[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[A. Generally]
[Â§ 6. Amendments in the Third Degree]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6744-6761]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
                              A. GENERALLY
 
Sec. 6. Amendments in the Third Degree

    The parliamentary prohibition against amendments ``in the third 
degree'' was stated in Jefferson's Manual:(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 454 (101st Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            [I]f an amendment be moved to an amendment, it is admitted; 
        but it would not be admitted in another degree, to wit, to 
        amend an amendment to an amendment of a main question. . . . 
        The line must be drawn somewhere, and usage has drawn it after 
        the amendment to the amendment. The same result must be sought 
        by deciding against the amendment to the amendment, and then 
        moving it again as it was wished to be amended. In this form it 
        becomes only an amendment to an amendment.

    This principle is considered fundamental in the House of 
Representatives, and is reflected in Rule XIX:(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 822 (101st Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        When a motion or proposition is under consideration a motion to 
    amend and a motion to amend that amendment shall be in order, and 
    it shall also be in order to offer a further amendment by way of 
    substitute, to which one amendment may be offered, but which shall 
    not be voted on until the original matter is perfected, but either 
    may be withdrawn before amendment or decision is had 
    thereon.                          -------------------

Prohibition Against Amendments in Third Degree; Application of Rule 
    Generally

Sec. 6.1 Amendments in the third degree are not in order.

    This principle (18) has been applied frequently. An 
example occurred on Aug. 18, 1965,(19) during consideration 
of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965.(20) A committee 
amendment had been reported, to which Mr. Albert H. Quie, of Minnesota, 
had offered an amendment. Mr. Paul C. Jones, of Missouri, then sought 
to offer an amendment to the Quie amendment. The following exchange 
then took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Amendments in the third degree are not authorized by the rule 
        governing permissible pending amendments. See Rule XIX, House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 822 (101st Cong.).
19. 111 Cong. Rec. 20938, 20943, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. H.R. 9811 (Committee on Agriculture).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edwin E.] Willis [of Louisiana]: While I do not want to 
    deprive the gentleman from Missouri of his right to offer his 
    amendment, the amendment that he proposes to offer now is an 
    amendment in the third degree; is it not?

[[Page 6745]]

        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman is correct. It would 
    be an amendment in the third degree.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Oren Harris (Ark.).
 2. For a further example of the application of the principle that 
        amendments in the third degree are not in order, see 105 Cong. 
        Rec. 11108, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 17, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 6.2 When an amendment and a perfecting amendment thereto are 
    pending, neither an amendment to, nor a substitute for, the 
    perfecting amendment are in order, being in the third degree.

    On Apr. 29, 1963,(3) an amendment to an amendment was 
under consideration as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 109 Cong. Rec. 7242, 7243, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 1762 (Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Leo W.] O'Brien of New York to the 
    amendment offered by Mr. Griffin: ``Strike the last four words.''

An attempt was made to offer a further amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [John H.] Kyl [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute 
    amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York.
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman is out of order. He 
    may not offer a substitute at this point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John M. Slack, Jr. (W. Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edmond] Edmondson [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman may not offer an amendment to the 
    amendment at this point. . . .
        Mr. Edmondson: I yield to the distinguished Speaker.
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: As I understand the 
    gentleman's observation, he suggests that the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New York [Mr. O'Brien] be voted down and then a 
    Member will be able to offer another amendment to the Griffin 
    amendment; is that correct?
        Mr. Edmondson: The gentleman is entirely correct and I 
    appreciate his clarification.

Sec. 6.3 Where there is pending an amendment and a perfecting amendment 
    thereto, an amendment to the perfecting amendment is in the third 
    degree and not in order, but it may be offered when the perfecting 
    amendment is disposed of or, if in proper form, as a substitute for 
    the original amendment.

    On Apr. 19, 1973,(5) the following exchange took place 
concerning the propriety of offering an amendment to a perfecting 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 119 Cong. Rec. 13250, 13252, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was S. 502 (Committee on Public Works).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stewart B.] McKinney [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    will offer my amendment at this point.

[[Page 6746]]

        I will state that I am offering this amendment as a perfecting 
    amendment. The Clerk has a copy at the desk.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair will state that there is 
    already a perfecting amendment pending, the one offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Reid).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Morris K. Udall (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If that amendment should be defeated or withdrawn, the 
    gentleman could then offer it, or he may offer it as a substitute 
    for the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Reid).

Sec. 6.4 Where there is pending an amendment and a substitute therefor, 
    an amendment to the substitute is not in the third degree and is in 
    order.

    On Mar. 17, 1975,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of an amendment and a substitute therefor, a 
point of order was raised as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 6798, 6799, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ruppe to the substitute amendment 
        offered by Mr. Seiberling: On page 194, line 11, amend the 
        substitute by striking ``50'' and inserting the word ``ten.''

        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (8) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, I believe that is an amendment of 
    the third degree, and therefore is out of order.

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio offered a substitute. An 
    amendment to that substitute is not in the third degree at this 
    point.

Sec. 6.5 To a proposition being read as original text for amendment 
    there may be pending at one time only one amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute, a substitute therefor, a perfecting amendment to 
    the original amendment in the nature of a substitute and a 
    perfecting amendment to the substitute, and any further amendment 
    to perfecting amendments would be in the third degree; and the vote 
    is first taken on perfecting amendments to the original amendment, 
    then on perfecting amendments to the substitute, then on the 
    substitute (as perfected), and finally on the original amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute (as amended).

    In the proceedings described below, which occurred on May 18,

[[Page 6747]]

1978,(9) the Committee of the Whole had under consideration 
H.R. 39, the Alaska National Interest Conservation Lands Act of 1978. 
An amendment in the nature of a substitute (the Leggett amendment) was 
offered which, pursuant to House Resolution 1186, agreed to the 
previous day, was to be read for amendment under the five-minute rule 
as an original bill by titles. To such amendment, an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute (the ``Meeds amendment'') was subsequently 
offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 124 Cong. Rec. 14391, 14394, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (10) When the committee rose on 
    yesterday, Wednesday, May 17, 1978, all time for general debate had 
    expired, the Clerk had read through line 4 on page 1 of the bill. . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute, the text of H.R. 12625.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will read the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute by titles.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: . . . The script we have 
    put together here was that when section 1 of the Leggett amendment, 
    the consensus substitute, was read, the gentleman from Washington 
    (Mr. Meeds) would offer his substitute, but that I would offer a 
    substitute for the Meeds amendment, and we would then have 
    foreclosed these nongermane things that we have been talking about. 
    But it would also be understood that both sides, the Meeds and the 
    Udall substitutes, would be open. As long as anybody has serious 
    amendments, we would be prepared to stay here and take them and 
    discuss those serious amendments.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry. . . .
        At that point have we gotten into amendments in the third 
    degree, or would amendments to both the pending substitutes be in 
    order?
        The Chairman: Perfecting amendments to the Meeds amendment if 
    offered or amendments to a substitute thereto would be in order.
        Mr. Bauman: But no further amendments in the nature of a 
    substitute would be in order at that point?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Udall: I am advised that the parliamentary preference is 
    that the main amendment, the Meeds' amendment, get priority and 
    could be perfected first, after which the substitute I have could 
    be perfected before the committee chooses between those two, so we 
    are not going to try to foreclose any opportunity to have the 
    gentleman from Washington (Mr. Meeds) perfect his amendment as much 
    as he desires, or as much as the Members desire. . . .

[[Page 6748]]

        Mr. Bauman: I would like to put the parliamentary inquiry to 
    the Chair, whether, indeed, that is the parliamentary situation.
        The Chairman: Perfecting amendments to the Meeds' amendment if 
    offered will be voted on first, and the amendments to the Udall 
    substitute offered would be voted upon.

Sec. 6.6 An amendment to, or a substitute for, an amendment to a 
    pending amendment is in the third degree and not in order.

    On Apr. 9, 1979,(11) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 3342,(12) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 125 Cong. Rec. 7763, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. The International Development Cooperation 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 offerd 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'clock. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, I have no objection 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?
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair will state that the 
    Solarz amendment is not subject to a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: No substitute would be in order to the Solarz 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: 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.

Modification of Amendment by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 6.7 Where there is pending an amendment and an amendment thereto, 
    a modification of the latter amendment is in order only by 
    unanimous consent and further amendment would be in the third 
    degree; but a substitute for the original

[[Page 6749]]

    amendment remains in order.

    On June 25, 1975,(14) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 8069,(15) the proceedings, 
described above, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 20855, 20858, 20863, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare 
        appropriations, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For expenses of the Community Services Administration, 
        $399,185,000.
            For ``Community services program'' for the period July 1, 
        1976, through September 30, 1976, $99,800,000.

        Mr. [Augustus F.] Hawkins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer amendments, and I ask unanimous consent that they be 
    considered en bloc.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Hawkins: On Page 44, line 18, 
        strike ``$399,185,000'' and insert in lieu thereof, 
        ``$434,185,000'', and on line 20, strike ``$99,800,000'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof, ``$108,600,000''. . . .

        Mrs. [Yvonne B.] Burke of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendments offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Hawkins).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Burke of California to the 
        amendments offered by Mr. Hawkins: On Page 44, line 18, strike 
        ``$399,185,000'' and insert in lieu thereof: ``$439,385,-000''. 
        . . .

        Mrs. Burke of California: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
    in order to clarify the Record that the amendment be corrected so 
    it will include these figures to be inserted:
        On page 44, line 18, insert: ``$474,385,000'' and on page 44, 
    line 20, insert ``$144,975,000''.
        The Chairman: If there is no objection, the Clerk will report 
    the figures.
        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I am 
    constrained to object, if it will save time.
        The Chairman: The gentlewoman has asked unanimous consent to 
    change the amendment to the amendment, and objection is heard.
        Therefore the amendment as originally offered by the 
    gentlewoman from California will have to be considered as the 
    amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California.
        Mr. [John] Buchanan [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry. Would it be in order for an amendment now to be offered if 
    it is not offered by unanimous consent?
        The Chairman: It would depend on the form in which the 
    amendment would come. If it is a substitute for the original 
    amendment, it would be in order, the Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Alabama. However, an amendment to the amendment to 
    the amendment would not be in order, it being in the third degree.

Substitute for Amendment

Sec. 6.8 A substitute for an amendment to an amend

[[Page 6750]]

    ment is in the third degree and is not in order.

    On Mar. 9, 1978,(17) during consideration of H.R. 50 
(18) in the Committee of the Whole, an amendment to an 
amendment was pending which prompted the following exchange concerning 
the proposition described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 124 Cong. Rec. 6281, 6282, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ronald A.] Sarasin [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments and ask unanimous consent that the amendments be 
    considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: (19) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Connecticut?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Sarasin: Page 58, line 3, strike 
        out ``reasonable price stability'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``the absence of inflation''.
            Page 59, strike out line 1 and everything that follows 
        through line 5, and redesignate the following paragraphs (2), 
        (3), and (4) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively. . . 
        .

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments to the amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Wright to the amendments offered 
        by Mr. Sarasin: On line 2 of the Sarasin amendment, strike all 
        that follows the word ``thereof,'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        the following: ``the effective control of inflation.''.
            Page 64, line 16, strike out ``and productivity'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``productivity and reasonable price 
        stability''.
            Page 64, line 22, before ``and'' insert ``reasonable price 
        stability.''. . .

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, do I 
    understand the majority leader's proposal is an amendment to the 
    amendment or is it in the form of a substitute?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to advise the 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) that the gentleman from Texas 
    (Mr. Wright) offers an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Connecticut. . . .
        Mr. Michel: Would a substitute not be in order for an amendment 
    to an amendment?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to advise the 
    gentleman that that would not be in order; it would be in the third 
    degree.

Sec. 6.9 A substitute for a perfecting amendment to a substitute is in 
    the third degree and is not in order.

    On July 2, 1980,(20) during consideration of H.R. 7235, 
the Rail Act of 1980, a perfecting amendment to a substitute amendment 
was pending. The following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 126 Cong. Rec. 18299, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, may I ask, 
    is it

[[Page 6751]]

    in order to offer a substitute for this amendment at this point to 
    strike the section?
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair will state that the 
    answer to that question is, no, it is not in order to offer a 
    substitute for an amendment to a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 6.10 Where there is pending an amendment and a substitute 
    therefor, a further substitute would be in the third degree and is 
    not in order.

    On Nov. 3, 1971,(2) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 117 Cong. Rec. 39092, 39093, 39096, 39098, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. 
        Under consideration was H.R. 7248 (Committee on Education and 
        Labor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard C.] White [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. White as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. [Jack B.] Brooks [of Texas]: Strike 
        title IX from H.R. 7248. . . .

        Mr. [Roman C.] Pucinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    substitute amendment at the desk.
        The Chairman: (3) A substitute is now pending. The 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) offered an amendment and the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. White) has offered a substitute for that 
    amendment; so a further substitute at this point would not be in 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 6.11 Where there is pending an amendment and a substitute 
    therefor, an amendment to the original amendment is not in the 
    third degree and is in order.

    On July 19, 1967,(4) a question arose as to the 
propriety of offering an amendment to an amendment where there was 
pending at the same time a substitute for the amendment. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 113 Cong. Rec. 19416, 19417, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 421 (Committee on the Judiciary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (5) . . . The Chair will state, we 
    have an amendment moved by Mr. Holifield. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Joseph L. Evins (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Chet] Holifield [of California]: My understanding was that 
    the Joelson amendment was offered as a substitute for the Holifield 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. . . .
        Mr. [Edmond] Edmondson [of Oklahoma]: Would it be in order at 
    this time to offer the word ``legitimate'' as an amendment to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Holifield]?
        The Chairman: It would be in order.

[[Page 6752]]

Amendment Disposed of Before Another Offered

Sec. 6.12 Until an amendment to an amendment is disposed of, no further 
    amendment to the amendment may be offered.

    On June 11, 1959,(6) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 105 Cong. Rec. 10551-54, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 7246 (Committee on Agriculture).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles H.] Brown of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the substitute amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Missouri, to the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Belcher: Strike out all the first 
        paragraph in section 106 beginning with the words 
        ``Notwithstanding the provisions of . . .'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
            ``Notwithstanding the provisions of section 101 of this 
        act, if marketing quotas are disapproved for the 1960 crop of 
        wheat, no price support shall be available for the 1960 crop 
        and each subsequent crop of wheat.''. . .

        Mr. [Harlan F.] Hagen [of California]: I have had an amendment 
    at the Clerk's desk for some time. When may it be offered?
        The Chairman: (7) It cannot be offered until the 
    pending amendment is disposed of. The gentleman may proceed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Joseph L. Evins (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 6.13 Until a perfecting amendment to an amendment is disposed of, 
    further perfecting amendments may not be offered.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See 109 Cong. Rec. 7242, 7243, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 29, 1963. 
        See also Sec. Sec. 6.2, 6.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments When Amendment in Nature of Substitute Pending

Sec. 6.14 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a bill and an amendment to that substitute, the 
    Chair indicated that a further amendment to the amendment would be 
    in the third degree and not in order.

    On Nov. 30, 1971, (9) parliamentary inquiry arose, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 117 Cong. Rec. 43363-71, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 11060 (Committee on House Administration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: The gentleman from 
    Massachusetts has just offered an amendment to the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute offered a few minutes ago by the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Harvey). My parliamentary inquiry is, would it 
    be in order at this time to submit further amendments to the 
    amendment just offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. 
    Macdonald?
        The Chairman: (10) The answer is that it would not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richard Bolling (Mo.).

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

[[Page 6753]]

Sec. 6.15 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and an amendment thereto, an amendment to the latter 
    amendment and a substitute therefor were ruled out as being in the 
    third degree.

    On Dec. 13, 1973,(11) during consideration of the Energy 
Emergency Act,(12) the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 119 Cong. Rec. 41259, 41261, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
12. H.R. 11450 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tim Lee] Carter [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Carter to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: On page 32, 
        line 17, after the word ``oil'', strike out the words ``and 
        coal''. . . .

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer a substitute amendment for the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Carter).
        The Chairman: (13) That is not in order. The Chair 
    will have to state to the gentleman that a substitute is not in 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair will have to state that no amendment to 
    the amendment is in order. It would be in the third degree. The 
    Committee is considering the bill H.R. 11450, to which there has 
    been offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute, that being 
    the text of the bill H.R. 11882. An amendment to that offered by 
    the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Carter) is now pending. Further 
    amendment to that amendment would be in the third degree and 
    contrary to the rules of the House.

    Parliamentarian's Note: There may be pending at one time an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill, an amendment 
thereto, a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
and an amendment to the substitute; but an amendment to or a substitute 
for the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute would 
be in the third degree and not in order. This principle, however, would 
not apply if the amendment in the nature of a substitute were being 
considered as original text for purposes of amendment; this may be 
done, for example, pursuant to a special rule.

Sec. 6.16 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and an amendment thereto, the Chair indicated in 
    response to a parliamentary inquiry

[[Page 6754]]

    that a further amendment to the amendment would be in the third 
    degree and that only one amendment to the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute could be pending at one time.

    On Feb. 4, 1976,(14) during consideration of a bill 
(15) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry regarding the situation described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 122 Cong. Rec. 2359, 2361, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. H.R. 9464, the Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wylie to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Krueger: In section 204, 
        paragraph (8) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(8) `New natural gas' means natural gas produced from a 
        well the drilling of which commenced on or after January 1, 
        1976.''. . .

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Chairman, is it possible to offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Wylie), or, in the alternative, to offer an amendment striking 
    certain provisions of that amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that either 
    of such amendments would be in the third degree, and therefore not 
    in order.

        Mr. Ottinger: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Ottinger: Would it be possible to go back to the original 
    one with a perfecting amendment?
        The Chairman: By the ``original one'' does the gentleman mean 
    the Krueger amendment in the nature of a substitute?
        Mr. Ottinger: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: No. After the Wylie amendment is disposed of, 
    another amendment would be in order.

Sec. 6.17 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a bill, an amendment thereto, a substitute therefor 
    and an amendment to the substitute, the Chair indicated that any 
    further amendment would be in the third degree and not in order.

    On June 10, 1976,(17) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 13367,(18) with

[[Page 6755]]

the above-described amendments thereto pending, the Chair responded to 
a parliamentary inquiry regarding further amendment. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 122 Cong. Rec. 17327-51, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. A bill to extend and amend the State and Local Fiscal Assistance 
        Act of 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Brooks: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
        That this Act may be cited as the ``Fiscal Assistance 
        Amendments of 1976''.

                                   definition

            Sec. 2. As used in this Act the term ``the Act'' means the 
        State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: 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. Horton as a substitute for the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Brooks: 
        Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following: That this Act may be cited as the 
        ``Fiscal Assistance Amendments of 1976.''. . .
            Sec. 3. (a) Subtitle A of title I of the Act is amended by 
        striking out section 103.
            (b) Section 123(a) of the Act is amended by striking out 
        paragraph (3). . . .

        Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. John L. Burton to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Horton as a substitute for the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Brooks: In the substitute 
        offered by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Horton, strike out 
        everything after the first section thereof down through section 
        4 and insert in lieu thereof the following: . . .

    At this point in the proceedings, a parliamentary inquiry was 
directed to the Chair and he responded as follows:

        The Chairman: (19) The Chair will state that the 
    gentleman's amendments, under the existing situation, are not 
    subject to further amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Any further amendment would be an amendment in the third 
    degree.

--Amendment in Nature of Substitute Considered as Original Text

Sec. 6.18 Where an amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    considered as original text for the purpose of amendment, pursuant 
    to a special order, an amendment to an amendment thereto is not in 
    the third degree and is in order.

    On Sept. 30, 1983,(20) the proposition described above 
was dem

[[Page 6756]]

onstrated during consideration of H.R. 3231 (1) in the 
Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 129 Cong. Rec. 26732, 26741, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. The Export Administration Amendments Act of 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (2) When the Committee of the Whole 
    rose on Thursday, September 29, title I was open for amendment at 
    any point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John F. Seiberling (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there further amendments to title I?
        Mr. [Howard E.] Wolpe [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wolpe:
            Page 13, line 2, strike out the quotation marks and second 
        period.
            Page 13, insert the following after line 2:
            ``(o) Nuclear Exports.--Notwithstanding section 17 of this 
        Act or any other provision of law--
            ``(1) no license may be issued under this Act for the 
        export to a non-nuclear-weapon state of goods or technology 
        which are to be used in a nuclear production or utilization 
        facility. . . .

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Roth to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Wolpe: On page 3 of the amendment, line number 1, strike 
        out the quotation marks and the last period and in lieu thereof 
        insert the following:
            ``The restrictions contained in this subsection shall not 
        apply in a particular case if foreign availability is 
        determined to exist in accordance with the procedures and 
        criteria established under subsection (f)(1) of this section. . 
        . .

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        I believe the amendment is in the third degree. The gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Wolpe) offered an amendment to the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute and, for that reason, I think it is not 
    in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Ottinger) that this is an amendment in the second degree. 
    The original amendment in the nature of a substitute is considered 
    as an original bill for purpose of consideration under the rule.

Committee Amendment Pending

Sec. 6.19 Where there was pending a committee amendment and an 
    amendment thereto, the Chairman declined to permit a Member to 
    offer an amendment in the third degree but indicated that a 
    substitute for the committee amendment would be in order.

    On June 1, 1972,(3) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 118 Cong. Rec. 19458, 19460, 19463, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 13918 (Committee on Interstate and 
        Foreign Commerce).

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

[[Page 6757]]

       Amendment to the Committee Amendment Offered by Mr. Mathis of 
                                  Georgia

        Mr. [Dawson] Mathis of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment to the committee amendment offered by Mr. Mathis 
        of Georgia. . . .

        Mr. [Hastings] Keith [of Massachusetts]: I offer an amendment 
    to the substitute offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
    Mathis).
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts that an amendment to the Mathis 
    amendment is in the third degree and is not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keith: An amendment to the substitute is not in order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts that there is presently pending an amendment to the 
    committee amendment. . . .
        Mr. Keith: Then I would respectfully ask the Chair: Would it be 
    in order to offer a substitute to the amendment offered and pending 
    before us?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts that it would be in order to offer a substitute for 
    the entire committee amendment.

Amendments While Motion To Strike Pending

Sec. 6.20 While a motion to strike out is pending, it is in order to 
    offer an amendment to perfect the language proposed to be stricken 
    out; such a perfecting amendment (which is in the first degree) may 
    be amended by a substitute (also in the first degree), and 
    amendments to the substitute are then in the second degree and in 
    order.

    On Oct. 19, 1983,(5) during consideration of H.R. 
3231,(6) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings 
described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 129 Cong. Rec. 28274, 28282, 28283, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. Export Administration Act Amendments of 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      amendment offered by mr. courter

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Courter: Page 14, line 4, strike 
        out ``If'' and all that follows through ``involved.'' on line 
        8.
            Page 16, line 18, strike out ``If'' and all that follows 
        through ``involved.'' on line 22. . . .

                 perfecting amendment offered by mr. bonker

        Mr. [Don] Bonker [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Bonker: Page 14, line 
        4, strike

[[Page 6758]]

        out ``If'' and all that follows through ``involved.'' on line 8 
        and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``If, within 6 months 
        after the President's determination, the foreign availability 
        has not been eliminated, the Secretary may not, after the end 
        of that 6-month period, require a validated license for the 
        export of the goods or technology involved.''. . .

    amendment offered by mr. solomon as a substitute for the perfecting 
                      amendment offered by mr. bonker

        Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon as a substitute for the 
        perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Bonker: Page 14, line 8, 
        insert the following immediately after the first period: ``The 
        President may extend the 6-month period described in the 
        preceding sentence for an additional period of one year if the 
        President determines that the absence of the export control 
        involved would prove detrimental to the national security of 
        the United States.''. . .

      amendment offered by mr. hunter to the amendment offered by mr. 
    solomon as a substitute for the perfecting amendment offered by mr. 
                                   bonker

        Mr. [Duncan L.] Hunter [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hunter to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Solomon as a substitute for the perfecting amendment 
        offered by Mr. Bonker: At the end of the Solomon amendment add 
        the following new sentence: ``If at the end of said year, 
        foreign availability remains, and the President determines that 
        transfer of the subject technology by the United States would 
        damage national security, the Secretary shall require a license 
        as a prerequisite to transfer.''. . .

        Mr. Bonker: Mr. Chairman, I have offered an amendment to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute but as I understand it the 
    gentleman from New Jersey simply strikes. So my amendment would be 
    to the text of the bill.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman is correct. His 
    amendment is in the first degree as a perfecting amendment to the 
    provision which the gentleman from New Jersey would strike out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John F. Seiberling (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bonker: The amendment that has been offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), is that in the form of an 
    amendment to my substitute or in the form of an amendment to my 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: As the Chair understands it, it is an amendment 
    to the substitute offered by the gentleman from New York. It is an 
    amendment to the Solomon substitute for the Bonker perfecting 
    amendment.
        Mr. Bonker: Is that an amendment in the third degree?
        The Chairman: No, it is not. The Solomon amendment is a 
    substitute and this is an amendment to the substitute for the 
    Bonker amendment.
        Mr. Bonker: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

[[Page 6759]]

Form of Amendment

Sec. 6.21 While a perfecting amendment to a pending substitute should 
    retain some portion of the substitute so as not to be in effect a 
    substitute in the third degree, the Chair does not look behind the 
    form of the amendment in the absence of a timely point of order 
    from the floor to determine whether it is a proper perfecting 
    amendment.

    On July 26, 1984,(8) in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry after debate had begun on a pending amendment to a substitute, 
the Chair indicated that the amendment had been prefaced as a 
perfecting amendment rather than as a substitute (although actually 
drafted as a substitute to replace all language).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 130 Cong. Rec. 21259, 21261, 21263, 21264, 98th Cong. 2d Sess. 
        Under consideration was H.R. 11, the education amendments of 
        1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as 
    the perfecting amendment was not read, I am wondering if it happens 
    to be an amendment in the third degree.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman 
    that this amendment was offered as an amendment to the substitute 
    and not as a substitute which would be in the third degree.
        Mr. Perkins: Drafted to the substitute that is being offered by 
    the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ford)?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman 
    that that is correct.
        Mr. [Steve] Bartlett [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 
    balance of my time.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (9) The question is on the 
    perfecting amendment offered by the gentleman from

[[Page 6760]]

    Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) to the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ford) as a substitute for the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Goodling). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Pro Forma Amendment as Third Degree

Sec. 6.22 While, in the Committee of the Whole, pro forma amendments 
    are technically not in order to amendments to a pending amendment 
    or to amendments to a substitute therefor if the point of order is 
    raised (as in either case they would constitute amendments in the 
    third degree), Chairmen have hesitated to rule pro forma amendments 
    out of order as being in the third degree and have permitted such 
    amendments to be offered by unanimous consent.

    On Oct. 2, 1974,(10) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration House Resolution 988, to reform the structure, 
jurisdiction, and procedures of House committees. A point of order was 
raised against a pro forma amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 120 Cong. Rec. 33572, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
            See also the proceedings at 92 Cong. Rec. 848, 79th Cong. 
        2d Sess., Feb. 4, 1946, where the Chair declined to initiate 
        action in ruling a pro forma amendment out of order as in the 
        third degree.
            Note: One reason for the Chair's latitude in allowing pro 
        forma amendments is that the Committee in any event has the 
        power to close debate when it chooses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Lloyd] Meeds [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order. The gentleman from Washington offers an amendment in the 
    proscribed degree and cannot be recognized on that basis. . . .
        I make the point of order the gentleman is offering an 
    amendment which is not proper under the rules.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman from Washington 
    will state his purpose for rising.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Meeds: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page 6761]]

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, and I make the point of order that 
    is not in order.
        The Chairman: Without objection, the gentleman from Washington 
    is recognized for 5 minutes.