[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[A. Generally]
[Â§ 1. Introductory; Definitions; Form]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6535-6575]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
                              A. GENERALLY
 
Sec. 1. Introductory; Definitions; Form



    Rule XIX (1) states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 822 (101st Cong.). The ``motion to 
        amend'' is one of the motions permitted by Rule XVI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        When a motion or proposition is under consideration a motion to 
    amend and a motion to amend that amendment shall be in order, and 
    it shall also be in order to offer a further amendment by way of 
    substitute, to which one amendment may be offered, but which shall 
    not be voted on until the original matter is perfected, but either 
    may be withdrawn before amendment or decision is had thereon. 
    Amendments to the title of a bill or resolution shall not be in 
    order until after its passage, and shall be decided without debate.

    In the amending process,(2) the four stages of 
amendments are offered and considered in the order prescribed by the 
rules and practice of the House and Committee of the 
Whole.(3) Strict rules govern the order in which the above 
amendments may be considered, and the forms of amendment that are 
permitted to be pending at any one time.(4) The amendment to 
the original text must, of course, be offered first, and generally only 
one amendment to the text may be pending at any one time. Once that 
amendment is offered, however, the other three forms of amendment 
described above may be offered and all four amendments may be pending 
at one time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. This chapter discusses the amendment process generally, including 
        significant recent rulings through 1986. Related topics treated 
        elsewhere include the requirement of germaneness of amendments 
        (see Ch. 28, infra) and amendments between the Houses (see Ch. 
        32, infra). For earlier coverage of the subject of amendments 
        generally, see 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5753-5800; 8 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2824-2907a.
 3. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 15-18, 23-26, infra.
 4. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 5, 6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Provisions of Section XXXV of Jefferson's Manual (5) 
govern motions to strike and to strike out and insert, with the 
exception that Rule XVI clause 7 of the

[[Page 6536]]

House Rules specifically provides that ``a motion to strike out being 
lost shall neither preclude amendments nor a motion to strike out and 
insert.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 468, 469 (101st Cong.). For 
        further discussion of these motions, see, for example, 
        Sec. Sec. 16, 17, 24, and 31, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment frequently referred to in this chapter is an 
``amendment in the nature of a substitute.'' This type of amendment 
should be distinguished from a substitute amendment. A substitute 
amendment (6) is merely a substitute for another amendment 
that has been offered. An amendment in the nature of a substitute, on 
the other hand, most often describes an amendment which would replace 
the entire text of a bill or resolution, although the term has also 
been used, less accurately, to describe amendments replacing a 
substantial portion--such as an entire section or title--of a pending 
bill.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See, for example, Sec. 18, infra.
 7. See, for example, Sec. 12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment in the nature of a substitute is basically, in form, a 
``motion to strike out and insert.'' But it should be pointed out that, 
in cases where a ``motion to strike out and insert'' affects less than 
the whole of a pending bill or resolution, the motion cannot be 
properly characterized as an amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
As used in this chapter, the term ``motion to strike out and insert'' 
usually has reference to an ordinary perfecting amendment which affects 
only a portion of the text being amended.
    Frequently, as by special rule, an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute may be considered as an original text for purposes of 
amendment and does not fall within the limitation described above with 
respect to the number of amendments that may be pending at one time.
    Many technical rules and procedures affect the manner in which 
amendments may be offered, debated, and voted upon. Points of order may 
lie against amendments that do not conform to established rules and 
practice. Such points of order against amendments may be based on any 
of several grounds. For example, an amendment may be barred if it 
violates the ``germaneness'' rule (8) or if it violates the 
prohibition against inclusion of legislative provisions in 
appropriation bills.(9) or of appropriations in legislative 
bills.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Ch. 28, infra.
 9. See Ch. 26, supra.
10. See Ch. 25, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The procedural aspects of making a point of order against an 
amendment, and the timeliness of points of order, are discussed in 
another chapter.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Ch. 31, infra.

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

[[Page 6537]]

    Generally, a point of order against a proposed amendment comes too 
late after debate on the amendment has begun, unless the Member making 
the point of order was on his feet, seeking recognition to make the 
point of order, prior to commencement of such debate.
    If a point of order is sustained against an amendment, the entire 
amendment is ruled out, although only a portion of such amendment be 
not in order. Similarly, where a portion of a section of a bill is out 
of order, the entire section is rejected if the point of order is 
directed against the entire section. It is, however, in order to offer 
an amendment reinserting that part of the section which would otherwise 
have been in order.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. For a discussion of the effects of sustaining a point of order 
        against an amendment generally, see Ch. 31, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fact that no point of order was made against one amendment does 
not, of course, preclude such points of order against subsequent 
amendments.
    Pursuant to the House rules,(13) the Chair or any Member 
may require that an amendment be reduced to writing before being 
offered. Upon the offering of any amendment in Committee of the Whole, 
the Clerk transmits copies thereof to the majority and the minority in 
accordance with the House rules,(14)) although the failure 
of the Clerk to promptly transmit such copies is not the basis for a 
point of order against the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Rule XVI clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 775 (101st Cong.).
14. See Rule XXIII clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 (101st 
        Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair does not respond to a parliamentary inquiry as to the 
effect of an amendment,(15) and does not rule on the 
constitutionality of an amendment.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See 124 Cong. Rec. 23725, 95th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 1, 1978 
        (parliamentary inquiry was made as to whether a substitute 
        amendment was identical to another amendment, except for a 
        specified addition).
16. See 124 Cong. Rec. 23730, 95th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 1, 
        1978.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requirement as to Writing

Sec. 1.1 Where there was pending an amendment and a substitute 
    therefor, the Chair indicated that amendments to the substitute 
    would be in order if offered in writing or if offered verbally by 
    unanimous consent.

    Under Rule XVI clause 1,(17) he Chair may demand that a 
Mem

[[Page 6538]]

ber's motion be reduced to writing. The operation of clauses 1 and 2 of 
that rule, governing requirements as to reducing motions to writing and 
the reading or stating of motions, was illustrated in the proceedings 
of Oct. 16, 1973.(18) On that date, while there was pending 
an amendment and a substitute for the amendment, the following exchange 
took place (after an amendment to the amendment had been agreed to) 
with respect to a proposed amendment to the substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 775 (101st Cong.).
18. 119 Cong. Rec. 34336, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 9681 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard W.] Mallary [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, at this 
    point it would be important, I believe, since the same deficiency 
    exists in the substitute offered by the gentleman from Indiana, I 
    would move to amend the substitute in the manner in which the 
    amendment just acted on is worded.
        The Chairman: (19) An amendment to the substitute 
    would be in order, but it has to be in writing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Charles H. Wilson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mallary: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Clerk would be 
    willing to use the language in the amendment to the amendment in 
    order to make the correction. In view of the vote on the amendment, 
    I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment of the 
    gentleman from Indiana be amended as we have just amended the 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the Zion amendment as 
    proposed to be amended.

    The Chair at this point responded to a parliamentary inquiry by 
describing the status of the pending amendments and the order of voting 
thereon. He then permitted Mr. Mallary to offer his amendment to the 
language of the substitute by unanimous consent, and such amendment to 
the substitute was agreed to.

Sec. 1.2 Amendments must be reduced to writing on demand.

    On Feb. 10, 1964,(20) the Chair refused to put the 
question on agreeing to a unanimous-consent request to amend a bill at 
several points and advised the Member to send the amendment to the desk 
in writing. During consideration of H.R. 7152, the Civil Rights Act of 
1963, Mrs. Frances P. Bolton, of Ohio, had sought to offer multiple 
amendments by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 110 Cong. Rec. 2718, 2719, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] McCulloch [of Ohio]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Mrs. Frances P. 
    Bolton].
        Mrs. Frances P. Bolton: Mr. Chairman, on Saturday there was 
    considerable confusion, as all will admit.
        When the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] so graciously 
    offered the

[[Page 6539]]

    amendment to include the word ``sex'' there was an omission, by 
    mistake I am sure, in regard to two principal areas of the title.
        On line 18, page 68, after the word ``religion'' there was an 
    omission of adding the word ``sex.'' That is the hiring and firing 
    area which, after all, was the reason we sought the change. The 
    other omission was on page 69, line 5, after the word ``religion.''
        I hope that the House will wish to remedy the omissions by 
    unanimous consent. . . .
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: I just want to say, in the 
    hurry of preparing that amendment, I went through the title pretty 
    thoroughly, and I thought I did have the word ``sex'' inserted 
    wherever the categories occurred. It was a mistake on my part in 
    overlooking that, and I very much hope that the gentlewoman's 
    amendment will be accepted.
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. McCulloch: I yield to the gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Celler: In order to have the amendment considered properly, 
    I think you may have to add the word ``sex'' on line 3, page 69, 
    and also on line 5 of page 69.
        Mrs. Frances P. Bolton: I have it on line 5. I do not have it 
    on line 3. I will be very happy to, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, on page 77 there is a committee 
    amendment that would also require the addition of the word ``sex.''
        Mrs. Frances P. Bolton: Will the gentleman add that, too, then?
        Mr. Celler: Will the gentlewoman repeat the words on page 69 
    where the word ``sex'' is added?
        Mrs. Frances P. Bolton: On page 68, line 18, after ``religion'' 
    and on page 69, as the gentleman suggests, on line 3 after 
    ``religion'' and on line 5 after ``religion'' and then, I believe, 
    as the gentleman suggested, on line 10 on page 77 and on line 17.
        Mr. Celler: And you will add it on page 77 in the committee 
    amendment?
        Mrs. Frances P. Bolton: Yes, that will be added. . . .
        Mr. [Charles E.] Goodell [of New York]: I wonder if the 
    gentlewoman would not intend that the requirement for no 
    discrimination against an individual on the basis of sex would also 
    be subject to a bona fide occupational qualification exception. 
    Would she not accept adding the word ``sex'' on page 70, lines 7 
    and 8, after the words ``national origin'' and on page 71 in two 
    instances on line 7. There are so many instances where the matter 
    of sex is a bona fide occupational qualification. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The time of the gentleman from 
    Ohio [Mr. McCulloch] has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will state that there is no request before the 
    Committee at the moment.
        Mrs. Frances P. Bolton: Mr. Chairman, there is the unanimous-
    consent request that those words be added.
        The Chairman: Will the gentlewoman from Ohio send up the 
    request so that the Clerk may report it?
        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 6540]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, was the unanimous-consent request of 
    the gentlewoman from Ohio agreed to or was there objection?
        The Chairman: The Chair will inform the gentleman from New York 
    that the unanimous-consent request of the gentlewoman from Ohio has 
    not been reduced to writing. The Chair did not have the unanimous-
    consent request put during the course of the colloquy between the 
    gentleman from Ohio and the gentlewoman from Ohio.
        The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Mississippi [Mr. Colmer].

Sec. 1.3 A Member's request for time to put his amendment in writing 
    was objected to.

    On July 27, 1939,(2) he following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 84 Cong. Rec. 10251, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        S. 2697, to facilitate execution of arrangements for exchange 
        of surplus U.S. agricultural commodities for reserve stocks and 
        strategic materials produced abroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (3) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Martin].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John J. Sparkman (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Kerr [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the gentleman's amendment that after the words 
    ``New England'' insert ``and North Carolina,'' and I will not ask 
    to be heard on the amendment to the amendment.
        Mr. August H. Andresen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. August H. Andresen: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order 
    that the amendment is not in proper form, not having been submitted 
    in writing.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.
        Mr. Kerr: I will reduce it to writing.
        The Chairman: The time has come to vote on the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Kerr: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may have 
    time within which to put my amendment in writing.
        Mr. Bolles and Mr. Andrews objected.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Crawford), there were--ayes 148, noes 109.
        So the amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Under the rule the Committee rises.

Amending Resolution From Committee on Rules; Debate

Sec. 1.4 An amendment to the body of a resolution reported by the 
    Committee on Rules is properly offered by the Member handling the 
    rule before the previous question is moved.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sec. 14.2, infra.

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

[[Page 6541]]

Sec. 1.5 A resolution reported by the Committee on Rules may not be 
    amended unless the Member in charge yields for that purpose or the 
    previous question is voted down, nor is an amendment offered by the 
    Member in charge subject to amendment unless he yields for that 
    purpose.

    On Sept. 14, 1951,(5) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 97 Cong. Rec. 11394, 11397, 82d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H. Res. 386, an amendment to the rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I would 
    like to inquire, as a parliamentary inquiry, whether or not this 
    resolution would be subject to amendment if an amendment were 
    offered for and on behalf of the Rules Committee.
        The Speaker: (6) The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Lyle] 
    has control of the time. The gentleman from Texas can offer an 
    amendment before he moves the previous question. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: But unless the gentleman 
    from Texas does offer such an amendment the only way we could have 
    an opportunity would be to vote down the previous question.
        The Speaker: That would be correct. . . .
        Mr. Lyle: Mr. Speaker, I now offer the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Is an amendment to the amendment in 
    order?
        The Speaker: Not unless the gentleman from Texas yields for 
    that purpose.

Sec. 1.6 Resolutions reported by the Committee on Rules providing for 
    investigations are debated under the hour rule, and are subject to 
    amendment if the previous question is rejected.

    On Apr. 8, 1937,(7) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 81 Cong. Rec. 3283-90, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, this resolution 
    and the one to follow it, the Dies resolution, provide for the 
    appointment of investigating committees. . . . My inquiry is, Will 
    there be opportunity to read the resolutions section by section and 
    to offer amendments to them?
        The Speaker: (8) he resolution is being considered 
    in the House under the rules and precedents, and it will be 
    considered in its entirety. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: If the motion for the 
    previous question is defeated, the resolution will then be open for 
    amendment?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) The gentleman is well 
    informed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Fred M. Vinson (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.7 Where a member of the Committee on Rules calling up a 
    resolution reported by that committee offers an amendment after 
    debate on

[[Page 6542]]

    the resolution has concluded, such amendment is not debatable if 
    the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution is 
    moved and agreed to.

    On Mar. 11, 1941,(10) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 87 Cong. Rec. 2182, 2189, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H. Res. 120, relating to an investigation of national 
        defense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward E.] Cox [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I call up House 
    Resolution 120, which I send to the desk and ask to have read. . . 
    .
        Mr. Speaker, I have stated that the language proposed by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth] is an improvement to this 
    bill, and I offer it as an amendment to the bill, and Mr. Speaker, 
    I move the previous question on the amendment and the resolution.
        Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the resolution is not subject to amendment 
    until the previous question has been disposed of. . . .
        The Speaker: (11) It is in order for the gentleman 
    from Georgia [Mr. Cox] to offer the amendment. The Clerk will 
    report the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cox: On page 2, line 20, after 
        section 2, strike out section 3 and insert the following:
            ``Sec. 3. The committee may withhold from publication such 
        information obtained by it as in its judgment should be 
        withheld in the public interest.''

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] moves the 
    previous question on the amendment and the resolution.
        Mr. May: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. May: Mr. Speaker, I desire to inquire whether or not the 
    amendment as offered is debatable before the previous question is 
    voted upon.
        The Speaker: The previous question has been moved. If the 
    previous question is voted down, the amendment would be subject to 
    debate.

Sec. 1.8 When an amendment is offered to a pending resolution and the 
    previous question is immediately moved on the resolution and on the 
    amendment, the 40 minutes of debate under clause 3 of Rule XXVII 
    (12) does not apply if the main question has been 
    debated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. House Rules and Manual Sec. 907 (101st Cong.). The rule provides 
        for 40 minutes of debate when the previous question has been 
        ordered ``on any proposition on which there has been no 
        debate.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See Sec. 1.7, supra, wherein the Chair did not allow debate on an 
amendment on which the previous question had been moved. See also 
Sec. 14, infra, for further discussion of the effect of the previous 
question.

[[Page 6543]]

Pages and Lines

Sec. 1.9 An amendment should specify and identify the text to be 
    amended; and an amendment offered to a substitute amendment is not 
    in correct form where it purports to amend not the substitute but 
    the original amendment; thus, an amendment containing several 
    references to pages and lines of the bill rather than of the 
    substitute was held not in order as an amendment to the substitute.

    On May 8, 1947,(13) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 93 Cong. Rec. 4813, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 2616, relating to assistance to Greece and Turkey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) Let us get this clear. We have a 
    pending amendment and we have a substitute for that amendment. The 
    gentleman from Ohio has offered an amendment to the substitute. The 
    amendment consists of several references to pages and lines. Are 
    those pages and lines a part of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Javits] as a substitute?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Bender [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, they are part 
    of the bill, which has already been read.
        The Chairman: That does not constitute an amendment to the 
    substitute and the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

Sec. 1.10 Where there was pending an amendment to a section and a 
    substitute therefor, the Chair indicated that amendments to the 
    substitute should be drafted to the proper page and line number of 
    the substitute rather than to comparable provisions of the original 
    text.

    On July 22, 1974,(15) during consideration of a bill in 
the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to a parliamentary 
inquiry as described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 120 Cong. Rec. 24453, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11500, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ken] Hechler of West Virginia: A parliamentary inquiry, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hechler of West Virginia: If the substitute is adopted, 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii, would it be out of order to 
    have amendments to that section? I would like to make that 
    parliamentary inquiry prior to the ruling of the Chair.
        The Chairman: Once the substitute is adopted, then a vote would 
    be on the Hosmer amendment as amended by the substitute. Prior to 
    the vote on the

[[Page 6544]]

    substitute, however, there could be amendments to the substitute. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: If that is the case, how 
    would one key in the amendments to the substitute, inasmuch as the 
    substitute is basically a Xerox copy of section 201, with its 
    original line numbers on some pages starting at line 18 and ending 
    on line 13 and at other pages going to other delineations?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the amendments must be 
    drafted as an amendment to the substitute, rather than to a section 
    of the committee amendment.
        Mr. Hosmer: For example, if I may pursue my parliamentary 
    inquiry, I have a substitute in my hand. It has got some numbers on 
    it. I would want to offer a new section 201(a) as an amendment to 
    the substitute. How should I fashion that amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot anticipate every amendment; but 
    the gentleman could draft the amendment to the proper page and line 
    of the substitute.

Amendment Offered in Another's Name

Sec. 1.11 A Member may offer an amendment in his own name at the 
    request of another, but he may not offer it in the other Member's 
    name.

    On June 23, 1945,(17) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 91 Cong. Rec. 6620, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.J. Res. 101, extending the Price Control and Stabilization 
        Acts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan] 
        (at the request of Mr. [James W.] Mott [of Oregon]): On page 1, 
        line 9, after the period, add two new sections as follows: . . 
        .

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: I would like to 
    inquire whether the amendment is offered by the gentleman from 
    Oregon [Mr. Mott] or by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Wolcott] 
    for the gentleman from Oregon.
        The Chairman: (18) The amendment must be offered by 
    the gentleman from Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Repealing Law

Sec. 1.12 In offering an amendment from the floor proposing the repeal 
    of a law, it is not necessary for the sponsor of such amendment to 
    include the language of the law sought to be repealed.

    On Feb. 3, 1948,(19) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 94 Cong. Rec. 990, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 
        4838, relating to admission of alien fiancees or fiances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    . . . point of order that it is out of order to offer an amendment 
    to repeal a section of law without including that section of law to 
    let the House know what it is we are trying to repeal. . . .

[[Page 6545]]

        The Speaker: (20) The Chair holds that the amendment 
    is not subject to the point of order on the grounds that the 
    gentleman from Mississippi has advanced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offering Committee Amendments

Sec. 1.13 Where the chairman of a committee states he is offering an 
    amendment as a committee amendment, the Chair accepts the statement 
    of the committee chairman in that respect.

    On Aug. 25, 1949,(1) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 95 Cong. Rec. 12258, 12259, 12263, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 6070, to amend the National Housing Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Committee amendment offered by Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky] 
    as a substitute for the bill: Strike out all after the enacting 
    clause and insert the following: ``That this act may be cited as 
    the `Housing Amendments of 1949.'. . .''
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: What is the position of 
    the Chair with respect to the substitute being offered by the 
    committee? The chairman of the committee has already stated that it 
    is a substitute being offered by the committee itself.
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair has to accept the word 
    of the chairman of the committee in this respect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Mike Mansfield (Mont.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Offered by Speaker

Sec. 1.14 In rare instances, the Speaker has taken the floor to offer 
    an amendment in the Committee of the Whole.

    As an example, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, in the 86th Congress 
offered an amendment to the second supplemental appropriation bill of 
1959.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 105 Cong. Rec. 5094, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 24, 1959. The bill 
        under consideration was H.R. 5916 (Committee on 
        Appropriations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution of Copies of Amendments

Sec. 1.15 Failure of the Clerk to promptly distribute 12 copies of an 
    amendment offered in Committee of the Whole to the majority and 
    minority committee tables and cloakrooms as required by Rule XXIII 
    clause 5 is not grounds for a point of order against the 
    consideration of the amendment.

    On June 21, 1974,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill, the Chair ruled on

[[Page 6546]]

a point of order as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 120 Cong. Rec. 20609, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 15472, agriculture, environment, and consumer 
        appropriation, fiscal 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Eckhardt: On page 47 strike line 
        13 and all that follows through line 24.

        Mr. [Mark] Andrews of North Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that copies have 
    not been delivered to the minority in accordance with clause 5 of 
    rule XXIII.
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, how many copies 
    does the gentleman want?
        Mr. Andrews of North Dakota: None.
        The Chairman: (5) The rules provide that copies 
    shall be provided the Clerk of the House. The point of order is not 
    in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Sec. 1.16 It is not the immediate responsibility of a Member offering 
    an amendment to insure that copies of the amendment are distributed 
    according to the requirements of Rule XXIII clause 5, and improper 
    distribution will not prevent consideration of that amendment.

    On Feb. 19, 1975,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill,(7) the Chair responded to 
a point of order as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 121 Cong. Rec. 3596, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
            See Rule XXIII clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 
        (101st Cong.), stating in part: ``Upon the offering of any 
        amendment by a Member, when the House is meeting in the 
        Committee of the Whole, the Clerk shall promptly transmit to 
        the majority committee table five copies of the amendment and 
        five copies to the minority committee table. Further, the Clerk 
        shall deliver at least one copy of the amendment to the 
        majority cloak room and at least one copy to the minority cloak 
        room.''
 7. H.R. 2051, to amend the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: On page 7 after line 24 
        insert a new section 5 (and number the succeeding Sections 
        accordingly).
             Sec. 5. (a) Section 208(a) of the Regional Rail 
        Reorganization Act of 1973. The sentence ``The final system 
        plan shall be deemed approved at the end of the first period of 
        60 calendar days of continuous session of Congress after such 
        date of transmittal unless either the House of Representatives 
        or the Senate passes a resolution during such period stating 
        that it does not favor the final system.'' is amended by 
        deleting the language after ``shall'' and inserting in lieu 
        thereof ``be voted by each House of Congress within the period 
        of 60 calendar days of continuous session of Congress after 
        such date of transmittal.''. . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order. . . .

[[Page 6547]]

        The Chairman: (8) Does the gentleman from Michigan 
    desire to be heard on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order on two 
    bases, the first of which is that under the rules of the House the 
    proponent must have made copies of the amendment available to the 
    cloakroom of the majority and the minority. They must have made the 
    necessary number of copies available both to the reading clerk and 
    to the two committee desks. I have checked with both of the 
    committee desks and find that this rule has not properly been 
    complied with.
        The second point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that the amendment 
    goes beyond the scope of the legislation before us. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        On the first point of order as raised by the gentleman from 
    Michigan, it is not the immediate responsibility of the Member 
    under the rule to see that the distribution of the copies is made 
    and consideration of the amendment cannot be prevented for that 
    reason. Therefore the first point of order is overruled.
        As to the second point made by the gentleman from Michigan, the 
    Chair has examined the amendment as well as the ``Ramseyer'' in the 
    report on the bill under consideration, and in the opinion of the 
    Chair, the bill under consideration amends several sections of the 
    act, and is so comprehensive an amendment as to permit germane 
    amendments to any portion of the law. . . . Therefore the Chair 
    overrules the point of order raised by the gentleman from Michigan.

Sec. 1.17 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole indicated that the rule concerning 
    distribution of proposed amendments by the Clerk (Rule XXIII clause 
    5) was a matter of courtesy, not mandate, and the Clerk's inability 
    to distribute copies did not prohibit consideration of the 
    amendment.

    On Mar. 14, 1975,(9) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 25, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, a 
parliamentary inquiry was directed to the Chair and the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 6708, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
            See Rule XXIII clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 
        (101st Cong.) stating in part: ``Upon the offering of any 
        amendment by a Member, when the House is meeting in the 
        Committee of the Whole, the Clerk shall promptly transmit to 
        the majority committee table five copies of the amendment and 
        five copies to the minority committee table. Further, the Clerk 
        shall deliver at least one copy of the amendment to the 
        majority cloak room and at least one copy to the minority cloak 
        room.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sam] Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Neal Smith (Iowa).

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

[[Page 6548]]

        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, without a copy of the 
    amendment, we cannot understand the purpose of the amendment.
        I thought that under the new rules we are under some obligation 
    to provide some sort of amendment in written form so that those 
    Members who wish to go to the extra effort might read and 
    understand what is going on.
        Am I correct or incorrect, Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman: It does not stop the consideration of an 
    amendment, although that is supposed to be the custom.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, the rule is simply a 
    matter of courtesy rather than one of mandate?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Sec. 1.18 While Rule XXIII clause 5 imposes a duty on the Clerk to 
    transmit to the majority and minority committee tables five copies 
    of any amendment offered in Committee of the Whole, a point of 
    order against the amendment does not lie based upon the inability 
    of the Clerk to comply with that requirement.

    On Mar. 25, 1976,(11) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 12566,(12) a point of order was 
raised against an amendment and the Chair ruled as indicated above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 122 Cong. Rec. 7997, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. National Science Foundation authorization, fiscal 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: On page 6, line 3 insert 
        the following new section, and renumber the succeeding 
        sections;
            ``Sec. 9. Notwithstanding any other provision of law the 
        Director of the National Science Foundation shall keep all 
        Members of Congress . . . informed with respect to all the 
        activities of the National Science Foundation. . . .''

        Mr. [James W.] Symington [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order. We do not have five copies of the amendment as far as I 
    can tell.
        The Chairman: (13) That is not a point of order, 
    although the Chair hopes the copies will be provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. George E. Danielson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.19 No point of order lies against an amendment by reason of the 
    fact that exact copies of the amendment as submitted to, and read 
    by, the Clerk have not been distributed, clause 5 of Rule XXIII 
    only requiring distribution and not preventing consideration.

    An example of the proposition stated above occurred on July 2, 
1980,(14) during consideration of

[[Page 6549]]

H.R. 7235, the Rail Act of 1980. The proceedings in the Committee of 
the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 126 Cong. Rec. 18288, 18290-92, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James J.] Florio [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Florio: Page 103, line 14, insert 
        ``or (c)'' immediately after ``subsection (b)''.
            Page 104, line 20, strike out the closing quotation marks 
        and the following period.
            Page 104, after line 20, insert the following new 
        subsection: . . .

        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Madigan as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Florio:
            Page 103, line 14 insert ``or (c)'' immediately after 
        ``subsection (b)''.
            Page 104, line 20, strike out the closing quotation marks 
        and the following period. . . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Eckhardt to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Madigan as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. 
        Florio: page 3, strike out lines 14 through 20.
            Page 3, line 5, strike out ``(1)''.
            Page 3, line 13, strike out ``; or'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof a period.
            Pages 4 and 5, strike out ``20,000'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``5,000''.

        Mr. Florio: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman from New Jersey 
    reserves a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Florio: We have not got a copy of the amendment, and what 
    was just shown does not comply with what was just read.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from New 
    Jersey that the amendment that has been read is the amendment that 
    is pending. The fact that the gentleman does not have a copy of the 
    amendment does not give rise to a point of order.

Sec. 1.20 While an amendment offered in the House must be reduced to 
    writing, there is no rule requiring distribution of copies to 
    Members.

    On June 25, 1981,(16) during consideration of House 
Resolution 169, providing for consideration of H.R. 3982, the Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, the proceedings in the House were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 127 Cong. Rec. 14065, 14079, 14081, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 169 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 169

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order

[[Page 6550]]

        to move, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, 
        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. 3982) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to 
        section 301 of the first concurrent resolution on the budget 
        for the fiscal year 1982, and the first reading of the bill 
        shall be dispensed with. General debate shall continue not to 
        exceed eight hours. . . .

    After debate, the previous question was moved and rejected. The 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules then offered an 
amendment.

        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Latta: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
            ``That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
        order to move, any rule of the House to the contrary 
        notwithstanding, 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. 3982), to provide for 
        reconciliation pursuant to section 301 of the first concurrent 
        resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1982, and the first 
        reading of the bill shall be dispensed with, and all points of 
        order against said bill are hereby waived.''. . .

        Mr. [Theodore S.] Weiss [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, none of us 
    in this body except perhaps the gentleman from Ohio and those 
    closest to him have a copy of the proposed rule. None of us know 
    what it is we are going to be asked to vote on. I raise that as a 
    point of order against proceeding further until copies are 
    distributed to us.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) The gentleman actually 
    has not stated a point of order. The gentleman will simply have to 
    inquire, and I am sure that copies of the amendment would be made 
    available. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York will be advised that the contents 
    of the amendment were read in full by the Clerk.
        The gentleman is not in order to make such a point of order at 
    this time.

Sec. 1.21 While Rule XXIII clause 5 directs the Clerk to promptly 
    transmit copies of amendments which have been offered in Committee 
    of the Whole to the majority and minority committee tables, no 
    point of order lies against consideration of an amendment for 
    failure to make copies immediately available.

    On June 26, 1981,(18) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 3982,(19) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 127 Cong. Rec. 14682, 14739, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.

[[Page 6551]]

        The Chairman: (20) Under the rule, the amendment is 
    considered as having been read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by Mr. Broyhill is as follows:

            Strike out title VI and insert in lieu thereof: . . .

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know if under the 
    rules of the House copies of this amendment are available.
        My understanding is that changes have been made as recently as 
    an hour ago and, under the rules of the House, amendments have to 
    be available by the Member who has introduced it once it is 
    introduced.
        Therefore, I would like to inquire as to the availability of 
    this amendment. I am one of the subcommittee chairmen involved in 
    this amendment, and I would like to have a copy of the amendment in 
    order to be able to deal with it.
        The Chairman: The Chair will respond that it is the Clerk's 
    responsibility to distribute the amendments if it is feasible. In 
    any event, it is not subject to a point of order.

Sec. 1.22 A point of order does not lie against an amendment on the 
    grounds that copies have not been delivered to the minority and 
    majority desks and cloakrooms.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on May 4, 
1983,(1) during consideration of House Joint Resolution 13 
(concerning a nuclear weapons freeze). The proceedings in the Committee 
of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 129 Cong. Rec. 11074, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Norman D.] Dicks [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dicks as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Levitas: In view of the matter 
        proposed to be inserted, insert the following: ``with 
        negotiators proceeding immediately to pursuing reductions.''.

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Matthew H. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Levitas: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that copies 
    of the amendment have not been delivered to the minority or 
    majority desks or to the majority and minority cloakrooms.

        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that is not a 
    point of order.

Amendment Printed in Record; Debate; Form Required

Sec. 1.23 While Rule XXIII clause 6 permits any Member who has printed 
    an amendment

[[Page 6552]]

    in the Congressional Record five minutes of debate thereon despite 
    time limitations imposed by the Committee of the Whole, the 
    amendment must be offered in the precise form in which it was 
    printed in the Record to assure time for debate, and an amendment 
    printed in the Record to be offered to original text is not 
    protected by the rule when offered in different form as an 
    amendment to a pending substitute.

    On July 22, 1974, (3) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the bill, H.R. 11500, the Surface Mining Control 
and Reclamation Act of 1974, an inquiry was addressed to the Chair 
regarding debate on amendments which had been printed in the 
Congressional Record. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 120 Cong. Rec. 24453, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ken] Hechler of West Virginia: A parliamentary inquiry, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hechler of West Virginia: If the substitute is adopted, 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii, would it be out of order to 
    have amendments to that section? . . .
        The Chairman: Once the substitute is adopted, then a vote would 
    be on the Hosmer amendment as amended by the substitute. Prior to 
    the vote on the substitute, however, there could be amendments to 
    the substitute. . . .
        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: If that is the case, how 
    would one key in the amendments to the substitute, inasmuch as the 
    substitute is basically a Xerox copy of section 201, with its 
    original line numbers on some pages starting at line 18 and ending 
    on line 13 and at other pages going to other delineations?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the amendments must be 
    drafted as an amendment to the substitute, rather than to a section 
    of the committee amendment. . . .
        Mr. Hechler of West Virginia: What about those Members who have 
    had their amendments printed in the Record; would they then be 
    entitled to transfer the 5 minutes to which they are eligible under 
    the rules to amendments to the substitute?
        The Chairman: Debate on such amendments, assuming a limitation 
    of time, would only be in order if the amendments were properly 
    offered in the precise form in which they had been printed in the 
    Record, and if the amendments had not been printed in the Record as 
    amendments to the substitute, then debate would not be permitted.

Sec. 1.24 While Rule XXIII clause 6 permits any Member who has printed 
    an amendment in the Record five minutes of debate thereon 
    notwithstanding any limitation imposed by the Committee of

[[Page 6553]]

    the Whole, the amendment must be offered in the precise form in 
    which it was printed in the Record to guarantee its proponent time 
    for debate, and an amendment printed in the Record to be offered to 
    original text is not protected by the rule when offered in 
    different form as an amendment to a pending substitute.

    On July 25, 1974, (5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the bill H.R. 11500, the Surface Mining 
Control and Reclamation Act of 1974, an amendment was offered and 
proceedings occurred as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 120 Cong. Rec. 25232, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph M.] McDade [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
    . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McDade to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Ruppe as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. 
        Seiberling to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute: Page 249, strike out lines 15 through 16 and insert 
        in lieu thereof the following:
            (3) appropriations made to the fund, or amounts credited to 
        the fund, under subsection (d). . . .

        The Chairman: (6) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania that the time has been set. The 
    gentleman is not on the list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McDade: Mr. Chairman, may I say that I have this amendment 
    printed in the Record. It has been printed for about 10 days.
        The Chairman: This is an amendment drafted as an amendment to 
    the Ruppe substitute, whereas the amendment which the gentleman 
    caused to be printed in the Record was drafted as an amendment to 
    the committee amendment.

Sec. 1.25 An amendment must be offered in the precise form in which it 
    was printed in the Congressional Record to guarantee its proponent 
    time for debate notwithstanding a limitation imposed in Committee 
    of the Whole.

    On July 25, 1974, (7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill, (8) the following 
proceedings occurred with regard to an amendment that was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 120 Cong. Rec. 25253, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. H.R. 11500, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Philip E.] Ruppe [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ruppe to the committee amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute: Page 282, line 14, after the 
        period insert the fol

[[Page 6554]]

        lowing words: ``The general elevation of the overall mined area 
        may be lower than its original elevation. . . .''

        The Chairman: (9) The Chair will ask the gentleman, 
    Was this printed in the Record?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ruppe: Something was printed in the Record similar to it, 
    but I have changed the language somewhat.
        The Chairman: It must be identical. If the amendment was not 
    printed in the Record there can be a vote on the amendment but 
    there will be no time for debate.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Ruppe) to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.

Sec. 1.26 The rule (10) which guarantees 10 minutes of 
    debate on an amendment printed in the Record at least one calendar 
    day prior to being offered does not permit the offering of an 
    amendment which would not otherwise be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Rule XXIII clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 874 (101st Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 22, 1974, (11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill (12) the Chair responded to 
several parliamentary inquiries regarding the offering of amendments. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 120 Cong. Rec. 24459, 24460, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
12. H.R. 11500, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on the pending Hosmer amendment and the Mink substitute 
    for that amendment and all perfecting amendments to either close at 
    40 minutes past 4 o'clock. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object for 
    the purpose of making a parliamentary inquiry, as I understand 
    there are a number of us who do have amendments to the bill itself 
    or which are appropriate to the substitute amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from Hawaii or the gentleman from California.
        Now, what is the ruling of the Chair with regard to the 
    limitation of time on section 201? Are those amendments published 
    in the Record foreclosed from the 5-minute rule by reason of the 
    debate here, or foreclosed by expiration of the time under the 
    clock, if the time does expire from even offering an amendment?
        The Chairman: If section 201 of the bill is later open to 
    amendment due to adverse disposition of the Mink substitute and the 
    Hosmer amendment, then those rights would obtain; but those rights 
    would be foreclosed if no further amendments to section 201 were in 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: The provisions of the rule relating to 5 minutes 
    of time for a

[[Page 6555]]

    Member where he has published his amendment in the Record in 
    appropriate fashion will not be protected if either the Mink 
    amendment or the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Hosmer is 
    adopted; am I correct?
        The Chairman: If the substitute is adopted to the Hosmer 
    amendment and then the Hosmer amendment as amended by the 
    substitute is adopted, further amendments to section 201 could not 
    be offered. Therefore, there would be no further amendments 
    appropriate. . . .
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, is it not true 
    that if, under the gentleman's motion, an amendment--I am now 
    giving a hypothetical situation--the Mink substitute for that 
    portion of the Hosmer amendment were to prevail, and the Hosmer 
    amendment would be defeated, is it not true that the rest of that 
    section which the Mink substitute does not pertain to would be 
    proper to amend at any point?
        The Chairman: If the entire section has been amended, further 
    amendments to that section would not be in order.
        Mr. Hays: Not if the Hosmer substitute were defeated, it would 
    not be true, would it? Just to section 201?
        The Chairman: If the Mink substitute is adopted, the vote would 
    then recur on the Hosmer amendment since it is a substitute for the 
    entire amendment. If the Hosmer amendment were then adopted, 
    section 201 would not be open to amendment.

Sec. 1.27 Where a special order governing consideration of a bill 
    requires amendments to have been printed in the Record prior to 
    their consideration, the Chair normally relies upon assurances of 
    the proponent of the amendment that it is in the precise form as 
    printed in the Record, but may insist in response to a point of 
    order that the proponent cite the page of the Record.

    On Aug. 3, 1983, (14) the situation described above was 
demonstrated during consideration of H.R. 2957 (15) in the 
Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 129 Cong. Rec. 22653, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. International Recovery and Financial Stability Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ronald E.] Paul [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair will inquire of the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) as to whether the amendment has 
    been printed in the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Paul: Yes, it has been, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    would like to ask one question.
        In calling up my amendment a few moments ago, I gave the date 
    that it was printed in the Record and the page number at which it 
    appeared.
        Would it be possible to require that of other amendments that 
    are sub

[[Page 6556]]

    mitted so that we could save a lot of time?
        The Chairman: The Chair would state that it would be highly 
    desirable if Members offering amendments would be prepared to state 
    at the time of offering the amendments the page number and date of 
    the Congressional Record where the amendment is cited. It has not 
    been treated as an absolute requirement unless a point of order is 
    raised. The Chair will take on the faith of Members the statement 
    that it has been printed in the Record, but it certainly would 
    expedite the consideration of the bill if Members would be prepared 
    to do that.

Instructions as to Portion of Bill To Be Amended

Sec. 1.28 An amendment must contain instructions to the Clerk as to the 
    portion of the bill it seeks to amend, and is subject to a point of 
    order if not proper in form.

    Where the House had adopted a special order permitting only 
amendments printed in the Record, a Member who had incorrectly 
submitted an amendment for printing which was part of another amendment 
and which did not contain separate instructions as to where it would be 
inserted in the bill was precluded on a point of order from offering 
the amendment. The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole on Oct. 3, 
1985, (17) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 131 Cong. Rec. 25970, 25971, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (18) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conte: Page 211, line 12, add the 
        following after the period: ``The term `payments' as used in 
        this section shall include the amount by which any repayment of 
        construction costs pursuant to Federal reclamation law (Act of 
        June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, and Acts amendatory thereof and 
        supplementary thereto) is exceeded by the full cost, as defined 
        by section 202(3) (A)-(C) of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 
        (Public Law 97-293, 96 Stat. 1263), less $5,000.''. . .

    After debate on the amendment, it became apparent that the 
proponent, Mr. Conte, of Massachusetts, was addressing his remarks to 
an amendment other than that read by the Clerk.

        The Chairman: Will the gentleman from Massachusetts give the 
    Chair his attention on this issue?

        The Clerk reported an amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts dealing with reclamation.
        It would be in order for the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Conte) to ask unanimous consent that the amendment as reported be 
    the one that the gentleman printed in the Record and spoke to 
    concerning honey. Does the gentleman make that request at this 
    time?
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the amendment that I offered pertain to this 
    honeybee amendment. The Clerk now has it at the desk.

[[Page 6557]]

        The Chairman: Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conte:
            (1) Section 201 of the Agriculture Act of 1949; 7 U.S.C. 
        1446 is amended by striking in the first sentence the word 
        ``honey.''
            (2) Subsection (b) of such section is hereby repealed.

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas continue to reserve 
    on his point of order?
        Mr. [Kika] de la Garza [of Texas]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is 
    the amendment I was reserving the point of order on. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard on my point of order, I would 
    not object to the gentleman having made his plea for the amendment. 
    But the amendment as printed in the Record, Mr. Chairman, does not 
    designate a proper page or title or section of the bill, and for 
    that reason I would submit that it is out of order. . . .
        Mr. Conte: Mr. Chairman, when we submitted the amendments, 
    unfortunately the printer put them en bloc. That was the 
    unfortunate part, but I feel the amendment is germane, and it is 
    germane to section X of the bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair will rule that the amendment as submitted was not 
    correctly printed as a separate amendment, and the Chair will 
    sustain the point of order of the gentleman from Texas.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Despite the unanimous consent agreement to 
separate the honeybee amendment from the reclamation amendment, it was 
still subject to the point of order that it did not contain proper 
instructions as to where it would be inserted in the bill.

Amendment Printed in Record--Copy Submitted to Clerk

Sec. 1.29 The Chair announced, at the conclusion of general debate on a 
    bill being considered under a special rule permitting only germane 
    amendments printed in the Record, that Members should submit 
    legible copies of their amendments to the Clerk rather than rely 
    upon the Clerk to locate the text printed in the Record.

    On June 9, 1975,(19) the Committee of the Whole having 
concluded general debate on the bill H.R. 6860,(20) the 
Chair made an announcement as described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 17907, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Energy Conservation and Conversion Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (1) The Chair desires to make a 
    statement regarding the procedure tomorrow when this bill is read 
    for amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        A number of amendments have been printed in the Congressional 
    Record

[[Page 6558]]

    and are protected for consideration under the provisions of the 
    rule governing the consideration of the bill. However, Members who 
    have had amendments printed in the Record must still seek 
    recognition to offer their amendments. When a Member seeks 
    recognition at the appropriate time to offer an amendment, he must 
    send a legible copy, in the precise form as submitted for printing 
    in the Record, to the desk to be reported by the Clerk. It would 
    place an inordinate burden on the Clerk to search through the 
    Record to find the amendment offered.

Amendment Printed in Record--Page Designation Left Blank

Sec. 1.30 Where a special rule made in order the text of a bill as an 
    amendment and also permitted the precise text of an amendment--
    printed in the Record with a page designation left blank--to be 
    offered as an amendment thereto, the Chair overruled a point of 
    order that the amendment to the amendment, when offered, contained 
    a page reference to the original amendment which had been left 
    blank in the Record version, since the page insertion did not 
    change the point at which the language was intended to be inserted 
    in the original amendment.

    On Apr. 1, 1976,(2) the Chair, in overruling a point of 
order, stated that, while an amendment must ordinarily be in the 
precise form permitted under a special ``modified closed rule'' under 
which only specified amendments printed in the Record could be offered, 
where that amendment had been inserted in the Record without a page 
reference but with language indicating its point of insertion, the 
amendment was in substantial compliance with the special rule when 
offered in identical form but also including a page designation. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 122 Cong. Rec. 9090, 9091, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 12406, Federal Election Campaign Amendments of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Timothy] Wirth [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wirth to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Phillip Burton: Page 14, immediately after section 9057(c) 
        of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as added by the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Phillip Burton, insert the following:
            ``(d) Limitation.--The Commission shall, not later than 
        April 1 of each election year, determine whether the amount of 
        moneys in the Congressional Election Payment Account will be 
        sufficient to make all payments to which candidates will be 
        entitled under this chapter during such election year. . . .''

[[Page 6559]]

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I have heard the Clerk read the amendment, and that was 
    not the amendment that was printed in the Record of March 29, 1976. 
    . . .
        Mr. Chairman, rule XXIII, clause 6, says, in part:

            Material placed in the Record pursuant to this provision 
        shall indicate the full text of the proposed amendment, the 
        name of the proponent Member, the number of the bill to which 
        it will be offered and the point in the bill or amendment 
        thereto where the amendment is intended to be offered, and 
        shall appear in a portion of the Record designated for that 
        purpose.

        Mr. Chairman, on page H2500, of the March 29 Record, to which 
    the rule specifically makes mention, this particular Wirth 
    amendment appears as the beginning line with the page blank. 
    Immediately after subsection 9057(c) there is no page 14 
    designated, and the Clerk just read page 14.
        Mr. Chairman, it is not the same amendment.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair has examined the 
    situation. To the best of his knowledge, there are no precedents. 
    Under the circumstances, it would have been difficult if not 
    impossible for the gentleman to have had the page number when he 
    printed his amendment in the Record, and the Chair believes that 
    the omission of the page number alone does not keep the amendment 
    from being in substantial compliance with the rule. In all other 
    respects, the amendment printed in the Record does indicate the 
    point at which the amendment is to be inserted into the amendment 
    of the gentleman from California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Draftsmanship of Amendment; Query as to Effect of Amendment

Sec. 1.31 It is for the Committee of the Whole, and not the Chairman, 
    to determine whether an amendment is properly drafted to accomplish 
    its stated purpose; thus, an ambiguity in the wording of an 
    amendment, or a question as to the propriety of draftsmanship of an 
    amendment to accomplish a particular legislative purpose, should 
    not be questioned on a point of order but is an issue to be 
    disposed of on the merits.

    On Feb. 4, 1976,(4) during consideration of H.R. 
9464,(5) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled 
a point of order that was made against an amend

[[Page 6560]]

ment, as described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 122 Cong. Rec. 2371, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. See also the proceedings 
        at 115 Cong. Rec. 31867, 31886, 31888, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Oct. 28, 1969, relating to a point of order raised by Mr. Frank 
        T. Bow, of Ohio, against an amendment to H.J. Res. 966, a bill 
        providing for continuing appropriations for fiscal 1970.
 5. Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Brodhead [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brodhead to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Krueger: Strike out 
        section 105 and designate the succeeding sections of title I 
        accordingly.

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order on the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, my point of order against the amendment mentioned 
    is that while it has a purpose with which I am not totally 
    unsympathetic, it does not make the conforming amendments necessary 
    to accomplish that purpose without leaving a lot of loose ends 
    hanging in the legislation. For example, it strikes section 105, 
    which is entitled, ``Prohibition of the Use of Natural Gas as 
    Boiler Fuel.''
        In section 102, the ``purpose'' section of the amendment, it 
    says:

            . . . to grant the Federal Energy Administration authority 
        to prohibit the use of natural gas as boiler fuel;
    That would be left in the legislation without any language under 
    this section 105 which provides for that.

        I think there are other references in the language that I have 
    not had a chance to dig out.
        I would suggest that if the gentleman from Michigan would like 
    to withdraw his amendment, I think that we can provide the 
    gentleman with an amendment that would have all the necessary 
    conforming language.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair will state that the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is no longer speaking on his point 
    of order. The Chair will state that the question the gentleman from 
    Ohio raises is not a valid point of order, it is rather a question 
    of draftsmanship and the Chair overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If the gentleman from Ohio desires to be heard in opposition to 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Brodhead) 
    then the Chair would be glad to recognize the gentleman for 5 
    minutes.

Sec. 1.32 It is not within the province of the Chair to interpret the 
    consistency or effect of an amendment to an amendment.

    On Sept. 8, 1976,(7) during consideration of H.R. 10498 
(the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976), several parliamentary inquiries 
were directed to the Chair regarding the effect of a pending amendment. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 122 Cong. Rec. 29234-36, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers: Page 216, after line 23, 
        insert:
            (f) The Clean Air Act, as amended by sections 306, 201, 
        304, 312, 313, 108, and 211 of this Act, is further amended by 
        adding the following new section at the end thereof:

[[Page 6561]]

                      ``national commission on air quality

            ``Sec. 325. (a) There is established a National Commission 
        on Air Quality which shall study and report to the Congress 
        on--
            ``(1) the effects of the implementation of requirements on 
        the States or the Federal Government under this Act to identify 
        and protect from significant deterioration of air quality, 
        areas which have existing air quality better than that 
        specified under current national primary and secondary 
        standards. . . .
            ``(1) There are authorized to be appropriated, for use in 
        carrying out this section not to exceed $17,000,000.
            ``(j) In the conduct of the study, the Commission is 
        authorized to contract with nongovernmental entities that are 
        competent to perform research or investigations in areas within 
        the Commission's mandate, and to hold public hearings, forums, 
        and workshops to enable full public participation.''

        Mr. [Andrew] Maguire [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Maguire to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Rogers: In the last sentence of section 160(c)(1) of the 
        text inserted by the Rogers amendment, strike out ``, class II, 
        or class III'' and substitute ``or class II''. . . .

    The Maguire amendment sought to modify portions of the Rogers 
amendment relating to standards of air quality applicable in a type or 
category of area. Mr. Maguire explained the effect of his amendment as 
follows:

        Mr. Maguire: Mr. Chairman, I am introducing an amendment to the 
    portion of the Clean Air Act amendments dealing with significant 
    deterioration of the air in areas of our country which still have 
    to some degree clean air. I am proposing that we eliminate the 
    class III category from the bill. If we do that, we will be 
    composing our bill essentially with the bill approved earlier by 
    the Senate by a vote of 63 to 31.
        As many of the Members know, I originally proposed an amendment 
    to this section which included other changes to the committee bill 
    in addition to this, but I am offering here simply the elimination 
    class III.
        There is a very simple reason for getting rid of the class III 
    designation. Class III virtually entirely subverts the intention of 
    this section of the bill. Supposedly we are trying to prevent 
    significant deterioration of our air. We are trying to prevent it 
    from being unnecessarily degraded. But what does class III do? It 
    allows an increase of 50 percent of the lowest national air quality 
    standard for each pollutant in any clean air area designated as 
    class III. This means, for example, that most areas of the country 
    which limited pollution by sulfur oxides would be permitted to 
    deteriorate to the levels of concentration in cities such as Los 
    Angeles and Detroit--which hardly seems to fit with our objective 
    of retaining our clean air. . . .
        Why should we eliminate class III?
        Because the levels of pollution it would allow are clearly 
    harmful to health.
        And because the massive additional increments in pollution it 
    would encourage clearly involve major economic costs to our 
    society.
        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, my 
    par

[[Page 6562]]

    liamentary inquiry is: How does the amendment that has been offered 
    by the gentleman from New Jersey amend the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida?
        The Chairman: (8) The amendment was offered as an 
    amendment to the amendment and the Chair cannot make an 
    interpretation of the effect of the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Broyhill: My parliamentary inquiry further would be is it 
    the intention to strike out the language offered by the gentleman 
    from Florida and insert this language in lieu of that language? We 
    are unclear on this side and would like to have a clarification 
    from the Chair or from someone.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from North 
    Carolina that this is not really a proper parliamentary inquiry. 
    The Chair cannot comment further on the offering of the amendment 
    to the amendment, since a point of order was not raised at the 
    appropriate time.

Sec. 1.33 It is not within the province of the Chair or of the Clerk to 
    analyze the effect of amendments; thus, although an amendment may 
    be re-read by unanimous consent in Committee of the Whole, it is 
    not in order to ask unanimous consent that the Clerk read or inform 
    the Committee of the ``differences'' between two pending 
    amendments.

    On Apr. 6, 1977,(9) during consideration of a bill 
(10) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair indicated 
that, while it was in order for the Clerk to re-read an amendment, it 
was not in order to request the Clerk to read differences between 
amendments. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 123 Cong. Rec. 10771, 10773, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. H.R. 5262, providing for increased participation by the United 
        States in international financial institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) The Clerk will read the first 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Robert Duncan (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 5, immediately after line 5, 
        insert the following new title:

                       Title V--African Development Fund

            Sec. 501. Section 206(a) of the African Development Fund 
        Act (22 U.S.C. 290g-4(a)) is amended by striking out 
        ``$25,000,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``$175,000,000''. 
        . . .

        Mr. [Paul E.] Tsongas [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Tsongas to the committee 
        amendment: Strike out all after ``section 501'' and insert 
        ``section 206(a) of the African Development Fund Act (22 U.S.C. 
        290-g4(a)) is further amended by adding the following at the 
        end thereof: ``In addition there is hereby authorized to be 
        appropriated such

[[Page 6563]]

        sums as may be necessary, consistent with, and after 
        consultation with, the other nations involved.''. . .

        Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wylie as a substitute for the 
        committee amendment: In lieu of the committee amendment insert 
        the following:
            ``Sec. 501. Section 206(a) of the African Development Fund 
        Act (22 U.S.C. 290g-4(a)) is further amended by adding the 
        following at the end thereof: `In addition there is hereby 
        authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary, 
        consistent with, and after consultation with, the other nations 
        involved.'
            ``The Secretary of the Treasury is directed to begin 
        discussions with other donor nations to the African Development 
        Fund for the purpose of changing the voting structure within 
        the Fund to reflect actual contributions by Fund members.''. . 
        .

        Mr. Tsongas: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    difference between my amendment and the amendment now being 
    considered be read, so that we would understand not what the 
    similarities are, but what the differences are.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman want the substitute read 
    again?
        Mr. Tsongas: No. The difference between the substitute, which 
    was read, and the substitute now being considered, specifically, 
    the language directing the Secretary of the Treasury.
        The Chairman: Both amendments have been read and the clerk 
    cannot be placed in the position of analyzing differences. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tsongas) 
    is not a substitute. It is an amendment to the committee amendment.

Sec. 1.34 Although the Chair may indicate in response to a 
    parliamentary inquiry the form of a pending amendment and the 
    proposition to which it is offered, it is not within the province 
    of the Chair to indicate the substantive effect of the amendment on 
    pending provisions of the bill.

    On Aug. 2, 1977,(12) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 8444, the National Energy Act. An amendment, 
referred to in the proceedings as the ``Mikulski amendment,'' was 
offered as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 123 Cong. Rec. 26158, 26160, 26161, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (13) The Clerk will designate the page 
    and the line number of the ad hoc committee amendment (the 
    ``Mikulski amendment'') to part III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Ad hoc committee amendment: Page 146, insert the matter in 
        italics on lines 2 through 5, and on page 169, insert the 
        matter on page 169, line 3 through page 180, line 7.

        [The ad hoc committee amendment reads as follows:]

[[Page 6564]]

         Part III--Energy Conservation Program for Schools and Health 
             Care Facilities and Buildings Owned by Units of Local 
                                   Government

            . . . It is the purpose of this part to authorize grants to 
        States and units of local government to assist in identifying 
        and implementing energy conservation maintenance and operating 
        procedures to reduce the energy use and anticipated energy 
        costs of buildings owned by units of local government. . . .
            ``Sec. 400B. (a) The Administrator is authorized to make 
        grants to--
            ``(1) States and units of local government to assist in 
        conducting preliminary energy audits for buildings owned by 
        units of local government, and
            ``(2) States and units of local government in payment of 
        technical assistance program costs for technical assistance 
        programs for buildings owned by units of local government.
            ``(b) The Federal share of the costs incurred in connection 
        with any preliminary energy audit or any technical assistance 
        program, shall not exceed 50 percent thereof and the remainder 
        of the costs shall be provided from sources other than Federal 
        funds. . . .

    Mr. William D. Ford, of Michigan, offered an amendment:

        Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
    ad hoc committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ford of Michigan to the ad hoc 
        committee amendment: At the end of the committee amendment on 
        page 180, insert the following new section:
            ``Sec. 5. Application of Davis-Bacon Act.
            ``The Federal employee or officer primarily responsible for 
        administering any program established under any provision of, 
        or amendment made by title I of this Act which provides for 
        Federal funding shall take such steps as are necessary to 
        insure that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors 
        or subcontractors in the performance of work on any 
        construction utilizing such funds will be paid at rates not 
        less than those prevailing on similar construction in the 
        locality. . . .''

        Mr. [William A.] Steiger [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, did we 
    adopt the ad hoc amendment which is known as the Mikulski 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: This is an amendment to the ad hoc amendment, the 
    Chair will advise the gentleman. . . .
        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, it was my 
    understanding under the rule previously adopted that we would 
    proceed to a consideration of all 23 of the amendments adopted in 
    the ad hoc committee and that any other amendments would be 
    subsequent to that.
        Can the Chair enlighten us as to what the procedure will be?
        The Chairman: We are only treating the ad hoc committee 
    amendments to the pending part of the bill under the rule, which 
    makes the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ford) in 
    order to the pending committee amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: [Is the Ford amendment] an 
    amendment to the Mikulski amendment, [or] an amendment to this part 
    of the bill?
        The Chairman: It is an amendment to the ad hoc committee 
    amendment, which in reality is the Mikulski amendment.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: And the ad hoc committee amendment is to 
    what?

[[Page 6565]]

        The Chairman: The ad hoc committee amendment begins on page 169 
    (and continues) to page 180.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Is this amendment then an amendment to all 
    of the part addressed by the ad hoc committee amendment? That is 
    what I am trying to inquire.
        The Chairman: The Ford amendment adds a new section at the end 
    of the ad hoc committee amendment on page 180.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, could the Chair perhaps with 
    specificity indicate to me what the Ford amendment, if adopted, 
    will amend; what language will it amend? Will it amend the language 
    currently in the bill and in the Mikulski amendment or will it 
    amend the Mikulski amendment only and that, if adopted, will amend 
    the bill?
        The Chairman: The Chairman cannot construe the effect of the 
    amendment. The Chair can only indicate where the amendment comes 
    and the amendment comes at the end of the committee amendment, 
    adding a new section to the ad hoc committee amendment.

Sec. 1.35 It is not within the province of the Chair to respond to a 
    parliamentary inquiry on the substance or effect of an amendment, 
    such as its similarity to another amendment.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on June 14, 
1979,(14) during consideration of H.R. 4388 (15) 
in the Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 125 Cong. Rec. 14993-95, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Energy and water development appropriation bill for fiscal 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dingell as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Dodd: Page 11, lines 21 through 24, 
        strike out section 103.
            Page 9, line 14, after the period, insert the following: 
        ``None of the funds appropriated for the Federal Energy 
        Regulatory Commission under this paragraph in excess of 
        $550,000 shall be used to pay expenses of, or otherwise 
        compensate, parties intervening in regulatory or adjudicatory 
        proceedings funded under this paragraph.''. . .

        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, in hearing 
    with some difficulty the amendment as it was being read, I am 
    asking the Chair is the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Dingell) similar to the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) without the Johnson amendment?
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair can only indicate that 
    it appears to be germane and cannot get into the substance of the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.36 The Chair will not anticipate whether an amendment not yet 
    offered or available to him for examination might be precluded by 
    adoption of a pending amendment.

[[Page 6566]]

    The proceedings of June 26, 1979,(17) illustrate the 
principle that the Chair will decline to rule on hypothetical or 
anticipatory questions. An amendment was offered during consideration 
of H.R. 3930, the Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 125 Cong. Rec. 16681, 16682, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: Page 8, after line 13 add the 
    following new subsection and renumber the subsequent sections 
    accordingly:
        (g)(1) The Secretary of Energy is hereby authorized to 
    designate a proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock facility as a 
    priority synthetic project pursuant to the procedures and criteria 
    provided in this section. . . .
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered 
    as read and printed in the Record. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, I wish to make a point of order. Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment which I had offered and had printed in the Record would 
    be an appropriate substitute amendment for the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall). Under the time limitation, 
    if I understand correctly, I have 5 minutes to offer that 
    amendment.

        The Chairman: (18) That is correct if offered in the 
    proper form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: But if this amendment is not amended by my 
    amendment and succeeds, then I may be precluded from offering that 
    amendment; is that correct?
        The Chairman: It would be difficult for the Chair to rule on 
    that without having seen the gentleman's amendment.

Sec. 1.37 The Chair declines to make anticipatory rulings and will not 
    prejudge the propriety of amendments at the desk as to whether they 
    will be preempted by adoption of a pending amendment until they are 
    offered.

    On Dec. 18, 1979,(19) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 5860,(20) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 36794, 36801, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Authorizing loan guarantees to the Chrysler Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brademas to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: 
        Strike line 7, page 5, through line 7, page 9, (section 4(a)(4) 
        through section 4(d)) and replace with the following:
            (4) the Corporation has submitted to the Board a 
        satisfactory financing plan which meets the financing needs of 
        the Corporation as reflected in the operating plan for the 
        period covered by such operating plan, and which includes, in 
        accordance with the provisions of subsection (c), an aggregate 
        amount of nonfederally guaranteed assistance of not less than 
        $1,930,000,000. . . .

[[Page 6567]]

        Mr. [Mickey] Edwards of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk to section 4 of the Moorhead substitute as 
    does the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Weaver). Would our amendments 
    be in order if the Brademas amendment passes?
        The Chairman: (21) The Chair will have to examine 
    them if and when offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.38 It is not a proper parliamentary inquiry to ask the Chair to 
    characterize an amendment on which a separate vote has been 
    demanded.
    An example of the proposition described above occurred on May 31, 
1984,(1) during consideration of H.R. 5167, the Department 
of Defense authorization bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 130 Cong. Rec. 14677, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The Clerk will report 
    the first amendment on which a separate vote has been demanded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment: Page 131, after line 2, insert the following new 
        title. . . .

        Mr. [Lawrence J.] Smith of Florida: Mr. Speaker, might I 
    inquire of the Chair if this amendment just read by the Clerk would 
    be commonly known as the Stratton amendment on nuclear winter?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman 
    that that is not a parliamentary inquiry.

Chair's Determination as to Propriety of Form in Absence of Point of 
    Order

Sec. 1.39 The Chair may examine the form of an offered amendment to 
    determine its propriety and may rule it out of order even where no 
    point of order is raised from the floor, and debate has begun.

    On May 8, 1980,(3) during consideration of S. 1309 
(4) in the Committee of the Whole, the situation described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 126 Cong. Rec. 10421, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. The Food Stamp Amendments of 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (5) When the Committee of the Whole 
    rose on Wednesday, May 7, section 1 had been considered as having 
    been read and open to amendment at any point. It shall be in order 
    to consider an amendment to title I of said substitute printed in 
    the Congressional Record on April 30, 1980, and said amendment 
    shall not be subject to amendment except for the offering of pro 
    forma amendments for the purpose of debate. No further amendments 
    are in order which further change or affect the Internal Revenue 
    Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there any amendments to section 1?
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an

[[Page 6568]]

    amendment in the nature of a substitute. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Walker: Page 39, after line 22 insert the following new title:

        Mr. Walker (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
    Record.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania?
        There was no objection. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman will suspend for just a moment. The 
    Chair is advised by the Parliamentarian that the gentleman has not 
    offered a proper amendment in the nature of a substitute here. An 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute would strike everything 
    after the enacting clause. This is an amendment adding a new title 
    III.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding that the 
    amendment was prepared in the form of a substitute.
        The Chairman: The amendment at the desk is not prepared in that 
    form, the Chair is advised. When the committee reaches title II, 
    the first part of the gentleman's amendment would be in order. The 
    Chair will rule that the amendment is not pending at this time. . . 
    .
        Are there any amendments to section 1?
        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Idaho has an amendment to 
    section 1. This is the short title of the bill.
        Mr. Symms: It is on page 24, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair doubts that that is an amendment to 
    section 1. The amendment of the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Symms) is 
    not to section 1, but to title I.
        The Clerk will read title I.

Sec. 1.40 While a perfecting amendment to a pending substitute should 
    retain some portion of the substitute so as not to be in effect a 
    substitute in the third degree, the Chair is not obliged to look 
    behind the form of the amendment in the absence of a timely point 
    of order from the floor to determine whether it is a proper 
    perfecting amendment.

    On July 26, 1984,(6) in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry after debate had begun on a pending amendment to a substitute, 
the Chair indicated that the amendment had been prefaced as a 
perfecting amendment rather than as a substitute (although actually 
drafted as a substitute to replace all language).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 130 Cong. Rec. 21259-61, 21263, 21264, 98th Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 11, the Education Amendments of 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William F.] Goodling [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Goodling: Add at the end of the 
        bill the following new title. . . .

[[Page 6569]]

        Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ford of Michigan as a substitute 
        for the amendment offered by Mr. Goodling: Add at the end of 
        the bill the following new title. . . .

        Mr. Goodling: Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment to 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ford) as 
    a substitute for my amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Goodling to the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Ford of Michigan as a substitute for 
        the amendment offered by Mr. Goodling: In lieu of the matter 
        proposed to be inserted insert the following. . . .

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as 
    the perfecting amendment was not read, I am wondering if it happens 
    to be an amendment in the third degree.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman 
    that this amendment was offered as an amendment to the substitute 
    and not referred as a substitute which would be in the third 
    degree.
        Mr. Perkins: Drafted to the substitute that is being offered by 
    the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ford)?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman 
    that that is correct.
        Mr. [Steve] Bartlett [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 
    balance of my time.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (7) The question is on the 
    perfecting amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    (Mr. Goodling) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Ford) as a substitute for the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: It appears that a point of order might have 
been sustained if made prior to the beginning of debate on the Goodling 
amendment to the Ford substitute, since it was in reality in the form 
of a substitute ``in lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted insert 
the following. . . .'', but once debate began, the Chair would not take 
the initiative and rule the amendment to be a substitute for a 
substitute and in the third degree under Rule XIX.

When Amendment Should Be Offered to Text Rather Than to Pending 
    Amendment

Sec. 1.41 When it is proposed to strike out certain words in a section, 
    it is not in order to amend that amendment by proposing that 
    additional words of that section be stricken.

    On June 2, 1976,(8) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 13680,(9) the

[[Page 6570]]

Chair ruled on a point of order as described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 122 Cong. Rec. 16208-10, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. A bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Derwinski: At page 68, strike line 
        4 through page 69, line 4. . . .

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

         amendment offered by mr. zablocki to the amendment offered by 
                                 mr. derwinski

            Strike the words ``page 69, line 4'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``page 69, line 10''. . . .

        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order against the Zablocki amendment to the 
    amendment on the grounds that it is an effort to amend a perfecting 
    amendment. It deals with a different part of the bill, and since 
    the bill is open to amendment by titles, the perfecting amendment, 
    so-called, offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski), 
    as I understand, only strikes section 413 down through line 4 on 
    page 69. This is an effort to strike a different part of the title, 
    and therefore would not be in order as an amendment to the 
    Derwinski amendment. . . .
        Mr. Zablocki: . . . Mr. Chairman, the Derwinski amendment 
    strikes section 413 by striking the words ``page 69, line 4,'' and 
    substituting in lieu thereof, ``page 69, line 10.''. . .
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Derwinski) strikes all of section 413, beginning with line 5, page 
    68, through line 4, page 69. The amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) to that amendment would increase the 
    portion of section 413 that is stricken, expanding the area 
    stricken down through line 10, page 69.
        Under Cannon's Precedents in the House of Representatives, on 
    page 13, in middle of the page, under the heading ``amending a 
    motion'':

            When it is proposed to strike out certain words, it is not 
        in order to amend by adding to the words of the paragraph, but 
        it is in order to amend by striking out a portion of the words 
        specified.

        Since the question has come before the House before, in Hinds' 
    Precedents of the House of Representatives, volume V, 1907, page 
    389, section 5768, the Chair will quote from that decision as 
    follows:

            5768: When it is proposed to strike out certain words in a 
        paragraph, it is not in order to amend by adding to them other 
        words of the paragraph.--On April 3, 1902, the bill (S. 1025) 
        to promote the efficiency of the Revenue-Cutter Service was 
        under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the 
        state of the Union, when the following paragraph was read:
            Sec. 8. That when any commissioned officer is retired from 
        active service, the next officer in rank shall be promoted 
        according to the established rules of the service, and the same 
        rule of promotion shall be ap

[[Page 6571]]

        plied successively to the vacancies consequent upon such 
        retirement.
            Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, moved to strike out the 
        words ``according to the established rules of the service.''
            Mr. John F. Lacey, of Iowa, moved to amend the amendment by 
        adding to the words proposed to be stricken out other words in 
        the context of the paragraph.
            The Chairman held that the amendment of Mr. Lacey should be 
        offered as an independent amendment rather than as an amendment 
        to the amendment.

        For the reasons stated, the point of order of the gentleman 
    from Minnesota is sustained.

Sec. 1.42 Where there is pending an amendment striking out a portion of 
    a pending text, an amendment to strike out additional language of 
    the text should be offered as a separate amendment to the text and 
    not as an amendment to the first amendment.

    The proceedings of June 2, 1976, are discussed in Sec. 1.41, supra.

Debating Amendment Under Reservation of Objection; Discretion of Chair

Sec. 1.43 Unanimous consent is not required to adopt an amendment to a 
    pending amendment, and the Chair may decline to permit debate to 
    proceed under a reservation of objection to such unanimous-consent 
    request and require debate to proceed under the five-minute rule.

    On Feb. 24, 1977,(11) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 11,(12) an amendment was offered to 
a pending amendment. The proceedings, described above, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 5327, 5329, 5330, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act 
        Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Parren J.] Mitchell of Maryland: Madam Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: Page 2, line 
        23, insert ``(1)'' immediately before ``Notwithstanding.''
            Page 3, line 7, strike out the quotation marks and the 
        period immediately following the quotation marks.
            Page 3, immediately after line 7, add the following:
            ``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no grant 
        shall be made under this Act for any local public works project 
        unless at least 10 per centum of the dollar volume of each 
        contract shall be set aside for minority business enterprise. . 
        . .''

        Mr. [Robert A.] Roe [of New Jersey]: Madam Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland 
    (Mr. Mitchell) and ask unanimous consent that it be adopted.

[[Page 6572]]

        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Madam Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, I would like to know exactly the language of 
    the gentleman's amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Roe to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: In lieu of the Mitchell amendment 
        insert the following:
            Page 3, in lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted after 
        line 7, insert the following:
            ``(2) Except to the extent that the Secretary determines 
        otherwise, no grant shall be made under this Act for any local 
        public works project unless the applicant gives satisfactory 
        assurance to the Secretary that at least 10 per centum of the 
        amount of each grant shall be expended for minority business 
        enterprises. For purposes of this paragraph, the term 
        ``minority business enterprises'' means a business at least 50 
        percent of which is owned by minority group members. . . .''

        The Chairman: (13) Is there objection to the 
    unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from New Jersey to amend 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Harsha: Madam Chairman, reserving the right to object, I 
    want to try to clarify this. . . .
        The Chairman: Rather than proceed under the gentleman's 
    reservation of objection, the Chair will treat the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New Jersey to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Maryland as pending and proceed under the 5-
    minute rule, so that debate can then take place in the proper way. 
    . . .
        Mr. Roe: Is it possible for others who desire to do so to 
    reserve the right to object?
        The Chairman: The Chair will put the question on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New Jersey to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Maryland, unless further Members desire to 
    debate the issue under the 5-minute rule.
        The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Roe) is recognized for 5 
    minutes on his amendment. . . .
        Mr. [James J.] Howard [of New Jersey]: Madam Chairman, I would 
    ask the Chair if unanimous consent was granted for the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New Jersey to be before the House.

        The Chairman: That was not necessary. It is still an amendment 
    to an amendment which is pending business to be voted on by the 
    committee.

Time To Make or Reserve Point of Order

Sec. 1.44 A point of order may be made or reserved against an amendment 
    after it is read but before the proponent of the amendment has been 
    recognized to debate it; and where the proponent has asked 
    unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read, such 
    point of order may still be made or reserved.

[[Page 6573]]

    On Mar. 9, 1978,(14) during consideration of H.R. 50 
(15) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry concerning the proposition described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 124 Cong. Rec. 6285, 6286, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments as a substitute for the amendments offered by the 
    gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Sarasin).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Jeffords as a substitute for the 
        amendments offered by Mr. Sarasin: Page 64, line 16, strike out 
        ``and productivity'' and insert in lieu thereof ``productivity 
        and reasonable price stability''. . . .

        Mr. Jeffords (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the amendments offered as a substitute be 
    considered as read and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (16) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Vermont?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Augustus F.] Hawkins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on the amendments.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from California 
    reserves a point of order on the amendments.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Vermont has already made 
    the request that the amendment be considered as read and that 
    request was granted, therefore I think the point of order comes too 
    late.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair would advise the 
    gentleman from Maryland that the point of order can still be made 
    or reserved before the gentleman proceeds with his remarks. 
    Therefore, the reservation is in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.45 While the reservation of a point of order by one Member 
    against an amendment inures to all Members if insisted upon at the 
    appropriate time, the point of order must be made by a Member when 
    the Chair inquires whether the Member reserving the point of order 
    wishes to insist upon it, but comes too late after that Member has 
    withdrawn the point of order and further debate has intervened on 
    the amendment.

    On Aug. 2, 1978, (18) The Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 12514, (19) The above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 124 Cong. Rec. 23921, 23922, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. The International Security Assistance Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 6574]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Harkin: Page 19, immediately after 
        line 14, insert the following new section 21. . . .
            ``After the date of enactment of the International Security 
        Assistance Act of 1978, no deliveries of defense articles or 
        services may be made to Chile pursuant to any sale made before 
        the date of enactment of this section. . . .

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Zablocki: I do not insist on the point of order, to save 
    time.
        Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: . . . I would like to ask 
    the Chair, since the gentleman from Wisconsin reserved a point of 
    order, and the gentleman from Maryland who was also on his feet did 
    not reserve a point of order because he thought the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin was going to make a point of order, whether or not it 
    would be in order for the gentleman from Maryland to make a point 
    of order?
        The Chairman: The Chair has recognized the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) for 5 minutes, so the point of order could 
    not be made at this time.
        Mr. Bauman: Can the gentleman from Wisconsin still make his 
    point of order at this time?
        The Chairman: No, he cannot.

Discretion of Chair as to Reservation of Point of Order

Sec. 1.46 A reservation of a point of order against an amendment is 
    within the discretion of the Chair, who may insist that the point 
    of order be made following debate by the proponent of the amendment 
    and prior to recognition of other Members.

    During consideration of H.R. 5167 (1) in the Committee 
of the Whole on May 16, 1984,(2) the proposition described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Defense Department authorization bill.
 2. 130 Cong. Rec. 12509, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
    AuCoin) has reserved a point of order. Does the gentleman wish to 
    pursue that?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Les] AuCoin: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Under the rules of the 
    House I understand I am not required to raise the point of order at 
    this particular point. But I do continue to reserve my point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The Chair has the discretion to entertain the 
    point of order, and the Chair chooses at this time to have the 
    gentleman state his reservation.
        Does the gentleman make a point of order? . . .

[[Page 6575]]

        Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    Price amendment on the grounds that its scope is broader than that 
    of the primary amendment, title 1, and therefore is not germane to 
    the primary amendment.