint 
    Resolution 234, with an amendment.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the amendment. . . .
        The question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third 
    reading of the joint resolution.
        The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a 
    third time, and was read the third time.
        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the joint 
    resolution.
        The joint resolution was passed.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Sec. 11.28 The House adopted an amendment, reported pursuant to a 
    recommittal motion, to prohibit the use of appropriations in the 
    bill to administer any program for the sale of agricultural 
    commodities to nations that sell supplies to North Vietnam.

    On Apr. 26, 1966,(15) during consideration in the House 
of H.R. 14596, a Department of Agriculture appropriation bill, the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 112 Cong. Rec. 8972, 8973, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois] moves that the bill be 
        recommitted to the Committee on Appropriations with 
        instructions to report it back forthwith with the following 
        amendment: On page 36, on line 6 strike the period, insert a 
        colon and the following:
            ``Provided, That no funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
        used to formulate or administer programs for the sale of 
        agricultural commodities pursuant to title I or IV of Public 
        Law 480, Eighty-third Congress, as amended, to any nation which 
        sells or furnishes or which permits ships or aircraft under its 
        registry to transport to North Vietnam any equipment, 
        materials, or commodities, so long as North Vietnam is governed 
        by a Communist regime.''

        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: (16) The question is on the motion to 
    recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Findley: Mr. Speaker, on this vote I demand the yeas and 
    nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 290, nays, 98, not 
    voting 44. . . .
        So the motion to recommit was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant 
    to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I 
    report back the bill H.R. 14596 with an amendment.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the amendment. . . .
        The question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third 
    reading of the bill.
        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and 
    was read the third time.

[[Page 5144]]

        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 366, nays 23, not 
    voting 43.

Enrollment of Appropriation Bills

Sec. 11.29 Set out below is the form of a concurrent resolution 
    providing that in the enrollment of general appropriation bills 
    enacted during the remainder of a session the Clerk of the House 
    may correct chapter, title, and section numbers.

    On July 4, 1952,(17) Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, by 
unanimous consent, submitted the following concurrent resolution (H. 
Con. Res. 239]:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H. Jour. 746, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That in the enrollment of general appropriation bills 
    enacted during the remainder of the second session of the Eighty-
    second Congress the Clerk of the House may correct chapter, title, 
    and section numbers.

    The concurrent resolution was considered and agreed to. A motion to 
reconsider the vote whereby the concurrent resolution was agreed to 
was, by unanimous consent, laid on the table.