[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[A. Generally]
[Â§ 5. Permissible Pending Amendments]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6712-6744]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
                              A. GENERALLY
 
Sec. 5. Permissible Pending Amendments

One Perfecting Amendment

Sec. 5.1 Only one perfecting amendment to the original text may be 
    pending at a time.

    The above principle is well established. Thus, on June 29, 1959, 
(19) during proceedings relating to a supplemental 
appropriation act,(20) the Chairman,(1) indicated 
in response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Joel T. Broyhill, of 
Virginia, that Mr. Broyhill would be able to offer an amendment ``After 
the disposition of the pending amendment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 105 Cong. Rec. 12122-24, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
            For a discussion of permissible pending amendments and 
        their disposition, see Rule XIX, House Rules and Manual Sec. 
        822 (101st Cong.).
20. H.R. 7978 (Committee on Appropriations).
 1. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On July 17, 1962,(2) the following exchange took 
    place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 108 Cong. Rec. 13795, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James E.] Van Zandt [of Pennsylvania]: Reserving the right 
    to object, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding now that the 
    committee will offer two amendments to the bill. If that be the 
    case, would it then be in order for me to offer a substitute 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: (3) In the event that a member of the 
    committee offers an amendment, a substitute would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Van Zandt: Would that apply if the committee offers two 
    amendments?
        The Chairman: The members of the committee can offer only one 
    amendment at a time. Of course, a substitute would be in order in 
    either case or to either amendment, or an amendment to the 
    amendment would be in order.

[[Page 6713]]

Sec. 5.2 Where there is pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and a perfecting amendment thereto, an amendment to or a 
    substitute for the perfecting amendment is in the third degree and 
    is not in order.

    On Sept. 11, 1974,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill,(5) the Chair responded to 
a parliamentary inquiry regarding an amendment as described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 120 Cong. Rec. 30650, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. H.R. 13565, the nonnuclear energy source research and development 
        program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Philip E.] Ruppe [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk to the Kastenmeier amendment.
        Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order. . . .
        The Kastenmeier amendment is already in order as an amendment 
    in the second degree, and this amendment would not be in order, 
    would it? We have an amendment before us to a substitute.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (6) The Chair will advise 
    the gentleman from Michigan that the amendment is not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ruppe: Mr. Chairman, the point of order is not to the whole 
    Udall substitute, which, under the rule, is to the bill that is 
    being debated. Actually, it is not an amendment in terms as we 
    would ordinarily think of it, but rather, to the vehicle by which 
    we are allowing the legislation on the floor.
        My understanding is that this would not be an amendment of the 
    second order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman 
    from Michigan that under the rule, the Udall amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute is an amendment in the first degree. The 
    amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kastenmeier) to the 
    Udall amendment is an amendment in the second degree, and therefore 
    an amendment to the amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin would 
    be in the third degree and is not in order. . . .
        Mr. Ruppe: Would it be possible, then, for me to offer this as 
    a substitute?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: In response to the gentleman's 
    request, it would not be in order to offer the amendment as a 
    substitute for the Kastenmeier amendment as it would still be an 
    amendment in the third degree.

Amendments to Substitute

Sec. 5.3 A substitute for an amendment is subject to amendment.

    On May 4, 1983,(7) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Joint Resolu

[[Page 6714]]

tion 13, the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry concerning the 
circumstances described above. The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 129 Cong. Rec. 11074, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        . . . Is the substitute open for amendment?
        The Chairman: (8) The answer to the (question) is 
    the substitute is open for amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.4 It is in order to offer a perfecting amendment to a substitute 
    for a pending amendment.

    On May 2, 1979,(9) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Concurrent Resolution 107,(10) the 
above-stated proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 125 Cong. Rec. 9556, 9562, 9563, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. The first concurrent resolution on the Budget, fiscal 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:
    Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
amendment.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Ms. Holtzman: In the matter relating 
        to the appropriate level of total new budget authority decrease 
        the amount by $8,113 million. . . .
            In the matter relating to the appropriate level of total 
        budget outlays decreased the amount by $2,705 million. . . .

        Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California as 
        a substitute for the amendment offered by Ms. Holtzman: In the 
        matter relating to National Defense for fiscal year 1980, 
        strike out the amount specified for new budget authority and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``$137,808,000,000''.
            In the matter relating to National Defense for fiscal year 
        1980, strike out the amount specified for outlays and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$125,070,000,000''. . . .

        Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (11) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment to the amending offered as a substitute. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William H. Natcher (Ky.).

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

[[Page 6715]]

        Mr. John L. Burton: My amendment is an amendment to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Charles H. 
    Wilson) as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California (Mr. John L. 
    Burton) is in order with an amendment to the substitute. . . .

            Amendment offered by Mr. John L. Burton to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California as a substitute 
        for the amendment offered by Ms. Holtzman: Strike all after 
        line 1 and insert:
            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That the Congress hereby determines and declares, 
        pursuant to section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
        1974, that for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1979--
            (1) The recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $510,800,000,000, and the amount by which the aggregate level 
        of Federal revenues should be decreased is zero.

Disposition of Amendments Seriatim

Sec. 5.5 As soon as an amendment to an amendment is adopted or rejected 
    another is in order seriatim until the amendment is perfected; and 
    only after disposition of the amendment will further amendment of 
    the bill be allowed.

    On Feb. 4, 1946,(12) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 92 Cong. Rec. 848, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 
        4908, a bill relating to investigation of labor disputes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (13) . . . The amendment now pending 
    is the Landis amendment, and the gentlemen are being recognized for 
    pro forma amendments. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Emmet O'Neal (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph P.] O'Hara [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment which is not an amendment to the Landis amendment but to 
    the Case bill. When will it be in order to offer my amendment?
        The Chairman: When the Landis amendment is disposed of the Case 
    bill will be open to further amendment.

Sec. 5.6 Where there is pending an amendment and a substitute therefor, 
    amendments consisting of the same text may be offered one at a time 
    to the original amendment and to the substitute.

    On July 23, 1974,(14) the Committee of the Whole having under 
consideration the bill, H.R. 11500, the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act of 1974, a parliamentary inquiry was addressed to the 
Chair and the proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 120 Cong. Rec. 24600, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ken] Hechler of West Virginia: If I were to offer an 
    amendment to the Hosmer substitute it would then go down if the 
    Hosmer substitute were defeated? As I understand the par

[[Page 6716]]

    liamentary situation, it would not be in order for me to offer 
    amendments at this point to the Mink amendment.
        The Chairman: (15) Amendments to both the Mink 
    amendment and to the Hosmer substitute are in order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: But could the same 
    amendment be offered to the Hosmer substitute, as well as the Mink 
    substitute?
        The Chairman: One could be offered and then the other.
        Mr. Hosmer: They could be offered simultaneously at the same 
    time?
        The Chairman: They could be pending simultaneously.

Sec. 5.7 Only one amendment to a pending amendment may be pending at 
    one time.

    An example of the principle stated above occurred on Apr. 9, 
1979,(16) during consideration of H.R. 3324 (17) 
in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 7763, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. The International Development Co-operation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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. Bauman: On page 2 of the amendment, strike out subsections 
        (b) and (c). . . .

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on the Bauman amendment and the 
    Solarz amendment to the Bauman amendment and all amendments thereto 
    end at 3:30 o'cock. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    to limiting time, I think we have discussed it enough; but this 
    would not preclude the gentleman from Maryland from offering a 
    substitute amendment for the Solarz amendment at this point, would 
    it?
        Chairman: (18) The Chair will state that the Solarz 
    amendment is not subject to a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: No substitute would be in order to the Solarz 
    amendment?
        The Chariman: That would be an amendment in the third degree. 
    The Bauman amendment would be subject to a substitute. . . .
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: In the last paragraph 
        substitute ``may'' for the word `'shall.''

        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from 
    Illinois the amendment is not in order. There is already an 
    amendment pending to the Bauman amendment.

Sec. 5.8 Only one amendment to a substitute may be pending at one time, 
    and amendments which might be subsequently offered may not be 
    debated while another amendment in pending.

[[Page 6717]]

    An example of the situation described above occurred on May 15, 
1979,(19) during consideration of H.R. 39 (20) in 
the Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 11178, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (21) The question is on the amendments 
    offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby) to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the Committee on 
    Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    were agreed to.
        Mr. [Peter H.] Kostmayer [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have two amendments.
        The Chairman: Are these amendments to the Merchant Marine 
    Committee amendments?
        Mr. Kostmayer: To the Udall-Anderson.
        The Chairman: There is already an amendment pending to the 
    Udall substitute. Another amendment to the Udall substitute is not 
    in order at this point.
        Mr. Kostmayer: Well, Mr. Chairman, they can be spoken on now 
    and voted on later; is that correct?
        The Chairman: They are not in order at this time.

Improperly Drafted Substitute Treated as Perfecting Amendment

Sec. 5.9 While there may be pending only one perfecting amendment to a 
    section at a time and there are no degrees of preference as between 
    perfecting amendments, where there was pending an amendment 
    proposing to strike out a subsection and insert new language, the 
    Chairman announced that an amendment improperly drafted as a 
    substitute which merely perfected the subsection of the bill would 
    be treated as a perfecting amendment to the bill and would be voted 
    on first.

    On Mar. 21, 1975,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill,(2) the proceedings, 
described above, occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 7950, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. H.R. 4485, the Emergency Middle-Income Housing Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick: Page 11, strike out 
        lines 1 through 12 and insert in lieu thereof:
            ``(d) Not more than 50 per centum of the aggregate mortgage 
        amounts approved in appropriation Acts may be allocated (1) for 
        use with respect to existing previously occupied dwellings 
        which have not been substantially rehabilitated and (2) for use 
        with respect to new, unsold dwelling units the construction of 
        which commenced prior to the enactment of this Act. Not more 
        than 10 per cen

[[Page 6718]]

        tum of the aggregate mortgage amounts approved in appropriation 
        Acts may be allocated with respect to dwelling units with 
        appraised values in excess of $38,00.''. . .

        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. AuCoin: On page 11, 
        line 1, strike out ``25'' and insert in lieu thereof ``30.''
            On page 11, line 3, insert ``with respect to existing units 
        and'' immediately after ``use.''

        The Chairman: (3) The Chair will treat this 
    amendment as a perfecting amendment to the paragraph of the bill 
    and it will be voted on first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pefecting Amendments Pending Motion To Strike

Sec. 5.10 There may be pending a motion to strike out a pending title 
    of a bill, a perfecting amendment (adding a new section at the end 
    of the title) and a substitute therefor. After the first perfecting 
    amendment has been disposed of, another may be offered and the vote 
    on the motion to strike out is deferred until the amendment is 
    disposed of.

    On Oct. 3, 1969,(4) a bill (5) as under 
consideration which stated in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 115 Cong. Rec. 28454, 28455, 28459, 28460, 28463, 28464, 91st Cong. 
        1st Sess.
 5. H.R. 14000 (Committee on Armed Services).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      TITLE V--COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS

        Sec. 501. The Department of Defense shall keep the Committees 
    on Armed Services of the Senate and of the House of Representatives 
    fully and currently informed with respect to all of the 
    Department's activities. . . .
        Sec. 504. As used in this Act . . .
        (c) ``Restricted data'' means data classified as ``Restricted 
    data,'' in accordance with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act 
    of 1954, as amended. . . .

    A motion to strike out the entire title was offered:

        Motion offered by Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: On 
    page 16, line 9, strike all of Title V. . . .
Mr. Andrew Jacobs, Jr., of Indiana, offered a perfecting amendment 
adding a new section to the title. The following proceedings then took 
place:

     SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ANDERSON OF ILLINOIS FOR THE 
                 AMENDMENT TO TITLE V OFFERED BY MR. JACOBS

        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment to title V. . . .

[[Page 6719]]

        The Chairman: (6) The question is on the substitute 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson) for 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Jacobs). . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the substitute amendment was rejected. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Jacobs).
        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Jacobs and Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina].
        The Committee divided, and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 89, noes 109.
        So the amendment was rejected.
        Mr. William F.] Ryan [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ryan: On page 16, after the period 
        on line 13, strike out the remainder of line 13 and lines 14 
        through 25. . . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Ryan).
        The amendment was rejected.
        The Chairman: . . . The question is on the motion to strike 
    offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton).
        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 5.11 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chairman stated 
    that where there was pending a motion to strike a title of a bill, 
    perfecting amendments to that title could be offered and would be 
    voted on prior to voting on the motion to strike.

    On June 13, 1975,(7) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the bill H.R. 6860,(8) parliamentary 
inquiry was addressed to the Chair, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 18819, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Energy Conservation and Conversion Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ken] Hechler of West Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hechler of West Virginia: Does this amendment strike all of 
    title IV?
        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Yes.
        Mr. Hechler of West Virginia: In that event, my parliamentary 
    inquiry is, Mr. Chairman, I have a perfecting amendment to title 
    IV. I would inquire of the Chair whether that perfecting amendment 
    could be considered.
        The Chairman: The Chair desires to inform the gentleman from 
    West Virginia that his perfecting amendment would be in order 
    pending the vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin.

[[Page 6720]]

Sec. 5.12 Where there has been offered a motion to strike out the 
    entire pending portion of a bill, only one perfecting amendment to 
    that portion of the bill may be offered at a time, even though it 
    may propose to strike out a lesser portion of the pending text and 
    its adoption might preclude other perfecting amendments to that 
    stricken portion.

    On June 11, 1975,(10) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill,(11) an amendment was offered and 
the proceedings, described above, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 18435, 18437, 18438, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. H.R. 6860, Energy Conservation and Conversion Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Alexander: Strike out title II 
        (relating to energy conservation taxes), beginning on line 1 of 
        page 29, and ending on line 24 of page 57. . . .

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment to 
    strike will not be voted on until there is opportunity to vote on 
    all of the perfecting amendments to title II?
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fortney H.] Stark [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    several amendments, and ask unanimous consent that they be 
    considered en bloc.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Stark:
            Page 30, strike out line 1 and all that follows down 
        through line 5 on page 31.
            Page 32, strike out line 20 and all that follows down 
        through line 25. . . .

        Mr. Ullman: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California has 
    offered an amendment which would strike part B. The gentleman from 
    Arkansas has offered an amendment which would strike the whole 
    title.
        I would assume, after part B is perfected, as the gentleman's 
    amendment to strike part B asks, it would come before the amendment 
    to strike the whole title. Am I correct?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the chairman of 
    the committee that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Stark) is a perfecting amendment and will be voted 
    on first. . . .
        Mr. Stark: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent at this point 
    to withdraw my amendment and offer it later, after the gentleman 
    from Ohio offers his amendment.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from California?
        Mr. [Herman T.] Schneebeli [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, 
    reserving the right to object, I will ask what the parliamentary 
    procedure is. In the event the gentleman withdraws his amendment, 
    where do we stand?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Schneebeli) that if

[[Page 6721]]

    the unanimous-consent request is approved, we are back then to the 
    Alexander amendment, which would be the amendment before the 
    Committee, to strike the whole title, and other perfecting 
    amendments to the title, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania knows, 
    would be in order one at a time.
        Mr. Schneebeli: Mr. Chairman, if it is withdrawn and we get 
    back to the Alexander amendment, does that mean other amendments of 
    a lesser tax cut would be considered first?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Schneebeli: Mr. Chairman, I object because I want to vote 
    on the Stark amendment before I vote on any other alternative 
    amendments.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Ullman: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
    of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. . . .
        There ought to be a way to perfect a section of a title before 
    a motion to strike is made. Now we are in a situation where there 
    is a probability that because there was a motion to strike the 
    whole title, the motion to strike subsection (b) is considered a 
    perfecting motion, and, therefore, subsection (b) will not be 
    perfected before the vote to strike comes.
        Now, Mr. Chairman, of course I rise in strong opposition to the 
    Stark motion to strike the title. I had hoped there could be some 
    perfecting amendments so that subsection (b) can better represent 
    the will of the House before the motion to strike comes before the 
    body. And I am still hopeful that that kind of a ruling can be 
    forthcoming. And simply because there is an amendment to strike one 
    part of the bill before you have a chance to perfect it is, it 
    seems to me, not sound parliamentary procedure. . . .
        Mr. Schneebeli: Mr. Chairman, my question to the Chair is: In 
    the event we go beyond the Stark amendment and go to the amendment 
    that I understand will be forthcoming from the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Vanik) his cut of the 20-cent tax is less than that of the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Stark). In the event we recede and 
    agree to go to a consideration of the Vanik amendment, and it is 
    adopted, does this then preclude us from acting on the Stark 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania that it would not, if the amendment is presently 
    withdrawn.

    Parliamentarian's Note: When title II of the bill was read, an 
amendment was offered to strike out the entire title (no one sought 
recognition at that point with a perfecting amendment). Perfecting 
amendments to the text of the bill proposed to be stricken were in 
order although the motion to strike itself was not amendable. The first 
such perfecting amendment offered was to strike out a portion of the 
title. The Committee on Ways and Means sought to consider amendments to 
modify that portion prior to the consideration of a motion to strike 
that portion, but since only one perfecting amendment could be pending 
at a time and there is no degree of preference as between per

[[Page 6722]]

fecting amendments, unanimous consent was required to withdraw the 
perfecting amendment to strike; objection to that request precluded the 
offering of other perfecting amendments at that time.

Number of Amendments Permitted

Sec. 5.13 Where an amendment, an amendment thereto, and a substitute 
    for the original amendment are pending, it is in order to offer an 
    amendment to the substitute.

    On Aug. 24, 1967,(13) a question arose as to the 
propriety of an amendment offered to a substitute amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 113 Cong. Rec. 23936, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 12048 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Iowa [Mr. Gross]. . . .
        Mr. [E. Ross] Adair [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that (the amendment) is not in order, as there are 
    two amendments pending.
        The Chairman: (14) The amendment is offered as an 
    amendment to the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Iowa. The Selden amendment is an amendment to the Adair amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment to the substitute amendment is in order.

Sec. 5.14 It is possible to have pending an amendment to the text, a 
    substitute for the amendment to the text, and an amendment to the 
    substitute.

    On July 17, 1962,(15) during consideration of a bill 
(16) relating to atomic energy, a question arose with regard 
to the number of permissible pending amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 108 Cong. Rec. 13795, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. H.R. 11974 (Joint Committee on Atomic Energy).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James E.] Van Zandt [of Pennsylvania]: Reserving the right 
    to object, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding now that the 
    committee will offer two amendments to the bill. If that be the 
    case, would it then be in order for me to offer a substitute 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: (17) In the event that a member of the 
    committee offers an amendment, a substitute would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Van Zandt: Would that apply if the committee offers two 
    amendments?
        The Chairman: The members of the committee can offer only one 
    amendment at a time. Of course, a substitute would be in order in 
    either case or to either amendment, or an amendment to the 
    amendment would be in order.

Sec. 5.15 Where both an amendment and a substitute have

[[Page 6723]]

    been offered, each may have one amendment pending to it at one 
    time.

    On Aug. 12, 1959,(18) the Labor-Management Reporting and 
Disclosure Act of 1959 (H.R. 8342, Committee on Education and Labor) 
was under consideration. To that bill (referred to as the ``committee'' 
or ``Elliott'' bill), another bill (H.R. 8400, the ``Landrum-Griffin'' 
bill) was offered as an amendment; and to the Landrum-Griffin 
amendment, a third bill (H.R. 8490, the ``Shelley'' bill) was offered 
as a substitute. The parliamentary situation was summarized by Mr. 
Howard W. Smith, of Virginia: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 105 Cong. Rec. 15660, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. Id. at p. 15512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, we have a very remarkable situation here today. We 
    have a rule for the consideration of a labor bill. We have two 
    proposed substitutes to the labor bill. And to be as brief as I can 
    about the rule, it is, I will say, a wide-open rule under the rules 
    of the House. The so-called committee bill will first be 
    considered. When it is read for amendment, at the conclusion of the 
    first section, the gentleman from Georgia will offer the so-called 
    Landrum-Griffin bill as an amendment. It will then be in order to 
    offer the so-called Shelley-Roosevelt bill as a substitute for the 
    Landrum amendment. Then it will be in order to have one amendment 
    each to the Shelley-Roosevelt substitute and the Landrum-Griffin 
    amendment pending at the same time. The Landrum-Griffin amendment 
    will be perfected by whatever amendment may be offered before any 
    vote is taken on amendments to the Shelley-Roosevelt substitute. 
    Then that amendment will be perfected. Then the Roosevelt 
    substitute will be, I hope, voted down. Then the Landrum-Griffin 
    bill will, I hope, be voted up. If that occurs, we will then be at 
    the end of the road. That would then be reported back to the House 
    and the House would vote on the Landrum-Griffin amendment. If that 
    is defeated, in the Committee of the Whole, of course, the 
    committee bill will be open to the much-needed amendments to make 
    it a good labor-management bill.

    Mr. Phillip M. Landrum, of Georgia, offered his amendment after the 
reading of the short title of the committee bill: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 20. Id. at p. 15702.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Landrum: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Landrum: Strike out all after the 
        enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

                              ``TABLE OF CONTENTS

            Sec. 1. Short title.
            Sec. 2. Declaration of findings, purposes, and policy.
            Sec. 3. Definitions.''. . .

    Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, offered H.R. 8490: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 15711.

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

[[Page 6724]]

        Mr. Perkins: Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute for the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Perkins of Kentucky as a 
        substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Landrum of Georgia;
            Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:

                              ``TABLE OF CONTENTS

            Sec. 1. Short title.
            Sec. 2. Declaration of findings, purposes, and policy.
            Sec. 3. Definitions.''. . .

    A parliamentary inquiry was made, as follows: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 15720.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]: Mr. Chairman, there is 
    some confusion in the minds of some as to the proper procedure from 
    this point on. Now that the substitute amendment and the second 
    substitute amendment have been offered, I would like to inquire, 
    Mr. Chairman, as to whether there is any limit to the number of 
    amendments which may be offered to each of the substitute 
    amendments.
        The Chairman: (3) There is no limit on the number of 
    amendments that may be offered, but only one amendment at a time 
    may be considered to each of the pending amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.16 There is no limit to the number of amendments that may be 
    offered either to an amendment or to a substitute, but only one 
    amendment may be pending to such amendment or substitute at one 
    time.

    By way of example, the statement of the above principle was made by 
the Chairman, Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania,(4) in 
response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. James Roosevelt, of 
California.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.. 105 Cong. Rec. 15720, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 12, 1959. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 8342 (Committee on Education and Labor).
 5. See Sec. 5.15, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.17 Only one perfecting amendment to an amendment may be pending 
    at a time.

    In the 88th Congress, a bill (6) was under consideration 
relating to crime and criminal procedure in the District of Columbia. 
While there was pending an amendment to change the age of consent in 
the definition of statutory rape in the criminal code, it was held that 
a second amendment to change the penalty for such crime did not qualify 
as a ``substitute'' for the first amendment and was therefore not in 
order until the first perfecting amendment had been acted upon. The 
proceedings were as follows: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.R. 7525 (Committee on the District of Columbia).
 7. 109 Cong. Rec. 14757, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 12, 1963.

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

[[Page 6725]]

        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (8) Is it a substitute for the 
    amendment pending?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Ross Bass (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Harsha: It is a substitute for the amendment pending. (The 
    amendment was read.)
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman this does 
    not constitute a substitute for the other amendment. The Chair will 
    dispose of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Bell).

Sec. 5.18 Where there is pending an amendment and a substitute 
    therefor, it is in order to offer an amendment to the original 
    amendment.

    On July 14, 1970,(9) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 116 Cong. Rec. 24040, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 17654 (Committee on Rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Marion G.] Snyder [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, is an 
    amendment to the Fascell amendment in order while the substitute 
    amendment is still pending?
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair would like to inform 
    the gentleman from Kentucky that an amendment to the amendment 
    would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.19 Where there is pending an amendment, a substitute therefor, 
    and an amendment to the substitute, it is in order to offer a 
    germane amendment to the original amendment.

    On Sept. 25, 1973,(11) proceedings took place which 
illustrate the application of the above principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 119 Cong. Rec. 31338, 31339, 31341, 31343, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. 
        Under consideration was H.J. Res. 727 (Committee on 
        Appropriations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment. . . .
        Mrs. [Edith] Green of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, I offer a substitute 
    amendment for the amendment offered by Mr. Quie. . . .
        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment to the substitute amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered by Mr. Quie. . . .
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, we have pending 
    an amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Quie) and 
    then we have the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentlewoman from Oregon (Mrs. Green). Then we have the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Perkins).
        Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if a further amendment at this time 
    is in order.
        The Speaker: (12) The Chair will state that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) is

[[Page 6726]]

    in order at this time. It is the understanding of the Chair that 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) does 
    relate to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
    (Mr. Quie) and is an amendment thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.20 Where both an amendment (in the nature of a substitute) and a 
    substitute therefor are pending, it is in order also to have an 
    amendment to the amendment and an amendment to the substitute 
    pending at the same time.

    On Sept. 29, 1965,(13) during consideration of H.R. 4644 
(Committee on the District of Columbia), an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute was offered by Mr. Abraham J. Multer, of New York: 
(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 25376, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. Id. at p. 25376.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk: The amendment offered by Mr. Multer is to strike all 
    after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

            That, subject to the retention by Congress of the ultimate 
        legislative authority over the Nation's Capital which is 
        granted by the Constitution, it is the intent of Congress to 
        restore to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia the 
        powers of local self-government which are a basic privilege of 
        all American citizens. . . .

                               table of contents

                              Title I--Definitions

            Sec. 101. Definitions.

                        Title II--Status of the District

            Sec. 201. Status of the District. . . .

    A substitute for the above amendment was offered: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 25389.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [B. F.] Sisk [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk: The amendment offered by Mr. Sisk, as a substitute 
    for the amendment offered by Mr. Multer, is to strike out all after 
    the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

            That this Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia 
        Charter Act''.

                             declaration of policy

            Sec. 2. It is the intent of Congress to make available to 
        the inhabitants of the District of Columbia such measure and 
        form of local self-government as they themselves shall 
        democratically establish if such self-government is consistent 
        with the constitutional injunction that Congress retain 
        ultimate legislative authority over the Nation's Capital.

    Subsequently, a parliamentary inquiry was raised, as follows: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 25418.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: As I understand it the 
    Committee may now proceed to amend both the Multer amendment and 
    the Sisk substitute to the amendment; is that correct?
        The Chairman: (17) That is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).

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

[[Page 6727]]

        Mr. Harsha: And we may amend either one interchangeably at this 
    state of the game?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

Sec. 5.21 To a pending amendment in the nature of a substitute for 
    several paragraphs of a bill, there may be offered an amendment, a 
    substitute for the amendment, and an amendment to the substitute; 
    and as often as amendments to the amendment are disposed of, 
    further amendments may be offered and voted upon prior to voting on 
    the amendment to the substitute.

    On June 26, 1973, during consideration of H.R. 8877, Departments of 
Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriation bill for fiscal 
1974, Mr. Robert H. Michel, of Illinois, offered an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute for several paragraphs of the bill: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 119 Cong. Rec. 21368, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the paragraph 
    of the bill just read which is a single substitute for several 
    paragraphs of the bill dealing with the Department of Health, 
    Education, and Welfare and related agencies, and I hereby give 
    notice that if the amendment is agreed to, I will make motions to 
    strike out the remaining paragraphs as follows: The paragraph on 
    page 8, lines 13 through 20; the paragraph on page 11, lines 9 
    through 11. . . .

    Subsequently, amendments were offered as follows: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at pp. 21375, 21376, 21379.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conte to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Michel: At the end of the first sentence, after ``Drug 
        Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-255),'', strike 
        out ``$725,311,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$745,851,000.''. . . .

        Mr. [Howard W.] Robison of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment. The amendment is in the nature of a substitute for the 
    pending Michel amendment. It does not change the Michel amendment 
    except insofar as it alters certain dollar amounts. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Substitute amendment offered by Mr. Robison of New York for 
        the amendment offered by Mr. Michel: On page 7, strike out 
        lines 16 through 24 and on page 8, lines 1 and 2 and substitute 
        in lieu thereof the following:
            For carrying out the Public Health Service Act with respect 
        to mental health and, except as otherwise provided, the 
        Community Mental Health Centers Act (42 U.S.C. 2681, et seq.), 
        the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, 
        Treatment, and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-616), 
        the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-793), 
        and the Drug

[[Page 6728]]

        Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-255), 
        $725,311,000. . . .

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Robison).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Quie to the substitute amendment 
        offered by Mr. Robison of New York: In sentence 16, after the 
        words ``fiscal 1972,'' insert the following: ``and (2) shall 
        not be more than 110 percent of the amounts made available to 
        such State for that purpose for fiscal year 1972, plus one-half 
        the difference between such amounts and the amounts which would 
        be made available to such State under this Act without 
        application of this clause.''

    A parliamentary inquiry was made: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 21382.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Conte: Mr. Chairman, as I understand, we will first 
    consider my amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Illinois (Mr. Michel)?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct, the first vote will be 
    on the amendment the gentleman has offered to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel). That will be disposed 
    of first.
        Mr. Conte: . . . Mr. Chairman, I then have another amendment 
    that I would like to offer. Will I be permitted to offer that 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that after the first 
    amendment has been disposed of, the gentleman may rise and offer 
    his other amendment. (21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The votes on the amendments were taken as follows: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 119 Cong. Rec. 21383, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendments offered by the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Conte) there were--ayes 25, noes 87. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Quie) to the substitute amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Robison) for the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel).
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Quie) there were--ayes 8, noes 89.
        So the amendment to the substitute amendment was rejected. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: The question is on the substitute amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Robison) for the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel).
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Robison of New York: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
    vote.
        A recorded vote was refused.
        So the substitute amendment was rejected.

Sec. 5.22 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute there may be 
    pending an amend

[[Page 6729]]

    ment, a substitute, and an amendment to the substitute.

    On Jan. 23, 1962,(2) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 108 Cong. Rec. 758, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7927 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
            See also 82 Cong. Rec. 1570, 1571, 75th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Dec. 15, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: The distinguished majority leader 
    said that the chairman of the committee will offer a substitute to 
    the committee bill. My question is: Will the substitute be open to 
    amendments at any point? How many amendments may be offered to the 
    substitute, and will it be open to amendment at any point?
        The Chairman: (3) The proposed amendment being an 
    original amendment will be open to an amendment at any point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: To an amendment?
        The Chairman: And a substitute and an amendment to the 
    substitute.

Sec. 5.23 Where there were pending to title I of a bill an amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute for the title and a substitute therefor, 
    responses made by the Chair to various inquiries indicated that: 
    (1) both the amendment and the substitute were open to an 
    amendment; (2) adoption of the substitute would preclude further 
    amendment of either the amendment or the substitute; and (3) 
    rejection of the substitute would leave the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute open to further amendment.

    On Apr. 23, 1969, a number of parliamentary inquiries were made 
with respect to the extent to which a pending amendment in the nature 
of a substitute, and a substitute amendment, could be 
amended.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 115 Cong. Rec. 10066, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 514 (Committee on Education and Labor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, is the 
    Perkins substitute amendment open to amendment at this point?
        The Chairman: (5) It is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Erlenborn: And is the Green of Oregon amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute open to amendment at this point?
        The Chairman: It is. . . .
        Mr. Erlenborn: Should the Perkins substitute amendment be voted 
    upon and adopted, would it then be subject to amendment?
        The Chairman: No, it would not.
        Mr. Erlenborn: If the Perkins substitute amendment is voted 
    upon and rejected, would the Green of Oregon amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute then be open to amendment?
        The Chairman: It would be.

[[Page 6730]]

Sec. 5.24 Where there was pending an amendment and a substitute 
    therefor, the Chair indicated that only one amendment to the 
    substitute could be offered at one time.

    On Oct. 16, 1973,(6) during consideration of the 
Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973,(7) Mr. William 
A. Steiger, of Wisconsin, offered an amendment, and Mr. Richard W. 
Mallary, of Vermont, offered an amendment thereto, which was agreed to. 
A substitute amendment to the Steiger amendment had been offered by Mr. 
Roger H. Zion, of Indiana, and after adoption of the Mallary amendment, 
Mr. Mallary stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 119 Cong. Rec. 34336, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. H.R. 9681 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, at this point it would be important, I believe, 
    since the same deficiency exists in the substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana, I would move to amend the substitute in the 
    manner in which the amendment just acted on is worded. . . .

Upon being informed that the amendment would have to be in writing, Mr. 
Mallary stated:

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

Subsequently, following the Chairman's request to the Clerk to report 
the Zion amendment as proposed to be amended, the following exchange 
took place:

        Mr. [Torbert H.] Macdonald [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, 
    the perfecting amendment to the Zion amendment on line 3, where it 
    reads ``insert in lieu thereof the following: crude oil and refined 
    products'' should be nailed down and say ``refined petroleum 
    products.'' I so move.
        The Chairman: (8) The substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana is pending at the present time, the Chair 
    has recognized the gentleman from Vermont to offer a perfecting 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Charles H. Wilson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.25 Where there was pending an amendment, a substitute therefor 
    and an amendment to the substitute, the Chairman indicated that 
    other amendments to the substitute would be in order under the 
    five-minute rule following disposition of the pending amendment to 
    the substitute.

    On Oct. 20, 1971,(9) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 117 Cong. Rec. 37082, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 10367 (Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs).

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

[[Page 6731]]

        Mr. [Sam] Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, is it the Chair's 
    intention after calling for the vote on the Cederberg amendment to 
    the Udall substitute, that we then vote immediately on the Udall 
    substitute or not, or will there be some time for discussion in 
    between?
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair will inform the 
    gentleman that will depend on whether other amendments are offered 
    to the substitute. If so, the gentleman's statement would be 
    correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne N.] Aspinall [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, would a 
    motion to strike the necessary number of words be in order?
        The Chairman: A motion to strike the necessary number of words 
    would then be in order.

Sec. 5.26 Where there is pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for an entire bill, a substitute therefor and an 
    amendment to the substitute, it is in order to offer an amendment 
    to the original amendment in the nature of a substitute.

    On Dec. 2, 1970,(11) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 39500, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 19436 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Olin E.] Teague of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Stephens).

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Benjamin B.] Blackburn [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. Am I to understand the gentleman from Texas 
    is offering an amendment to the Stephens substitute amendment?
        The Chairman: (12) To the Stephens amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute. That is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Blackburn: So the amendment I have offered is still 
    pending?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. It is in order for the 
    gentleman from Texas to offer an amendment to the Stephens 
    amendment, which is in the nature of a substitute.

Sec. 5.27 Only one amendment to an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute or to a substitute therefor can be pending at one time.

    On Oct. 1, 1974,(13) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a resolution,(14) a parliamentary 
inquiry was addressed to the Chair and proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 120 Cong. Rec. 33338, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
14. H. Res. 988, to reform the structure, jurisdiction, and procedures 
        of House committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, do I understand 
    correctly

[[Page 6732]]

    that the Thompson amendment is to the Hansen substitute, and that 
    no other amendment would be in order to that amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute until the Thompson amendment is voted upon?
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair would like to inform 
    the gentleman that he is correct. No additional amendments to the 
    Hansen amendment in the nature of a substitute are in order until 
    the Thompson amendment is voted on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Further, the Chair would like to advise the gentleman that no 
    additional amendments to the Martin substitute are in order until 
    the Sullivan amendment is voted upon.

Five Amendments Pending at One Time

Sec. 5.28 In one instance, five amendments were pending at one time, 
    and were offered in the following order: (1) an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute for the resolution; (2) a substitute 
    therefor; (3) perfecting amendments to the original text; (4) an 
    amendment to the substitute; and (5) an amendment to the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute.

    On May 1, 1975,(16) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H. Con. Res. 218,(17) the proceedings 
described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 12765, 12771, 12775, 12776, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. Setting forth the congressional budget on an aggregate basis for 
        fiscal 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, 
    I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        O'Neill:
            Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
            ``That the Congress hereby determines and declares, 
        pursuant to section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
        1974, that for the fiscal year beginning on July 1, 1975--
            ``(1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $295,181,000,000. . . .

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Latta as a substitute for the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. O'Neill: 
        Strike out all after the resolving clause in House Concurrent 
        Resolution 218 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            ``he Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant to 
        section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that 
        for the fiscal year beginning on July 1, 1975--
            ``(1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $296,400,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [Phil M.] Landrum [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    series of amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Landrum: Page 1, line 11, strike 
        out

[[Page 6733]]

        ``$395,600,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$387,486,000,000''.
            Page 2 line 2, strike out ``$368,200,000,000'' and insert 
        in lieu thereof ``$361,012,000,000''. . . .

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Is this an amendment 
    to the substitute offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta)?
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair understands that it is 
    a perfecting amendment to the original resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rousselot: Is it in order, then, at this time?
        The Chairman: It is, the Chair will state.
        Mr. Rousselot: Will my amendment to the substitute still be in 
    order?
        The Chairman: It will, at the appropriate time. . . .
        Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
    substitute amendment for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rousselot to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Latta as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of 
        a substitute offered by Mr. O'Neill: Strike out 
        ``$296,400,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$299,400,000,000.''. . .

        Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Reuss to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. O'Neill: Paragraph (1), 
        strike ``$295,181,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$298,181,000,000''. . . .

        Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington]: . . . It is my understanding 
    that there is presently pending the O'Neill amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute to the original text, a Latta substitute to the 
    O'Neill amendment, a perfecting amendment by Mr. Reuss to the 
    O'Neill amendment, a perfecting amendment by Mr. Rousselot to the 
    Latta substitute, and an amendment to the original text by Mr. 
    Landrum.
        I intend to oppose the Landrum amendment, the Latta substitute, 
    and the Rousselot amendment, and I would like to know which one 
    will be first voted on by the body, so that I can address myself to 
    that one.
        The Chairman: The Chair will respond to the gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. Adams) that the first vote will occur on the 
    Landrum perfecting amendment to the concurrent resolution.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In this context, eight amendments could 
have been pending at once, since any Member could have offered an 
amendment to Mr. Landrum's perfecting amendment, a substitute for Mr. 
Landrum's amendment, and an amendment to the substitute.

Sec. 5.29 There may be pending at one time: (1) a motion to strike the 
    pending title (or section, or paragraph) when offered before 
    perfecting amendments are offered; (2) a perfecting amendment to 
    the title; (3) an amendment to that amendment; (4) a sub

[[Page 6734]]

    stitute for the perfecting amendment; and (5) an amendment to the 
    substitute.

    The following proceedings took place on Aug. 3, 
1966,(19) during consideration of the Civil Rights Act of 
1966.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 112 Cong. Rec. 18113-15, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
20. H.R. 14765 (Committee on the Judiciary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Arch A.] Moore [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Moore: On page 61, strike line 19 
        and all that follows down through page 74, line 6, and renumber 
        the following titles and sections accordingly. . . .
    [This amendment struck out Title IV of the pending text.]

        Mr. [Charles McC.] Mathias [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a perfecting amendment.
        The Chairman: (1) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clark] MacGregor [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . . Mr. Chairman, when will it be in order 
    for me to seek recognition for the purpose of offering . . . a 
    substitute to the Mathias perfecting amendment?
        The Chairman: It will be in order for the gentleman from 
    Minnesota to offer such an amendment after the gentleman from 
    Maryland has concluded his remarks on his amendment. . . .
        Mr. [William C.] Cramer [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, assuming 
    that the gentleman is recognized for that purpose and offers his 
    substitute, then is it correct to say that no other amendments or 
    substitutes will be in order?
        The Chairman: That is not correct.
        Mr. Cramer: Then at what point would additional amendments be 
    in order?
        The Chairman: An amendment to the Mathias amendment would be in 
    order. An amendment to the substitute, if it is offered--the 
    substitute for the Mathias amendment, if it is offered--would be in 
    order. . . .
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Under what 
    conditions can a perfecting amendment to title IV be offered by the 
    gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mathias] in view of the fact that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Moore] 
    was to strike out all of title IV. What does it perfect? Or what 
    would it then perfect?
        The Chairman: Under our rules--the rules of the House, and 
    ordinary parliamentary procedure--the basic legislation is 
    perfected before there is a vote on an amendment to strike. . . .
        Mr. Waggonner: If the Chair has correctly stated the rules of 
    the House--and I do not at this moment accept that he has--would 
    the vote then occur in this manner: if the gentleman from Minnesota 
    [Mr. MacGregor] offers substitute language, would there first be a 
    vote on the substitute language which is intended to be offered by 
    Mr. MacGregor to the perfecting amendment?
        Then, if that substitute language is rejected, would the so-
    called perfecting

[[Page 6735]]

    amendment of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mathias] be voted on? 
    And, if that amendment or that so-called perfecting amendment is 
    rejected, would the vote then occur on the motion of the gentleman 
    from West Virginia [Mr. Moore] to strike all of title IV?
        The Chairman: The gentleman's assumptions are correct, unless 
    there intervened after the defeat of the substitute amendment which 
    may be offered and the perfecting amendment which has been offered 
    another amendment in the nature of a perfecting amendment.

Amendment to Several Paragraphs of Appropriation Bill

Sec. 5.30 The Chairman indicated in response to inquiries that where 
    there was pending a paragraph of an appropriation bill and an 
    amendment ``in the nature of a substitute'' for that paragraph and 
    the succeeding paragraphs, perfecting amendments to both the 
    original paragraph and to any part of the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute, as well as a substitute for the latter, would be 
    in order.

    On July 29, 1969,(2) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 115 Cong. Rec. 21218, 21219, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 13111 (Committee on Appropriations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles S.] Joelson [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the paragraph just read which is a simple 
    substitute to several paragraphs of the bill dealing with the 
    Office of Education and I hereby give notice that after the 
    amendment is agreed to I will make a motion to strike out the 
    paragraphs appearing as follows: . . .
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Would a substitute for the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Joelson) . 
    . . be in order if offered by someone?
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair will state that a 
    substitute for the amendment would be in order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, the entire 
    substitute, as I understand, is open to amendment at any point, but 
    insofar as the bill is concerned is the paragraph on page 25 which 
    was read by the Clerk also open to amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Text of Another Bill Made in Order as Amendment

Sec. 5.31 Where the Committee on Rules had reported a resolution making 
    in order the consideration of a committee amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute as an original bill for amendment, and making in 
    order the text of another bill offered from the floor as an 
    amendment in the

[[Page 6736]]

    nature of a substitute therefor, the Speaker pro tempore indicated 
    that (1) amendments would be in order to the floor amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute at any point; (2) if the substitute text 
    were offered after section 1 of the committee amendment had been 
    read, only that section of the committee amendment would be open to 
    perfecting amendment while the substitute was pending; and (3) if 
    the substitute were defeated in Committee of the Whole, the 
    committee amendment would be read by sections for amendment.

    On June 16, 1970,(4) during proceedings relating to a 
postal reform bill (5) a number of inquiries were raised 
with respect to applicable amendment procedures. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 116 Cong. Rec. 19838, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. See H. Res. 1077 (Committee on Rules), providing for consideration 
        of H.R. 17070, the Postal Reform Act of 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. Allen] Smith of California: In connection with H.R. 
    17070, which the Rules Committee has made in order as a committee 
    substitute for the original committee bill, which was stricken out, 
    and against which bill points of order are to be waived, and in 
    addition in connection with H.R. 17966, which has been made in 
    order as a substitute, waiving points of order, my understanding of 
    the parliamentary situation is, if we do not get into the third 
    degree where we are stopped, that when H.R. 17966 is offered as a 
    substitute it will be open to amendment as we go through the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) It will be open to 
    amendment at any point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of California: It is my understanding if we have an 
    amendment pending on that bill, which is one amendment, we can also 
    have an amendment pending on the original bill if it applies to the 
    same section or same part of the bill. In other words, we are not 
    precluded from amending H.R. 17070 until we completely take care of 
    H.R. 17966 and the Committee rises and you vote on that. We can 
    amend in the Committee of the Whole H.R. 17070.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the Chair correctly understands the 
    gentleman, the answer to it is that the Udall substitute can be 
    offered as an amendment to section 1. Other amendments can be 
    offered to section 1 of the committee amendment, but no other 
    amendments can be offered beyond section 1 to the committee 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Is it not accurate to say, 
    however, that if the Udall-Derwinski substitute, H.R. 17966, is 
    defeated in the Committee of the Whole, then any other part of H.R. 
    17070 is open for amendment at any point?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: In that event, the Committee of the 
    Whole

[[Page 6737]]

    would go back and read the committee amendment as an original bill, 
    in which case each section would be open for amendment as it was 
    read.

    [Note: In this context, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute assumes the character of original text under the special 
rule, and the text of the other bill is properly described as an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute (an amendment in the first 
degree) rather than as a substitute for the committee amendment.]

Committee Amendment Read as Original Text

Sec. 5.32 Where, pursuant to a special rule, a committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute, printed in the bill, is being read as 
    original text for purpose of amendment there may be pending to that 
    text (1) an amendment (in the nature of a substitute), (2) a 
    substitute therefor, and (3) amendments to both the amendment and 
    the substitute.

    On Apr. 23, 1969,(7) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 514, extending and amending the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, pursuant to a special rule as indicated by the 
Chair. Where there were pending to title I of the bill an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute for the title and a substitute therefor, the 
Chair indicated in response to a series of parliamentary inquiries that 
both the amendment and the substitute were open to an amendment; that 
adoption of the substitute would preclude further amendment of either 
the amendment or the substitute; that rejection of the substitute would 
leave the amendment in the nature of a substitute open to further 
amendment; and that pending a vote on either the amendment or the 
substitute, title I remained open to a perfecting amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 115 Cong. Rec. 10052-54, 10061, 10062, 10066, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proceedings were as follows:

        The Chairman: (8) Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk 
    will now read by title the substitute committee amendment printed 
    in the bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be cited as the ``Elementary and Secondary Education 
        Amendments of 1969''.

[[Page 6738]]

     TITLE I--EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT OF TITLE I OF THE ELEMENTARY AND 
                      SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965

     extension of title i of elementary and secondary education act of 
                                    1965

            Sec. 101. (a) Section 102 of title I of the Elementary and 
        Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended by striking out 
        ``June 30, 1970'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``June 30, 
        1975''.
            (b) Section 121(d) of title I of the Elementary and 
        Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended to read as follows:
            ``(d) For the purpose of making grants under this part 
        there are authorized to be appropriated not in excess of 
        $50,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and for 
        each of the six succeeding fiscal years. . . .

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that title I be considered as 
    read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Illinois?
        There was no objection.

     amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mrs. green of 
                                   oregon

        Mrs. [Edith S.] Green of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. 
        Green of Oregon: Strike out everything after the enacting 
        clause and insert in lieu thereof:

    ``TITLE I--EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT OF TITLE I OF THE ELEMENTARY AND 
                      SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965

    ``extension of title i of elementary and secondary education act of 
                                    1965

            ``Section 101. (a) Section 102 of title I of the Elementary 
        and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended by striking out 
        `June 30, 1970' and inserting in lieu thereof `June 30, 1972'.

            ``(b) Section 121(d) of title I of the Elementary and 
        Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended to read as follows:

            `` 6 (d) For the purpose of making grants under 
        this part there are authorized to be appropriated not in excess 
        of $50,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and 
        for each of the three succeeding fiscal years.' . . .

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute amendment for the so-called Green of Oregon amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Substitute amendment offered by Mr. Perkins for the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Green 
        of Oregon: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert 
        in lieu thereof the following:

            ``That this Act may be cited as the `Elementary and 
        Secondary Education Amendments of 1969'.

[[Page 6739]]

    ``TITLE I--EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT OF TITLE I OF THE ELEMENTARY AND 
                      SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965

    ``extension of title i of elementary and secondary education act of 
                                    1965

            ``Sec. 101. (a) Section 102 of title I of the Elementary 
        and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended by striking out 
        `June 30, 1970' and inserting in lieu thereof `June 30, 1973.'
            (b) Section 121(d) of title I of the Elementary and 
        Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended to read as follows:
            `` `(d) For the purpose of making grants under this part 
        there are authorized to be appropriated not in excess of 
        $50,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and for 
        each of the four succeeding fiscal years.' . . .

        Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, is the Perkins substitute 
    amendment open to amendment at this point?
        The Chairman: It is.
        Mr. Erlenborn: And is the Green of Oregon amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute open to amendment at this point?
        The Chairman: It is.
        Mr. Erlenborn: So both are open to amendment at this point?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Erlenborn: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Erlenborn: Should the Perkins substitute amendment be voted 
    upon and adopted, would it then be subject to amendment?
        The Chairman: No, it would not.
        Mr. Erlenborn: If the Perkins substitute amendment is voted 
    upon and rejected, would the Green of Oregon amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute then be open to amendment?
        The Chairman: It would be.
        Mr. Erlenborn: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Erlenborn: Is title I of H.R. 514 subject to amendment at 
    this time?
        The Chairman: It is.

Debate Limited on Certain Amendments

Sec. 5.33 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, a substitute therefore and an amendment to the 
    substitute, and debate had been limited on the substitute and all 
    amendments thereto but not on the original amendment or amendments 
    thereto, the Chair indicated that (1) further amendments to the 
    substitute or modifications of the substitute by unanimous consent 
    must await disposition of the pending amendment to the substitute; 
    (2) amendments to the original amendment could be offered and 
    debated under the five-minute rule and would be voted on before 
    amendments

[[Page 6740]]

    to the substitute; (3) amendments to the substitute could be 
    offered and voted upon without debate unless printed in the Record 
    pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6; and (4) the question would not be 
    put on the substitute until all perfecting amendments to it and to 
    the original amendment were disposed of.

    On Feb. 5, 1976,(9) during consideration of H.R. 9464, 
the Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1976, there was pending an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute (the Krueger amendment); a substitute 
therefore (the Smith amendment); and an amendment to the substitute 
(the Eckhardt amendment). A unanimous-consent request was made to limit 
debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 122 Cong. Rec. 2646-48, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    strike the requisite number of words.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the 
    Smith amendment and all amendments thereto terminate immediately 
    upon the conclusion of consideration of the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt). . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, as I understood 
    it, the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Dingell) was that all debate on the Smith substitute amendment 
    cease after the disposition of the Eckhardt amendment.
        The Eckhardt amendment would be the pending business then, and 
    immediately after the determination of the Eckhardt amendment, we 
    would vote on the Smith amendment. Is that not correct? . . .
        The Chairman: (10) Not necessarily, because there 
    could be an amendment to the Krueger amendment, which would be 
    debatable. . . . Before we vote on the Smith substitute, amendments 
    to the Krueger amendment are debatable if offered. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point that the Chair is trying to make, regardless of what 
    agreements are reached, is that until the Krueger amendment is 
    finally perfected to the satisfaction of the Committee, the Chair 
    cannot put the question on the Smith substitute.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: The Chair cannot put the question on the 
    Smith amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot put the question on the Smith 
    substitute until the Krueger amendment is perfected to the 
    satisfaction of the Committee.
        There has been no limitation of debate on the Krueger amendment 
    or amendments thereto. The basic parliamentary situation is that we 
    have a substitute amendment for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, the Krueger amendment. Both of those are subject to 
    amendment, but both must be perfected before the Chair can put the 
    question on the substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.

[[Page 6741]]

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: With respect to the unanimous-consent 
    request of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the Eckhardt 
    amendment is still to be voted upon, and then there are to be no 
    other amendments to the Smith amendment?
        The Chairman: There is to be no further debate on such 
    amendments. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, if my time still applies, I 
    would like to ask the Chair to state the circumstances. If I may, 
    before the Chair does that, I would like to ask the question this 
    way: As the situation stands at this moment, the Krueger amendment 
    is still perfectable by amendments under the normal course of time, 
    and there is no limitation on the Krueger amendment.
        The Smith amendment, however, can be perfected only by the vote 
    on the Eckhardt amendment, and then if there are other amendments 
    to the Smith amendment there is no debate time remaining on those 
    amendments.
        Is that correct?
        The Chairman: Unless they are printed in the Record.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: And if they are printed in the Record, the 
    debate time is 5 minutes per side pro and con. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: That is correct. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, it is, however, a fact that the 
    gentleman may have an amendment at the desk and it may be voted on 
    without debate under the unanimous-consent request?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. [Robert] Krueger [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Krueger: Mr. Chairman, there are still those of us who are 
    not certain of the parliamentary situation. I am among them.

        Mr. Chairman, my question is this: We will vote first on the 
    Eckhardt amendment to the Smith substitute?
        The Chairman: That is right.
        Mr. Krueger: Following that, there will then be a vote without 
    further debate on the Smith substitute, or no?
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot say, because if there were 
    amendments printed in the Record, there can be both an amendment 
    offered and debate on the amendment. If there were no amendments 
    that were qualified for debate by being printed in the Record, they 
    could not be offered and voted on without debate.
        But if they are offered to the Krueger amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute, they would both be considered and would be 
    debatable under the 5-minute rule. . . .
        The 5-minute rule applies only to amendments to the Smith 
    amendment which has been printed in the Record. Other amendments to 
    the Smith amendment do not have debate time; they are just voted 
    on. . . .
        Mr. [Benjamin A.] Gilman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the Krueger amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute. My amendment has been printed in the Record.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Krueger immediately after 
        section 26 of the

[[Page 6742]]

        Natural Gas Act (as added by section 208) insert the following:

        ``treatment of rates and charges for natural gas sold to senior 
                                    citizens

            ``Sec. 27. (a) The Commission shall prohibit any natural-
        gas company from selling or otherwise supplying natural gas to 
        any local natural gas company which increases the rates for 
        natural gas sold to senior citizens. . . .

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana] (during the 
    reading): Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
        The point of order lies to the fact that the amendment now 
    being read is to the Krueger amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and is not in order until there has been a disposition 
    of the Eckhardt amendment to the Smith substitute.
        The Chairman: The Chair has stated that any amendment to the 
    Krueger amendment in the nature of a substitute may now be offered 
    and is debatable.
        Mr. Waggonner: But, Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not in order 
    until there has been a disposition of the Eckhardt amendment to the 
    Smith substitute which is now under consideration.
        The Chairman: This amendment takes precedence. This amendment 
    takes precedence over the amendment to the substitute amendment. 
    That is what the Chair has been trying to say now, repeatedly. The 
    amendment that has precedence is an amendment to the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute, and this is the amendment that is now 
    before the committee. . . .
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Iowa (Mr. Smith) as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger).
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Eckhardt) there were--ayes 33, noes 35.
        So the amendment to the substitute amendment for the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute was rejected.

Amendment to Original Text While Amendment in Nature of Substitute 
    Pending

Sec. 5.34 Where there is pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a resolution, it is in order to offer a perfecting 
    amendment to the pending portion of original text.

    On Apr. 27, 1976, (11) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Concurrent Resolution 611, (12) an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute for the resolution was pending 
when a perfecting amendment to the original text was offered. The 
proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 122 Cong. Rec. 11409-11, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. Concurrent resolution on the budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (13) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Spark M. Matsunaga (Hawaii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 6743]]

            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That the Congress hereby determines and declares, 
        pursuant to section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
        1974, that for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1976--
            (1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $363,000,000,000, and the amount by which the ag-
        gregate level of Federal revenues should be decreased is 
        $14,800,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution 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 Washington?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Latta: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
            That the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant 
        to section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that 
        for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1976--
            (1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $352,100,000,000, and the amount by which the ag-
        gregate level of Federal revenues should be decreased is 
        $25,700,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment to House Concurrent Resolution 611.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Wright: Page 4, line 3, 
        strike out ``$18,649,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$19,849,000,000''.

Sec. 5.35 Where there is pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for an entire measure, it is in order to offer a 
    perfecting amendment to that portion of the original text which has 
    been read.

    The proceedings of Apr. 13, 1983,(14) during 
consideration of House Joint Resolution 13 (concerning a nuclear 
weapons freeze), provide an instance in which a Member had two 
amendments pending to the original text at the same time--first, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, and then a perfecting 
amendment to the original text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 129 Cong. Rec. 8402, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    perfecting amendment at the desk to section 2 of House Joint 
    Resolution 13.
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair will advise that 
    perfecting amendments to the underlying text are in order at this 
    time while the Levitas amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    pending. But the Chair will also point out that if any Member is 
    recognized to offer a perfecting amendment at this time, de

[[Page 6744]]

    bate will not be limited on the perfecting amendment and the vote 
    will first come on the perfecting amendment and on any potential 
    amendments thereto before the question is put on the Levitas 
    substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------