[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[A. Generally]
[Â§ 4. Recognition To Offer Amendments; Priority]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6677-6712]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
                              A. GENERALLY
 
Sec. 4. Recognition To Offer Amendments; Priority

Necessity of Recognition

Sec. 4.1 A Member wishing to offer an amendment must first be 
    recognized by the Chair for that purpose.

    On Sept. 21, 1967,(16) the following exchange took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 113 Cong. Rec. 26370, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary 
    inquiry is this: Is a continuing resolution subject to amendment 
    when it is brought onto the floor of the House, if the amendment is 
    germane?
        The Speaker: (17) The Chair will state that any 
    germane amendment will be in order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: The parliamentary inquiry is this: 
    That the gentleman could offer an amendment if the Speaker 
    recognized the gentleman for that purpose?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the question answers 
    itself. The answer would be yes, subject to the right of 
    recognition, it is a question within the discretion of the Speaker.

Discretion of Chair

Sec. 4.2 Recognition for the purpose of offering amendments is within 
    the discretion of the Chair.

    On Dec. 15, 1937,(18) the following proceedings took 
place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 82 Cong. Rec. 1590, 75th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was S. 
        4275, the wages and hours bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Would not perfecting 
    amendments have priority over an amendment to substitute?
        The Chairman: (19) So far as voting is concerned, 
    yes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Boileau: I appreciate that fact, but may I propound a 
    further parliamentary inquiry, whether or not a Member rising in 
    his place and seeking recognition would not have a prior

[[Page 6678]]

    right to recognition for the purpose of offering a perfecting 
    amendment to the amendment now pending?
        The Chairman: It does not necessarily follow that such Member 
    would have a prior right. Recognition is in the discretion of the 
    Chair.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Other factors affecting recognition being 
equal, the Chair would normally recognize a Member to offer a 
perfecting amendment before recognizing a Member to offer a substitute 
for the entire text, under the doctrine that the pending text should be 
perfected before a decision is made on whether to strike out, or to 
strike out and insert new text.

Sec. 4.3 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,(20) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Resolution 1188,(1) the above-
stated proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 124 Cong. Rec. 15094-96, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. 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 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 amend

[[Page 6679]]

        ment, 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: (2) . . . 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. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 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 substitute 
    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 sub

[[Page 6680]]

    stitute 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. 4.4 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.

    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. Thus, as indicated in the proceedings of June 
21, 1979,(3) 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.

[[Page 6681]]

The proceedings, during consideration of H.R. 111, the Panama Canal Act 
of 1979, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 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: (4) First the amendment should be 
    read, and then the Chair will recognize the gentlewoman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 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.
        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.

[[Page 6682]]

        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 recommended 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. 4.5 The order of recognition to offer amendments is within the 
    discretion of the Chair, who may either base his initial 
    recognition on committee seniority or upon the preferential voting 
    status of the amendments sought to be offered.

[[Page 6683]]

    As indicated in the proceedings of May 15, 1979,(5) 
where both a pending amendment and a substitute therefor are open to 
perfecting amendments, the Chair has the discretion of either first 
recognizing the senior committee member, or a junior committee member 
whose amendment would be first voted upon, where both amendments could 
ultimately be pending at the same time. Under consideration that day 
was H.R. 39, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 
1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 125 Cong. Rec. 11135, 11136, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk.
        The Chairman: (6) Is this to the Udall substitute?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk 
    to the Udall-Anderson bill, which is actually a series of technical 
    amendments which I will ask unanimous consent to offer en bloc.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, reserving a 
    point of order, reserving the right to object to any unanimous-
    consent request relating to dispensation from reading of this 
    wondrous compendium of documents, I have no objection to the 
    gentleman proceeding. . . .
        The Chairman: Since there is no other amendment pending to the 
    Udall substitute, the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio may be 
    offered.
        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Louisiana will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Breaux: Mr. Chairman, assuming there is an amendment to be 
    offered to the so-called Breaux-Dingell merchant marine version, 
    that would take precedence over an amendment to the so-called 
    Udall-Anderson interior bill?
        The Chairman: The Chair has the option either to recognize the 
    senior Member first or to first recognize that Member seeking to 
    offer the amendment which will be preferential and first voted 
    upon.
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Huckaby [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    amendments at the desk for the Breaux-Dingell bill.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendments.
        Mr. [Don H.] Clausen [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Chairman, what is the parliamentary situation? Is there an 
    amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling) 
    or the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby)?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Seiberling) sought recognition to amend the Udall substitute, 
    but the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby) has an amendment to 
    the Merchant Marine and Fisheries amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, and he will be recognized. The Chair will recognize the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiber

[[Page 6684]]

    ling) later for the purposes of offering his amendment. . . .
        Mr. Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments to the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendments.

Yielding for Amendment

Sec. 4.6 A Member recognized under the five-minute rule in Committee of 
    the Whole may not yield to another Member to offer an amendment, as 
    recognition to offer amendments rests in the Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole.

    An example of the principle stated above occurred on Apr. 9, 
1979,(7) during consideration of H.R. 3324, the 
International Development Cooperation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 125 Cong. Rec. 7761, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike the requisite number of words.
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield for the purpose of offering an amendment?
        Mr. Rousselot: Yes.
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Illinois that he will have to seek his own time for 
    the purposes of offering his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.7 A Member in charge of a resolution loses his right to resume 
    if he yields to another to offer an amendment.

    On Apr. 12, 1956,(9) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 102 Cong. Rec. 6264, 6265, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 400) and 
    ask for its immediate consideration. . . .
        Mr. [Ivor D.] Fenton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Speaker: (10) Does the gentleman from Virginia 
    yield? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: If the gentleman will let me have (the 
    amendment) for a few minutes, as soon as I get through with my 
    remarks, I will be glad to look it over.
        Mr. Fenton: It just strikes out the word ``bituminous.''
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I yield for the gentleman's 
    amendment.
        The Speaker: The Chair would think it would be wiser for the 
    gentleman from Virginia to offer the amendment; otherwise he might 
    lose the floor.
        Similarly, on July 16, 1956,(11) Speaker Rayburn 
    indicated in response to inquiries that, in the House, a Member in 
    charge of a resolution loses his

[[Page 6685]]

    right to resume when he yields to another to offer an amendment and 
    the sponsor of the amendment is recognized under the hour rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 102 Cong. Rec. 12922, 12923, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Members

Sec. 4.8 Recognition for offering amendments is in the discretion of 
    the Chair and preference is given to members of committees 
    reporting the bill, if on their feet seeking recognition.

    On June 29, 1939, (12) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 84 Cong. Rec. 8311, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.J. Res. 306, the Neutrality Act of 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to be recognized.
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Knutson] has already been recognized.
        The Chairman: (13) Recognition is in the discretion 
    of the Chair, and the Chair will recognize members of the committee 
    first. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that inasmuch as Members of the committee were 
    not on their feet and the gentleman from Minnesota had been 
    recognized, the gentleman is entitled to recognition.

Sec. 4.9 Members of the committee reporting a bill usually have 
    preference with respect to recognition to offer amendments, but the 
    Chair has recognized another where, as he stated, he did not see 
    committee members seeking recognition.

    On Aug. 10, 1949,(14) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 95 Cong. Rec. 11196, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 5886, amending the Fair Labor Standards Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman from North Carolina 
    is recognized to offer his amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Harold D. Cooley (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Does the Chair 
    rule that a member of the committee does not have preference in 
    recognition when two Members, one not a member of the committee, 
    are seeking recognition at the same time?
        The Chairman: The Chair did not see the gentleman from Ohio on 
    his feet at the same time. The Chair had recognized the gentleman 
    from North Carolina, then the Chair recognized the gentleman from 
    Michigan to submit a consent request. The gentleman from Ohio will 
    be recognized in due time.

Priority of Recognition to Committee Members

Sec. 4.10 While the Chair endeavors to alternate recognition for the 
    purpose of offering amendments between majority and minority 
    members, the usual practice is that

[[Page 6686]]

    members of the committee reporting a pending bill are entitled to 
    prior recognition over noncommittee members despite their party 
    affiliation.

    On July 22, 1974,(16) the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole indicated that he would continue to accord prior recognition 
to minority members of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to 
offer amendments to a bill reported from that committee over majority 
noncommittee members, but that he would alternate between parties if 
majority committee members sought recognition. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 120 Cong. Rec. 24454, 24457, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 11500, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 
        of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered by Mrs. Mink as a substitute for 
    the amendment offered by Mr. Hosmer to the committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute. . . .
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: It is my understanding that 
    under the long-standing rules of the House and the Committee of the 
    Whole that we alternate from the Democratic side to the Republican 
    side, or vice versa, whichever the case may be.
        Now, there are Members on this side who want to offer 
    amendments. If the Chair is going to consistently listen to three 
    in a row that the gentleman from California has had, we do not know 
    where we stand.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair understands the 
    gentleman's parliamentary inquiry; but the Chair believes that as 
    long as members of the committee seek recognition, they are 
    entitled to recognition first; at least up to a certain point, and 
    if a member of the committee from the majority side stands, he 
    could be recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.11 While the matter of recognition to offer amendments in 
    Committee of the Whole under the five-minute rule is within the 
    discretion of the Chairman, members of the reporting committee or 
    committees are normally accorded prior recognition in order of 
    committee seniority.

    On May 17, 1978,(18) during consideration of House 
Resolution 1186 providing for the consideration of H.R. 
39,(19) The Speaker Pro Tempore responded to several 
parliamentary inquiries regarding general principles relating to 
recognition to offer amendments to the bill during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 124 Cong. Rec. 14139, 14145, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Christopher J.] Dodd [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of

[[Page 6687]]

    the Committee on Rules I call up House Resolution 1186 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration. . . .

                                  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, 
        which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to 
        exceed three hours, two hours to be equally divided and 
        controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
        Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and one hour to be 
        equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
        minority members of the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
        Fisheries, 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 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: (20) The Chair will state 
    it applies to amendments in the nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Charles A. Vanik (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Udall: The Chair will tell us, will he not, that the rules 
    and customs of the House would ordinarily indicate that the floor 
    managers of the bill or members of the appropriate committees would 
    be recognized ahead of other Members in case there were more than 
    one substitute to be offered?

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that recognition 
    of Members will be under the control of the Chair at the time that 
    the House is in the Committee of the Whole. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: I would like to ask the 
    Chair whether it is not true, under the precedents of the House, 
    that any member of either committee has a right to be recognized to 
    offer amendments; of course, the chairman and ranking minority 
    member first and other Members after that, may be recognized to 
    offer amendments, so that no restriction is imposed on any Member's 
    right to offer amendments under this rule?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the 
    gentleman has correctly stated the general principles relating to 
    recognition.

Sec. 4.12 Where a pending title of a bill is open to amendment and a 
    unanimous-consent request is made that the next two succeeding 
    titles also be considered as open to amendment, all three titles 
    would be open to amend

[[Page 6688]]

    ment, with priority in recognition being given to members of the 
    Committee reporting the bill.

    On Jan. 29, 1980,(1) during consideration of H.R. 4788 
(2) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 126 Cong. Rec. 973, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. The Water Resources Development Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ray] Roberts [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that titles III and IV be considered as read and open for 
    amendment at any point. . . .
        Mr. [Allen E.] Ertel [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, am I 
    under the understanding at this point that titles II, III, and IV 
    are now open to amendment?
        The Chairman: (3) That is correct, if no objection 
    is heard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ertel: I have no objection.
        Mr. [Don H.] Clausen [of California]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, I want to make sure we are going to be 
    proceeding in an orderly manner. I am assuming we will proceed 
    through title II for the consideration of the amendment and then 
    follow on with the consideration of titles III and IV.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that if the 
    unanimous-consent request is adopted without objection, titles II, 
    III, and IV will be open for amendment at any point. Committee 
    members will, of course, have priority in recognition.

Sec. 4.13 Priority of recognition to offer amendments under the five-
    minute rule in Committee of the Whole is extended to members of the 
    full committee reporting the bill, alternating between the majority 
    and minority, and the Chair does not distinguish between members of 
    the subcommittee which considered the bill and other members of the 
    full committee.

    An example of the proposition stated above occurred on July 2, 
1980,(4) during consideration of H.R. 7235, the Rail Act of 
1980. The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 126 Cong. Rec. 18288, 18290-92, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Florio: Page 103, line 14, insert 
        ``or (c)'' immediately after ``subsection (b)''. . . .

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Madigan as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Florio:

[[Page 6689]]

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

        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (5) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment to the substitute amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Madigan: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Madigan: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the procedure is 
    that the members of the subcommittee would be recognized for 
    amendments first, and that the gentleman from Texas sought 
    recognition for the purpose of making a parliamentary inquiry and 
    was recognized for that purpose, and was not recognized for the 
    purpose of offering an amendment.
        I further understand that the gentlewoman from Maryland, a 
    member of the subcommittee, was on her feet seeking recognition for 
    the purpose of offering an amendment, as well as the gentleman from 
    North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill). . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will respond to the gentleman by saying 
    to him that the normal procedure is to recognize members of the 
    full committee by seniority, alternating from side to side, which 
    the Chair has been doing. The gentleman was recognized under that 
    procedure, and the Chair's recognition is not in any event subject 
    to challenge.
        Therefore, the gentleman is recognized, and any point of order 
    that the gentleman from Illinois would make on that point would not 
    be sustained.
        Mr. Madigan: Further pursuing my point of order, and with all 
    due respect to the Chair, am I incorrect in assuming that the 
    gentleman from Texas was recognized for the point of raising a 
    parliamentary inquiry?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. He was recognized for 
    that purpose; then separately for the purpose of the amendment that 
    he is offering, which the Clerk will now report.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As the above proceedings demonstrate, the 
fact that the Chair has recognized a Member to raise a parliamentary 
inquiry does not prohibit the Chair from then recognizing the same 
Member to offer an amendment, and the principle of alternation of 
recognition does not require the Chair to recognize a Member from the 
minority to offer an amendment after recognizing a Member from the 
majority to raise a parliamentary inquiry.

Sec. 4.14 While the Chair endeavors to alternate recognition for the 
    purpose of offering amendments, and controlling time in opposition 
    thereto, between majority and minority members, members of the 
    committee reporting a pend

[[Page 6690]]

    ing bill are entitled to prior recognition over non-committee 
    members regardless of their party affiliation.

    On May 4, 1983,(6) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 13 (7) in the Committee of the Whole, the 
proceedings described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 129 Cong. Rec. 11068, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. Nuclear weapons freeze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solarz to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Levitas: Strike out the matter proposed to be added to the 
        resolution by the Levitas amendment and insert in lieu thereof 
        the following: ``, with reductions to be achieved as soon as 
        possible after the achievement of a mutual and verifiable 
        freeze''.

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Solarz) is recognized for 15 minutes, for purposes of debate only, 
    on his amendment.
        Mr. [James G.] Martin of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Solarz: Certainly. I am happy to yield for that purpose. . 
    . .
        Mr. Martin of North Carolina: . . . Is it customary and is it 
    correct order for the business of the House of Representatives for 
    the Chair to sequentially recognize only Members of the majority 
    party time and time again, both to make an amendment, to take the 
    position opposing that amendment, and then to offer the next 
    amendment; is that regular order?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Under the precedents the priority in 
    this instance is with the committee members to offer an amendment 
    to the amendment.

Sec. 4.15 The proponent of an amendment may be recognized to control 
    the time in opposition to a substitute offered therefor, but a 
    Member of the committee reporting the bill has priority of 
    recognition to control such time.

    On May 4, 1983,(8) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Joint Resolution 13,(9) the Chair 
responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding the circumstances 
described above. The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 129 Cong. Rec. 11074, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. Concerning a nuclear weapons freeze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dicks as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Levitas: In view of the

[[Page 6691]]

        matter proposed to be inserted, insert the following: ``with 
        negotiators proceeding immediately to pursuing reductions.''. . 
        .

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . . (U)nder the rule if I am opposed to 
    the amendment being offered as a substitute for my amendment, can I 
    be recognized in opposition thereto? . . .
        The Chairman: (10) . . . It is appropriate under the 
    rules to offer an amendment. In terms of whom the Chair recognizes 
    in opposition, the Chair would be inclined to recognize a member of 
    the committee, if a member of the committee seeks recognition in 
    opposition to the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If a committee member does not seek recognition for that 
    purpose the Chair would be inclined to recognize the gentleman.

Committee Chairman Opposed to Bill

Sec. 4.16 Where a special order governing consideration of a bill in 
    Committee of the Whole provides that debate on each amendment be 
    equally divided between the proponent and a Member opposed thereto, 
    the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole will recognize the 
    chairman of the committee managing the bill to control the time in 
    opposition if he states he is opposed, and the Chair cannot 
    question his qualifications to speak in opposition at a later time.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on May 4, 
1983,(11) during consideration of House Joint Resolution 13 
(providing for a nuclear weapons freeze). The proceedings in the 
Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 129 Cong. Rec. 11066, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    to comment and yield time. I am not necessarily at this point in 
    opposition.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Zablocki) rises in opposition to the amendment, and the gentleman 
    is recognized for 15 minutes for purposes of debate only. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James A.] Courter [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield to me for the purpose of making a parliamentary 
    inquiry?
        Mr. Zablocki: I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey for the 
    purpose of making a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Courter: My parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman, is as 
    follows:
        It is my understanding that the proponent of the amendment, the 
    gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Levitas) is recognized for 15 minutes, 
    and then someone could be recognized if they, in fact, oppose it.
        The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) rose initially 
    indicating that

[[Page 6692]]

    he was against the amendment, was recognized for 15 minutes, and 
    during his monolog has indicated that, in fact, he is not opposed 
    to it. Should he be recognized for the balance of his time?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot question the 
    gentleman's qualifications. The Chair did ask the question if he 
    rose in opposition to the amendment, and the Chairman so stated. 
    Therefore, he controls the time.

--Special Rule Permitting Only Pro Forma Amendments

Sec. 4.17 Where the Committee of the Whole resumed consideration of a 
    bill under a special rule prohibiting amendments to a pending 
    amendment except pro forma amendments for debate, the Chair 
    announced that he would first recognize Members who had not offered 
    pro forma amendments on the preceding day, priority of recognition 
    being given to members of the reporting committee.

    On Aug. 3, 1977,(13) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 8444, the National Energy Act, the Chair made 
a statement pertaining to the recognition of Members to offer pro forma 
amendments, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 123 Cong. Rec. 26444, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) The Chair would like to make a 
    statement for the information of the Members of the Committee of 
    the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has before it a list of those who spoke on this 
    amendment yesterday. The Chair will recognize those who have not 
    spoken on this amendment first and, of course, preference will be 
    given to the members of the ad hoc committee and any Member, of 
    course, under the rule has the right to offer pro forma amendments. 
    The Chair will adhere to that direction.
        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) did not speak on this 
    amendment yesterday, so as a member of the ad hoc committee, for 
    what purpose does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) rise?
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
    word.

Majority or Minority Member of Committee

Sec. 4.18 In recognizing Members to offer amendments in the Committee 
    of the Whole, the Chair gives preference to members of the 
    committee which reported the measure and it is within his 
    discretion as to whether he will first recognize a majority or 
    minority member of such committee.

    On June 4, 1948,(15) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 94 Cong. Rec. 7189, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6801, a foreign aid appropriation bill.

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

[[Page 6693]]

        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. W. Sterling Cole (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: The minority is entitled 
    to recognition to move to amend the bill.
        The Chairman: Under the rules of the House, any member of the 
    committee may offer an amendment, and it is in the discretion of 
    the Chair as to which member shall be recognized. The Chair has 
    recognized the gentleman from Illinois to offer an amendment, which 
    the Clerk will report.

Sec. 4.19 While recognition of Members to offer amendments is within 
    the Chair's discretion and cannot be challenged on a point of 
    order, the Chair under the precedents alternates recognition 
    between majority and minority members of the committee reporting 
    the bill.

    On June 11, 1976,(17) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 6218, the Outer Continental Shelf Act, the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 122 Cong. Rec. 17754, 17764, 17773, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (18) The Clerk will read title II. . . 
    .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Murphy of New York: On page 59, 
        lines 12 to 20, strike paragraphs 5(a) (6), (7), and (8) and 
        renumber subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

                               Point of Order

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Fish: Mr. Chairman, the minority has amendments to offer, 
    including a substitute amendment to title II. It is my 
    understanding that the minority would have its turn at the same 
    time as the majority in considering the amendments.
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Fish) that that would not come under the category of a 
    point of order; but the Chair would further advise the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Fish) that since the gentleman has raised the 
    point, the Chair will alternate from side to side.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Murphy). . . .
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Murphy).
        The amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. Fish: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fish: Page 45, strike out line 1 
        and all that follows through page 122, line 4, and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:

        Title II--Improved Management of Outer Continental Shelf Energy 
                                   Resources

            Sec. 201. (a) Paragraph (c) of section 2 of the Outer 
        Continental Shelf

[[Page 6694]]

        Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331) is amended to read as follows: . . .

        Mr. [Abraham] Kazen [Jr., of Texas]: Is this a complete 
    substitute for title II?
        Mr. Fish: No; it is not.
        Mr. Kazen: What is it?
        Mr. Fish: It embraces a great deal of title II; on some it does 
    not and on some it lets matters stand, such as the section on 
    limitation of exports, for example. During the course of my 
    explanation, I think the gentleman will understand that we have 
    incorporated a good deal of title II and have added additional 
    material.
        Mr. Kazen: All I wanted to find out is whether it is a 
    substitute for title II?
        Mr. Fish: Technically, it is not a substitute.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under the rule, the committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute was being read by title. The Fish amendment 
to title II was a perfecting amendment since it left one or two 
sections of that title unamended, and was intentionally drafted in that 
form to permit its consideration prior to adoption of all the Murphy 
perfecting amendments to that title.

Where Debate Time Limited, Chair Uses Discretion in Recognition

Sec. 4.20 The time for debate having been fixed on amendments to a 
    committee substitute, the Chair may recognize the same committee 
    member in opposition to each amendment offered where no other 
    member of the committee seeks such recognition.

    On Feb. 8, 1950,(19) during consideration of H.R. 2945, 
a bill to adjust postal rates, a motion was made to close debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 96 Cong. Rec. 1690, 1691, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Murray of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on the committee substitute and all amendments thereto 
    close in 20 minutes.
        [The motion was agreed to.]
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair will announce that 
    Members who have amendments at the desk will be recognized for 1 
    minute in support of their amendment and the committee will be 
    recognized for 1 minute in opposition to each amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After amendments were offered, and Mr. Murray had been recognized 
in opposition to each amendment, a parliamentary inquiry was made, as 
follows:

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Under what precedent or 
    ruling is the Chair recognizing a certain member of the committee 
    for 1 minute in opposition to each amendment being offered? That 
    was not included in the motion. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is trying to be fair in the conduct of 
    the com

[[Page 6695]]

    mittee, and the only gentleman that has arisen on the opposite side 
    has been the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Murray). There was no 
    point of order raised at the time that I announced that I would 
    recognize the committee for 1 minute in rebuttal to each amendment. 
    . . .
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: . . . [O]rdinarily, under the 
    precedents always followed in the House, when time is closed on 
    amendments, the time is divided among those who are seeking to 
    offer amendments, and unless the motion specifically reserves time 
    to the committee, it has been the precedent to divide the time 
    among those who are seeking to offer amendments.
        The Chairman: The Chair feels that the committee is entitled to 
    a rebuttal on any amendment that is offered, and has so announced, 
    and there was no point of order made at the time. The Chair 
    sustains its present position.

Sec. 4.21 Priority of recognition under a limitation of time for debate 
    under the five-minute rule is in the complete discretion of the 
    Chair, who may disregard committee seniority and consider amendment 
    sponsorship.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on June 26, 
1979,(1) during consideration of H.R. 3930 (2) in 
the Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 125 Cong. Rec. 16677, 16678, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on section 3 and all amendments thereto cease at 
    6:40 p.m.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Rousselot) there were--ayes 43, noes 33. . . .
        The Chairman: (3) . . . The Committee has just voted 
    to end all debate on section 3 and all amendments thereto at 6:40. 
    The Chair in a moment is going to ask those Members wishing to 
    speak between now and then to stand. The Chair will advise Members 
    that he will attempt, once that list is determined, to recognize 
    first those Members on the list with amendments which are not 
    protected by having been printed in the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would ask those Members wishing to be recognized in 
    the remaining 20 minutes to stand. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, did I understand 
    the Chair correctly that Members who are protected by having their 
    amendments printed in the Record will not be recognized until the 
    time has run so that those Members will only have 5 minutes to 
    present their amendments, but that other Members will be recognized 
    first for the amendments which are not printed in the Record?
        The Chairman: Those Members who are recognized prior to the 
    expiration of time have approximately 20 seconds to present their 
    amendments. Those Members whose amendments are printed in the 
    Record will have a guaranteed 5 minutes after time has expired. . . 
    .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: In what way does that protect Members by 
    having their amendments then printed in the

[[Page 6696]]

    Record? It would seem to me they are penalized by having their time 
    limited to 5 minutes and the other time goes ahead and runs in 
    terms of general debate.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that Members 
    do not need and are not required to seek their protection for 
    debate on the amendment under the rules, but if they do not they 
    will be recognized for at most 20 seconds instead of 5 minutes. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair will now recognize those Members 
    who wish to offer amendments which have not been printed in the 
    Record.
        The Chair will advise Members he will recognize listed Members 
    in opposition to the amendments also for 20 seconds.

        Mr. [Richard] Kelly [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Kelly: Mr. Chairman, is it not regular order that the 
    Members of the Committee with amendments be given preference and 
    recognition?
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman once the 
    limitation of time has been agreed to and time divided, that 
    priority of recognition is within the complete discretion of the 
    Chair.

Sec. 4.22 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a bill and amendments thereto, the Chair indicated 
    in response to parliamentary inquiries that a motion to limit 
    debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute and all 
    amendments thereto was in order although the bill itself had not 
    been read, and that all Members would be allocated equal time under 
    the limitation regardless of committee membership but that Members 
    seeking to offer amendments could be first recognized.

    On June 10, 1976,(4) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 13367,(5) with an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute and amendments thereto pending, when a motion 
was offered to limit debate, as described above. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 122 Cong. Rec. 17380, 17381, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. A bill to amend and extend the State and Local Fiscal Assistance 
        Act of 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on the Brooks amendment and all amendments thereto end by 6 
    p.m. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, is there 
    any reason for the Clerk to read? I do not remember the bill being 
    open at any point to amendment.
        The Chairman: (6) The motion of the gentleman from 
    New York, as the

[[Page 6697]]

    Chair understood it, was that all debate on the Brooks amendment 
    and all amendments thereto end at 6 p.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: So that the motion is in order?
        The Chairman: The motion is in order. It is limited to the 
    Brooks amendment and amendments thereto. . . .
        Mr. [J.J.] Pickle [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, under the proposed 
    time limitation, would the Chair tend to recognize a Member who is 
    not a member of the committee? For instance, the gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. Adams) has an important amendment, and if he is not 
    recognized within the time limitation, would the chairman of the 
    committee let the gentleman be recognized? . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that under limitation of 
    time committee members no longer have priority in seeking 
    recognition. Time is equally allocated.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair would ask that Members with 
    amendments to be offered seek recognition first, and the Chair 
    would request that Members attempt to address themselves to the 
    amendments.

Sec. 4.23 In allocating time under a limitation on debate under the 
    five-minute rule, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may in 
    his discretion recognize first those Members wishing to offer 
    amendments after having equally divided the time among all Members 
    desiring to speak.

    On Nov. 18, 1981,(7) during consideration of H.R. 4995 
(8) in the Committee of the Whole, the situation described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 127 Cong. Rec. 28074, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Department of Defense appropriation bill, fiscal year 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, there are 
    about nine amendments at the desk. I have looked at those 
    amendments. The committee will be accepting at least six or seven 
    of them. There are only two or three that may be slightly 
    controversial and subject to some slight debate.
        I would therefore believe that we can finish this bill tonight 
    and not be burdened with it tomorrow because I know full well if we 
    come in tomorrow, we will be using a whole day for what can be 
    completed in approximately half an hour here tonight.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this 
    bill and all amendments thereto end at 9:30 p.m.
        The Chairman: (9) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Members standing at the time the unanimous 
    consent request was agreed to will be recognized for 1 minute each.
        The Chair will recognize first those Members who have 
    amendments.

Sec. 4.24 Where debate on an amendment has been limited and equally 
    divided between

[[Page 6698]]

    the proponent and a Member opposed, and the Chair has recognized 
    the only Member seeking recognition in opposition to the amendment, 
    no objection lies against that Member subsequently yielding back 
    all the time in opposition.

    On May 4, 1983,(10) the situation described above was 
demonstrated during consideration of House Joint Resolution 13 
(concerning a nuclear weapons freeze) in the Committee of the Whole. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 129 Cong. Rec. 11078, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William S.] Broomfield [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    in opposition to the amendment.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman is recognized for 
    15 minutes in opposition to the amendment, for purposes of debate 
    only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

Sec. 4.25 Where debate under the five-minute rule on a bill and all 
    amendments thereto has

[[Page 6699]]

    been limited by motion to a time certain, the Chair may in his 
    discretion continue to recognize Members under the five-minute rule 
    according priority to members of the committee reporting the bill, 
    instead of allocating time between proponents and opponents or 
    among all Members standing, where it cannot be determined what 
    amendments will be offered.

    On July 29, 1983,(12) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 2957,(13) the Chair responded to 
several parliamentary inquiries regarding the circumstances described 
above. The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 129 Cong. Rec. 21649, 21659, 21660, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. The International Monetary Fund Authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill, H.R. 2957, be 
    considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at 
    any point.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Rhode Island?
        There was no objection.
        The text of title IV and title V is as follows:

              Title IV--International Lending Supervisio . . .

        Mr. St Germain: I have a motion, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        I now move that all debate on the bill, H.R. 2957, and all 
    amendments thereto, cease at 12 o'clock noon.
        The Chairman: (14) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. St Germain). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic devise, and there were--ayes 
    242, noes 145, not voting 46, as follows. . . .
        Mr. [George W.] Gekas [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike the last word.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) is 
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bethune: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Gekas: I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Bethune).
        Mr. Bethune: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bethune: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary inquiry is for the 
    Chair to please state the process by which we will do our business 
    from now until the time is cut off.
        The Chairman: For the time being, the Chair intends to proceed 
    under the 5-minute rule. . . .
        Mr. [Stephen L.] Neal [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, would 
    it not be in order at this time to ask that the time be divided 
    between the proponents and the opponents of this measure, since 
    there is a limitation on the time?

[[Page 6700]]

        The Chairman: The Chair believes not, because the time has been 
    limited on the entire bill. It would be very difficult to allocate 
    time to any one particular party or two parties when the Chair has 
    no knowledge of the amendments that will be offered. . . .
        Mr. Neal: Mr. Chairman, is it not true that members of the 
    committee should be given preference in terms of recognition?
        The Chairman: That is true. At the time the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania was recognized, he was the only one seeking 
    recognition.

--Amendment Not Covered by Limitation

Sec. 4.26 Where debate has been limited on a pending section and all 
    amendments thereto and time allocated among those Members desiring 
    to offer amendments to that section, the Chair may decline to 
    recognize a Member to offer an amendment adding a new section and 
    therefore not covered by the limitation, until perfecting 
    amendments to the pending section have been disposed of under the 
    limitation.

    On June 26, 1979,(15) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 3930,(16) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 125 Cong. Rec. 16679, 16680, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: Page 8, after line 13 add the 
    following new section and renumber the subsequent sections 
    accordingly:

        Sec. 4. The Secretary of Energy is hereby authorized to 
    designate a proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock facility as a 
    priority synthetic project pursuant to the procedures and criteria 
    provided in this section.
        (2) For the purposes of this section the term--
        (A) Synthetic fuel or feedstock facility means any physical 
    structure, including any. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J. Brown of Ohio (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, is this amendment to section 3 
    or section 4?
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: This is an amendment to 
    section 3, the Udall fast-track amendment, which cuts through the 
    redtape.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: The copy I have indicates that it is to 
    section 4, Mr. Chairman. Is that correct?
        Mr. Udall: I had modified it to apply to section 3.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will cease reading the amendment.
        The Chair will advise the gentleman from Arizona that this 
    amendment currently being read adds a new section 4, and is not 
    covered by the limitation on time, and should not be offered at 
    this time.

[[Page 6701]]

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, if I understand correctly, the 
    gentleman was recognized on the basis that the amendment had not 
    been printed in the Record, and therefore it would not be 
    appropriate under this limitation for it to be considered at all, 
    is that not correct?
        Mr. Udall: I had intended--I had so instructed the Clerk to 
    change this to an amendment to section 3, not section 4.
        The Chairman: The amendment, the Chair states to the gentleman, 
    would have to be submitted to the Clerk.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: My point of order is sustained or----
        The Chairman: Yes. The Chair will advise the gentleman from 
    Arizona that he is within his rights to redraft the amendment as an 
    amendment to section 3, but the Chair understood that is not the 
    amendment currently being read.
        Mr. Udall: I so offer it as an amendment to section 3.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.

Amendments Sent to the Desk; Necessity of Recognition

Sec. 4.27 Members must be in the Chamber and offer their amendments 
    from the floor at the proper point in the bill as it is read; it is 
    not sufficient to merely place such amendments on the Clerk's desk.

    On Apr. 1, 1947, (18) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 93 Cong. Rec. 2987, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 2849, the deficiency appropriation bill for 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Sam] Hobbs [of Alabama]: On page 46, 
    between lines 8 and 9 insert as follows: . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    comes too late. The Clerk has read beyond that point. . . .
        Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, as I 
    understand it this amendment was on the Clerk's desk and the fact 
    it was not reported was due to the Clerk's failing to see the 
    amendment. The parliamentary inquiry is: Does it come too late when 
    the amendment was on the desk?
        The Chairman: (19) The gentleman from Alabama was 
    not present to protect his rights and the Clerk continued to read 
    beyond the point where the amendment should properly have been 
    offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. George A. Dondero (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, on Sept. 5, 1940, (20) the following exchange 
took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 83 Cong. Rec. 10665, 75th Cong. 3d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 10132, a bill relating to compulsory military training and 
        service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Miller [of Arkansas]: Can the Chair tell us how 
    many proposed amendments there are?
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is unable to tell 
    because the Chair does not

[[Page 6702]]

    recognize amendments sent to the desk. Of course, under the rules 
    of the House, Members must offer amendments from the floor. 
    However, the Chair is informed that there are quite a number of 
    amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Lindsay C. Warren (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration of Committee Amendments

Sec. 4.28 Where a resolution is considered in the House, committee 
    amendments to the body of the resolution and printed therein may be 
    reported and acted on before the Member calling up the resolution 
    is recognized for debate thereon.

    On June 8, 1970, (2) the sequence of actions in the 
House was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 116 Cong. Rec. 18656-58, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H. Res. 976 (Committee on Rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (3) . . . The Chair was about to 
    instruct the Clerk to report the committee amendments after the 
    original resolution had been read. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The committee amendment was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Anderson) is 
    recognized for 1 hour.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Mr. William R. Anderson had called up the resolution for 
        consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.29 Perfecting committee amendments to a resolution reported from 
    the Committee on Rules may be considered before the Member calling 
    up the resolution is recognized to control debate thereon where 
    there is no controversy on the committee amendments.

    On Mar. 9, 1971, (5) the sequence of actions in the 
House was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 117 Cong. Rec. 5587, 5588, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H. Res. 115 (Committee on Rules), creating a select 
        committee to investigate crime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John A.] Young of Texas: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
    Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 115 and ask for its 
    immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 115

            Resolved, That, effective January 3, 1971, there is hereby 
        created a select committee. . . .

        With the following committee amendments:

            On page 1, line 2, strike the word ``seven'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof the word ``eleven''. . . .

        The committee amendments were agreed to.
        The Speaker: (6) The gentleman from Texas is 
    recognized for one hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Carl Albert (Okla.).

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

[[Page 6703]]

Seniority, Not Order in Paragraph, Basis for Recognition for Amendment

Sec. 4.30 The order in which amendments may be offered to a pending 
    paragraph is not determined by the sequence of lines to which the 
    amendments may relate; for when a paragraph is open to amendment at 
    any point, the order in which the Chair recognizes Members to offer 
    amendments is dictated by the committee rank of those seeking 
    recognition and not by the text of their amendments.

    On July 23, 1970, (7) the following discussion took 
place with respect to the order in which Members would be recognized to 
offer amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 116 Cong. Rec. 25635, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 18515 (Committee on Appropriations), relating to 
        appropriations for the Departments of Labor and Health, 
        Education, and Welfare for fiscal 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas (of North Carolina): May I respectfully 
    remind the Chair that I was recognized, and that the Chair allowed 
    a point of order to intervene only, and I had been recognized. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair respectfully states that 
    the point of order did intervene following the gentleman's 
    recognition. The Chair intends to recognize members of the 
    committee in the order of their seniority. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jonas: I respectfully ask the Chair to rule that my 
    amendment does precede the amendment that will be offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas. My amendment goes to line 5, page 38, and my 
    information is that the amendment to be offered by the gentleman 
    from Texas comes at a later point in the paragraph.

        The Chairman: A whole paragraph is open to amendment at the 
    same time. Therefore, the line does not determine the order of the 
    amendment. (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Compare 109 Cong. Rec. 20368, 20370, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 28, 
        1963, where the Chairman of the Committee on Rules called up a 
        resolution reported by his committee and then yielded to 
        another Member to offer an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.31 The Chairman may announce that he will first recognize 
    members of the committee reporting the bill in order of seniority 
    thereon, alternating between majority and minority sides, to offer 
    amendments.

    On Dec. 12, 1973, (10) where a bill (11) as 
being considered in the Committee of the Whole under a special 
procedure making in order

[[Page 6704]]

the text of another bill as an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
immediately after the reading of the enacting clause, but not providing 
for reading of the substitute as an original bill for amendment, the 
Chairman (12) indicated that the entire amendment in the 
nature of a substitute would be read and then open to amendment at any 
point, and that he would first recognize members of the committee 
reporting the bill in order of seniority, alternating between the 
majority and minority sides, to offer amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 41105, 41106, 41110, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
11. H.R. 11450 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce), the 
        Energy Emergency Act.
12. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternation of Recognition Not Mandated

Sec. 4.32 Recognition to offer amendments is first extended to the 
    manager of a bill; and the fact that the Committee of the Whole has 
    just completed consideration of one amendment offered by the 
    manager does not preclude his being recognized to offer another.

    On Apr. 6, 1967,(13) the following exchange took place 
concerning the priority of recognition to offer amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 113 Cong. Rec. 8617, 8618, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 2512 (Committee on the Judiciary), relating to 
        revision of the copyright laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert W.] Kastenmeier [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John H. Dent (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: The gentleman from Wisconsin just 
    offered an amendment, and certainly I as a member of the committee 
    ought to have the privilege of offering an amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Wisconsin is manager of the 
    bill. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Order of Consideration; Priority of Committee Amendments Over 
    Amendments From Floor

Sec. 4.33 Perfecting committee amendments to the section or paragraph 
    under consideration are disposed of before amendments from the 
    floor are considered.

    On Apr. 25, 1963, (15) a parliamentary inquiry was made 
with respect to the precedence of committee amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 109 Cong. Rec. 7139, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 4997 (Committee on Agriculture), the Feed Grain Act of 
        1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .

[[Page 6705]]

        Are we to have all of the committee amendments adopted before 
    any amendments are to be accepted by the Committee?
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair will state that that is 
    the usual procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.34 Where a bill is considered as read and open for amendment at 
    any point, committee amendments are considered before the Chair 
    extends recognition for amendments from the floor.

    On July 18, 1968, (17) the sequence of actions taken 
with respect to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1968 (18) as 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 114 Cong. Rec. 22094, 22095, 22108, 22109, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. H.R. 15263 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be considered as 
    read and open to amendment at any point. . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Clerk will report the next 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the committee amendment on 
    page 9, after line 17.
        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all the committee amendments be considered 
    en bloc.
        The Chair further advised, in response to a parliamentary 
    inquiry, that when committee amendments are being considered en 
    bloc, it is in order to offer amendments to the committee 
    amendments. After several such amendments had been so offered and 
    considered, and the committee amendments voted on, the Chair 
    extended recognition for amendments to the bill that were offered 
    from the floor.

Bill Considered Under Special Rule--Where Amendment in Nature of 
    Substitute Is Open for Amendment at Any Point

Sec. 4.35 Where a bill is being considered in the Committee of the 
    Whole under a special order making in order the text of another 
    bill as an amendment in the nature of a substitute, the Chairman 
    may announce that recognition to offer an amendment to said 
    substitute will be governed by the precedents relating to 
    recognition where the special order does not specify priorities 
    with respect thereto.

    On Dec. 12, 1973, (20) the following discussion arose 
with respect to the procedure for offering amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 41153, 41154, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 11450 (Committee on Interstate and 
        Foreign Commerce), the Energy Emergency Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. (James T.) Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    an amendment to section 103.

[[Page 6706]]

        The Chairman: (1) The Chair feels that the Chair 
    should explain to the Committee that under the rule the whole of 
    the text of H.R. 11882 will be read before any amendment is in 
    order. It will not be read by sections. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry, or perhaps this is not a parliamentary 
    inquiry, but I would ask the Chairman if there is any way in which 
    we can have an orderly procedure for the offering of amendments, 
    starting at the first part of the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, and going through the bill, rather than jumping all 
    over the whole bill for amendment purposes?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Chair, with the 
    cooperation of the Members, will attempt to achieve that purpose. 
    The Chair will say that if permitted by the Membership to do so, 
    that the Chair proposes to bring order into the situation by 
    following the usual custom of recognizing the Members of the 
    committee alternately from one side to the other, more or less in 
    their order on the committee. . . .
        Mr. [Jonathan B.] Bingham [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    further parliamentary inquiry. If the Chair is advised that 
    nonmembers of the committee have amendments to early sections, 
    would he be free to recognize nonmembers of the committee before 
    recognizing other members of the committee for amendments to a 
    later section?
        The Chairman: The custom of the House, and the almost unfailing 
    custom of the House, is to recognize members of the committee, 
    alternating sides from the majority to the minority. The Chair does 
    not propose to discuss the philosophy of that custom, but that is 
    the custom. . . .
        Mr. (Clarence J.) Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, I should like to inquire, if the request of the 
    gentleman is accepted and there is no objection to it, when it 
    would be timely for the amendment made in order by the rule to the 
    text of the substitute to be offered, that amendment being H.R. 
    11891, which would be the amendment, as the rule prescribes, to 
    H.R. 11882?
        The Chairman: The Chair would repeat what the Chair has already 
    said. The Chair would recognize Members to offer amendments as they 
    are reached in the customary procedure of the House.
        There is no particular priority, there is no special priority 
    given to that amendment but the gentleman is a member of the 
    committee and he ranks on the committee and the Chair would seek to 
    reach him in an orderly fashion.

--Inquiry by Chair as to Whether Amendment In Order Under Rule

Sec. 4.36 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

[[Page 6707]]

    amendment had been made in order under the rule before recognizing 
    him to offer the amendment.

    On Aug. 3, 1977, (2) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 123 Cong. Rec. 26447, 26448, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (3) 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?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 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: (4) The Clerk will first have to 
    report the amendment and then the gentleman's request will be in 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the amendment.

Rule Requiring Printing of Amendments in Record

Sec. 4.37 Where a special rule restricts the offering of amendments to 
    those printed in the Congressional Record but does not specify the 
    Members who must offer them, the right to propose amendments 
    properly inserted in the Record inures to all Members.

    The proceedings of Mar. 26, 1974, (5) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 120 Cong. Rec. 8229, 8233, 8243, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 69, to amend and extend the Elementary 
        and Secondary Education Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) . . . Under the rule, no amendment 
    shall be in order to title I of the substitute committee amendment 
    printed in the reported bill except germane amendments which have 
    been printed in the Congressional Record at least 2 calendar days 
    prior to their being offered during the consideration of said 
    substitute for amendment, and amendment offered by direction of the 
    Committee on Education and Labor, and neither of said classes of 
    amendments shall be subject to amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk will now read by titles the 
    substitute committee amendment printed in the reported bill as an 
    original bill for the purpose of amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

[[Page 6708]]

        Title I--Amendments of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
                             Education Act of 1965

                         EXTENSION OF TITLE I PROGRAMS

        Sec. 101. Section 102 of title I of the Elementary and 
    Secondary Education Act of 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ``the 
    Act'') is amended (1) by striking out ``for grants to local 
    educational agencies''. . . .

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of title I 
    be dispensed with, that it be printed in the Record, and open to 
    amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Kentucky?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Perkins: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
    number of words.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order. Under the rule the motion is not in order unless he 
    has printed the motion in the Record.
        The Chairman: The Chair overrules the point of order. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky was printed in the 
    Record.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I submit to the Committee that the 
    motion I heard was to strike out the requisite number of words. If 
    the gentleman from Kentucky has not had that motion printed in the 
    Record, he is not entitled to 5 minutes under the rule.
        The Chairman: That amendment was printed in the Record.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, how many times does he get to use it?
        The Chairman: As many times as it is printed in the Record.

Sec. 4.38 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,(7) during consideration of H.R. 4985, the Priority 
Energy Projects Act of 1979. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 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

[[Page 6709]]

    was printed in the Record, no matter who the author of the 
    amendment was?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (8) The gentleman is 
    correct. That is the correct interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 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. 4.39 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 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 by 
    subject matter, rather than in the order inadvertently printed in 
    the Record.

    It was demonstrated on May 24, 1982,(9) that 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 
proceedings in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of House 
Concurrent Resolution 345 are indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9 128 Cong. Rec. 11549, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (10) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 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 Represent

[[Page 6710]]

    ative 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.

Priority of Motion To Strike Enacting Clause

Sec. 4.40 Under Rule XXIII clause 7, a motion to recommend that the 
    enacting clause be stricken takes precedence over a motion to 
    amend, and may be offered where another Member has been recognized 
    to offer an amendment but prior to reading of the amendment by the 
    Clerk.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill,(12) an amendment was 
offered and the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 11513, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. H.R. 6096, Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec 2. There is authorized to be appropriated to the 
        President for the fiscal year 1975 not to exceed $150,000,000 
        to be used, notwithstanding any other provision of law, on such 
        terms and conditions as the President may deem appropriate for 
        humanitarian assistance to and evacuation programs from South 
        Vietnam.

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (13) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Michael T.] Blouin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Blouin moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken. . . .

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner, [Jr., of Louisiana]: I recognize that 
    the gen

[[Page 6711]]

    tleman has a preferential motion, but is it not so that the Chair 
    had recognized the gentleman from Texas to offer his amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair had recognized the gentleman from 
    Texas, to offer an amendment but the preferential motion supersedes 
    that amendment.
        Mr. Waggonner: Even after the gentleman had been recognized to 
    proceed? . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman had been recognized only for the 
    purpose of finding out the reason for which he sought recognition. 
    The gentleman stated that he had an amendment at the desk. The 
    Chair asked the Clerk to report the amendment, and before the 
    amendment was reported, a preferential motion was made.

Perfecting Amendment by Proponent of Motion To Strike

Sec. 4.41 A Member who has offered a motion to strike a section of a 
    bill may not thereafter offer a perfecting amendment to that 
    section while his motion to strike is pending.

    On Sept. 29, 1975,(14) during consideration of a bill 
(15) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to 
parliamentary inquiries as described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 30772, 30773, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. H.R. 8630, Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I will 
    try to propound a proper parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        . . . My original amendment was to strike section 2 in its 
    entirety. We have just accepted striking from line 20, section 2, 
    through line 6 on page 13. Is an amendment in order at this point 
    to strike The remainder of that section?
        The Chairman: (16) the Chair will respond to the 
    gentleman by saying that an amendment would be in order to strike 
    so much of the section that was not amended by the gentleman from 
    Arkansas' amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Derwinski: But obviously I am precluded at this point from 
    offering an amendment to strike beginning on line 20, page 12.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Illinois that other Members would not be precluded from offering 
    such an amendment.

Amendment Adding New Title

Sec. 4.42 The Chair may decline recognition to offer an amendment 
    adding a new title to a bill until all amendments to the pending 
    title have been disposed of.

    On Mar. 16, 1978,(17) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 50,(18) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 124 Cong. Rec. 7333-36, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 6712]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: On page 106 add the 
        following new title:

                               Title V. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Before the Chair would entertain this 
    amendment, the Chair would like to know if there are other 
    amendments to title IV?
        Mr. [Clarence] Long [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to 
    offer an amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to advise the 
    gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) if his amendment were accepted 
    at this time it would cut off the additional amendments. Would the 
    gentleman withhold? . . .
        The Chairman would like to state to the gentleman that the 
    Chair should have inquired of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Bauman) as to the nature of his amendment before extending 
    recognition.

    [Mr. Bauman withdrew his amendment by unanimous consent.]