[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[A. Generally]
[Â§ 3. Effect of Special Rule; Amending Special Rule]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6589-6677]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
                              A. GENERALLY
 
Sec. 3. Effect of Special Rule; Amending Special Rule

    Bills are frequently considered pursuant to the terms of a special 
rule or resolution reported from the Committee on Rules which specifies 
whether amendments may be offered to the bill, the kind and number of 
amendments that may be offered, and the order of consideration and 
voting thereon. Broadly speaking, bills considered pursuant to an 
``open'' rule may be amended whereas bills considered pursuant to a 
``closed'' rule may not. In addition, special resolutions providing 
rules that are ``open in part'' or ``closed in part'' or providing a 
``modified closed or open rule'' are not uncommon.(18) The 
effect of a special rule is, of course, limited by the terms of the 
rule itself. A special rule may waive points of order against a bill or 
amendments thereto. Where the House waives all points of order against 
the bill, such waiver does not apply to amendments offered from the 
floor.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Compare 117 Cong. Rec. 15599, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., May 18, 1971 [H. 
        Res. 437, providing for consideration of H.R. 3613 pursuant to 
        an ``open'' rule]; 112 Cong. Rec. 13990, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        June 23, 1966, where the Committee on Rules reported a 
        ``closed'' rule, although the legislative committee requesting 
        the resolution had asked for an ``open'' rule; 116 Cong. Rec. 
        23901, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 13, 1970 [H. Res. 1093, 
        providing for a rule ``closed in part'']; 117 Cong. Rec. 18614, 
        92d Cong. 1st Sess., June 8, 1971 [H. Res. 466, providing for a 
        rule ``open in part'' and ``closed in part'']; 117 Cong. Rec. 
        21082, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., June 21, 1971 [H. Res. 487, 
        providing for consideration of H.R. 1, Social Security 
        Amendments of 1971, under a ``modified closed rule''].
19. 97 Cong. Rec. 11682, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 19, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For example, where the House by resolution waives all points of 
    order against any provisions in an appropriation bill, such action 
    does not waive points of order against amendments offered from the 
    floor. (However, where provisions of a bill, otherwise subject to a 
    point of order are permitted to remain in the bill, because the 
    rule protects them, ``perfecting amendments'' to those provisions 
    may be immune from a point of order.) (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See, for example, Ch. 26 Sec. 3.21, supra. (And see Ch. 26 Sec. 3, 
        generally, for discussion of waiver of points of order against 
        provisions of appropriation bills, and amendments that may be 
        offered to such provisions.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, where the House has adopted the resolution waiving

[[Page 6590]]

points of order against committee amendments, no authorization is given 
thereby to Members to offer amendments which are not 
germane.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 94 Cong. Rec. 8685, 8686, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1948.
            See also 94 Cong. Rec. 8670, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 
        1948.
            For specific application of these principles, see 
        particular topics, such as the discussion of the 
        ``germaneness'' rule in Ch. 28, infra; see also the discussion 
        of ``special rules'' in Ch. 21, supra, especially for 
        illustrative uses of the special rule. Ch. 13, which in part 
        discusses procedures under the Budget Act, contains discussion 
        of special rules in relation to the budget process, such as 
        special rules that waive points of order arising under the 
        Budget Act. And see Ch. 29, Consideration and Debate, for 
        further discussion of special rules, especially as they affect 
        control and distribution of debate time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House, of course, ultimately decides the conditions under which 
a bill will be considered. Special rules reported by the Committee on 
Rules are subject to germane amendment while the rule is pending if the 
Member in control yields for such amendment or offers the amendment 
himself, or if the previous question is voted down.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 3.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To a special rule providing for the consideration of one measure, 
an amendment providing for the consideration of, and waiving points of 
order against, an unrelated and nongermane measure is itself not 
germane, and may not be offered on the floor of the House even after 
defeat of the previous question on the rule. For further discussion of 
amending special rules, see Ch. 21 Sec. 18, e.g. Sec. Sec. 18.31, 
18.32, supra; see also Ch. 28, discussing germaneness of amendments 
generally, infra.
    A rule may provide that a committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be considered as an original bill for amendment. In 
such a case, the committee amendment is read by sections for amendment. 
A substitute for the committee amendment may be offered at the end of 
the first section or at the end of the committee 
amendment.(2) At the conclusion of the reading for amendment 
the question is on agreeing to the committee amendment in the nature of 
a substitute or such substitute as amended; if the committee substitute 
is voted down, the original bill is then read for 
amendment.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. Sec. 12.29, infra.
 3. See Sec. Sec. 12.30, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The terms of a special rule agreed to by the House may not be 
substantively altered in the Committee of the Whole, even by

[[Page 6591]]

unanimous consent, although the House may by unanimous consent delegate 
to the Committee of the Whole authority to entertain unanimous consent 
requests to change procedures contained in a special rule. And a proper 
amendment, once having been initially offered in conformity with a 
special rule, may be modified in the Committee of the Whole by 
unanimous consent.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. These and related issues are discussed in Sec. Sec. 3.22-3.33, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments to Rule

Sec. 3.1 Special rules reported by the Committee on Rules are subject 
    to amendment while the rule is pending if the Member in control 
    yields for such amendment or if he offers the amendment himself, or 
    if the previous question is voted down.

    On Nov. 24, 1942,(5) he following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 88 Cong. Rec. 9100, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin of Mississippi: Is the rule amendable 
    before the previous question is voted down? . . .
        The Speaker: (6) The Chair, of course, will 
    entertain a motion to amend any special rule at any time while the 
    rule is pending if the gentleman in control yields for it or if he 
    offers it himself or if the previous question should be voted down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.2 A Member to whom time is yielded only for debate in the House 
    on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, and who seeks 
    unanimous consent to offer an amendment, is not entitled to have 
    the amendment read by the Clerk where another Member objects to the 
    offering of the amendment.

    On May 14, 1985,(7) the minority Member controlling 
debate time on a special order reported from the Committee on Rules 
sought unanimous consent to offer a nongermane amendment to require all 
Budget Act waivers recommended by that committee to be explained in the 
accompanying reports for the remainder of the 99th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 131 Cong. Rec. 11713, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Moakley [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 
    157, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 157

            Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
        resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1

[[Page 6592]]

        (b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
        Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
        consideration of the bill (H.R. 1157) to authorize 
        appropriations for fiscal year 1986 for certain maritime 
        programs of the Department of Transportation and the Federal 
        Maritime Commission, and the first reading of the bill shall be 
        dispensed with. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Moakley: Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
    30 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Lott). . . .
        Mr. [Trent] Lott: Mr. Speaker, I send an amendment to the desk 
    and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Moakley) did not yield for that purpose.
        Mr. Moakley: That is right, Mr. Speaker. . . .

        I object to the unanimous-consent request. . . .
        Mr. Lott: Mr. Speaker, are we not going to have the amendment 
    read?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Massachusetts 
    objected.

Amendments to Closed Rule

Sec. 3.3 An amendment to a resolution providing a ``closed'' rule may 
    be offered in the House if the previous question is voted down on 
    the resolution.

    On Dec. 31, 1970,(9) an inquiry was addressed to the 
Chair concerning amendments to a resolution providing a closed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 116 Cong. Rec. 44292, 44293, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H. Res. 1337 (Committee on Rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: This is a closed rule that 
    will not permit any amendments to be offered to the resolution 
    itself?
        The Speaker: (10) The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman from Illinois that that is a matter for the House to 
    determine. In its present form, the gentleman's statement is 
    correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Yates: If the previous question on this rule is voted down, 
    will the resolution be open for amendment?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state in answer to the gentleman's 
    question, that it would be.

Sec. 3.4 If the House adopts an amendment to a pending ``closed'' rule 
    permitting motions to ``strike out any matter in the bill,'' 
    motions to strike out any portion of the bill would be in order as 
    the bill is read for amendment.

    On Nov. 18, 1970,(11) the Speaker pro tempore responded 
to a parliamentary inquiry concerning

[[Page 6593]]

the effect of an amendment as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 37823, 37838, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H. Res. 1225 (Committee on Rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) Under the terms of the 
    amendment, any motion to strike out any language, word or otherwise 
    in any part would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Including an entire section?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Including an entire section, or title.

Sec. 3.5 The House rejected the previous question on a ``modified 
    closed'' rule recommended by the Committee on Rules permitting 
    designated minority amendments to an omnibus reconciliation bill, 
    and specifying two allowable motions to recommit, and then adopted 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute providing a ``modified 
    closed rule'' different from the reported rule in the following 
    respects: placing all control of general debate in the chairman and 
    ranking minority member of the Budget Committee, and permitting 
    only two amendments in Committee of the Whole to the Budget 
    Committee's original text if offered by designated minority 
    Members; and allowing, without specifying the content of, one 
    motion to recommit with or without instructions.

    On June 25, 1981,(13) the House having under 
consideration House Resolution 169,(14) the proceedings 
described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 127 Cong. Rec. 14065, 14078, 14079, 14083, 14084, 97th Cong. 1st 
        Sess.
14. Providing for consideration of H.R. 3982, Omnibus Budget 
        Reconciliation Act of 1981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 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, with the 
        chairman and ranking minority member of each of the following 
        committees to equally divide and control the time indicated: 
        the Committee on the Budget, thirty minutes; the Committee on 
        Agriculture, thirty minutes; the Committee on Armed Services, 
        thirty minutes . . . and the Committee on Ways and Means, 
        thirty minutes: Provided, That the

[[Page 6594]]

        chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
        Budget may reserve a portion of their time to close general 
        debate. It shall be in order to consider an amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the bill H.R. 
        3964, as modified by the amendment printed in the Congressional 
        Record of June 23, 1981, by Representative Jones as an original 
        bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule, 
        said substitute shall be considered as having been read for 
        amendment, and said substitute shall be in order any rule of 
        the House to the contrary notwithstanding. No amendment to the 
        substitute or to the bill shall be in order in the House or in 
        the Committee of the Whole except the following amendments. . . 
        .
            The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
        bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
        intervening motion except two motions to recommit. One such 
        motion may not contain any instructions, but notwithstanding 
        any other provision of this resolution, it shall be in order to 
        offer a second motion to recommit with instruction containing 
        only the following amendments contained in the committee print: 
        the motion to strike out and insert the provisions on page 54, 
        line 13 through page 66, line 29 (social service block grants) 
        and the provisions on page 74, line 9 through page 95, line 3 
        (consolidation of education programs). . . .

        The Speaker: (15) The question is on ordering the 
    previous question. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    210, nays 217, not voting 4, as follows. . . .
        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. . . . No 
        amendment to the bill shall be in order in the Committee of the 
        Whole except an amendment in the nature of a substitute which 
        shall be the text of the bill H.R. 3964, said amendment shall 
        be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, 
        and shall be considered as having been read, all points of 
        order are hereby waived against said amendment, and no 
        amendment shall be in order to said amendment except--
            ``(1) A substitute amendment to title VI by Representative 
        Broyhill, if offered, and said amendment shall be considered as 
        having been read and shall not be subject to amendment or to a 
        division of the question in the House or in the Committee of 
        the Whole, but shall be debatable for not to exceed 2 hours to 
        be equally divided and controlled by Representative Broyhill 
        and a Member opposed thereto and all points of order against 
        said amendment are hereby waived and (2) the amendments of 
        Representative Latta of Ohio, said amendments shall be 
        considered en bloc and shall be considered as having been read 
        and shall not be subject to amendment or to a division of the 
        question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole, but 
        shall be debatable for not to exceed 4 hours, to be equally 
        divided and controlled

[[Page 6595]]

        by Representative Latta and a Member opposed thereto, and all 
        points of order against said amendments are hereby waived. . . 
        .
            [T]he previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
        the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
        intervening motion except one motion to recommit, with or 
        without instructions. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The question is on the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
    from Ohio (Mr. Latta). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    216, nays 212, not voting 4, as follows. . . .
        So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to. . 
    . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the resolution, as 
    amended. . . .
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    214, nays 208, not voting 9, as follows.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Committee on Rules may, consistent with 
Rule XI clause 4(b), report a special order which limits the motion to 
recommit to a straight motion, or to a designated motion with 
instructions, based upon the ruling of Speaker Rainey on January 11, 
1934. (See ``House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(b), 100th Cong. (1987).)

Amendments to Bill on Adoption of Special Rule

Sec. 3.6 Amendments to a bill are not in order in the House during the 
    hiatus following agreement to a resolution making the bill a 
    special order of business in Committee of the Whole, but are 
    properly proposed following the expiration of the time for general 
    debate in Committee of the Whole.

    On Dec. 3, 1963,(17) an inquiry was made in the House, 
in the circumstances described above, concerning the proper time for 
offering amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 109 Cong. Rec. 23038, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
            The bill referred to was H.R. 6196 (Committee on 
        Agriculture), to encourage increased consumption of cotton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert J.] Dole [of Kansas]: Based on the decision of the 
    Chair, is it proper now or in order to offer amendments to section 
    330 and section 105?
        The Speaker: (18) Not at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dole: But the amendment would be proper at the proper time?
        The Speaker: At the proper time in the Committee of the Whole, 
    if the gentleman desires to offer an amendment he may do so.

Open Rule

Sec. 3.7 Where a bill is being considered in the Committee of the Whole 
    under an ``open'' rule, germane amendments

[[Page 6596]]

    to the bill are in order under the standing rules of the House.

    On July 26, 1965, (19) in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry as to amendments permissible under the open rule and amendment 
thereto before the House, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 111 Cong. Rec. 18076, 18077, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will state that the resolution is in accordance with 
    the standing rules of the House, and any amendment that is germane 
    under the standing rules of the House would be in order. The 
    standing rules of the House would determine the germaneness of any 
    amendment that might be offered.

Modified Closed Rule

Sec. 3.8 A ``modified closed rule'' sometimes permits only committee 
    amendments or designated amendments.

    On Dec. 11, 1973, (20) the Chairman (1) of 
the Committee of the Whole made the following statement with respect to 
the rule (2) pursuant to which the Trade Reform Act of 1973 
(3) as being considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 40794, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
 2. H. Res. 657.
 3. H.R. 10710 (Committee on Ways and Means).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        All time has expired. Under the rule the bill is considered as 
    having been read for amendment. No amendments are in order except 
    amendments offered by the direction of the Committee on Ways and 
    Means, an amendment offered to section 402 of the bill containing 
    the text printed on pages H9106 and H9107 of the Congressional 
    Record of October 16, 1973, an amendment proposing to strike out 
    title IV of said bill, and an amendment proposing to strike out 
    title V of said bill but said amendments shall not be subject to 
    amendment.

Modified Closed Rule--Effect on Motions To Strike

Sec. 3.9 To a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute being 
    read by titles for amendment under a special rule prohibiting 
    amendments to amendments offered to title I (thereby permitting 
    only 10 minutes of debate on each permissible amendment to title 
    I), an amendment inserting a new title II may be amended (including 
    pro forma amendments thereto) and is not subject to the 
    restrictions imposed by that rule.

    On Mar. 26, 1974,(4) during consideration of H.R 69 (to 
amend and extend the Elementary and

[[Page 6597]]

Secondary Education Act), a parliamentary inquiry was raised as to the 
effect of the special rule as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 120 Cong. Rec. 8264, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        . . . Will the rules that applied to title I apply to this 
    amendment as well, that there can be only one speaker on each side? 
    Or will we go back to the regular rules of the House, where pro 
    forma amendments can be offered to amendments so that the Members 
    can have 5 minutes each, for as long as they wish to do so?
        The Chairman (Mr. [Melvin] Price of Illinois): The restrictions 
    of the rule adopted by the House on March 12 would not apply to 
    this amendment.

Rule Restricting Amendments at End of Bill

Sec. 3.10 Where a special order prohibited the offering of amendments 
    to an amendment (being considered as an original bill) following 
    consideration of the final title for amendment, the Chair indicated 
    that amendments in the form of new titles could be offered prior to 
    consideration of the final title and that adoption of one such 
    amendment would not preclude the offering of another immediately 
    thereafter.

    During consideration of H.R. 5640 (5) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Aug. 10, 1984,(6) a question arose as to the 
proper time to offer amendments, in the light of a special rule (H. 
Res. 570, agreed to on Aug. 9, 1984) which provided in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Superfund Expansion and Protection Act of 1984.
 6. 130 Cong. Rec. 24022, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committees on 
    Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means now printed in the bill, it 
    shall be in order to consider, as an original bill for the purpose 
    of amendment under the five-minute rule, an amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute contained in the Committee Print, Committee on 
    Energy and Commerce, August 6, 1984, consisting of titles I through 
    IV of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
    the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill and 
    title V recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed 
    in the bill, said substitute shall be considered for amendment by 
    titles instead of by sections. . . . Until title V of said 
    substitute is considered for amendment, no amendment which changes, 
    affects or deletes title V shall be in order. No amendment to title 
    V of said substitute shall be in order except an amendment printed 
    in the Congressional Record of August 8, 1984 by, and if offered 
    by, Representative Conable of New York, and said amendment shall 
    not be subject to amendment. . . . At the conclu

[[Page 6598]]

    sion of the consideration of title V for amendment, no further 
    amendment shall be in order to the substitute, and the Committee 
    shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
    may have been adopted, and any Member may demand a separate vote in 
    the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to 
    the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
    order as original text by this resolution.

    The proceedings on Aug. 10 were as follows:

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment [adding a new title following title IV of the bill]. . . 
    .
        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I would just 
    question from the timing standpoint. I have an amendment that is 
    printed in the Record and I am wondering and want to make sure that 
    the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia, being offered at this 
    time, does not prevent mine from being offered following his.
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux) that he is unable to rule 
    until he sees the two amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Joseph G. Minish (N.J.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Breaux: Mr. Chairman, if an amendment is to be offered 
    which would create a new title following completion of title IV, 
    would it be in order to offer that amendment following the 
    amendment of the gentleman from Georgia?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that that is 
    correct.

Modified Closed Rule Permitting Only Pre-Printed Amendments

Sec. 3.11 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 may be offered, where 
    that amendment has been inserted in the Record without a page 
    reference but with language indicating its point of insertion, the 
    amendment will be in substantial compliance with the special rule 
    when offered in identical form but also including a page 
    designation.

    On Apr. 1, 1976,(8) the Chair, in overruling a point of 
order, stated that, 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 amendment to the amendment, 
when offered, containing a page reference to the original

[[Page 6599]]

amendment which had been left blank in the Record version, was in order 
since the page insertion did not change the point at which the language 
was intended to be inserted in the original amendment. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 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. . . .

        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 8493, 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: (9) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 3.12 Where a special order providing for the consideration of a 
    bill permits the offering only of designated amendments which have 
    been printed in the Congressional Record, an amendment offered 
    under the rule should be in the exact form

[[Page 6600]]

    in which it was printed in the Record, but the Committee of the 
    Whole may by unanimous consent permit modification of the amendment 
    to correct erroneous page and line numbers.

    On Aug. 3, 1977, (10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8444, the National Energy Act, under a special order 
which permitted the offering only of certain amendments. The 
proceedings described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 123 Cong. Rec. 26450, 26451, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
            Compare the proceedings of Apr. 1, 1976, at 122 Cong. Rec. 
        9091, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., where the Chairman stated that it 
        was permissible to insert a page reference in an amendment 
        printed in the Record, where the printed amendment did not 
        contain one, the amendment being considered in substantial 
        compliance with the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I further 
    direct a question to the gentleman from Ohio; this is the amendment 
    published in the Record on July 27, 1977; am I correct?
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: But for the page and line 
    numbers; that is correct.
        Mr. Dingell: That is the reason for my inquiry, because I 
    observe that the page and line numbers cited therein were 
    incorrect. The reason I am inquiring is to make sure it is the 
    correct amendment.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, at the 
    time it was published in the Record we were using page and line 
    numbers of the bill then available to us. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, if I heard the Clerk correctly, I think the Clerk 
    read the proper page and line numbers. The amendment at the desk 
    relates to the page and line numbers as they would be related in 
    the bill. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I make the observation that the rule 
    does provide that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) shall have 
    the authority to offer the amendment now referred to according to 
    the terms and the conditions of the rule. The rule says as follows:

            (3) An amendment printed in the Congressional Record of 
        July 27, 1977, beginning on page 25321, by Representative Brown 
        of Ohio, to part IV, title I, which amendment shall be in order 
        only after disposition of the amendments to that part 
        recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee on Energy printed in or 
        adopted to the bill;

        Mr. Chairman, I observe that the amendment printed in the 
    Record is to one portion of the bill, but I observe that the 
    amendment offered is offered to a different portion of the 
    legislation before us.
        Mr. Chairman, I am curious to know whether or not the amendment 
    is offered in conformity with the rule.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio . . . The question of the slight differences 
    in page numbers and so forth which were necessitated because of the 
    fact that the printed bill in its final form was not available for 
    the gentleman from Ohio to make reference to when he printed

[[Page 6601]]

    his amendment in the Record. Because of that circumstance we 
    cleared with the Parliamentarian, or so we thought, the 
    appropriateness of the amendment which was submitted to the desk in 
    accordance with the rule. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair finds that there is a 
    difference in the page and line numbers that are now before the 
    committee, and if the gentleman from Michigan insists upon his 
    request, the gentleman from Ohio will have to ask unanimous consent 
    that his amendment be modified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Edward P. Boland (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Does the gentleman from Michigan insist upon his request?
        Mr. Dingell: I think, Mr. Chairman, we would be better served 
    were that done. It will not prejudice my friend from Ohio.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to modification of the 
    amendment?
        Mr. [Clifford R.] Allen [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I make the same unanimous-consent 
    request.
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman that 
    the amendment will be in order regardless of the page and line 
    numbers since an amendment to part IV of title I is permitted in 
    the rule.
        Mr. Dingell: Perhaps I can obviate some of the problems. . .  . 
    I am sure my good friend from Ohio . . . would assure us that the 
    two amendments are substantively identical.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: They are.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.

Sec. 3.13 A special order prohibiting amendments to a bill except those 
    printed in the Congressional Record does not apply to amendments 
    which are offered to amendments, unless so specified.

    A point of order against an amendment to an amendment, on the 
grounds that it was not in order under the special rule providing for 
consideration of the bill, was overruled. The proceedings in the 
Committee of the Whole on Sept. 7, 1978, (12) were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 28419, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7308, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        Mr. [Morgan F.] Murphy of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (13) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Murphy of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not 
    germane in that it is not timely printed in the Record. The 
    gentleman came up to us just a few minutes ago and said the 
    gentleman had printed it in the Record yesterday; but the rule 
    issued July 12 requires it be reported 3 legislative days prior to 
    consideration.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will rule that the rule 
    applies to amendments to the bill and not to amendments to 
    amendments. In this case we have an amendment to a substitute 
    amendment, so the rule does not apply.

[[Page 6602]]

        The Clerk will report the amendment.

Sec. 3.14 Where a special order adopted by the House only requires that 
    all amendments offered to a bill in Committee of the Whole be 
    printed in the Record, any Member may offer any germane amendment 
    printed in the Record, and there is no requirement that only the 
    Member causing the amendment to be printed may offer it, unless the 
    special order so specifies.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on Oct. 31, 
1979,(14) during consideration of H.R. 4985, the Priority 
Energy Projects Act of 1979. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 125 Cong. Rec. 30441, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Nick J.] Rahall [II, of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have an amendment that was printed in the Record.
        I also have an amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Dingell) that was printed in the Record and through negotiations 
    between the two of us, I am offering the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) at this point. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, do I 
    understand that under this rule that governs the consideration of 
    this bill that any Member can offer any amendment that was printed 
    in the Record, no matter who the author of the amendment was?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (15) The gentleman is 
    correct. That is the correct interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Norman D. Dicks (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Who may offer a printed amendment under 
such a rule must be distinguished from who may offer a printed 
amendment under Rule XXIII clause 6 to be entitled to debate in 
Committee of the Whole; that rule specifically speaks to the Member who 
caused the amendment to be printed.

Sec. 3.15 A resolution reported from the Committee on Rules which 
    prohibits amendments to a bill except amendments printed in the 
    Congressional Record at least two legislative days before their 
    consideration requires that those amendments be submitted for 
    printing in the Congressional Record bearing a date at least two 
    days before they are offered under the 5-minute rule.

    On June 11, 1981,(16) during consideration of House 
Resolution 148 (17) in the House, the pro

[[Page 6603]]

ceedings described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 127 Cong. Rec. 12176, 12213, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3480, to amend the Legal 
        Services Corporation Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Frost [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 148 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 148

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
        the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3480) to amend the Legal 
        Services Corporation Act to provide authorization of 
        appropriations for additional fiscal years, and for other 
        purposes, and the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
        with. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill 
        and shall continue not to exceed one hour, to be equally 
        divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
        member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the bill shall be 
        read for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
        order to consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
        recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
        the bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under 
        the five-minute rule. No amendment to the bill or to said 
        substitute shall be in order except germane amendments printed 
        in the Congressional Record at least two legislative days 
        before their consideration. At the conclusion of the 
        consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall 
        rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
        may have been adopted. . . .

        [The resolution was adopted.]
        Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: To the Republican whip 
    or the majority leader, I would like a clarification on the Legal 
    Services Corporation legislation.
        Do I understand we will be allowed to file amendments with the 
    desk on Monday and that will constitute 48 hours, being 2 working 
    days, Monday and Tuesday? . . .
        The Speaker: (18) The Chair will answer that the 
    bill will be up on Tuesday for general debate and for amendments. 
    It is not anticipated, in view of the interest in the bill, that 
    the House will be able to complete the bill on that day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So, any amendment that would be offered on Tuesday would have 
    to be filed today. Any amendment filed on Monday could be offered 
    on Wednesday if offered to a portion of the bill not yet read.

Sec. 3.16 Where a special rule only permits the offering of amendments 
    in the order printed in the Record, but the Record incorrectly 
    prints certain amendments, the Chair has the prerogative of 
    permitting the amendment to be offered in the form and order 
    submitted for printing.

    The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole announced that, pursuant 
to a special order adopted by the House requiring perfecting amendments 
printed in the Record to be offered in a specified

[[Page 6604]]

order, he would recognize a designated Member to offer his amendments 
in the intended order submitted for printing consistent with grouping 
of amendments to the budget resolution (19) by subject 
matter, rather than in the order inadvertently printed in the Record. 
The proceedings on May 24, 1982,(20) ere as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 128 Cong. Rec. 11542, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
20. H. Con. Res. 345.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (1) Before the Chair entertains a 
    motion for the Committee to rise, the Chair desires to make a 
    statement relative to the order of the consideration of the 
    perfecting amendments made in order by the House to the amendments 
    in the nature of a substitute to be offered by Representatives 
    Latta, Aspin, and Jones. As indicated by an insertion which will be 
    made in today's Congressional Record by the chairman of the 
    Committee on Rules, which was submitted for printing in the 
    Congressional Record of May 21, but was omitted from that Record, 
    it was the intent of the special order reported by the Committee on 
    Rules and adopted by the House, House Resolution 477, to group the 
    perfecting amendments in discrete subject matters and categories in 
    order to fashion an orderly process for the consideration of the 
    congressional budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The subject matter of revenues is to be considered first, 
    followed by consideration of the defense budget. Due to a clerical 
    error, the first perfecting amendment to be offered by 
    Representative Jones, relating to revenues, was labeled No. 7 in 
    the Congressional Record of May 21, and the second amendment to be 
    offered by Representative Jones, relating to defense, was labeled 
    No. 3 in the May 21 Congressional Record. The amendments were 
    submitted in the proper order for printing in the Record and the 
    Chair would therefore advise the Committee that those amendments 
    will, if offered, be considered in the proper order, with 
    Representative Jones' revenue amendment to be the third perfecting 
    amendment made in order under the rule and Representative Jones' 
    defense amendment to be the seventh perfecting amendment made in 
    order under the rule. The Chair would also point out that the 
    amendment by Representative Wolf, the 47th perfecting amendment 
    made in order under the rule, was printed on page 2637 in the 
    Congressional Record for May 21, but the Member's name was 
    inadvertently omitted in the printing of the Record. The amendment, 
    which will be reprinted in the Record of May 24, will be in order 
    for consideration since it was properly submitted pursuant to the 
    rule.
        The Chair requests that Members bring to his attention any 
    further errors that require correction in order that the Committee 
    of the Whole may proceed in a fair and orderly fashion.

Sec. 3.17 During consideration of a bill pursuant to a special rule 
    permitting the majority and minority leaders to offer amendments 
    not printed in the Record but permitting all other Members to offer 
    only

[[Page 6605]]

    amendments to the bill which have been printed in the Record, the 
    majority leader was allowed to offer an amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute not printed in the Record, but while the substitute 
    was pending another Member was permitted to offer to the bill a 
    perfecting amendment printed in the Record.

    During the proceedings of July 28, 1983,(2) in the 
Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that, pending an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute for an entire bill, perfecting amendments 
to the pending portion of the bill could still be offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 129 Cong. Rec. 21468, 21469, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Wright Jr., [of Texas, the majority leader]: Mr. 
    Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Wright: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
            That the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
        1983 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        title. . . .

        Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: I have an amendment that was 
    printed in the Record. Will I be given an opportunity to offer it?
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman that a printed perfecting amendment to the bill can be 
    offered before the vote on the Wright amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.18 Where a special order of business mandates that certain 
    amendments be printed in the Congressional Record prior to their 
    being offered, but does not impose the same requirement on 
    amendments to amendments, an amendment offered as a substitute for 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute does not need to be 
    printed in the Record prior to its consideration.

    On July 28, 1983,(4) the proposition described above was 
demonstrated during consideration of H.R. 2760 in the Committee of the 
Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 129 Cong. Rec. 21473, 21474, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Doug] Bereuter [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter as a substitute for the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Wright:

[[Page 6606]]

            Strike out all after the enacting clause and in lieu 
        thereof insert the following. . . .

        Mr. [Theodore S.] Weiss [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, it is my 
    understanding that substitutes, except for the one offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas, the majority leader, have to be in written 
    form and filed in advance. I understand that this particular 
    substitute had not been, and that is the basis of my point of 
    order. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair would advise the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss) that this is an amendment 
    offered as a substitute for the Wright amendment and the rule does 
    not require that it be printed in the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.19 Where a bill is being considered under a special order 
    requiring amendments to be printed in the Record, and the Chair 
    inadvertently permits the offering of an unprinted amendment which 
    is adopted, those proceedings may be vacated only by unanimous 
    consent.

    The circumstance stated above was the basis of the following 
proceedings which occurred on Oct. 1, 1985,(6) during 
consideration of H.R. 2100 (7) in the Committee of the 
Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 131 Cong. Rec. 25463, 25464, 25467, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. The Food Security Act of 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Barkley] Bedell [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment that takes care of some concerns that the Committee on 
    Ways and Means had.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. Bedell (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
    Record.
        The Chairman: (8) is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Iowa?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Bedell: Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the 
    committee.
        Mr. [Kika] de la Garza [of Texas]: I thank my colleague for 
    yielding.
        Mr. Chairman, this takes care of a jurisdictional conflict 
    between our committee and the Committee on Ways and Means. After 
    diligent effort between the staffs and the respective chairmen, the 
    end result is this amendment which would satisfy the Committee on 
    Ways and Means and would do no harm to our committee version, and I 
    would urge the Members to accept it. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Bedell).
        The amendment was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    wanted to raise a problem that I have discovered where we have had 
    an amendment adopted here just a few minutes (ago) that was not 
    eligible for consideration under the rule. It is my understanding 
    that the Bedell amendment that was adopted to this section a few 
    minutes ago had not been printed in the Record in a timely fashion, 
    so

[[Page 6607]]

    under the rule, it was not eligible for consideration on the floor 
    except by unanimous consent.
        In fact, we did not have a unanimous-consent request for that 
    amendment, so therefore it should not have been considered under 
    the regular procedures. Given that situation, it seems to me that 
    the House should not be acting upon an amendment at this point that 
    is based upon perfecting language that was offered that was not in 
    fact eligible for consideration on the House floor.
        If I might, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    proceedings be vacated under [which] the Bedell amendment to this 
    section was adopted.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania?
        Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.

Sec. 3.20 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.

    On Oct. 3, 1985,(9) during consideration of H.R. 2100 
(10) in the Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 131 Cong. Rec. 25970, 25971, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. The Food Security Act of 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conte: Page 11, 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.''. . .

        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?

[[Page 6608]]

        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.
        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 Mr. Conte's unanimous consent 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.

Sec. 3.21 Where a bill is being considered under a rule requiring prior 
    printing of amendments in the Congressional Record, an amendment 
    printed with specific page and line numbers may be offered in that 
    form, even though that form does not reflect the offeror's intent.

    On Oct. 3, 1985,(12) in the Committee of the Whole, an 
amendment was modified by unanimous consent to reflect the version of 
the bill (13) then being considered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 131 Cong. Rec. 26021, 26022, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H.R. 2100, the Food Security Act of 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Beryl F.] Anthony [Jr., of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is the amendment printed in the 
    Record?
        Mr. Anthony: It is printed in the Record, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the amendment.

[[Page 6609]]

        Mr. Anthony: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    amendment be modified to read ``Page 323, strike lines 6 through 
    10.''
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Arkansas?
        Mr. [William W.] Franklin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, 
    reserving the right to object, is this the amendment that was 
    originally offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Rostenkowski]?
        Mr. Anthony: Yes, it is.
        Mr. Franklin: I would like to ask, under the reservation, if I 
    could, if the amendment that is presently at the desk is in the 
    same form as the one printed in the Record.
        Mr. Anthony: It is the identical amendment. All it does is 
    correct the pages, inasmuch as when the amendment was filed, it was 
    according to the bill that was reported out of the committee rather 
    than the one that was under the Union Calendar version. It is the 
    identical amendment. . . .
        Mr. Franklin: Mr. Chairman, continuing under my reservation, I 
    would like to raise a point of order to the amendment now offered, 
    which was originally filed by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Rostenkowski), and state that the amendment as printed in the 
    Record does not refer to the sections to be amended on H.R. 2100, 
    the Union Calendar, under which we are dealing.
        I would call the Chair's attention to a previous ruling on a 
    point of order when the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts 
    attempted to strike the honey provisions of H.R. 2100 and the Chair 
    ruled, because of a not specific reference to line and title and 
    page number, that that amendment was ruled out of order.
        I at this time insist on my point of order to the amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The amendment that is in the Record 
    has a specific line and title and may be offered in that form.
        The Clerk will report the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Anthony: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
    amendment to conform with the Union Calendar version of the bill.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Arkansas?
        There was no objection.
        The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Anthony, as modified: Page 323, 
        strike out lines 6 through 10.

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Anthony), as modified.
        The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

Modification of Pending Amendments Under a Modified Closed Rule

Sec. 3.22 Where a special order of business precludes the offering of 
    amendments not printed in the Congressional Record by a previous 
    date, amendments may only be offered in the form as printed and may 
    be modified by unanimous consent.

[[Page 6610]]

    During consideration of H.R. 2100 (14) on Oct. 1, 
1985,(15) the proposition described above occurred as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. The Food Security Act of 1985.
15. 131 Cong. Rec. 25418-20, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) When the Committee of the Whole 
    rose on Thursday, September 26, title IV was open to amendment at 
    any point to amendments printed in the Congressional Record before 
    September 24, 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there amendments to title IV? . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Glickman: Title IV of H.R. 2100 is 
        amended by--
            On page 65, after line 8, striking all through ``shall'' on 
        line 11 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
            ``(2) If the Secretary determines that the availability of 
        nonrecourse loans and purchases will not have an adverse effect 
        on the program provided for in paragraph (3), the Secretary 
        may''. . . .
            Title V of H.R. 2100 is amended by--
            On page 87, after line 15, striking all through ``shall'' 
        on line 18 and inserting in lieu thereof the following: . . .

        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I believe 
    a point of order would lie against the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Glickman) because the amendment, if I 
    understand the amendment that is being offered, goes to more than 
    one title of the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Dan] Glickman [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    amends two titles of the bill. To be frank with the Chair, it was 
    submitted as one amendment, but the intention of the author of this 
    amendment as well as the other authors was to deal with the issues 
    as they affected title IV and then title V. I put it in one title 
    of the bill, but, to be honest with the Chair, the issues are 
    divisible, they are separate. I could have amended it and put it in 
    two separate amendments. I did not because that is not the way the 
    issue came up in the Committee on Agriculture. . . .
        Mr. Robert F. Smith [of Oregon]: . . . Mr. Chairman, rule III 
    of the rules provides that consideration can only be by title, not 
    by section. I think the point remains that there is no question 
    that this amendment does affect two titles. . . .
        Mr. [Arlan] Stangeland [of Minnesota]: . . . I just want to 
    make the point that the amendment was printed in two distinctly 
    separate sections. One portion of the amendment dealt with wheat 
    and target prices and marketing loans. The second section of the 
    amendment deals with title V, the feed grain section. Two 
    distinctly different amendments but introduced in the Record as, 
    unfortunately, one amendment. . . . I would just appeal to the 
    Chair that the intent of the authors was that because they were 
    handled en bloc in committee, we would run that way, but they are 
    divisible, they can be addressed to title IV and title V very 
    distinctly in the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair would state that the Chair can only look at the form 
    in which the amendment has been sub

[[Page 6611]]

    mitted for printing in the Record. According to the rule, the 
    substitute shall be considered for amendment by title instead of by 
    sections, and only amendments to the bill which have been printed 
    in the Record by September 24 may be offered.
        Therefore, the only way in which the amendment that the 
    gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Glickman) wishes to offer could be 
    considered is by unanimous consent.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under a closed or modified closed rule, it 
is not allowable in the Committee of the Whole to offer an amendment 
not made in order by the rule. But once a proper amendment is before 
the Committee of the Whole, having been offered in conformity with the 
terms of the rule, such amendment may in some instances be modified by 
unanimous consent. See, for further example, the unanimous consent 
request of Mr. Robert J. Lagomarsino, of California, at 131 Cong. Rec. 
37374, 99th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 17, 1985, during consideration of 
H.R. 3838 (the Tax Reform Act of 1985), being considered pursuant to 
House Resolution 343.

Sec. 3.23 Where the Committee of the Whole is considering a bill under 
    a ``modified closed'' rule allowing only designated amendments to 
    be offered and prohibiting amendments to said amendments, an 
    amendment made in order under the rule may be modified or amended 
    only by unanimous consent.

    An illustration of the procedure for modifying amendments made in 
order under a rule as described above is to be found in the proceedings 
of Sept. 1, 1976: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 122 Cong. Rec. 28871, 28872, 28877, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (18) Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
    considered as having been read for amendment. No amendments are in 
    order except amendments recommended by the Committee on 
    Appropriations and the amendments printed in the Congressional 
    Record of August 31, 1976, by Representative Shipley, but said 
    amendments shall not be subject to amendment except amendments 
    recommended by the Committee on Appropriations and pro forma 
    amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there any points of order?
        If not, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Shipley). . . .
        Mr. [George E.] Shipley: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Shipley: Page 2, line 15, strike 
        the period and insert in lieu thereof: ``Provided, That none of 
        the funds contained in this Act shall be used for increases in 
        salaries of Members of the House of Representatives pursuant to 
        section 204a of Public Law 94-82.''. . .

[[Page 6612]]

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent to modify the Shipley amendment by adding at the 
    end thereof a sentence which I will ask that the Clerk report.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the modification to the 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            At the end of the Shipley amendment add a further sentence 
        as follows: No part of the funds appropriated in this Act or 
        any other act shall be used to pay the salary of an individual 
        in a position or office referred to in section 225(f) of the 
        Federal Salary Act of 1967. . . .

        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Arizona?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 3.24 While a special rule adopted by the House controlling the 
    consideration of a bill may not be directly amended in the 
    Committee of the Whole even by unanimous consent, the Committee 
    may, by unanimous consent, permit the modification of an amendment, 
    when offered, made in order by that special rule.

    On Aug. 2, 1977,(19) during consideration of H.R. 8444 
(the National Energy Act), there was pending in the Committee of the 
Whole a committee amendment under a special rule permitting a 
designated amendment to be offered only to such committee amendment, 
rather than separately to the bill. The Chair,(20) during 
these proceedings, entertained a unanimous-consent request to modify 
the designated amendment, which had been made in order by the rule and 
offered by Mr. William D. Ford, of Michigan. The modified amendment, 
while retaining its status as an amendment to the committee amendment 
consistent with the rule adopted by the House, changed the substantive 
text of the amendment by limiting its application to the committee 
amendment to which offered rather than, as originally printed in the 
Record, to the entire title of the bill. The Ford amendment read as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 26161, 26163, 26166, 26167, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Frank E. Evans (Colo.), Chairman Pro Tempore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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

[[Page 6613]]

    Federal funding shall take such steps as are necessary to insure 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, as 
    determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Act of 
    March 3, 1931 (40 U.S.C. 276a-276a-5, known as the Davis-Bacon 
    Act); and the Secretary of Labor shall have with respect to the 
    labor standards specified in this section the authority and 
    functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950. . . 
    .

    At this point, Mr. Richard L. Ottinger, of New York, raised a 
parliamentary inquiry as follows:

        Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order to ask 
    unanimous consent that the Ford amendment be considered separately. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman from New York that the Ford amendment is in order only 
    under the rule and the rule cannot be changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ottinger: And it cannot be changed by unanimous consent?
        The Chairman: The Committee of the Whole cannot directly change 
    House Resolution 727, the special rule adopted by the House, even 
    by unanimous consent.

    Subsequently, after some discussion of the scope of the Ford 
amendment, Mr. Ford asked unanimous consent that it be modified.

        Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
    assist 
    me . . . I would be very happy to ask unanimous consent to add, 
    before the words, ``title I,'' on line 17, the words, ``part III 
    of.''. . .
        Mr. (Garry) Brown of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, it is my 
    understanding that the Chair has ruled that even by unanimous 
    consent the gentleman could not amend his amendment. All I am 
    trying to do in this colloquy is establish the legislative 
    understanding.
        Mr. Ford of Michigan: I do not understand that there would be a 
    ruling that by unanimous consent I cannot modify my amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the Chair 
    merely stated that the rule cannot be amended by unanimous consent. 
    The Chair did not state that the amendment could not be amended by 
    unanimous consent.

    Mr. Ford then modified his amendment by unanimous consent, 
whereupon the amendment was agreed to, and the ad hoc committee 
amendment, as so amended, was agreed to. A parliamentary inquiry was 
raised, as follows:

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, earlier 
    today when the gentleman from Massachusetts occupied the chair, a 
    question was put to the Chair whether or not by unanimous consent 
    amendments could be offered to the bill.
        The resolution under which this bill is being considered says 
    on page 2:

            No amendment to the bill shall be in order except pro forma 
        amend

[[Page 6614]]

        ments for the purpose of debate and except the following 
        amendments, which shall be in order without the intervention of 
        any point of order, which shall not be subject to amendment 
        except for amendments recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee on 
        Energy. . . .

        Now, subsequent to the Chair's rule, with the gentleman from 
    Colorado in the chair, in response to a question when the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Ford) offered a unanimous-consent request, said 
    that the unanimous-consent request would be in order.
        My question to the Chair is, what is the ruling on unanimous 
    consent amendments to this bill or to the bill henceforth?
        The Chairman: The Chair will respond by indicating that the 
    Chair at the time understood the unanimous-consent request by the 
    gentleman from New York was to change the rule adopted by the 
    House.
        The Chair would agree that by unanimous consent modification of 
    a pending amendment is permissible in Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, so any pending amendment can be 
    modified by unanimous consent?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

    Parliamentarian's Note: See also the proceedings of Sept. 1, 
1976,(2) relating to H.R. 14238, legislative branch 
appropriations for fiscal 1977, which was considered under a ``modified 
closed'' rule (H. Res. 1507) allowing only designated amendments to be 
offered and prohibiting amendments to said amendments. An amendment 
that had been made in order under the rule and offered by Mr. George E. 
Shipley, of Illinois, was modified pursuant to a unanimous-consent 
request by Mr. Morris K. Udall, of Arizona.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 122 Cong. Rec. 28877, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.25 Where a special rule permits the offering of only those 
    germane amendments to a bill which have been printed in the Record, 
    an amendment which differs in any respect from a printed amendment 
    may not be offered (except by unanimous consent) even to cure a 
    germaneness defect in a printed amendment previously ruled out.

    On Oct. 5, 1977,(3) The Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 8410,(4) a point of order against 
an amendment, described above, was sustained by the Chair. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 123 Cong. Rec. 32510, 32511, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. The Labor Reform Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: Page 17, line 5, insert 
        ``(i)''

[[Page 6615]]

        after ``(A)'' and insert the following new subparagraph (ii) 
        after line 15:
            ``(ii) which shall assure that the expressing of any views, 
        arguments, opinion, or the making of any statement or the 
        dissemination thereof . . . shall not constitute grounds for . 
        . . setting aside the results of any election conducted under 
        section 9(c)(6) of this Act, if such expression contains no 
        threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.'

        The Chairman: (5) The Chair would like to inquire of 
    the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) if this amendment which was 
    reported by the Clerk is printed in the Record?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I would say the amendment was 
    printed in the Record. The Chair previously ruled it out of order 
    and I have struck certain language to make it conform with the 
    ruling of the Chair.
        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment was not printed in the 
    Record, notwithstanding the attempt of my good friend to revise it 
    in such a way as to indicate that it was. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair would have to sustain the point of 
    order. . . .

        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, is the Chair indicating an 
    amendment that was printed in the Record on Monday and ruled out of 
    order for parliamentary reasons cannot be revised and offered as a 
    substitute?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman that 
    the amendment was not printed in the Record in the form in which 
    the gentleman now presents it as an amendment to the bill.
        Mr. Ashbrook: The gentleman from Ohio would concede that.
        The Chairman: And the Chair would be constrained to sustain the 
    point of order.

Sec. 3.26 Unanimous consent was obtained in the House to modify an 
    amendment printed in the Congressional Record and made in order for 
    consideration in the Committee of the Whole by a special order of 
    business.

    On Sept. 4, 1984,(6) during consideration of general 
business in the House, the situation described above occurred as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 131 Cong. Rec. 22837, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
            See 131 Cong. Rec. 31387, 99th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 12, 
        1985, for an instance in which, following adoption of a 
        ``modified closed'' rule permitting only one amendment to be 
        offered to a joint resolution continuing appropriations, the 
        Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations was, by unanimous 
        consent, permitted by the House to offer an additional 
        amendment in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James J.] Howard [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the committee amendment at the desk which 
    was printed in the Congressional Record on July 11, 1985, and which 
    the rule, House Resolution 223, passed by the House on July 24 
    makes in order during the consideration of H.R. 10, be modified to 
    conform to funding ceilings rep

[[Page 6616]]

    resented by Senate Concurrent Resolution 32, passed by the Congress 
    August 1, 1985, setting forth the congressional budget for the 
    United States.

Sec. 3.27 An amendment specifically made in order under a ``modified 
    closed'' rule adopted by the House and not amendable thereunder may 
    be modified in Committee of the Whole only by unanimous consent.

    The proposition stated above was the basis of the following 
exchange, which occurred on Aug. 14, 1986, (7) during 
consideration of H.R. 4428 (8) in the Committee of the 
Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 132 Cong. Rec. 21686, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. The Department of Defense Authorization, fiscal year 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James A.] Courter [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, is this 
    modification of the amendment permissible and germane, or does it 
    need unanimous consent to be considered?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (9) The Chair will state 
    to the gentleman from New Jersey that a modification of this sort 
    is permitted only by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Cardiss] Collins [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I again ask 
    unanimous consent to offer the modification to the amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentlewoman from Illinois?
        Mr. Courter: Mr. Chairman, I object.

Modification of Amendment Process by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 3.28 Where a bill is by unanimous consent considered in the House 
    as in the Committee of the Whole, the bill is considered as read 
    and open to amendment at any point, despite the fact that the House 
    has previously adopted a special order providing that the bill be 
    read by title in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Feb. 9, 1977,(10) The House having previously adopted 
a special order (11) providing that H.R. 692 be read by 
title in the Committee of the Whole, a unanimous-consent request was 
agreed to to consider the bill in the House as in the Committee of the 
Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 10. 123 Cong. Rec. 3977, 3981, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 11. H. Res. 270, 123 Cong. Rec. 3976, 3977, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I call up the bill H.R. 
    692 to amend the Small Business Act and the Small Business 
    Investment Act of 1958 to increase loan authorization and surety 
    bond guarantee authority; and to improve the disaster assistance, 
    certifi

[[Page 6617]]

    cate of competency and small business setaside programs, and ask 
    unanimous consent that the bill be considered in the House as in 
    the Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker: (12) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Iowa?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 12. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read the bill as follows:
        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled. . . .
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Iowa have further 
    amendments?
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to title 
    III but the bill is to be read by titles.
        The Speaker: The bill is open to amendment at any point so the 
    amendment is in order.

Sec. 3.29 Where the Committee of the Whole was considering for 
    amendment a bill pursuant to a special order permitting only 
    designated amendments, including committee amendments, which were 
    not subject to substantive amendments except those specified in the 
    resolution, the Chair stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry 
    that the pending amendment had been made in order only as a 
    perfecting amendment to the pending committee amendment, and that 
    the Committee of the Whole could not, even by unanimous consent, 
    directly alter the special order adopted by the House to require 
    the perfecting amendment to be offered to the bill after 
    disposition of the pending committee amendment.

    On Aug. 2, 1977,(13) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 13. 123 Cong. Rec. 26158, 26160, 26161, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) The Clerk will designate the page 
    and the line number of the ad hoc committee amendment (the 
    ``Mikulski amendment'') to part III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 14. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Ad hoc committee amendment: Page 146, insert the matter in 
        italic 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:]

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

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

[[Page 6618]]

        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. [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. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, is the 
    gentleman's amendment an amendment to the Mikulski amendment or an 
    amendment to the committee amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman's amendment is an amendment to the 
    committee amendment, the so-called Mikulski amendment.
        Mr. Ottinger: Is that in order?
        The Chairman: That amendment is in order under the rule.
        Mr. Ottinger: To the Mikulski amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan offered an amendment 
    to the committee amendment, the ad hoc committee amendment. That 
    amendment is the so-called Mikulski amendment and the amendment of 
    the gentleman from Michigan is in order under the rule. . . .
        Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order to ask 
    unanimous consent that the Ford amendment be considered separately, 
    since it has nothing to do with the Mikulski amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from New 
    York that the Ford amendment is in order only under the rule and 
    the rule cannot be changed.
        Mr. Ottinger: And it cannot be changed by unanimous consent?
        The Chairman: The Committee of the Whole cannot directly change 
    House Resolution 727, the special rule adopted by the House, even 
    by unanimous consent.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Unanimous-consent requests may be 
entertained in Committee of the Whole by the Chair if their effect is 
to allow procedures which differ only in minor or incidental respects 
from the procedure required by a special order adopted

[[Page 6619]]

by the House. Thus, debate under the five-minute rule may be extended 
by unanimous consent where the House is operating under a ``closed'' 
rule; (15) a modification to a designated amendment made in 
order by a ``modified closed'' rule may be permitted by unanimous 
consent; (16) and a page reference may be included in a 
designated amendment made in order where the printed amendment did not 
include that reference.(17) But where a unanimous-consent 
request directly alters the basic structure of a complex and detailed 
rule, particularly a ``modified closed'' rule, the Chair should refuse 
to entertain the request.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See 120 Cong. Rec. 8229, 8233, 8243, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 26, 
        1974.
16. See 122 Cong. Rec. 28871, 28872, 28877, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 
        1, 1976.
17. See 122 Cong. Rec. 9090, 9091, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 1, 1976.
18. See, for example, 119 Cong. Rec. 41153-55, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Dec. 12, 1973 (request to read a substitute by sections for 
        amendment was not in order where the special order did not so 
        provide). For further discussion of the use of unanimous 
        consent requests in Committee of the Whole to modify the 
        requirements of a special rule, see House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 877a (101st Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Of course, because the House, and not the Committee of the 
    Whole, has the authority to change the substantive terms of a 
    special order of business previously adopted by the House, the 
    House may, by unanimous consent, delegate to the Committee of the 
    Whole authority to entertain unanimous-consent requests to change 
    procedures contained in an adopted House special order. See, for 
    example, the unanimous-consent request of Mr. G. V. (Sonny) 
    Montgomery, of Mississippi, on Aug. 11, 1986, 99th Cong. 2d Sess., 
    relating to consideration of H.R. 4428 (defense authorization for 
    fiscal 1987) pursuant to House Resolution 531.

Sec. 3.30 In response to a parliamentary inquiry as to whether the 
    Committee of the Whole could, by unanimous consent, require 
    amendments offered to the pending text to be germane thereto 
    notwithstanding the adoption by the House of a resolution waiving 
    germaneness requirements for any amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, the Chairman stated that the Committee of the Whole 
    could not even by unanimous consent directly add to the specific 
    requirements in the rule adopted by the House.

    On May 18, 1978,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 39, the Alaska Na

[[Page 6620]]

tional Interest Conservation Lands Act of 1978. On the previous day, 
the House had agreed to House Resolution 1186,(20) providing 
for consideration of H.R. 39 and stating in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 124 Cong. Rec. 14391, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
20. Id. at pp. 14139-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    recommended by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs now 
    printed in italic in the bill, it shall be in order to consider the 
    text of the bill H.R. 12625 if offered as an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute for the bill, said substitute shall be read 
    for amendment under the five-minute rule as an original bill by 
    titles instead of by sections, and all points of order against said 
    substitute or any amendment in the nature of a substitute offered 
    thereto for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 7, rule 
    XVI and clause 5, rule XXI are hereby waived. It shall be in order 
    to consider as amendments to said substitute provisions contained 
    in the text of the bill H.R. 39 as introduced, in the text of the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs now printed in the bill 
    H.R. 39, and in the text of the amendments recommended by the 
    Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries now printed in the bill 
    H.R. 39, and all points of order against said amendments for 
    failure to comply with the provisions of clause 7, rule XVI and 
    clause 5, Rule XXI are hereby waived.

    The text of H.R. 12625 having been offered as an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute (to be read as an original bill for amendment), 
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute (the Meeds amendment) 
to be offered thereto subsequently, the following exchange occurred: 
(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Id. at p. 14394.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, would a 
    unanimous-consent request be in order that under the proceedings 
    under the 5-minute rule no additional substitute amendment for the 
    entire bill would be in order, unless it were germane to H.R. 39 or 
    to the Meeds substitute?
        In that case, I would not have to offer the substitute, my 
    substitute, and we can vote up or down on the Meeds amendment. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: (1) the Chair will respond to the 
    point raised by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall) in his 
    parliamentary inquiry. The Chair is advised that the Committee of 
    the Whole cannot amend the rule by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.31 Where a special order adopted by the House governing 
    consideration of a bill specifies the order in which amendments may 
    be considered in Committee of the Whole, the House (but not the 
    Committee of the Whole) may by unanimous consent change the order 
    of consideration of the amendments.

    The proposition stated above was the basis of the following pro

[[Page 6621]]

ceeding, which occurred on June 14, 1984,(2) durging 
consideration of H.R. 1510: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 130 Cong. Rec. 16403-05, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Romano L.] Mazzoli [of Kentucky]: . . . Therefore, the 
    gentleman from Kentucky now, Mr. Speaker, makes the unanimous 
    consent request that amendments numbered 46, 47, and 48 to the bill 
    (H.R. 1510) be postponed for consideration until Tuesday next, to 
    become the first order of business on that day.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) To become the first 
    order of business upon the resumption of the sitting of the 
    Committee of the Whole under the terms of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mazzoli: Precisely.
        Mr. [Howard L.] Berman [of California]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, are 46, 47, and 48 king of the mountain 
    amendments?
        Mr. Mazzoli: It says king of the mountain, on page 3, yes. The 
    gentleman is correct. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
    Mazzoli] asks unanimous consent that amendments numbered 46, 47, 
    and 48 be postponed for consideration until Tuesday next and that 
    they be in that order, the first order of business, when the 
    Committee resumes sitting under the Committee of the Whole for the 
    further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1510).
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Kentucky?
        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where the House has adopted a special order 
permitting the consideration of amendments in Committee of the Whole 
only in a prescribed order, the Committee of the Whole must rise to 
permit the House, by unanimous consent, to change the order of 
consideration of certain amendments in Committee of the Whole.

Sec. 3.32 On one occasion, where a special rule governing consideration 
    of a bill made in order only one amendment to a particular title, a 
    technical amendment was permitted to correct a drafting error in 
    the text.

        An example of the situation described above occurred on Aug. 
    10, 1984,(5) during consideration of H.R. 
    5640.(6) The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole 
    were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 130 Cong. Rec. 24052, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. Superfund Expansion and Protection Act of 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wyche] Fowler [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    technical amendment to title VI, and I ask unanimous consent for 
    its consideration at this time.
        The Chairman: (7) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Georgia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Joseph G. Minish (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

[[Page 6622]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fowler: Page 73, strike out lines 
        9 and 10 and substitute: ``(i) barium sulfide, or any other 
        taxable chemical which is a metal or metallic compound, and''. 
        . . .

        Mr. [Howard C.] Nielson of Utah: I understood the only 
    amendments to title V would be the one by Representative Conable.
        Mr. Fowler: I will say to the gentleman that this was done by 
    unanimous consent. It was a technical amendment because it was a 
    drafting problem. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Fowler).
        The amendment was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This type of modification of the terms of 
the rule should only be entertained in the House, not in the Committee 
of the Whole.

--Additional Debate Permitted by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 3.33 The House, by unanimous consent, agreed to permit 30 
    additional minutes debate in the Committee of the Whole on a 
    specified amendment to a bill being considered under a rule 
    prohibiting pro forma amendments.

    On Apr. 20, 1955,(8) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 101 Cong. Rec. 4829, 4834, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert J.] Corbett [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I would 
    like to raise the question, if this rule is adopted, and when the 
    amendments are presented, whether or not the amendments will be 
    open to discussion under the 5-minute rule or we will be limited to 
    one 5-minute speech for and one 5-minute speech against the 
    amendment?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) Under the rules, there 
    will be [one 5-minute speech for and one 5-minute speech against]. 
    No pro forma amendments will be in order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: . . . After consultation 
    with the minority I ask unanimous consent that debate under the 5-
    minute rule on the amendment which will be offered at page 82 of 
    the bill relating to the pay schedule, be extended for 30 
    additional minutes, which will provide for 40 minutes of debate. . 
    . .
        There was no objection.

Pro Forma Amendments

Sec. 3.34 Pro forma amendments are not in order when a bill is being 
    considered under a ``closed'' rule which permits no amendments 
    except by direction of the committee reporting the bill and no 
    amendments thereto.

    On Oct. 5, 1962,(10) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 108 Cong. Rec. 22636, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H. Con. Res. 570 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).

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

[[Page 6623]]

        The Chairman: (11) There being no further requests 
    for time, under the rule the House concurrent resolution is 
    considered as having been read for amendment. No amendment is in 
    order except amendments offered by the direction of the Committee 
    on Foreign Affairs and such amendments shall not be subject to 
    amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Samuel S. Stratton (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike out the last word.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the only amendment in 
    order is the amendment offered by the committee.
        The gentleman can rise in support of the amendment.

Sec. 3.35 Where a special order adopted by the House provides special 
    procedures governing the consideration of an amendment if offered 
    in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair announces after such an 
    amendment is offered and before debate begins thereon the relevant 
    provisions of the special order.

    On Oct. 17, 1979,(12) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration S. 832,(13) the above-stated proposition 
was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 125 Cong. Rec. 28643-45, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) Pursuant to the rule the Clerk 
    will now read the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    recommended by the Committee on House Administration now printed in 
    the reported bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
        section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
        U.S.C. 439c) is amended by striking out ``and'' after ``1977'' 
        and by inserting after ``1978'' the following: ``, and 
        $8,998,823 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980''. . . 
        .

        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Obey: At the end of the bill, add 
        the following:
            Sec. 2. (a) Section 320 of the Federal Election Campaign 
        Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended by adding at the end 
        thereof the following new subsection. . . .

        The Chairman: The Chair would like to state that pursuant to 
    the rule no amendments are in order to this amendment except pro 
    forma amendments for the purpose of debate, and the following 
    amendments which shall not be subject to amendment except for pro 
    forma amendments for the purpose of debate:
        First, the three amendments printed on page H8111 of the 
    Congressional

[[Page 6624]]

    Record of September 18, 1979, by Representative Obey; and Second, 
    the amendment to the text of H.R. 4970, printed in the 
    Congressional Record of September 19, 1979, by Representative 
    Minish, which shall be in order only if amendment No. 1, printed in 
    the Congressional Record of September 18, by Representative Obey, 
    is defeated.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Obey) for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The special order permitted the offering of 
a non-germane amendment, subject both to pro forma amendments for 
debate and to four designated amendments (which in turn were also 
subject to pro forma amendments). The Chair indicated, in response to a 
parliamentary inquiry, that pro forma debate on the original amendment 
could be had although one of the substantive amendments thereto might 
be pending. For further discussion of debate on amendments, see 
Sec. 28, infra.

Sec. 3.36 While normally under the five-minute rule debate on a pro 
    forma amendment may relate either to a pending amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute or to a perfecting amendment thereto (as not 
    necessarily in the third degree), where a special rule permitted 
    the offering of both perfecting amendments in the second degree and 
    of pro forma amendments to the substitute when perfecting 
    amendments were not pending, the Chair permitted pro forma 
    amendments during pendency of perfecting amendments but, in 
    response to a point of order, required that debate be related 
    solely to the perfecting amendment.

    On May 26, 1982,(15) during consideration of House 
Concurrent Resolution 345 (16) in the Committee of the 
Whole, the situation described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 128 Cong. Rec. 12088, 12090, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. First concurrent resolution on the budget, fiscal 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike 
    the requisite number of words not because I intend to speak to the 
    amendment of the gentleman from Michigan, but instead to take this 
    time in concert with colleagues who care very much about what the 
    Latta amendment does to housing. Not for housing, but to housing. . 
    . .
        Mr. [James H.] Quillen [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    understood we were debating the Conyers amendment, and I did not 
    hear permission to speak out of order.
        Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Chairman, my remarks go to the Latta 
    substitute, and

[[Page 6625]]

    I believe that is pending before the committee.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair will have to state that 
    the matter that is pending is the Conyers amendment, and that 
    debate should be germane to the Conyers amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chairman insisted that debate proceed 
in an ``orderly fashion'', that once a perfecting amendment was 
offered, debate under the five-minute rule be confined thereto, and not 
to one of the three underlying substitutes pending simultaneously. 
Separate debate on those substitutes was to be permitted only between 
consideration of numbered perfecting amendments.

Sec. 3.37 Where a special order permits both the offering of specified 
    perfecting amendments in a certain order and pro forma amendments, 
    the Chair has discretion to recognize Members to offer pro forma 
    amendments to debate the underlying text between consideration of 
    perfecting amendments.

    On May 26, 1982,(18) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Concurrent Resolution 345,(19) the 
Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding the circumstances 
described above. The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 128 Cong. Rec. 12141, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. First concurrent resolution on the budget, fiscal 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: At the appropriate time 
    after we have completed this amendment, I will seek to strike the 
    last word to make other comments that may be of interest to 
    Members.
        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Madigan: Is the procedure that has just been suggested by 
    the gentleman from California one that would be in order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will entertain pro forma amendments 
    between amendments.
        Mr. Madigan: Further pursuing my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Chairman, how would the gentleman from California be able to be 
    recognized to speak in behalf of something that he says he is not 
    going to offer?
        The Chairman: Between amendments, no amendment is pending. That 
    is why a pro forma amendment presumably to one of the substitutes 
    will be allowed. It provides an opportunity for discussion between 
    amendments.

Modified Closed Rule as Prohibiting Pro Forma Amendment

Sec. 3.38 Where a rule under which a bill is considered

[[Page 6626]]

    permits only specified amendments and prohibits amendments to such 
    amendments, no pro forma amendments are in order and only two five-
    minute speeches are permitted on each of the specified amendments.

    On Apr. 20, 1955,(1) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 101 Cong. Rec. 4829, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert J.] Corbett [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I would 
    like to raise the question, if this rule is adopted, and when the 
    amendments are presented, whether or not the amendments will be 
    open to discussion under the 5-minute rule or we will be limited to 
    one 5-minute speech for and one 5-minute speech against the 
    amendment?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) Under the rules, there 
    will be one 5-minutes for and one 5-minutes against. No pro forma 
    amendments will be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.39 Where a ``modified closed rule'' provides that a designated 
    amendment may be offered as a new title to a bill and, with the 
    exception of committee amendments thereto, only one designated 
    amendment to that amendment may be offered, only two five-minute 
    speeches are permitted on that amendment to the amendment, since a 
    pro forma amendment thereto would be in the third degree (and a pro 
    forma amendment to the original amendment inserting a new title is 
    specifically prohibited by the rule), and further debate may be had 
    only by unanimous consent.

    On Dec. 19, 1975,(3) during consideration of a bill 
(4) in the Committee of the Whole, an amendment was offered 
and the proceedings, described above, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 121 Cong. Rec. 41788-90, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. H.R. 9771, Airport and Airway Development Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Anderson of California to the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Ullman: In proposed section 301, 
        strike out subsections (b) and (c) and insert in lieu thereof 
        the following:
            (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
        shall apply to obligations incurred on or after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.

        Mr. [Sam] Gibbons [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    opposition to the amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Alphonzo] Bell [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California. 
    . . .

[[Page 6627]]

        Mr. Gibbons: Mr. Chairman, as I understood the rule granted the 
    Ways and Means Committee, there was only one amendment, and the 
    time under the rule was limited to 5 minutes on each side, and that 
    pro forma amendments or any other amendments are out of order. That 
    is the way I understand the rule.
        The Chairman: (5) the rule is a rather complex rule, 
    and if the gentleman will permit the Chair to review this matter, 
    the Chair will respond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Without objection, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bell) is 
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        There was no objection.
        [Following Mr. Bell's remarks, the question was taken:]
        Mr. Gibbons: Mr. Chairman, I insist on regular order.
        The Chairman: Regular order is demanded.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Anderson) to the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Oregon (Mr. Ullman).
        [The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.]

Sec. 3.40 Pro forma amendments are not in order during consideration of 
    a title of a bill being read pursuant to a special rule prohibiting 
    all amendments except committee amendments to that title.

    On Oct. 13, 1977,(6) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 8309,(7) the Chair, citing from the 
rule providing for consideration of the bill and amendments 
thereto,(8) directed the Clerk to read by titles the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 123 Cong. Rec. 33627, 33637, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. The Navigation Development Act.
 8. H. Res. 776, adopted Oct. 6, 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) . . . Pursuant to the rule, no 
    amendment to title II of said substitute, and no amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute changing title II of said substitute shall 
    be in order, except amendments offered by direction of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means, and said amendments shall not be 
    subject to amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will now read by titles the committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute. . . .
        Are there any committee amendments to title II?
        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike the last word.
        The Chairman: Without objection, the gentleman is recognized. 
    The Chair would, however, state that under the rule even pro forma 
    amendments are not allowed to title II.

Sec. 3.41 Where a bill was being considered for amendment pursuant to a 
    special ``modified closed'' rule permitting only designated 
    amendments to be offered and precluding amendments thereto, with 
    debate on each amendment

[[Page 6628]]

    limited and controlled, the Chair indicated that pro forma 
    amendments for the purpose of debate were not in order.

    On May 21, 1986,(10) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 4800,(11) the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry in the circumstances described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 132 Cong. Rec. 11484, 11566, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. The Omnibus Trade Act of 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (12) When the Committee of the Whole 
    rose on Tuesday, May 20, 1986, all time for general debate had 
    expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been 
    read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. The amendments printed 
    in section 2 of House Resolution 456, agreed to by the House on May 
    15, 1986, are considered as having been adopted.
        No other amendments to the bill are in order except the 
    following amendments printed in the Congressional Record of May 15, 
    1986, except amendment numbered (12) shall be the text of H.R. 4830 
    in lieu of being printed in the Record. . . .
        Mr. [Don] Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr Chairman, can I move to strike the last 
    word and get 5 minutes?
        The Chairman: The time is controlled by the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Roth). The gentleman has to seek time from the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin or the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
    Bonker).

--Preferential Motion Not Precluded

Sec. 3.42 A special order governing consideration of a bill in 
    Committee of the Whole which prohibits the Chair from entertaining 
    pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate does not preclude 
    the offering of a preferential motion that the Committee rise and 
    report the bill to the House with the recommendation that the 
    enacting clause be stricken, since that motion is not a pro forma 
    amendment and must be voted on (or withdrawn by unanimous consent).

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on May 4, 
1983,(13) during consideration of House Joint Resolution 13 
(dealing with a nuclear weapons freeze). The proceedings in the 
Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 129 Cong. Rec. 11072, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.

[[Page 6629]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Levitas moves that the Committee rise and report the 
        resolution back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        resolving clause be stricken.

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Downey of New York: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Downey of New York: Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the 
    rule is that there is a provision in the rule that prohibits 
    motions of this sort for the purpose of debate time. Is that 
    correct?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman 
    it only prohibits pro forma amendments, not preferential motions 
    such as the gentleman has offered.

Rule Permitting Only Amendments Changing Money Amounts

Sec. 3.43 When a bill was being considered under a modified closed rule 
    providing that ``no amendments shall be in order to said bill 
    except proposals to strike out any of its provisions or to increase 
    or decrease the amounts authorized therein,'' amendments proposing 
    to change the time when provisions of the bill were to become 
    effective were held not to be in order.

    On Feb. 16, 1955,(14) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 101 Cong. Rec. 1585, 1586, 84th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 3828, increasing judicial and congressional salaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 5. . . .
            (b) The provisions of section 4 shall take effect as of the 
        commencement of the 84th Congress. . . .
            Amendment offered by Mr. [Richard H.] Poff [of Virginia]: 
        On page 5, line 13, strike out ``84th'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``85th''.

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. Under the rule, House Resolution 141, the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Virginia, is not germane, and therefore not 
    in order.
        The Chairman: (15) As stated by the Chair before the 
    reading of the bill, under the rule by which the bill is being 
    considered, no amendments are in order except those raising or 
    lowering the amount, or striking out some portion of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Therefore, such amendment changing the effective date of the 
    bill would not be in order. . . .

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Usher L.] Burdick [of North 
        Carolina]: Page 5, strike out section 5 and insert a new 
        section 5 to read as follows:
            ``Sec. 5. This act shall take effect on January 1, 1957.''. 
        . .

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that this amendment falls 
    within the same class as the one previously ruled on with respect 
    to this section.

Sec. 3.44 To a subsection of a bill (setting a $75,000 limitation

[[Page 6630]]

    on expenditures by candidates for Congress) being considered under 
    a special rule permitting only amendments which solely change money 
    amounts, an amendment adding the exception that a lower limit if 
    imposed by state law shall apply was held in order as solely 
    affecting money amounts in that subsection, by describing a lower 
    amount if enacted by state law without directly conferring 
    discretionary authority upon the states.

    On Aug. 8, 1974,(16) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 16090, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
1974. The bill was being considered under a special rule 
(17) which provided in part that ``no amendment, including 
any amendment in the nature of a substitute for the bill, shall be in 
order except the following: [in title I] germane amendments to 
subsection 101(a) proposing to change the money amounts regarding 
contribution and expenditure limits contained in that subsection, 
providing that the amendments have been printed in the Congressional 
Record at least 1 calendar day prior to being offered.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 120 Cong. Rec. 27460, 27461, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
17. H. Res. 1292, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. (H. Rept. 93-1260).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. David R. Obey, of Wisconsin, offered an amendment:

        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Obey: Page 5, line 2, strike out 
        ``; or'' and insert in lieu thereof ``Except that in any state 
        in which there is an overall spending limit (enacted after the 
        close of December 31, 1970) lower than the $75,000 limit in 
        this section, the spending limit imposed by state law shall 
        apply, notwithstanding any other provision of the law. . . .

    Mr. William L. Armstrong, of Colorado, made a point of order 
against the amendment, on the basis of the provisions of the special 
rule cited above. The following discussion then took place:

        The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Obey: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I suggest the amendment is in 
    order, because while the language of the rule specifies that 
    amendments are in order only if they change the dollar amounts, 
    this amendment solely changes the dollar amounts. It is just that. 
    It contains no formula, as the committee was worried about, it 
    contains no special formula, it contains no special arrangement. 
    The net effect is merely to change the dollar amounts allowed to be 
    spent under the bill.
        Mr. Armstrong: Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that the rule does 
    preclude

[[Page 6631]]

    this amendment, because it offers a new regulatory scheme and gives 
    to the States certain discretion not contemplated by the original 
    bill. The drafters of the bill went to considerable trouble to 
    preempt the States, and this does not simply change the dollar 
    amount.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair is familiar with the rule, and has also examined the 
    amendment. He finds that the effect of the amendment is, in fact, 
    only to limit the amounts. There is no additional discretionary 
    authority affirmatively conferred on the States by the terms of the 
    amendment.
        Therefore, it is not subject to the point of order last 
    discussed by the gentleman from Colorado.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Rule Permitting Only Amendment Changing Dates

Sec. 3.45 An amendment to a bill extending the temporary debt limit, 
    providing that the temporary increase in the debt limit shall 
    expire on the date specified in the bill or on the 15th day of the 
    month following the month in which the cost of servicing the public 
    debt exceeds a certain limit, whichever date is sooner, was ruled 
    out of order where the special order governing the consideration of 
    the bill restricted amendments only to those changing either the 
    expiration date or the amount of the debt limit contained in the 
    bill.

    On July 19, 1978,(19) during consideration of H.R. 13385 
in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order 
against an amendment on the grounds that it was not in order under the 
special rule governing consideration of the bill. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 124 Cong. Rec. 21737, 21738, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Weaver: On line 4, page 1, after 
        ``1979,'' insert: ``or ending the 15th day of the month 
        following the month upon which the cost of servicing the public 
        debt to the United States Treasury from March 31, 1978 first 
        exceeds $50,000,000,000 whichever date is soonest,''.

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment. . . .
        [T]he rule clearly puts limitations on the kind of amendments 
    that can be offered.
        On page 2 it reads:

            . . . which shall not be subject to amendment, and 
        amendments only changing the date on page 1, line 4 or only 
        changing the figure on page 1, line 7, . . .

        Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Oregon

[[Page 6632]]

    (Mr. Weaver) is a condition leading to a day it is not a day set, 
    it is an uncertain alternative. The reference is not a specific 
    change in the date in the bill and is outside the scope of the 
    rule. . . .
        Mr. Weaver: . . . The rule does state . . . that there may be 
    amendments on line 4, page 1, affecting the date. My amendment 
    simply says that the date on which the temporary ceiling will 
    terminate will be the point when the cost of servicing the national 
    debt shall have reached $50 billion. And that simply changes the 
    date and nothing but the date. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment is germane to this bill and according to the rule.
        The Chairman:  The Chair will rule.
        House Resolution 1277  provides that no amendments to the 
    pending bill shall be in order except amendments which only change 
    the date on page 1, line 4, or only change the amount on page 1, 
    line 7, of the bill.
        While it might be contended that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Weaver) provides an alternative 
    termination date for the extension of the temporary debt ceiling 
    contained in the bill, in the opinion of the Chair the amendment 
    does more than just change the date on line 4. It conditions the 
    temporary debt ceiling extension on factors other than a mere time 
    duration, and as such is not an amendment which only changes the 
    date contained in the bill.
        The Chair, therefore, holds that the amendment is not in order 
    under House Resolution 1277 and sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: House Resolution 1277, referred 
(20) to above, provided:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. James J. Delaney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 13385) to provide for a temporary increase in the 
    public debt limit. . . . After general debate . . . the bill shall 
    be considered as having been read for amendment under the five-
    minute rule. No amendments to the bill shall be in order except 
    amendments recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, which 
    shall not be subject to amendment, and amendments only changing the 
    date on page 1, line 4 or only changing the figure on page 1, line 
    7, and said amendments shall not be subject to amendment except pro 
    forma amendments for the purpose of debate and germane amendments 
    only changing the date on page 1, line 4 or only changing the 
    figure on page 1, line 7. At the conclusion of the consideration of 
    the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise . . . and the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
    amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
    except one motion to recommit.

Text of Bill in Order as Amendment

Sec. 3.46 Where a special rule makes in order the text of another bill 
    as an amendment, that text may be offered as an amendment to the 
    bill or as an amendment in the nature of a substitute therefor.

[[Page 6633]]

    On July 17, 1968,(1) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
called up a resolution providing for consideration of the State 
Firearms Control Assistance Act of 1968.(2) The text of 
House Resolution 1249 and Mr. Bolling's discussion of the effect of the 
resolution follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 114 Cong. Rec. 21765, 21766, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. H. Res. 1249 (Committee on Rules) providing for consideration of 
        H.R. 17735.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution, it shall 
    be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    consideration of the bill (H.R. 17735) to amend title 18, United 
    States Code, to provide for better control of the interstate 
    traffic in firearms. After general debate, which shall be confined 
    to the bill and shall continue not to exceed three hours, to be 
    equally divided and controlled by the Chairman and ranking minority 
    member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the bill shall be read 
    for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to 
    consider, without the intervention of any point of order, the text 
    of the bill H.R. 6137 as an amendment to the bill. At the 
    conclusion of the consideration of the bill H.R. 17735 for 
    amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
    House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
    amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
    except one motion to recommit. . . .
        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, I have just gotten permission to 
    include in the Record the text of the so-called Casey bill, H.R. 
    6137, which was made in order by the rule as an amendment to H.R. 
    17735, the bill this rule will make in order for consideration 
    under a 3-hour open rule.
        I do so because the procedure followed by the Committee on 
    Rules in granting this rule is a relatively unusual procedure. I 
    think it important that the Members understand what may be offered 
    as an amendment. It is also important that they understand that 
    this amendment, this so-called Casey bill, may be offered either as 
    a substitute for H.R. 17735, or as an amendment to it.

Sec. 3.47 Pursuant to a special rule making in order the text of 
    another bill as original text for amendment if offered as an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute, the amendment must be 
    offered from the floor after the first section of the original bill 
    is read.

    On July 26, 1978,(3) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 3350 pursuant to a special order, the above-
stated proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 124 Cong. Rec. 22884, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (4) . . . Pursuant to the rule, it 
    shall be in order to consider

[[Page 6634]]

    by titles the text of H.R. 12988, if offered as an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute, as an original bill for the purpose of 
    amendment. No amendment to title IV of said substitute which would 
    change title IV, shall be in order except amendments recommended by 
    the Committee on Ways and Means and an amendment printed in the 
    Congressional Record of June 5, 1978, by Representative Stark of 
    California, which amendments shall not be subject to amendment, but 
    it shall be in order to debate said amendments and title IV by the 
    offering of pro forma amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will now read section 1 of the original bill H.R. 
    3350, and the Chair will then recognize the gentleman from 
    Louisiana (Mr. Breaux) to offer the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Section 1. Short Title.

            This Act may be cited as the ``Deep Seabed Hard Mineral 
        Resources Act''.

        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute, the text of which is 
    contained in the bill, H.R. 12988, a copy of which is at the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Breaux: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert . . 
        .

        Section 1. Short title.

            Titles I, II, and III of this Act may be cited as the 
        ``Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act''.

Sec. 3.48 Where a special order adopted by the House provides that it 
    shall be in order to consider the text of a bill as an amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute for the pending bill and that said 
    amendment shall be considered before perfecting amendments and be 
    considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, said 
    amendment is not offered from the floor but is automatically 
    reported by the Clerk; and in the event said amendment is defeated, 
    the original bill is considered for amendment.

    On Sept. 20, 1979,(5) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 5229,(6) the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry regarding procedure under the special rule, as 
set out below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 125 Cong. Rec. 25526, 25527, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. Temporary Debt Limit Increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (7) Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
    considered as having been read for amendment. The text of H.R. 5310 
    shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of 
    amendment which shall be considered as having been read. No 
    amendments are in order except pro forma amendments, amendments 
    offered by direction of the Committee on Ways and Means or the 
    Committee on Rules, and germane

[[Page 6635]]

    amendments only changing the date certain ``March 31, 1981'' or the 
    numerical figure ``$529,000,000,000'' in section 101(a) and said 
    amendments shall not be subject to amendment except pro forma 
    amendments and germane amendments only changing said date or said 
    figure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
    follows:

                                   H.R. 5310

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

            TITLE II--ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT AS PART OF 
                          CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET PROCESS

            Sec. 201. (a) The rules of the House of Representatives are 
        amended by adding at the end thereof the following new rule:

                                  ``Rule XLIX

             ``establishment of statutory limit on the public debt

            ``1. Upon the adoption by the Congress (under section 301, 
        304, or 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) of any 
        concurrent resolution on the budget setting forth as the 
        appropriate level of the public debt for the period to which 
        such concurrent resolution relates an amount which is different 
        from the amount of the statutory limit on the public debt that 
        would otherwise be in effect for such period, the enrolling 
        clerk of the House of Representatives shall prepare and enroll 
        a joint resolution, in the form prescribed in clause 2, 
        increasing or decreasing the statutory limit on the public debt 
        by an amount equal to the difference between such limit and 
        such appropriate level. . . .

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: I have a parliamentary inquiry, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ullman: Mr. Chairman, it has been my understanding that if 
    the substitute should fail, we would go back, however, to the 
    consideration of the committee bill?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Amendments in Nature of Substitute as ``Original Text''

Sec. 3.49 Where a bill was being considered under a special rule making 
    in order the text of a designated amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute but not providing for reading of said substitute by 
    sections as an original bill, the Chair indicated that if the 
    entire amendment were considered as read and printed in the Record 
    it would automatically be open to amendment at any point.

    On Feb. 3, 1976,(8) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 9464,(9) the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry regarding the situation as described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 122 Cong. Rec. 2008, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Krueger [of Texas] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I

[[Page 6636]]

    ask unanimous consent that the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute be considered as read and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: (10) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.  Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Continuing my reservation 
    of objection, Mr. Chairman, first of all, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry. Was it the request that the amendment be considered as 
    read and open to amendment at any point?
        The Chairman: That is the pending matter. The Chair was about 
    to put the question when the gentleman rose and said he reserved 
    the right to object further.
        Mr. Dingell: I just want to be sure that I understand the 
    unanimous-consent request properly. . . .
        The Chairman: Let me say in clarification the unanimous-consent 
    request that the gentleman made was that the amendment be 
    considered as read and printed in the Record, and it automatically 
    will be open for amendment at any point.

Sec. 3.50 An amendment in the nature of a substitute being read as an 
    original bill pursuant to a special order is read by sections for 
    amendment (unless otherwise specified in the rule), and the 
    amendment may be considered as read and open for amendment at any 
    point by unanimous consent only.

    On Mar. 20, 1978,(11) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 7700,(12) he above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 7558, 7559, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. The Postal Service Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (13) Pursuant to the rule, it shall be 
    in order to consider an amendment printed in the Congressional 
    Record of March 14, 1978, by Representative Hanley of New York if 
    offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the bill, 
    said substitute shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule 
    as an original bill, and all points of order against said 
    substitute for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 7, 
    rule XVI, are hereby waived. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Edward W. Pattison (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        At this time the Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Postal Service 
        Act of 1977''.

        Mr. [James M.] Hanley [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to 
    the rule, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute for 
    the bill.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment by sections.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
            That this Act may be cited as the ``Postal Service Act of 
        1978.''

        Mr. Hanley (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment in the nature

[[Page 6637]]

    of a substitute be considered as read, printed in the Record, and 
    open to amendment at any point. . . .
        [Objection was heard.]
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute is to be read by sections.
        Are there amendments to section 1?

Sec. 3.51 Where a special order adopted by the House provides that in 
    lieu of committee amendments printed in a bill, it shall be in 
    order to consider a designated amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute as an original bill for amendment in Committee of the 
    Whole, but does not require that the amendment be offered, the 
    Chair directs the Clerk to read the amendment for consideration as 
    original text for the purpose of amendment and no motion from the 
    floor is required.

    On July 14, 1978,(14) during consideration of a bill 
(15) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings 
described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 124 Cong. Rec. 20992-95, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. H.R. 12163, Department of Energy authorizations. The bill was being 
        considered pursuant to H. Res. 1261.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) . . . Pursuant to the rule The 
    Clerk will now read . . . the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute printed in the Congressional Record of June 23, 1978, by 
    Representative Fuqua of Florida as an original bill for the purpose 
    of amendment in lieu of the amendments now printed in the original 
    bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in 
        accordance with section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 
        (42 U.S.C. 2017) . . . there is hereby authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Department of Energy for the fiscal year 
        1979, for energy research and development and related 
        activities, the sum of the following amounts: . . .

        Mr. [Walter] Flowers [of Alabama]: Madam Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Flowers:
            On page 10, lines 16 and 17, strike the amount 
        ``$465,301,000'' and substitute in lieu thereof 
        ``$306,401,000.''

        Mr. [John W.] Wydler [of New York]: Madam Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry: What is the bill that is actually before the 
    Committee at the present time? Are we on the substitute bill?
        The Chairman: We are on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Florida (Mr. Fuqua), which is made in order by the rule.

    Parliamentarian's Note: If a special order provides that it shall 
be in order to consider an amendment ``if offered'' as an amend

[[Page 6638]]

ment in the nature of a substitute, the amendment must be offered from 
the floor (after the first section of the bill is read).

Sec. 3.52 Where a special rule provides that an amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute be considered as an original bill for amendment 
    under the five-minute rule if offered, the first section of the 
    original bill is first read and the amendment, if then offered from 
    the floor, must be read by sections for amendment in the absence of 
    unanimous consent to consider it as read and open to amendment at 
    any point.

    On July 18, 1978,(17) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 1609, pursuant to a special rule (H. Res. 
1252), the proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 124 Cong. Rec. 21486, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore [Mr. (Raymond F.) Lederer (of 
    Pennsylvania)]: Pursuant to the rule, it shall be in order to 
    consider an amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the 
    Congressional Record of June 28 by Representative Udall of Arizona, 
    if offered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment in lieu 
    of the amendments now printed in the bill.
        The Clerk will read section 1 of the original bill.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be cited as the ``Coal Pipeline Act of 1977.''

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the 
    Congressional Record of June 28.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Udall: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
        That this Act may be cited as the ``Coal Pipeline Act of 
        1978''.

        Mr. Udall (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent to dispense with further reading of this amendment. It is 
    printed in the Congressional Record.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Arizona?
        Mr. [Teno] Roncalio [of Wyoming]: Reserving the right to 
    object, Mr. Chairman--and I do not intend to--may I ask the 
    Chairman if he intends to rise at 5:30?
        Mr. Udall: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, as soon 
    as the amendment is read, I intend to ask unanimous consent that it 
    be open to amendment at any point, and then at that point I will 
    move that the Committee rise.
        Mr. [Joe] Skubitz [of Kansas]: Reserving the right to object, 
    Mr. Chairman, I will advise the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall) 
    that at this moment I have no objection to the sub

[[Page 6639]]

    stitute, but I do object to his second unanimous-consent request 
    that we amend at any point. I insist that we take it up section by 
    section.
        Mr. Udall: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the 
    gentleman is within his rights, and I renew my unanimous-consent 
    request that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with at this 
    time and considered as read. It is printed in the Congressional 
    Record.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The amendment has to be read by 
    sections. The Clerk has read section 1.
        Mr. Udall: When section 1 has been read, I will move that the 
    Committee rise, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that section 
    1 of the amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered as 
    read.
        Mr. Roncalio: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.
        Mr. Skubitz: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Arizona?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 3.53 Where a special order makes in order the consideration of a 
    designated amendment in the nature of a substitute (in lieu of the 
    committee amendments printed in the bill), said substitute may be 
    offered after section one of the original bill is read.

    On Sept. 20, 1978,(18) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 1,(19) the above-stated proposition 
was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 124 Cong. Rec. 30434, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. The Ethics in Government Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20) Pursuant to the rule, it shall be 
    in order to consider by titles as an original bill for the purpose 
    of amendment the text of H.R. 13850, in lieu of the amendments now 
    printed in the bill, if offered as an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute. No amendments to said substitute shall be in order 
    except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate and 
    amendments printed in the Congressional Record at least 1 
    legislative day prior to their consideration. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, under the rule 
    and the statement of the Chair, must the committee substitute which 
    appears in the text of H.R. 1 be read first, or is the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute, H.R. 13850, in order at any point?
        The Chairman: No. The Danielson amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute will be read in lieu of the committee amendment now 
    printed in the bill as a substitute amendment for the original 
    bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Clerk will read section 1 of the original 
    bill.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be cited as the ``Ethics in Government Act of 1977''.

        Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    an

[[Page 6640]]

    amendment in the nature of a substitute which is made in order by 
    House Resolution 1323, and I offer it as an amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute for the committee amendment to be read by titles 
    under the 5-minute rule as an original bill.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will read by titles the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In situations like that above, if the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute is offered and adopted, the 
original bill and committee amendments printed therein are not read.

Prohibition Against Amendments ``Affecting'' Certain Subject

Sec. 3.54 Where an amendment, recommended by the Committee on Ways and 
    Means, to amend the Internal Revenue Code was adopted to a bill 
    comprehensively amending the Food Stamp Act, pursuant to a special 
    order making such amendment in order and prohibiting any further 
    amendment to the bill to ``change or affect'' the Internal Revenue 
    Code, a subsequent amendment not directly amending the Code and 
    containing the disclaimer that nothing therein be construed to 
    change or affect that law was held in order, where the proponent of 
    the amendment demonstrated that the existing law was not 
    necessarily affected by the amendment.

    On May 8, 1980,(1) during consideration of the Food 
Stamp Act Amendments of 1980, a point of order was made against the 
following amendment, which sought to require repayments by food stamp 
recipients of excess benefits received, to be collected by the 
Secretary of the Treasury in coordination with his responsibilities 
under other federal laws or by the Secretary of Agriculture:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 126 Cong. Rec. 10451, 10452, 10454, 10455, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 204. The Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended, is amended by 
    redesignating section 18 as section 20, and by inserting after 
    section 17 the following new sections:

                    ``REPAYMENT FOR EXCESS BENEFITS RECEIVED

        ``Sec. 18. (a)(1) Each individual who is 19 years of age or 
    older during any entire taxable year and who, in any taxable year, 
    participates in the food stamp program as a member of any household 
    participating in the food stamp program, and has countable income 
    in excess of the exempt amount shall be liable to the United States 
    as determined in accordance with paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of 
    this section. . . .

[[Page 6641]]

        ``(f) The Secretary may transfer to the Secretary of the 
    Treasury an amount, as specified in appropriations acts, of any 
    funds appropriated to carry out this Act for fiscal years beginning 
    after September 30, 1980, which is sufficient to enable the 
    Secretary of the Treasury to carry out section 19 of this Act. . . 
    .
        ``Sec. 206. No provision of the amendment to the Food Stamp Act 
    of 1977 made by section 204 of this Act shall be construed to 
    change or affect in any manner the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or 
    the application of any provision of such Code. . . .
        Mr. [Fortney H.] Stark [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the Jeffords amendment. I object in no 
    uncertain terms to the amendment as a violation of the rule 
    providing for the consideration of this bill.
        The rule provides that after the amendment recommended by the 
    Committee on Ways and Means is adopted no further amendment is in 
    order ``to further change or affect the Internal Revenue Code.''
        The Ways and Means Committee amendment has been adopted. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont effectively amends 
    section 6402(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is therefore in 
    violation of the rule.
        The Jeffords amendment creates a liability for excess food 
    stamp benefits received. It then provides that the Secretary of the 
    Treasury and the Secretary of Agriculture may provide for the 
    collection of this liability by offsetting the liability against 
    tax refunds otherwise due an individual on account of overpayment 
    of a Federal tax. This effectively amends 6402(a) of the Internal 
    Revenue Code. This section is the only authority that the Secretary 
    of the Treasury has to reduce the amount of refund due a taxpayer 
    on account of overpayment of a tax. . . .
        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: . . . First of all, what 
    I really want to do is quote from the amendment. It is on page 10, 
    section 206:

            No provision of the amendment to the Food Stamp Act of 1977 
        made by section 204--

        The one we are talking about--
        of this Act shall be construed to change or affect in any 
        manner the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, or the application of 
        any provision of such Code.

        This is right out of the rule.
        What the gentleman would ask the Chair to do is change this 
    body from a parliamentary body into a court of law and have the 
    Chair act as a judge, not as chairman of the committee, for what he 
    seeks for the chairman to do is interpret the Internal Revenue Code 
    and make a judgment as a judge as to whether or not this is 
    occurring. The amendment we are seeking here says we do not believe 
    it does, and if it does it cannot, by virtue of the provision, it 
    cannot affect it and, therefore, whether it be the Attorney General 
    or some court of law who would say--

            All right, you cannot do that; what you are trying to do is 
        wrong; you cannot have it and offset against the refund.

        We happen to believe, or I happen to believe that it is 
    possible that they could interpret it to say that that is

[[Page 6642]]

    not an effect on the Internal Revenue Code because even though the 
    Internal Revenue Code says that nothing prevents a refund from 
    being used for some other purpose, I think that is a possible 
    interpretation, that we are not affecting the Code. We are 
    affecting a result of the Code which would not have anything to do 
    with the Internal Revenue Code. It might affect the procedures 
    under which the Internal Revenue Service operates, but there is 
    nothing that says that the Internal Revenue Service can only do 
    things which are prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code. They can 
    do other things.
        But I think, as the Chairman ruled last time, that it is not 
    nongermane to ask some other body to undertake some additional 
    burdens, but you cannot change and restructure the burdens they 
    have. We say this might be an additional burden, but irrelevant to 
    the Code. Let me say in finality that is a judgment to be made by a 
    court, a judgment to be made by the Attorney General, but not by 
    the Chairman of the House, because the bill itself precludes it 
    from being interpreted as in violation of the rule.
        The Chairman: (2) It is not the function of the 
    Chairman to rule on the merits of an amendment, but whether an 
    amendment, on its face, complies with the Rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from California appropriately pointed to the 
    sentence in the House Resolution 651 in question, as to whether in 
    fact this amendment causes further change in or effect on the 
    Internal Revenue Code.
        The Chair was aware that this controversy was pending. The 
    Chair has read the amendment as it appeared in the Record and was 
    prepared to rule that the amendment was not in order in that form.
        The amendment, however, as offered, does contain the additional 
    language,

            No provision of the amendment to the Food Stamp Act of 1977 
        made by section 204 of this Act shall be construed to change or 
        affect in any manner the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or the 
        application of any provision of such Code.

        The Chair would rule that on its face and for the reasons 
    stated by the gentleman from Vermont the amendment does comply with 
    the rule and the amendment, therefore, is in order.

Where Part of Bill Is Closed to Amendments, Conforming Amendments 
    Thereto Not Permitted

Sec. 3.55 To a bill being considered under a special rule prohibiting 
    any amendment to certain sections in a title thereof, an amendment 
    (offered en bloc with another amendment inserting a new section in 
    that title) making merely a conforming change in a section not open 
    to amendment was ruled out of order.

    On Aug. 8, 1974, (3) the Committee of the Whole had 
under

[[Page 6643]]

consideration H.R. 16090, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, 
pursuant to a special rule prohibiting any amendment to certain 
sections. An amendment was offered, with an amendment making a 
conforming change in a section not open to amendment. A point of order 
against the amendments was based on the contention that, first, the 
primary amendment constituted an appropriation on a legislative bill 
and that, second, the conforming amendment was out of order if the 
primary amendment was out of order. The Chair, (4) after 
ruling the primary amendment out of order, ruled out the conforming 
amendment as violating the provision of the special rule as described 
above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 120 Cong. Rec. 27496, 27497, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward I.] Koch [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer two 
    amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Koch: Page 79, immediately after 
        line 9, insert the following new section:

                                 campaign mail

            Sec. 410. (a) Chapter 95 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
        1954 (relating to Presidential Election Campaign Fund) is 
        amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section: 
        . . .
            ``(2) The Secretary shall make payments to an eligible 
        candidate for mailings under paragraph (1) upon the receipt of 
        certification from such candidate that such payments shall be 
        used exclusively for the mailing of campaign mail. . . .
            And redesignate the following section accordingly.
            Page 79, line 15, strike out ``and 409'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``409, and 410''. . . .

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order on the amendments. The gentleman from New York was kind 
    enough to offer one of the amendments to me, the one referring to 
    page 79, after line 9, on campaign mail. I will reserve a point of 
    order if the gentleman from New York wishes to use the balance of 
    his time to explain the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Does the gentleman from Ohio press his point of order?
        Mr. Hays: I am not sure I know what the second amendment is.
        Mr. Koch: It is just a perfecting amendment to locate the 
    numbers within the bill itself. It does not change the amendment.
        Mr. Hays: Mr. Chairman, I do press my point of order against 
    the amendments. I object to the first amendment, which is obviously 
    subject to a point of order in that it appropriates money and 
    orders the Secretary to make payments.
        The second amendment is an amendment to that amendment, or a 
    correcting amendment, so that if the first amendment is out of 
    order then the second one is also.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The point of order raised by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hays) 
    is well

[[Page 6644]]

    taken. The first amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Koch) constitutes an appropriation on a legislative bill in 
    violation of clause 4, rule XX, and is not protected by the rule. 
    The second amendment is not in order under House Resolution 1292. 
    Therefore the point of order is sustained.

Rule Permitting Only Committee Amendments--Preferential Motion Offered 
    After Stage of Amendment Passed

Sec. 3.56 The stage of amendment is passed in Committee of the Whole 
    where a bill is being considered under a rule permitting only 
    committee amendments and where no committee amendments are offered 
    at the conclusion of general debate.

    On Apr. 16, 1970, (5) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 116 Cong. Rec. 12092, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 16311 (Committee on Ways and Means).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) Under the rule, the bill is 
    considered as having been read for amendment. No amendments are in 
    order to the bill except amendments offered by direction of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John D. Dingell (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there any committee amendments?
        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, there are no 
    committee amendments. . . .
        Mr. [Omar T.] Burleson of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    preferential motion. Is it in order to offer a preferential motion 
    at this time?
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman advise the Chair what sort of 
    preferential motion he has in mind?
        Mr. Burleson of Texas: To strike the enacting clause.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Texas 
    that that motion is not in order unless amendments are in order, 
    and are offered. There being no committee amendments, that motion 
    will not be in order at this time.

En Bloc Committee Amendments

Sec. 3.57 Where a bill is being considered under a special rule 
    providing for consideration en bloc of certain committee amendments 
    printed in the bill, the Chair directs the Clerk to report the 
    amendments en bloc and they need not be offered from the floor.

    On July 8, 1975,(7) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 49, pursuant to a special rule, the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 21630, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (8) Under the rule, it shall now be in 
    order to consider en

[[Page 6645]]

    bloc the amendments recommended by the Committee on Armed Services 
    now printed in the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendments:
            Page 3, between lines 19 and 20 insert the following: 
        ``TITLE I''.
            Page 3, line 20, strike out ``That in'' and insert ``Sec. 
        101. In''. . . .

        Mr. [F. Edward] Hebert [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I will not 
    offer the amendments of the Armed Services Committee as described 
    in the rule.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from 
    Louisiana that under the rule the amendments are offered and 
    presented en bloc. They have been presented.

Sec. 3.58 Unanimous consent is required to consider en bloc separate 
    committee amendments printed in a bill, even where a special order 
    adopted by the House provides that the bill is considered as having 
    been read for amendment and that said committee amendments are 
    considered before other committee or individual amendments.

    On Aug. 10, 1978,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 13511, the Revenue Act of 1978, pursuant to House 
Resolution 1306,(10) a ``modified closed'' rule which 
provided that the bill be considered as read, allowed only designated 
amendments (including committee amendments), and prescribed the order 
of consideration for such amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 124 Cong. Rec. 25453, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
10. Id. at pp. 25415, 25416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) All time has expired for general 
    debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule the bill is considered as having been read 
    for amendment. No amendments shall be in order except the following 
    amendments which shall not be subject to amendment except 
    amendments recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, and 
    which shall be considered in the following order:
        First. The committee amendments printed in the bill (except for 
    section 404);
        Second. The committee amendment adding a new section 404. . . .
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the first committee 
    amendment.
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent, in the interest of saving time, that the committee 
    amendments as printed in the bill, except for section 404, be 
    considered en bloc, considered as read, and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Oregon?
        There was no objection.

Priority of Committee Amendments

Sec. 3.59 Where a ``modified closed'' rule adopted by the

[[Page 6646]]

    House permitted consideration of reported committee amendments en 
    bloc and permitted three designated amendments to be offered 
    without specifying the order of consideration, the Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole required that the committee amendments be 
    first disposed of unless the Committee of the Whole determined 
    otherwise by unanimous consent.

    On Dec. 1, 1982,(12) during consideration of H.R. 6995 
(13) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings 
described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 128 Cong. Rec. 28206, 28209, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. The Federal Trade Commission Authorization Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
    considered as having been read for amendment under the 5-minute 
    rule. No amendments are in order except: First, the amendments en 
    bloc recommended by the Committee on Rules now printed in the bill; 
    second, the amendment printed in the Congressional Record of 
    September 15, 1982, by, and if offered by, Representative Luken or 
    Representative Lee which shall be subject to a substitute printed 
    in the Congressional Record of September 15, 1982, by 
    Representative Broyhill and if offered by Representative Broyhill 
    or Representative Dingell. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would entertain first the amendments en bloc 
    recommended by the Committee on Rules now printed in the bill, 
    unless someone requests unanimous consent to proceed otherwise.
        Mr. [James J.] Florio [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Dannemeyer) be authorized at this point to offer the so-called 
    Luken-Lee amendment. . . .
        There was no objection.

Sec. 3.60 Pursuant to a special rule making in order the offering of a 
    designated amendment to a part of a bill only after the disposition 
    of three groups of committee amendments to that part, the Chair 
    indicated the third group of amendments en bloc must be disposed of 
    prior to the offering of a floor amendment to that part.

    On Aug. 3, 1977,(15) during consideration of H.R. 8444 
(the National Energy Act), the Chair responded to a parliamentary 
inquiry as indicated above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 26447, 26448, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) . . . The Clerk will designate 
    the next ad hoc committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 193, line 11, after ``the cost of'' insert 
        ``compression,''.

        The question is on the ad hoc committee amendment.

[[Page 6647]]

        The ad hoc committee amendment was agreed to.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Is the amendment that was made in order by the rule in order 
    now?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman from 
    Ohio that there are other ad hoc amendments.
        The Clerk will designate the next ad hoc committee amendments, 
    which under the rule are considered as read and considered en bloc.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 209, lines 3 and 4, on page 209, lines 12 through page 
        210, line 6, on page 210, line 7, on page 210, lines 16 through 
        18, on page 211, line 6, on page 211, lines 23 through 25, on 
        page 212, lines 4 through 6, and on page 212, lines 16 through 
        18.

        (The ad hoc committee amendments read as follows:) . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (17) The question is on ad 
    hoc committee amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The ad hoc committee amendments were agreed to.

Sec. 3.61 Where one committee's amendment printed in a reported bill 
    has been made in order by a special rule as a substitute for 
    another committee's amendment, and the primary amendment is ruled 
    out on a point of order, the committee amendment made in order as a 
    substitute retains the status of an amendment to the bill and is 
    reported by the Clerk.

    On Sept. 23, 1977,(18) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3, medicare-medicaid antifraud and abuse amendments. 
An amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means had been 
ruled out of order as not germane to the bill. An amendment recommended 
by another committee and made in order, by special rule, as a 
substitute for the amendment now ruled out of order, was ordered to be 
reported: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 123 Cong. Rec. 30534, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. The rule, it should be noted, did not indicate that the amendment 
        so made in order, was allowed to be considered only as a 
        substitute amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment recommended by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce, now printed beginning on page 70, line 6, through page 
    72, line 16, in the reported bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading Preliminary Sections Where Bill Being Read by Titles or Parts

Sec. 3.62 Where a bill was, pursuant to a special order, being

[[Page 6648]]

    considered for amendment by ``parts'', and several sections 
    preceded part I, each of those sections was considered as a 
    separate part for the purpose of the special order.

    On Aug. 2, 1977,(1) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill (2) pursuant to a special order 
as described above, the proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 123 Cong. Rec. 26124, 26125, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. H.R. 8444, National Energy Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (T)he House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
    the bill H.R. 8444, with Mr. Boland in the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Chairman: (3) When the Committee rose on Monday, 
    August 1, 1977, all time for general debate had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered by parts and each 
    part is considered as having been read for amendment. No amendment 
    shall be in order except pro forma amendments and amendments made 
    in order pursuant to House Resolution 727, which will not be 
    subject to amendment, except amendments recommended by the ad hoc 
    Committee on Energy and amendments made in order under House 
    Resolution 727. . . .
        The Clerk will designate the part of the bill now pending for 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 9, line 1, section 2. (Section 2 reads as follows:)

             SEC. 2. Findings and Statement of Purposes. . . .

        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, so I will 
    know how we are going to proceed, are we going to go through the 
    bill section by section, with the reading of each section?
        The Chairman: The Chair will inform the gentleman that the bill 
    will be considered part by part with each part considered as read. 
    The bill will not be read section by section.
        Mr. Volkmer: So we will continue, Mr. Chairman, with the 
    reading of each section or part, then, and the title of the 
    section?
        The Chairman: The Chair will further inform the gentleman that 
    section 4 precedes part I, and after that section has been disposed 
    of, we will move to part I of the bill. We have been considering 
    the preliminary four sections as separate parts.

Sec. 3.63 Where a special order provides that a committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute be considered by titles for amendment as 
    original text and that each title be considered as having been 
    read, the short title and table of contents (section 1) are 
    considered as one title, and once that portion has been designated 
    by the Clerk, the Clerk designates an amendment in the nature

[[Page 6649]]

    of a substitute, reported by another committee, whose (automatic) 
    consideration has been made in order by the special order.

    On May 15, 1979,(4) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 39,(5) the above-stated proposition 
was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 125 Cong. Rec. 11051, 11052, 11086, 11088, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, in order to 
    clarify the procedures of the House, I believe it would be helpful 
    if the House understood the rules under which we proceed.
        For that reason, I would propound to the Chair a series of 
    parliamentary inquiries.
        The Chairman: (6) If the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Dingell) would withhold for just 1 minute while the Chair 
    reads a statement, it may clarify the situation here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute recommended by the Committee on Interior and Insular 
    Affairs shall be considered by titles as an original bill for the 
    purpose of amendment and each title shall be considered as having 
    been read. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
    by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries shall be 
    considered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    amendment recommended by the Committee on Interior and Insular 
    Affairs and it shall be considered as having been read and it shall 
    be in order to consider as a substitute for the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Merchant 
    Marine and Fisheries the text of H.R. 3651 if offered by 
    Representative Udall, and said substitute if offered shall be 
    considered as having been read.
        The Clerk will designate section 1 of the Interior and Insular 
    Affairs Committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

                               table of contents

        Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents. . . .
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the amendment offered by the 
    Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries in the nature of a 
    substitute is considered as having been read and open for amendment 
    at any point.
        The Clerk will now designate the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute recommended by the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
    Fisheries.
        The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
    Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries reads as follows:
        That this Act may be cited as the ``Alaska National Interest 
    Lands Conservation Act''.

                               table of contents

            Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents. . . .

[[Page 6650]]

        Mr. Dingell: . . . Mr. Chairman, I believe the Chair has set 
    out with some clarity the parliamentary situation, but in order 
    that it might be very clear I would direct to the Chair the 
    following questions:
        One, as I understand, the Interior Committee bill is the bill 
    reported from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and is 
    the principal document under which we labor. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Dingell: And made in order by the rule is the substitute 
    which was reported from the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
    Fisheries, is that correct?
        The Chairman: That is correct, and that is the amendment that 
    is pending.
        Mr. Dingell: And the bill from the Committee on Merchant Marine 
    and Fisheries in the nature of a substitute is under the rule 
    before this body without having to be offered?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Dingell: And as I understand the rule, both bills are to be 
    read by title. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: Only the Interior text is read by title, but at 
    this point only section 1 of that text has been read.
        Mr. Dingell: Only the Interior bill is read by title. That 
    means, Mr. Chairman, that the Interior bill is open to amendment at 
    any time during the reading of the title, is that correct?
        The Chairman: Only the first part of the Interior bill has been 
    read.
        Mr. Dingell: Only the first part of the Interior bill has been 
    read, but the whole of the first part is open to amendment at this 
    time?
        The Chairman: The only portion of the Interior text that is 
    pending is section 1, the table of contents and the short title, up 
    to page 7. . . .
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Chairman: Pursuant to the rule, the amendment offered as a 
    substitute for the amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    considered as read and open to amendment at any point.
        The Clerk will designate the amendment.
        The amendment offered as a substitute reads as follows . . .

                       short title and table of contents

            Section 1. This Act, together with the following table of 
        contents, may be cited as the ``Alaska National Interest Lands 
        Conservation Act of 1979''.

                               table of contents
        Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents. . . .

Waiving First Reading

Sec. 3.64 Special rules for the consideration of bills routinely 
    recommend that the first reading of a bill in Committee of the 
    Whole be dispensed with, to remove the possibility of dilatory 
    tactics and to expedite consideration of legislation.

    An early example of this practice is House Resolution 1368,

[[Page 6651]]

under consideration on Sept. 29, 1978: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 124 Cong. Rec. 32662, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move, section 402(a) of the Congressional 
        Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344) 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. 14042) to authorize 
        appropriations for fiscal year 1979 for procurement of aircraft 
        . . . and other weapons and for research, development, test and 
        evaluation for the Armed Forces . . . and for other purposes, 
        and the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 
        After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and 
        shall continue not to exceed one hour, to be equally divided 
        and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
        the Committee on Armed Services, the bill shall be read for 
        amendment under the five-minute rule by titles instead of by 
        sections. . . .

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: . . . Mr. Speaker, can 
    the gentleman offer the House any explanation as to why a well-
    established and time-honored rule of the House requiring the first 
    reading of a bill is to be dispensed with in this instance? This is 
    not a lengthy bill nor a controversial one.
        Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, this was 
    discussed in the Committee on Rules, since this is the first one of 
    several rules that it was done on, and it is purely just in the 
    interest of time. The intent was to move this legislation through 
    as quickly as possible, since it is basically noncontroversial and 
    since we do have a number of pieces of legislation we are going to 
    try to complete in the next 2 weeks.

Amendments Designated Where Reading Waived

Sec. 3.65 Where a special order provided that a bill be considered for 
    amendment by parts and that each part and the committee amendments 
    thereto be considered as having been read, the Chair directed the 
    Clerk to designate only the page and line number of the pending 
    part or committee amendment; the text of the pending part or 
    committee amendment was printed in full at that point in the 
    Congressional Record.

    On Aug. 2, 1977,(8) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill (9) pursuant to a special order 
as described above, the proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 123 Cong. Rec. 26124, 26125, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. H.R. 8444, National Energy Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (10) When the Committee rose on 
    Monday, August 1, 1977, all time for general debate had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered by parts and each 
    part is considered as having been read for

[[Page 6652]]

    amendment. No amendment shall be in order except pro forma 
    amendments and amendments made in order pursuant to House 
    Resolution 727, which will not be subject to amendment, except 
    amendments recommended by the ad hoc Committee on Energy and 
    amendments made in order under House Resolution 727. . . .
        The Clerk will designate the part of the bill now pending for 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 9, line 1, section 2. (Section 2 reads as follows:)

                Sec. 2. Findings and Statement of Purposes.

        The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the page and line number 
    of the first ad hoc committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Ad hoc committee amendment: Page 12, strike line 9, and 
        insert the matter printed on lines 11 through 14. (The ad hoc 
        committee amendment reads as follows:)

        and

            (9) to provide incentives to increase the amount of 
        domestically produced energy in the United States for the 
        benefit and security of present and future generations.

Sec. 3.66 In accordance with the procedure for considering committee 
    amendments to a bill under the five-minute rule in Committee of the 
    Whole, pursuant to a special order providing that said committee 
    amendments be considered en bloc and be considered as having been 
    read, the Chairman instructs the Clerk to designate the page and 
    line number of the amendments.

    On Aug. 2, 1977,(11) during consideration of H.R. 8444, 
the National Energy Act, the proceedings described above were as 
indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 26172, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (12) The Clerk will designate the page 
    and line number of the ad hoc committee amendments, the first group 
    of the amendments recommended by the ad hoc committee to be 
    considered en bloc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 183, line 11 through page 184, line 19 . . . and on 
        page 208, line 4 through page 209, line 2, and an amendment 
        inserting on page 188, line 11, the word ``domestic'' before 
        the word ``crude''.

Recognition To Offer Amendments

Sec. 3.67 Where the Committee of the Whole was considering a bill 
    pursuant to a ``modified closed'' rule permitting only designated 
    amendments to be offered, the Chair inquired of a Member seeking 
    recognition to offer an amendment whether his amendment had been 
    made in order under the rule before recognizing him to offer the 
    amendment.

[[Page 6653]]

    On Aug. 3, 1977,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8444, the National Energy Act. When a Member sought 
recognition to offer an amendment, the proceedings, described above, 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 123 Cong. Rec. 26448, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (14) The Chair would like 
    to inquire of the gentleman from Ohio if this is an amendment 
    permissible under the rule and made in order under the rule?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: This is authorized under the rule and has 
    been assigned to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) to offer at 
    this point.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, two things. 
    I reserve all necessary points of order and, second, I inquire, has 
    the unanimous-consent request been made for the dispensation of the 
    reading of the amendment? I am not making that request.
        The Chairman: (15) The Clerk will first have to 
    report the amendment and then the gentleman's request will be in 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the amendment.

Sec. 3.68 A resolution reported from the Committee on Rules which 
    merely makes in order the consideration of a particular amendment 
    (in the nature of a substitute) but does not waive points of order 
    or otherwise confer a privileged status upon the amendment does 
    not, in the absence of legislative history establishing a contrary 
    intent by that committee, alter the principles that recognition to 
    offer an amendment under the five-minute rule is within the 
    discretion of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole and that 
    adoption of one amendment in the nature of a substitute precludes 
    the offering of another.

    On May 23, 1978,(16) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Resolution 1188,(17) the above-
stated proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 124 Cong. Rec. 15094-96, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
17. Providing for consideration of H.R. 10929, Department of Defense 
        authorization for fiscal year 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  H. Res. 1188

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
        the consideration of the bill (H.R. 10929). . . . It shall be 
        in order to consider the amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services

[[Page 6654]]

        now printed in the bill as an original bill for the purposes of 
        amendment, said substitute shall be read for amendment by 
        titles instead of by sections and all points of order against 
        said substitute for failure to comply with the provisions of 
        clause 5, rule XXI and clause 7, rule XVI, are hereby waived, 
        except that it shall be in order when consideration of said 
        substitute begins to make a point of order that section 805 of 
        said substitute would be in violation of clause 7, rule XVI if 
        offered as a separate amendment to H.R. 10929 as introduced. If 
        such point of order is sustained, it shall be in order to 
        consider said substitute without section 805 included therein 
        as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, said 
        substitute shall be read for amendment by titles instead of by 
        sections and all points of order against said substitute for 
        failure to comply with the provisions of clause 7, rule XVI and 
        clause 5, rule XXI are hereby waived. It shall be in order to 
        consider the amendment printed in the Congressional Record of 
        May 17, 1978, by Representative Carr if offered as an amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute for the amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services. 
        . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18). . . The . . . rule 
    requested makes in order the substitute of Representative Carr 
    printed in the Congressional Record of May 17, 1978. Under the open 
    rule, Mr. Carr would already be entitled to offer his amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute. Although this provision in the rule 
    does not give Mr. Carr special or preferred status under the rule, 
    it does indicate the Rules Committee's desire to have all the 
    diverse viewpoints on the DOD legislation available for 
    consideration by the House. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I would like 
    to put a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair regarding the language 
    on page 2 of the rule, line 24, through line 4 on page 3. It 
    appears to me that the making in order of the offering of a 
    substitute to the committee amendment by the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Carr) is nothing more than an expression of the right 
    of any Member of the House to offer such amendment at any time in 
    the Committee of the Whole. My question to the Chair is whether or 
    not the appearance of this language in the rule in any way changes 
    the right of the Chair to recognize members of the committee in 
    order of seniority at the Chair's discretion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The recognition will be a matter for 
    the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House to determine. . . 
    .
        Mr. Bauman: My specific question, Mr. Speaker, was whether or 
    not this varies the precedents regarding recognition and confers 
    upon the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Carr) some special status as 
    opposed to the Chair's recognizing other members of the Committee 
    on Armed Services handling the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It would still be up to the Chairman 
    of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union to 
    determine the priorities of recognition. . . .
        Let the Chair respond by stating that the rules of the House 
    will apply and will not be abridged by reason of the adoption of 
    this rule. If another amendment in the nature of a sub

[[Page 6655]]

    stitute should have been adopted, it would not perforce thereafter 
    be in order to offer an additional amendment, whether it be the 
    Carr amendment or any other.
        As the Chair interprets the inclusion of the language referred 
    to in the rule, it confers no special privilege upon the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute referred to as the Carr substitute. 
    It presumes and makes in order such language as an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute. Beyond that, it does not foreclose 
    consideration of any other germane language that otherwise would be 
    in order. . . .
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: . . . [I]f along the way 
    a substitute is adopted other than that offered by the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Carr) then at the end of our consideration the 
    substitute of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Carr) would not be 
    in order; is that correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair believes the gentleman from 
    Missouri (Mr. Volkmer) has correctly stated the parliamentary 
    situation, if any amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    adopted, then additional amendments would not be in order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Section 805 of the committee substitute 
related to troop withdrawals from Korea, a matter unrelated to the bill 
and beyond the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee. The 
Committee on International Relations successfully urged the Rules 
Committee to render that section alone subject to a point of order, 
while protecting the consideration of the remainder of the substitute 
as original text. (Since a point of order against any portion of an 
amendment renders the entire amendment subject to a point of order, 
language was necessary in the rule to allow the consideration of a new 
amendment without the offending section.)

Sec. 3.69 Where a special order adopted by the House makes in order a 
    designated amendment to a bill in Committee of the Whole but gives 
    no special priority or precedence to such an amendment, the Chair 
    is not required to extend prior recognition to offer that amendment 
    but may rely on other principles of recognition such as alternation 
    between majority and minority parties and priority of perfecting 
    amendments over motions to strike.

    Recognition to offer amendments in Committee of the Whole is in the 
Chair's discretion, and no point of order lies against the Chair's 
recognition of one Member over another, where the special order 
governing the consideration of the bill gives no particular precedence 
to an amendment. Thus, as indicated in the proceedings of

[[Page 6656]]

June 21, 1979,(19) the Chair may, after recognizing the 
manager of a bill to offer a pro forma amendment under the five-minute 
rule, then recognize the ranking minority member to offer a perfecting 
amendment, prior to recognizing another majority member seeking 
recognition on behalf of another committee with jurisdiction over a 
portion of the bill to move to strike out that portion, where the 
motion to strike is made in order but given no preferential status in 
the special rule governing consideration of the bill. The proceedings, 
during consideration of H.R. 111, the Panama Canal Act of 1979, were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 15999, 16000, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

                             Chapter 2--Immigration

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

        Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York] (during the reading): 
    Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a point of order. My point of order 
    is that under the rule the Committee on the Judiciary was given the 
    right to offer an amendment to strike section 1611, and I believe 
    that is the import of the amendment offered. The gentleman's 
    amendment goes to that section, and I was on my feet.
        The Chairman: (20) First the amendment should be 
    read, and then the Chair will recognize the gentlewoman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk continued the reading of the amendment. . . .
        Ms. Holtzman: Mr. Chairman, I renew the point of order that I 
    tried to state at an earlier time. . . .
        [A]t the time that the last amendment was voted on, I was on my 
    feet seeking to offer an amendment on behalf of the Committee on 
    the Judiciary with respect to striking in its entirety section 1611 
    of the bill. The right to offer that amendment is granted under the 
    rule, in fact on page 3 of House Resolution 274. I want to ask the 
    Chair whether I am entitled to be recognized or was entitled to be 
    recognized to make first a motion, which was a motion to strike the 
    entire section before amendments were made to the text of the bill.
        The Chairman: Unless an amendment having priority of 
    consideration under the rule is offered, it is the Chair's practice 
    to alternate recognition of members of the several committees that 
    are listed in the rule, taking amendments from the majority and 
    minority side in general turn, while giving priority of recognition 
    to those committees that are mentioned in the rule.

[[Page 6657]]

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

    Parliamentarian's Note: The amendment offered by Mr. Bauman struck 
out section 1611 of the bill and inserted a new section, whereas the 
amendment made in order under the rule on behalf of the Committee on 
the Judiciary was an amendment to strike that section; thus adoption of 
the Bauman amendment precluded the offering of the Judiciary Committee 
amendment. It would have made little difference if Ms. Holtzman was 
recognized first, since the Bauman amendment could have been offered 
(as a perfecting amendment) while the Holtzman motion to strike was 
pending and if the Bauman amendment was adopted the motion to strike 
would have necessarily fallen and would not have been voted on.
    If the Holtzman amendment, and the amendments to be offered on 
behalf of the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Post Office and Civil 
Service, had been committee amendments formally rec

[[Page 6658]]

ommended in reports on H.R. 111, they would have been automatically 
considered by the Committee of the Whole. But as indicated in the 
discussion on the rule, only the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries had formally reported H.R. 111.

Sec. 3.70 Under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a bill may ordinarily be offered either after the 
    first section has been read or at the conclusion of reading of the 
    bill; but where a bill is being considered under a special rule 
    precluding further amendment to the bill upon adoption of a 
    committee amendment at the end thereof, an amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute can only be offered after the first section is 
    read, unless the committee amendment is rejected.

    On Sept. 23, 1980, (1) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 7020, (2) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 126 Cong. Rec. 26757, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. The Hazardous Waste Containment Act of 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (3) When the Committee of the Whole 
    arose on Friday, September 19, 1980, all time for general debate 
    had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the substitute committee amendment 
    recommended by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce now 
    printed in the reported bill shall be considered as an original 
    bill for the purpose of amendment and each section shall be 
    considered as having been read. No amendments to the amendment 
    recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means printed in the bill 
    shall be in order except pro forma amendments for the purpose of 
    debate and following amendments which shall not be amendable except 
    by pro forma amendments: First, the amendments recommended by the 
    Committee on Ways and Means; second, the amendment printed on page 
    H7926 in the Congressional Record of August 25, 1980, by 
    Representative Ullman of Oregon; and third, the amendment to be 
    printed in the Congressional Record of September 5, 1980, by and if 
    offered by, Representative Florio of New Jersey. Upon the adoption 
    of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means to 
    the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and no further 
    amendment to the bill shall be in order. . . .
        Are there any amendments to section 1? . . .
        Mr. [David A.] Stockman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, under the 
    terms of the rule, would a substitute amendment to the entire bill, 
    H.R. 7020, be in order only now, at this point for this bill?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman that 
    the

[[Page 6659]]

    gentleman's statement is correct, assuming adoption of the Ways and 
    Means Committee amendment at the conclusion of the reading of the 
    bill for amendment. Under the rule, no further amendments would 
    then be in order.
        Mr. Stockman: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute.

    Parliamentarian's Note: After the first section of original text is 
read for amendment under the five-minute rule, an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute may be offered, even if a special order 
governing consideration would prohibit consideration of such an 
amendment at the end of the bill, and even if adoption of such an 
amendment would prohibit the consideration of other perfecting 
amendments specifically made in order by the special order (unless the 
special order specifically prohibits such an amendment from being 
offered at the beginning of the bill or substitute).

Waiving Points of Order Against Amendments

Sec. 3.71 The Speaker indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry 
    that a pending resolution reported from the Committee on Rules 
    waived all points of order based on the germaneness rule against 
    any amendment in the nature of a substitute offered from the floor 
    to the measure made in order as original text, but not against 
    substitutes therefor or perfecting amendments thereto.

    On May 17, 1978, (4) during consideration of House 
Resolution 1186 providing for consideration of H.R. 39, (5) 
the Speaker pro tempore responded to a parliamentary inquiry as 
described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 124 Cong. Rec. 14139, 14145, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Christopher J.] Dodd [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules I call up House Resolution 1186 
    and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1186

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move . . . that the House resolve itself 
        into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
        for the consideration of (H.R. 39). . . . After general debate 
        . . . the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-
        minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute recommended by the Committee on Interior and Insular 
        Affairs now printed in italic in the bill, it shall be in order 
        to consider the text of the bill H.R. 12625 if offered as an 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute for the bill, said 
        substitute

[[Page 6660]]

        shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule as an 
        original bill by titles instead of by sections, and all points 
        of order against said substitute or any amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute offered thereto for failure to comply with the 
        provisions of clause 7, rule XVI and clause 5, rule XXI are 
        hereby waived. . . .

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, this waiver 
    applies, as the Chair has just stated, only to substitutes, not to 
    ordinary amendments; is that correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) The Chair will state it 
    applies to amendments in the nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Charles A. Vanik (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The special rule, by waiving points of 
order based on clause 7 of Rule XVI against ``any amendment in the 
nature of a substitute'' to the amendment made in order for 
consideration as original text, would have made any amendment 
regardless of subject matter in order as an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute. In order that an overly broad application of the waiver 
could be forestalled, a compromise amendment in the nature of a 
substitute was offered at the outset of consideration to the amendment 
made in order as original text. Since the rule only waived all 
germaneness points of order against amendments in the nature of a 
substitute, and not against substitutes or perfecting amendments, the 
pendency of the initial amendment in the nature of a substitute and its 
ultimate adoption precluded the offering of other nongermane amendments 
in the nature of a substitute.

Sec. 3.72 During consideration of a special order reported from the 
    Committee on Rules providing a ``modified open'' rule ``making in 
    order'' only two amendments to a particular section of a bill, but 
    not waiving points of order against the second offered amendment 
    following adoption of the first, the Chair recognized the minority 
    leader to request unanimous consent to permit the offering of a 
    minority Member's amendment notwithstanding its possible change of 
    an amendment already adopted (the last adopted amendment to be 
    reported to the House).

    On Oct. 19, 1983, (7) during consideration of House 
Resolution 329 in the House, the proceedings described above occurred 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 129 Cong. Rec. 28307, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: I should like to alert 
    the other side to my making a rather unusual, a very unusual 
    unanimous-consent request,

[[Page 6661]]

    and it would be this, Mr. Speaker: that I ask unanimous consent 
    that during the consideration of H.R. 2968 in the Committee of the 
    Whole, Mr. Robinson of Virginia be permitted to offer, as his 
    amendment to section 108 provided for in House Resolution 329, an 
    amendment to strike out that section in its entirety and insert a 
    new section, even if an amendment to strike out that section in its 
    entirety and insert a new section has already been adopted, and 
    that only the last such amendment in the nature of a substitute for 
    the section, which has been adopted, shall be reported back to the 
    House.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A special order ``making in order'' an 
amendment offered by a designated Member but not specifically waiving 
points of order does not permit consideration of the amendment unless 
in conformity with the general rules of the House. In the above case, 
the unanimous consent request to permit consideration of the amendment 
was objected to by the manager of the special order on the basis that 
it constituted a major change in the special order reported from the 
Committee on Rules.

Proper Scope of Inquiries--Chair's Interpretation or Reiteration of 
    Terms

Sec. 3.73 The Chair will refuse to entertain as a parliamentary inquiry 
    questions concerning the availability or interpretation of 
    amendments not yet offered, but may reiterate the proposed terms of 
    a pending special order for the information of Members.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on June 25, 
1981, (8) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 127 Cong. Rec. 14065, 14079, 14082, 14083, 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 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. . . .

    Following debate on the rule, and after defeat of the previous

[[Page 6662]]

question, the Speaker recognized the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Rules to offer an amendment to the reported resolution.

        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. . . . The bill shall 
        be considered as having been read for amendment under the five 
        minute rule. No amendment to the bill shall be in order in the 
        Committee of the Whole except an amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute which shall be the text of the bill H.R. 3964, said 
        amendment shall be considered as an original bill for the 
        purpose of amendment, and shall be considered as having been 
        read, all points of order are hereby waived against said 
        amendment, and no amendment shall be in order to said amendment 
        except--
            ``(1) A substitute amendment to title VI by Representative 
        Broyhill, if offered, and said amendment shall be considered as 
        having been read and shall not be subject to amendment or to a 
        division of the question in the House or in the Committee of 
        the Whole, but shall be debatable for not to exceed 2 hours to 
        be equally divided and controlled by Representative Broyhill 
        and a Member opposed thereto and all points of order against 
        said amendment are hereby waived and (2) the amendments of 
        Representative Latta of Ohio, said amendments shall be 
        considered en bloc and shall be considered as having been read 
        and shall not be subject to amendment or to a division of the 
        question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole, but 
        shall be debatable for not to exceed 4 hours, to be equally 
        divided and controlled by Representative Latta and a Member 
        opposed thereto, and all points of order against said 
        amendments are hereby waived. At the conclusion of the 
        consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall 
        rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
        may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be 
        considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
        final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
        recommit, with or without instructions.''

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) The gentleman from 
    Michigan will state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9 James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dingell: Is the Broyhill amendment published? Is it 
    available?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot answer that question. 
    The amendment has been read by the Clerk. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: I have a further legitimate parliamentary inquiry. 
    Is the Broyhill amendment different from the

[[Page 6663]]

    language of the Latta amendment, the Latta-offered rule?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is not in a position to 
    answer that question. . . .
        Mr. [James R.] Jones of Oklahoma: I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to determine if we have the 
    proper language of the rule we are about to be voting on, and is it 
    the same rule that says: ``the amendments of Representative Latta 
    of Ohio, said amendments shall be considered en bloc and shall be 
    considered as having been read and shall not be subject to 
    amendment or to a division of the question in the House or in the 
    Committee of the Whole, but shall be debatable for not to exceed 4 
    hours, to be equally divided and controlled by Representative Latta 
    and a Member opposed thereto, and all points of order against said 
    amendments are hereby waived.''
        Is this the rule we are about to vote on?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correctly reading 
    from the amendment to the rule upon which the previous question has 
    been ordered.
        Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, 
    Mr. Speaker. Do we have or does anyone have a copy of the Latta 
    amendment to be considered en bloc? The chairman of the Committee 
    on the Budget has not been able to get it. Does anybody have it?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot answer that question. 
    . . .
        Mr. [George] Miller [of California]: I would like to ask the 
    Chair under the rule, if the rule is adopted, does it in fact make 
    in order then the consideration of what is titled committee print 
    June 25, 1981? It is unclear to this Member, Mr. Speaker, whether 
    it will be this 350-page document and whether or not we will have 
    an opportunity to have the Clerk read the document to the Members 
    of the House. Is this in fact the document to be debated?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is not in a position to 
    answer that question. The amendment proposed and upon which a vote 
    presently will be taken simply stipulates ``amendments of 
    Representative Latta of Ohio, said amendments'' to be considered en 
    bloc.
        In response to the second portion of the gentleman's question, 
    those amendments the rule considers as read and not open to 
    amendment at any point. . . .
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Listening to the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma and the Speaker reading the rule, I did not 
    hear anything about a motion to recommit being in order. I would 
    like to know, under the Rules of the House, even though the rule 
    does not specifically provide for a motion to recommit--is there a 
    provision?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman 
    from Missouri that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Latta) does specifically provide for one motion to recommit 
    either with or without instructions.

Specified Order of Amendments

Sec. 3.74 Pursuant to a ``modified closed rule'' permitting only

[[Page 6664]]

    two designated Members to offer amendments which would not be 
    amendable and not specifying the order of consideration, the Chair 
    indicated that either amendment could be offered first but could 
    not be offered during the pendency of the other amendment.

    On June 26, 1981, (10) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 3982, (11) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 127 Cong. Rec. 14492, 14493, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James R.] Jones of [Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I would like 
    to first pose a question to the Chair, and that is: If we do not 
    rise, what is the parliamentary situation? If the gentleman from 
    North Carolina [Mr. Broyhill] does not want to offer his substitute 
    at this time, is the gentleman precluded from doing so later?
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair will respond in the 
    negative. The rule does not dictate the order of amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: So at any time in these proceedings, the 
    gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill) could offer his 
    substitute?
        The Chairman: The Broyhill amendment cannot be offered if the 
    Latta amendments are pending.
        Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: But if the Latta amendment is pending 
    and disposed of, could the Broyhill amendment be offered after 
    that?
        The Chairman: The Chair will respond in the affirmative, yes.

Limiting Consideration of All Amendments

Sec. 3.75 When the Committee of the Whole is operating under a special 
    order limiting consideration of all amendments to a number of hours 
    of consideration, and the Committee rises during that time 
    immediately following the offering of an amendment, that amendment 
    remains pending when the Committee resumes its sitting and 
    subsequent amendments may be offered only after its disposition and 
    during the time remaining for consideration of all amendments; no 
    amendments may be offered thereafter, since the special order 
    terminates consideration and overrides Rule XXIII clause 6, which 
    would otherwise guarantee additional time for amendments printed in 
    the Record.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on Apr. 9, 
1986, (13) during consideration of H.R. 4332 (the Firearms 
Law Re

[[Page 6665]]

form Act). The bill was being considered under the terms of a special 
rule (H. Res. 403, agreed to on Apr. 9, 1986) which provided:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 132 Cong. Rec. 6896, 6897, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
        resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
        XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
        Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 
        the bill (H.R. 4332) to amend chapter 44 (relating to firearms) 
        of title 18, United States Code, and for other purposes, and 
        the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. After 
        general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall 
        continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally divided and 
        controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
        Committee on the Judiciary, the bill shall be considered for 
        amendment under the five-minute rule. Immediately after the 
        enacting clause is read, it shall be in order to consider the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
        Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, and said 
        amendment shall be considered as having been read. Before the 
        consideration of perfecting amendments to said amendment, it 
        shall be in order for Representative Volkmer of Missouri to 
        offer a substitute for said amendment consisting of the text of 
        his amendment printed in the Congressional Record of March 18, 
        1986, and said substitute shall be considered as having been 
        read. Before the consideration of other perfecting amendments 
        to the amendment or to the substitute it shall be in order, 
        notwithstanding the prohibition against a member offering an 
        amendment to his own amendment, to consider a perfecting 
        amendment printed in the Congressional Record of March 19, 1986 
        by, and if offered by Representative Volkmer of Missouri to his 
        substitute. No amendment to the amendment or to the substitute 
        shall be in order except pro forma amendments for the purpose 
        of debate and amendments printed in the Congressional Record. 
        At the expiration of five hours of consideration of said 
        amendment and substitute for amendment under the five-minute 
        rule, no further amendment to the amendment, to the substitute 
        or to the bill shall be in order, and the question shall occur 
        on the pending amendment or amendments. At the conclusion of 
        the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee 
        shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
        amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question 
        shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
        thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one 
        motion to recommit.

    The proceedings relating to H.R. 4332 were as follows:

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hughes to the amendment, as 
        amended, offered by Mr. Volkmer as a substitute for the 
        Judiciary Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
        amended: Page 7, line 10, strike out ``shall not apply'' and 
        all that follows through ``firearms'' in line 2 on page 8, and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following: ``shall not apply to the 
        sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a 
        State other than a State in which the licensee's place of 
        business is located. . . .

        Mr. [William J.] Hughes [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I yield 
    the balance of my time, and move that the Committee do now rise.

[[Page 6666]]

        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman yields back the 
    balance of his time and moves that the Committee rise. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Charles B. Rangel (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles] Roemer [of Louisiana]: Is it the position of the 
    House, Mr. Chairman, that when we rise and meet tomorrow, the 
    Hughes amendment pendng now would begin the debate?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Louisiana is exactly correct.
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Volkmer: When we come in tomorrow and the Committee begins 
    to act on the bill, we will have only the time left under the 5 
    hours for amendments, is that not correct?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Volkmer: Which right now is approximately 1 hour?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Volkmer: And then the rest of the amendments, are they cut 
    off? Or do we go ahead for those that are in the Record and vote on 
    them after 5 minutes each?
        The Chairman: There will not be any amendments that would be in 
    order after the conclusion of the 5-hour consideration.

Debate on Amendments

Sec. 3.76 Where a ``modified closed'' rule permitted only one amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute and one substitute therefor, and 
    divided a separate hour of debate on each substitute between the 
    same two Members, the Chair permitted the total time to be 
    accumulated and consumed before putting the question on the 
    substitute.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on June 10, 
1982,(15) during consideration of House Concurrent 
Resolution 352, the first concurrent resolution on the budget, fiscal 
1983. The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 128 Cong. Rec. 13387, 13390, 13395, 13399, 13409, 97th Cong. 2d 
        Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) All time for general debate has 
    expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XXIII, the concurrent resolution 
    is considered as having been read for amendment and open for 
    amendment at any point.
        The concurrent resolution is as follows. . . .

    TITLE I--REVISION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES 
                    GOVERNMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1982

        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: . . . The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute.

[[Page 6667]]

        The amendment in the nature of a substitute is as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Latta: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following. . . .

        The Chairman: Under the rule, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
    Jones) will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Latta) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Jones.
        Mr. [James R.] Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Chairman: Pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 
    496, the amendment in the nature of a substitute is considered as 
    having been read.
        The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute is as follows. . . .
        The Chairman: Pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 
    496, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones) will be recognized for 
    30 minutes and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) will be 
    recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
    Jones).
        Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, in order to resolve the 
    technicalities, I will use 30 minutes on the Jones substitute 
    first, and the remaining 30 minutes on the Latta substitute. I 
    think we have agreed to alternate back and forth the total hour we 
    have.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Simon) a member of the committee. . . .
        Mr. [Ralph] Regula [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        What is the situation at the moment? Have we completed with the 
    first hour, that is, in effect, the debate on the Jones substitute?
        The Chairman: In effect, the Chair has. The Chair believes, and 
    it has been treating the time as a fungible commodity. The total 
    time has been allocated as to both amendments. In effect, the 
    gentleman from Ohio has remaining to himself to yield, 30 minutes, 
    and the gentleman from Oklahoma has 29 minutes remaining.

Sec. 3.77 The Committee on Rules may report a resolution providing 
    additional procedures to govern the further consideration of a 
    measure already pending in Committee of the Whole, including 
    limiting further consideration of amendments to a total amount of 
    time, and prohibiting further debate or amendments when the 
    limitation has expired.

    On May 4, 1983,(17) Committee on Rules Chairman Claude 
Pepper, of Florida, called up for immediate consideration in the House, 
House Resolution 179, providing for the further consider

[[Page 6668]]

ation of House Joint Resolution 13, then pending in Committee of the 
Whole. The reported resolution and Chairman Pepper's comments thereon 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 129 Cong. Rec. 11036, 11037, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Pepper: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
    Rules, I call up House Resolution 179 and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 179

            Resolved, That during the further consideration of the 
        joint resolution (H.J. Res. 13) calling for a mutual and 
        verifiable freeze on and reductions in nuclear weapons, further 
        consideration of amendments to the committee amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute shall terminate at the expiration of ten 
        further hours of such consideration, and at the expiration of 
        said time the Committee of the Whole shall immediately proceed 
        to vote on any amendments pending to said substitute, and then 
        on said substitute. During such time limitation, debate on any 
        amendment to said substitute, and on any amendment thereto, 
        whether or not printed in the Congressional Record, shall 
        continue not to exceed thirty minutes, equally divided and 
        controlled by the proponent of the amendment and a Member 
        opposed thereto. After the disposition of said substitute, the 
        preamble shall be considered for amendment, debate on each 
        amendment to the preamble or on each amendment thereto shall 
        continue not to exceed thirty minutes, equally divided and 
        controlled by the proponent of the amendment and a Member 
        opposed thereto, and further consideration of amendments to the 
        preamble shall terminate at the expiration of two hours of such 
        consideration, and at the expiration of said time the Committee 
        of the Whole shall immediately proceed to vote on any 
        amendments pending to the preamble. After the disposition of 
        said amendments, it shall be in order to consider the amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute by Representative Broomfield made 
        in order by House Resolution 138 for amendment under the five-
        minute rule, debate on each amendment to the amendment or on 
        each amendment thereto shall continue not to exceed thirty 
        minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent of the 
        amendment and a Member opposed thereto, and further 
        consideration of amendments to said amendment shall terminate 
        at the expiration of two hours of such consideration, and at 
        the expiration of said time the Committee of the Whole shall 
        immediately proceed to vote on any amendments pending to said 
        amendment, and then on said amendment. During the further 
        consideration of the joint resolution, the Chairman of the 
        Committee of the Whole shall not entertain any pro forma 
        amendment offered for the purpose of obtaining time for debate 
        only. During the further consideration of the joint resolution, 
        the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may, in his 
        discretion, announce after a recorded vote has been ordered 
        that he may reduce to not less then five minutes the period of 
        time in which a recorded vote, if ordered, will be taken by 
        electronic device on any amendment which is to be voted on 
        without further debate immediately following that fifteen-
        minute recorded vote. In the event that an amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute to the committee amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute to the resolution is adopted, it shall not be 
        in order to demand a separate vote in the House on any other 
        amendment adopted to said committee substitute. . . .

[[Page 6669]]

        Mr. Pepper: Mr. Speaker, there are two essential elements 
    involved in the legislative process. One is the right to debate, 
    the other is the right to decide. We have had some 45 hours of 
    debate upon the pending resolution. This rule today is offered by 
    the Rules Committee as an instrument by which the Members of this 
    House may also enjoy the right to decide the pertinent issues 
    involved in the pending resolution.
        Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 179 provides additional 
    procedures for the consideration of House Joint Resolution 13, 
    calling for a mutual and verifiable freeze on and reductions in 
    nuclear weapons. Prior to discussing the actual provisions of this 
    rule, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss 
    the necessity for this rule.
        On March 15, 1983, the Committee on Rules ordered reported an 
    open rule allowing 3 hours of general debate on House Joint 
    Resolution 13. The rule, House Resolution 138, was adopted on March 
    16 and since that time, Mr. Speaker, the House has spent more than 
    45 hours over 5 days considering only the resolving clause of the 
    joint resolution. On April 14, Chairman Zablocki requested an 
    additional rule on House Resolution 13, but later asked the Rules 
    Committee that the meeting scheduled for April 19 be canceled after 
    he reached what he believed at that time to be an agreement to 
    finish debate on the matter.
        On April 21, the House agreed, by a vote of 214 to 194 and 
    after three attempts, to a motion that ``debate on the resolving 
    clause--to House Joint Resolution 13--and all amendments thereto 
    cease at 3:30 p.m.'' on that date. The effect of that time 
    limitation agreement was to stop further debate on the resolving 
    clause of House Joint Resolution 13 under the 5-minute rule, with 
    the exception that amendments printed in the Congressional Record 
    could be offered pursuant to clause 6, rule XXIII, allowing the 
    member presenting the amendment 5 minutes to explain his amendment, 
    and the first person to obtain the floor 5 minutes to oppose the 
    amendment. In addition, perfecting amendments could be offered 
    while such amendments were pending. However, such perfecting 
    amendments would have been decided without debate unless printed in 
    the Record.
        The Committee of the Whole again debated House Joint Resolution 
    13 on Thursday, April 28. At that time, it became apparent that the 
    House would not be able to complete consideration of the nuclear 
    freeze resolution in any reasonable amount of time. Chairman 
    Zablocki then stated his intention of asking the Rules Committee to 
    grant an additional rule of the joint resolution.
        The Committee on Rules met on Monday, May 2, to consider the 
    possibility of granting an additional rule and again yesterday to 
    discuss further the rule and to vote on special order that we are 
    bringing before the House today.
        Let me say that during my absence last week I had left 
    authority before my departure with the able ranking majority member 
    on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Long, to 
    perform the necessary duties to allow the Rules Committee to 
    function. He subsequently met with the leadership of the House and 
    they formulated basically the rule which is presented today. It was 
    that rule

[[Page 6670]]

    which was considered on Monday and Tuesday of this week. We heard 
    several witnesses, 10 to 12 witnesses, most from the minority party 
    on that rule on Monday.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This rule has provided a model for further 
rules on complicated bills (see, for example, House Resolution 247, on 
H.R. 2760, Intelligence Authorization Amendment; and House Resolution 
300, on H.R. 2453, Radio Broadcasting to Cuba). It should be noted that 
there existed the possibility in this instance that a point of order 
would be made, based on the contention that the meeting on May 2 
(referred to by Chairman Pepper, above) was not called by the chairman, 
as required, but by the ranking majority member; and that clause 
2(g)(5) of Rule XI allowed such point of order since a similar point of 
order had been improperly overruled in committee. However, such point 
of order would not ordinarily lie since such provisions of Rule XI 
apply only to hearings. The May 2 proceeding was not a hearing but a 
meeting, and therefore the point of order did not survive, a subsequent 
and valid meeting having been held to report the rule.

Sec. 3.78 Where a special order adopted by the House limits debate on 
    an amendment to be controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and 
    prohibits amendments thereto, the Chair may in his discretion 
    recognize the manager of the bill if opposed, and there is no 
    requirement for recognition of the minority party.

    On June 18, 1986,(18) during consideration of H.R. 4868 
(19) in the Committee of the Whole, the situation described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 132 Cong. Rec. 14275, 14276, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. The Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20) Under the rule, the gentleman 
    from California (Mr. Dellums) will be recognized for 30 minutes, 
    and a Member opposed to the amendment will be recognized for 30 
    minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Bob Traxler (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Will those gentlemen who are opposed to the Dellums amendment 
    kindly stand so the Chair can designate?
        Is the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Bonker) opposed to the 
    amendment?
        Mr. [Don] Bonker [of Washington]: I advise the Chair that I 
    oppose the amendment.
        The Chairman: Then the Chair will recognize the gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. Bonker) for 30 minutes in opposition to the Dellums 
    amendment.
        Does the gentleman from Washington wish to yield any of his 
    time or share any of his time?

[[Page 6671]]

        Mr. Bonker: Mr. Chairman, I would yield half the allotted time, 
    15 minutes, to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Siljander).
        The Chairman: The time in opposition will be equally divided 
    between the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Bonker) and the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Siljander). . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, do I 
    understand that the process that has just taken place has given the 
    minority side one-quarter of the time.
        The Chairman: The Chair would counsel the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania in regard to his inquiry that the rule provides that a 
    Member will be recognized in opposition. The gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. Bonker) was recognized in opposition, and he shared 
    his time with your side.
        Mr. Walker: In other words, the minority, though, was not 
    recognized for the purposes of opposition. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: The Chair would state that the procedures of the 
    House are governed by its rules, but more importantly in this 
    instance, by the rule adopted by the House as reported from the 
    committee.

Sec. 3.79 The House having adopted a special order governing 
    consideration of a bill in Committee of the Whole providing for the 
    consideration of a substitute for a designated amendment, but also 
    providing that ``before the consideration of any amendments to said 
    amendment, it shall be in order to debate said amendment for not to 
    exceed one hour'', debate on the amendment must conclude before the 
    substitute may be offered (unless otherwise provided by unanimous 
    consent).

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on Aug. 15, 
1986,(1) during consideration of H.R. 4428.(2) 
The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 132 Cong. Rec. 22050, 22051, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. The Department of Defense Authorization, fiscal year 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (3) When the Committee of 
    the Whole rose on Thursday, August 14, 1986, amendment numbered 113 
    made in order pursuant to paragraph 3 of the House Resolution 531 
    had been completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is in order to consider an amendment if offered by 
    Representative Hawkins relating to the application of the Davis-
    Bacon Act at this point, which shall not be subject to amendment 
    except a substitute if offered by Representative Dickinson 
    consisting of the text of amendment numbered 114 printed in House 
    Report 99-766, which shall not be subject to amendment.
        The amendment and the substitute shall each be debatable for 1 
    hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and a Member 
    opposed thereto.

[[Page 6672]]

        Mr. [Augustus F.] Hawkins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment. . . .
        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, in order 
    to clarify the parliamentary situation, Mr. Chairman, I would like 
    to get a ruling from the Chair as to the procedure.
        The Chair has already announced the preference of offering the 
    amendments and what would be available as a substitute. My question 
    is, Under the rule, is it correct to say that Mr. Hawkins would 
    offer an amendment which would give him 1 hour to be divided, half 
    by him and half by some Member in opposition, which in this case 
    would be myself?
        At the end of that time, then the substitute, which I have, 
    would be offered and there would be another hour of debate, or is 
    there another allocation of time?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: That would be the scenario, the Chair 
    will state. . . . If the gentleman from California (Mr. Hawkins) 
    would yield to the gentleman at this point, we could have both the 
    amendments pending at the same time by unanimous consent.
        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, it was my thinking that perhaps it 
    would be advantageous, rather than having the gentleman go forward 
    for an hour and my going forward an hour, if we would agree that 
    there would be a total of 2 hours, half of which the gentleman 
    would control and half of which I would control. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair needs to make a 
    clarification.
        The Chair will state that under the rule, the gentleman's 
    amendment has to be debated for 1 hour.
        Mr. Dickinson: Well, that was my question.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Before the substitute can be offered.

Effect of Adoption or Rejection of Amendments Being Considered Under 
    Special Rule

Sec. 3.80 Where a special order adopted by the House makes in order an 
    amendment to strike out a portion of a bill and to insert new text, 
    and prohibits amendments to that amendment or further amendments 
    changing that portion of the bill if the designated amendment is 
    adopted, further amendments to that portion of the bill, including 
    a motion to strike, are in order if the designated amendment is 
    rejected.

    On Sept. 14, 1978,(4) the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole responded to several parliamentary inquiries concerning the 
procedure for offering amendments under the special rule providing for 
consideration of the bill H.R. 8729.(5) The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 124 Cong. Rec. 29477, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. Aircraft Noise Reduction Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William A.] Steiger [of Wisconsin]: . . . If the amendment 
    from the Committee on Ways and Means is

[[Page 6673]]

    adopted, is a motion to strike title III in order?
        The Chairman: (6) It would not be in order in that 
    event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Steiger: If the amendment from the Ways and Means Committee 
    is rejected, is a motion to strike title III in order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that in the 
    event the pending Ways and Means Committee amendment made in order 
    under the rule were to be rejected, then germane amendments to 
    title III would be in order, including a motion to strike.

Sec. 3.81 Where the House had adopted a special rule permitting 
    amendments to be offered although changing portions of the text of 
    amendments already agreed to, the Chair overruled a point of order 
    against an amendment changing provisions already amended.

    On Nov. 30, 1982,(7) it was held that, while under 
general procedure an amendment may not be offered which directly 
changes an amendment already agreed to, where the House has adopted a 
special rule permitting amendments to be offered even if changing 
portions of amendments already agreed to that principle does not apply. 
The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of 
H.R. 3809 (8) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 128 Cong. Rec. 28049, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Markey: In section 114(a)(3), 
        strike out ``and legislature'' and insert in lieu thereof ``or 
        legislature''.
            In section 115(a), strike out ``and legislature'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``or legislature''. . . .

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on the amendment. . . .
        [T]he point of order is that the language that we adopted on 
    yesterday has already amended the sections and has stricken out 
    ``legislature,'' and thus this amendment would not be in order, 
    since it is action on amendments and sections that have already 
    been amended. . . .

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I think 
    the amendment is clearly in order, because under the rule that was 
    adopted for consideration of this bill, House Resolution 601, on 
    page 3, in lines 14, 15, and 16, it says: ``and all such amendments 
    shall be in order even if changing portions of the text of said 
    substitute already changed by amendment.''. . .
        The Chairman: (9) Is there any further discussion on 
    the point of order? If not, the Chair will rule pursuant to the

[[Page 6674]]

    rule that was adopted on page 3, lines 14 through 16, it clearly 
    states that all such amendments shall be in order even if changing 
    portions of the text of said substitute already changed by 
    amendment. And therefore, the point of order is not well taken, and 
    it is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Votes on Amendments Reported Back to the House

Sec. 3.82 Where the Committee of the Whole reports a bill back to the 
    House with an adopted committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute pursuant to a special rule allowing separate votes in 
    the House on any amendment adopted in Committee of the Whole to the 
    bill or to that committee substitute, and a separate vote is 
    demanded in the House only on an amendment striking out a section 
    of the committee substitute, but not on perfecting amendments which 
    have previously been adopted in Committee of the Whole to that 
    section, rejection in the House of the motion to strike the section 
    results in a vote on the committee substitute with that section in 
    its original form and not as perfected (the perfecting amendments 
    having been displaced in Committee of the Whole by the motion to 
    strike and not having been revived on a separate vote in the 
    House).

    On Oct. 13, 1977,(10) the Committee of the Whole having 
reported H.R. 3816 back to the House with an amendment, the proceedings 
described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 123 Cong. Rec. 33622, 33623, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) Are there further amendments? If 
    not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
    amended, was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the Committee rises.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Kazen, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee having had 
    under consideration the bill (H.R. 3816) to amend the Federal Trade 
    Commission Act to expedite the enforcement of Federal Trade 
    Commission cease and desist orders and compulsory process orders; 
    to increase the independence of the Federal Trade Commission in 
    legislative, budgetary, and personnel matters; and for other 
    purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 718, he reported the bill 
    back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the 
    Whole.
        The Speaker: (12) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).

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

[[Page 6675]]

        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of 
    the Whole?
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate 
    vote on the so-called Krueger amendment. . . .
        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, is it 
    not correct that we would be acting on section 7 as written in the 
    bill and not on the amendments as adopted by the Committee of the 
    Whole if the Krueger amendment is adopted?
        The Speaker: The amendment is to strike section 7 of the bill. 
    The vote will be on that.
        Mr. Broyhill: Mr. Speaker, if the Krueger amendment is 
    defeated, then what is in the bill is the section as written in the 
    bill and not the amendments that were adopted?
        The Speaker: We are back to the original committee bill.
        Mr. Broyhill: The original committee bill only, and not the 
    amendments that were adopted?
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.

    Parliamentarian's Note: House Resolution 718, under which the House 
was operating, provided that the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute be read as an original bill for amendment and that separate 
votes could be demanded in the House on any amendment adopted in 
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. In the above proceeedings, the House could have 
retained the section as perfected in Committee of the Whole by first 
adopting, on separate votes, the perfecting amendments to section 7, 
and then rejecting on a separate vote the motion to strike that 
section. A Member who fails to demand a separate vote on a perfecting 
amendment to a portion of an amendment being read as original text, 
where a separate vote is demanded on a motion to strike which has 
deleted that perfecting language, allows the perfecting language to 
lapse whether or not the motion to strike is adopted on a separate 
vote.

Amendments Considered En Bloc

Sec. 3.83 Where the Committee of the Whole reports a bill back to the 
    House with amendments, some of which were considered en bloc 
    pursuant to a special rule, the en bloc amendments may be voted on 
    again en bloc on a demand for a separate vote, but another 
    amendment separately considered in Committee of the Whole may not 
    be voted on en bloc in the House without unanimous consent.

[[Page 6676]]

    On Sept. 7, 1978,(13) during consideration of H.R. 
7308,(14) the situation described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 124 Cong. Rec. 28423, 28425, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
14. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Under the rule, the Committee rises.
        Accordingly the Committee rose, and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Murtha, Chairman pro tempore of the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee 
    having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 7308) to amend title 
    18, United States Code, to authorize applications for a court order 
    approving the use of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign 
    intelligence information, pursuant to House Resolution 1266, he 
    reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by 
    the Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker: (15) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Thomas P. O'Neill (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of 
    the Whole?
        Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    demand a separate vote en bloc on the McClory amendments agreed to 
    on September 6, and I demand a separate vote on the conforming 
    McClory amendments agreed to on today.
        The Speaker: Is a separate vote demanded on any other amendment 
    to the Committee amendment? The Clerk will report the amendments en 
    bloc on which a separate vote has been demanded.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, is it proper for the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Boland) to demand a separate vote en bloc on the 
    amendments, or must he ask for a vote on each one of these 
    amendments?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the rule provides that 
    it shall be in order to consider the amendments en bloc, so under 
    the rule the vote on the amendments would be considered as on the 
    amendments en bloc. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, am I correct that the original McClory 
    amendment was considered separately and that the several others 
    were adopted subsequently?
        Mr. [Robert] McClory [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, if the 
    gentleman will yield, I might inform the gentleman that the 
    conforming amendments were considered separately, and the other 
    amendments were considered en bloc.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire on which amendment is it 
    that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Boland) demands a 
    separate vote? . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the amendments offered 
    by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. McClory) that were agreed to 
    yesterday will be voted on en bloc today. That is in conformance 
    with the demand made by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Boland).

[[Page 6677]]

        Mr. Bauman: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The gentleman mentioned the McClory amendment and all 
    amendments agreed to en bloc. So do we now face three or four 
    separate votes?
        The Speaker: The McClory amendment agreed to today is a 
    separate amendment.

    Parliamentarian's Note: En bloc consideration of amendments in 
Committee of the Whole pursuant to a unanimous-consent request therein 
does not result in an en bloc vote in the House upon demand for a 
separate vote, since that is an order of the Committee not binding on 
the House. Moreover, even amendments considered en bloc pursuant to a 
special rule are subject to a demand for a division of the question in 
the House if divisible, unless prohibited by the rule.