[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[B. When To Offer Amendment; Reading For Amendment]
[Â§ 7. In General; Reading by the Clerk]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6761-6795]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
           B. WHEN TO OFFER AMENDMENT; READING FOR AMENDMENT
 
Sec. 7. In General; Reading by the Clerk


    At the close of general debate on a bill in the Committee of the 
Whole, debate on amendments normally proceeds under the five-minute 
rule.(12) he bill is read for amendment, and amendments are 
offered and debated at the appropriate point in the reading. Thus, when 
a bill is being read for amendment in the Committee of the Whole by 
sections, it is not in order to offer amendments except to the one 
section under consideration. Of course, where a bill consists of only 
one section, the entire bill is open to amendment.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule XXIII clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 (101st 
        Cong.).
13. See 92 Cong. Rec. 1974, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 6, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amendments are offered in accordance with established procedures, 
described above.(14) Amendments and amendments thereto are 
offered in the prescribed order,(15) amendments in the third 
degree (16) being precluded. 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.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 5, supra.
15. See Sec. Sec. 15-19, infra, for a discussion of precedence of 
        various kinds of amendments.
16. See Sec. 6, supra.
17. See Sec. 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A special rule may prescribe the consideration of amendments in a 
specified order.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 3, supra, for discussion of special rules as they affect 
        the amending process. For discussion of special rules 
        generally, see Ch. 21, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Committee of the Whole, amendments to the preamble of a joint 
resolution are considered following disposition of any amendments to 
the resolving clause; and, although in reading a concurrent resolution 
with a preamble for amendment, the Clerk reads the preamble first and 
then reads the body of the resolution, amendments to the preamble in 
Committee of the Whole are considered after amendments to the

[[Page 6762]]

body of the resolution. In the practice of the House of Representatives 
the preamble of a joint resolution is amended after the engrossment and 
before the third reading, but the preamble is not voted on separately 
even if amended, since the question on passage covers the preamble as 
well as the resolving clause. After an amendment to the preamble has 
been considered, it is too late to propose amendments to the text of 
the bill. Amendments to the preamble of a concurrent or simple 
resolution are considered in the House following the adoption of the 
resolution.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 414 (101st Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Not all propositions, of course, are open to amendment. Examples of 
such propositions are discussed elsewhere.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 1.5, 1.6, and 3, 
        supra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dispensing With First Reading

Sec. 7.1 The first reading of a bill in Committee of the Whole may be 
    dispensed with by unanimous consent only.

    On May 17, 1978,(1) during consideration of H.R. 39 
(2) in the Committee of the Whole, objection was made to a 
unanimous-consent request to dispense with the first reading of the 
bill, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 124 Cong. Rec. 14146, 14147, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. Alaska National Interest Conservation Lands Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union for the consideration of [H.R. 39]. . . .
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
    bill, H.R. 39, with Mr. Simon in the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have a point 
    of order.
        Under rule XXI, the bill must be read. I see no waiver of that 
    provision in the rule that we adopted.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair will state that he will 
    put the unanimous-consent request to the Committee. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: Without objection, the first reading of the bill 
    will be dispensed with.
        Mr. Ashbrook: . . . Mr. Chairman, I will object to that 
    unanimous-consent request.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk proceeded to read the bill. . . .
        Mr. Udall (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that further reading of the bill on its first reading be 
    dispensed with.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Arizona?

[[Page 6763]]

        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk continued the reading of the bill.
        The Clerk concluded the reading of the bill.

Bill Considered in House as in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 7.2 Where a bill is by unanimous consent considered in the House 
    as in the Committee of the Whole, the bill is considered as read 
    and open to amendment at any point, despite the fact that the House 
    has previously adopted a special order providing that the bill be 
    read by title in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Feb. 9, 1977,(4) the House having previously adopted 
a special order (5) providing that H.R. 692 be read by title 
in the Committee of the Whole, a unanimous-consent request was agreed 
to to consider the bill in the House as in the Committee of the Whole. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 123 Cong. Rec. 3977, 3981, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. H. Res. 270, 123 Cong. Rec. 3976, 3977, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I call up the bill H.R. 
    692 to amend the Small Business Act and the Small Business 
    Investment Act of 1958 to increase loan authorization and surety 
    bond guarantee authority; and to improve the disaster assistance, 
    certificate of competency and small business setaside programs, and 
    ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered in the House as 
    in the Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker: (6) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Iowa?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read the bill as follows:

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

        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Iowa have further 
    amendments?
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to title 
    III but the bill is to be read by titles.
        The Speaker: The bill is open to amendment at any point so the 
    amendment is in order. .

Amendments in Order to Pending Portion of Bill Until Next Portion Read

Sec. 7.3 Amendments are in order to the pending portion of a bill under 
    the five-minute rule until the Clerk has read the next portion to 
    be considered, and are not precluded if the Committee of the Whole 
    has risen on a previous day with no Members

[[Page 6764]]

    seeking recognition to offer amendments to the pending portion at 
    that time.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on Sept. 13, 
1979,(7) during consideration of H.R. 4040 (8) in 
the Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 125 Cong. Rec. 24425, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. The Defense Department authorization bill, fiscal year 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (9) When the Committee of 
    the Whole rose on Wednesday, September 12, 1979, sections 812 
    through 815 had been considered as having been read and open for 
    amendment, and all time for debate on these sections and all 
    amendments thereto had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there any further amendments to section 815?
        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brooks: Page 31, line 3, strike 
        out ``(a)'', and beginning on line 9, strike out subsection (b) 
        through line 15.

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will ask the gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Brooks), has this amendment been printed in the Record?
        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Chairman, the amendment was printed in the 
    Record this morning. I submitted it yesterday for printing in the 
    Record.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Texas is 
    recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment. . . .
        Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California: I was under the impression 
    that when we completed sections 812 through 815 we would then 
    revert back to title I. Are we going to complete title VIII before 
    we go back to title I?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Only section 815, since sections 812-
    814 have been amended.
        Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California: We completed that?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Only debate.
        Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California: I thought that we closed 
    that off last night when the chairman asked if there were any 
    further amendments, and that those three sections were completed at 
    that time.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Only the debate on those sections and 
    on amendments thereto had been completed last evening.

Substitute for Amendment Offered After Amendment Read

Sec. 7.4 Until an amendment has been read or considered as read by 
    unanimous consent, a substitute for the amendment may not be 
    offered.

    On June 26, 1979,(10) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 3930,(11) the proceedings described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 16681-83, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: Page 8, after line 13 add the 
    following

[[Page 6765]]

    new subsection and renumber the subsequent sections accordingly:
        (g)(1) The Secretary of Energy is hereby authorized to 
    designate a proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock facility as a 
    priority synthetic project pursuant to the procedures and criteria 
    provided in this section. . . .
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered 
    as read and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: (12) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Arizona?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, I wish to made a point of order. Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment which I had offered and had printed in the Record would 
    be an appropriate substitute amendment for the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall). Under the time limitation, 
    if I understand correctly, I have 5 minutes to offer that 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: That is correct if offered in the proper form. . 
    . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: . . . Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall).
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that it is 
    not yet in order.
        Is there objection to the unanimous-consent request of the 
    gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall)?

Resolving Clauses Read Before Preamble

Sec. 7.5 Where a joint resolution is read for amendment in the 
    Committee of the Whole, the resolving clauses are read for 
    amendment before consideration is given to the preamble.

    On May 7, 1968,(13) the order of consideration of 
portions of a joint resolution was indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 114 Cong. Rec. 12088-90, 12093-96, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read [the complete body of the joint resolution] as 
    follows:

            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) the 
        Secretary of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as the 
        `Secretary'). . . .

        The Chairman: (14) he Clerk will report the 
    preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Augustus F. Hawkins (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Whereas Congress finds that suffering and loss of life 
        resulting from motor vehicle accidents and the consequent 
        social and economic dislocations are critical national 
        problems.

General Appropriation and Revenue Bills Considered by Paragraph

Sec. 7.6 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair stated the 
    general rule for consideration of bills, which is that general 
    appropriation bills and general revenue bills are usually 
    considered by paragraph for

[[Page 6766]]

    amendment, and all other bills are considered by sections.

    On May 21, 1940,(15) House Joint Resolution 544, a bill 
making appropriations for relief and work relief, was under 
consideration. Mr. John Taber, of New York, made a parliamentary 
inquiry with respect to the reading of the bill and the offering of 
amendments. The response was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 86 Cong. Rec. 6542, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. This joint resolution was 
        not reported or called up as privileged. Since it was not a 
        general appropriation bill, it was considered pursuant to a 
        unanimous consent agreement reached on May 14, 1940 (see 86 
        Cong. Rec. 6113, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) The Chair will state, in response 
    to the parliamentary inquiry presented by the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Taber], that it is the understanding of the Chair that, 
    under the rule, general revenue measures and appropriation bills 
    are considered by paragraph and that all other measures are 
    considered by sections. [The Chair went on to indicate that the 
    present bill would be considered by sections.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.7 Appropriation bills are read by paragraph and amendments 
    thereto are in order only to the paragraph just read and not to the 
    entire subject matter under a heading of the bill.

    On Jan. 17, 1940,(17) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 86 Cong. Rec. 442, 443, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7922, the independent offices appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Luce [of Massachusetts]: May I ask how far the 
    bill has been read?
        The Chairman: (18) Down through the bottom of page 
    50. The only paragraph under the heading ``United States Housing 
    Authority'' that would now be subject to amendment would be the 
    last four lines on page 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Lindsay C. Warren (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Luce: Mr. Chairman, if I recollect the practice of the 
    House, it has always been to include everything under a heading for 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: It has been the practice of the House from time 
    immemorial to read appropriation bills by paragraphs.

Sec. 7.8 A special purpose appropriation bill, not qualifying as a 
    general appropriation bill, is considered by sections rather than 
    by paragraphs.

    On May 21, 1940,(19) in response to an inquiry 
concerning the reading of House Joint Resolution 544, a bill making 
appropriations for relief and work relief, the Chair

[[Page 6767]]

man (20) first stated the general rule governing reading of 
bills. Ordinarily, as the Chairman indicated, general revenue and 
general appropriation bills are considered by paragraph for amendment 
and all other bills are considered by sections. Then, recognizing that 
the pending bill was not a ``general'' appropriation measure, the 
Chairman announced, ``the pending bill will be considered by sections 
and amendments offered by sections rather than by paragraphs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 86 Cong. Rec. 6542, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
20. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rivers and Harbors Bills Were Read by Sections

Sec. 7.9 Rivers and harbors bills in the more recent practice were read 
    by sections rather than by paragraphs under the five-minute rule.

    On Apr. 8, 1935,(1) a bill (2) was under 
consideration relating to construction, repair, and preservation of 
public works on rivers and harbors. The following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 79 Cong. Rec. 5268, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. H.R. 6732.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph J.] Mansfield [of Texas]: Under the rules of the 
    House, bills ordinarily are read by sections. In former years 
    rivers and harbors bills have been read either by sections or by 
    paragraphs. I would suggest that in order to dispatch the business 
    of the House speedily we adhere to the rule of having this bill 
    read by sections.
        The Chairman: (3) . . . [T]he last expression we 
    have, so far as has been called to the attention of the Chair, is 
    that decision of the Committee itself made in 1926 to the effect 
    that bills of this character should be read by sections; and the 
    Chair is inclined to follow the decision of the Committee made at 
    that time.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William W. Arnold (Ill.).
 4. See also 84 Cong. Rec. 5654, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., May 17, 1939. 
        Since the privilege given to the Committee on Public Works (now 
        the Committee on Public Works and Transportation) to report 
        rivers and harbors bills was revoked in 1975 (See House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. 726 [101st Cong.]), these measures have been 
        considered pursuant to special resolutions reported from the 
        Committee on Rules. Such resolutions will normally specify the 
        mode of reading under the five-minute rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Entire Bill Was Read Prior to Amendment

Sec. 7.10 On one occasion, by unanimous consent, a bill was read under 
    the five-minute rule in its entirety and then each section in its 
    numerical order was called for amendment.

[[Page 6768]]

    On Aug. 17, 1935,(5) the following unanimous-consent 
request was agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 79 Cong. Rec. 13507, 74th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 9100, the Snyder-Guffey coal bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Samuel B. Hill [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the bill may be read in its entirety and 
    then be open for amendments to each section numerically. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) . . . The bill is to be read, and 
    then amendments may be offered to any section of the bill as it is 
    reached in numerical order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam D. McReynolds (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Bill Read by Chapter

Sec. 7.11 A bill was read for amendment by chapters in the Committee of 
    the Whole.

    On July 23, 1954,(7) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 100 Cong. Rec. 11686, 11687, 83d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 9757.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (8) . . . The request is that section 
    1 of the bill beginning on page 1 and extending to page 102 may be 
    read by chapter and be open to amendment by chapters, as it is 
    read. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John Taber (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: During consideration of the bill, which was 
to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, it had been observed that the 
first section of the bill was 102 pages long and that the sections of 
the bill were subdivided into chapters. (A special rule [H. Res. 630] 
had been adopted by the House on the preceding day which provided for 
reading the bill for amendment under the 5-minute rule, so that reading 
would ordinarily have proceeded by sections.)

Bill Comprising One Section

Sec. 7.12 When a bill consists of only one section, the entire bill is 
    read before amendments may be offered.

    On Mar. 13, 1963,(9) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 109 Cong. Rec. 4081, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 2440 (Committee on Armed Services).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis [of Missouri]: At what point may one 
    move to strike out the last word?
        The Chairman: (10) The bill consists of but one 
    section, and under the rule the entire bill must be read without 
    interruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John F. Shelley (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Similarly, on July 28, 1965,(11) during 
    consideration of a bill (12) to amend a portion of the 
    National Labor Rela

[[Page 6769]]

    tions Act, the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 18630, 18631, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. H.R. 77 (Committee on Education and Labor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert P.] Griffin [of Michigan]: If an amendment were to 
    be offered to the provision which was just read relating to 14(b), 
    would it have to be offered at this point, or could it be offered 
    at the conclusion of the reading of the bill?
        The Chairman: (13) It could be offered at the 
    conclusion of the reading of the bill, because the bill contains 
    only one section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Leo W. O'Brien (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dispensing With Further Reading

Sec. 7.13 When a bill is being read for amendment under the five-minute 
    rule, a motion to dispense with the further reading is not in 
    order.

    On May 1, 1947,(14) during consideration of H.R. 3203, 
relating to housing and rent controls, the following motion was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 93 Cong. Rec. 4412, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    the balance of the bill be considered as read and that all debate 
    on the bill and all amendments thereto close at 6:45.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that it is not in order to move to dispense with the 
    reading of the bill. If it cannot be done by unanimous consent it 
    cannot be done at all. It is not in order to move to dispense with 
    the reading of the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Thomas J. Jenkins (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Section (or Title) Preceding First Section (or Title)

Sec. 7.14 It is in order to offer an amendment after the first section 
    of a bill is read to insert a section to follow after the enacting 
    clause and to precede section 1 of the bill; and the Chair has 
    indicated that such amendment, if offered, must be disposed of 
    before amendments to section 1 of the bill are in order.

    On Apr. 18, 1935,(16) during consideration of H.R. 7260, 
the social security bill, the following proceedings and inquiry 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 79 Cong. Rec. 5948, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. Monaghan rose.
        The Chairman: (17) For what purpose does the 
    gentleman rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam D. McReynolds (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph P.] Monaghan [of Montana]: I desire to propound a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Monaghan: Would it be in order, following the reading of 
    the first title of the bill, to offer an amendment inserting a new 
    title to precede title I

[[Page 6770]]

    of the bill? If it is in order, would such an amendment have to be 
    disposed of before amendments to title I are offered?
        The Chairman: It is in order, and it would be disposed of 
    before amendments were offered to title I of the bill. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

                                   ``Title I

                                 ``Definitions

            ``Section 1. . . .

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under current practice, disposition of the 
amendment to precede section 1 would not have priority over perfecting 
amendments to section 1 of the bill (or title I, where the bill is 
being read by titles), but would be construed as being on an equal 
footing with such amendments.

Sections Preceding Part I of Bill Being Considered by ``Parts''

Sec. 7.15 Where a bill was, pursuant to a special order, being 
    considered for amendment by ``parts'', and several sections 
    preceded part I, each of those sections was considered as a 
    separate part for the purpose of the special order.

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

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

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

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

             Sec. 2. Findings and Statement of Purposes. . . .

        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, so I will 
    know how we are going to proceed, are we going to go through the 
    bill section by section, with the reading of each section?
        The Chairman: The Chair will inform the gentleman that the bill 
    will

[[Page 6771]]

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

Table of Contents of Bill

Sec. 7.16 By unanimous consent, the Committee of the Whole delayed 
    consideration for amendment of the table of contents at the 
    beginning of a bill until the bill had been considered for 
    amendment in its entirety.

    On Aug. 2, 1977,(4) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 8444,(5) the unanimous-consent 
request described above was agreed to as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 123 Cong. Rec. 26124, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. National Energy Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) When the Committee rose on Monday, 
    August 1, 1977, all time for general debate had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered by parts and each 
    part is considered as having been read for amendment. No amendment 
    shall be in order except pro forma amendments and amendments made 
    in order pursuant to House Resolution 727, which will not be 
    subject to amendment, except amendments recommended by the ad hoc 
    Committee on Energy and amendments made in order under House 
    Resolution 727.
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the Committee amendments to the table of contents and 
    the table of contents be passed over and considered after all other 
    amendments have been considered, in order that they can be 
    correctly disposed of.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Ohio?
        There was no objection.

Short Title and Table of Contents Considered as One Title

Sec. 7.17 Where a special order provides that a committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute be considered by titles for amendment as 
    original text and that each title be considered as having been 
    read, the short title and table of contents (section 1) are 
    considered as one title, and once that portion has been designated 
    by the Clerk, the Clerk designates an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, reported by another committee, whose

[[Page 6772]]

    (automatic) consideration has been made in order by the special 
    order.

    On May 15, 1979,(7) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 39,(8) the above-stated proposition 
was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 125 Cong. Rec. 11051, 11052, 11086, 11088, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, in order to 
    clarify the procedures of the House, I believe it would be helpful 
    if the House understood the rules under which we proceed.
        For that reason, I would propound to the Chair a series of 
    parliamentary inquiries.
        The Chairman: (9) If the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Dingell) would withhold for just 1 minute while the Chair 
    reads a statement, it may clarify the situation here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

                               table of contents

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

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

                               table of contents

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

        Mr. Dingell: . . . Mr. Chairman, I believe the Chair has set 
    out with

[[Page 6773]]

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

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

                       short title and table of contents

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

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

Amendment in Nature of Substitute Open to Amendment at any Point After 
    Being Read

Sec. 7.18 An amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill offered 
    from the floor must be read in its entirety or the reading 
    dispensed with by unanimous consent and is then open to amend

[[Page 6774]]

    ment at any point, and not by sections.

    On Dec. 18, 1979,(10) during consideration of H.R. 5860 
(11) in the Committee of the Whole, the situation described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 36791, 36793, 36794, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Authorizing loan guarantees to the Chrysler Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will designate section 1.
        Section 1 reads as follows:

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

                                  short title

            Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Chrysler 
        Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 1979''.

        The Chairman: (12) Are there any amendments to 
    section 1?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: 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. 
        Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Page 14, strike out line 10 and all 
        that follows through page 32 and insert on lieu thereof the 
        following:

                                  short title

            Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Chrysler 
        Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 1979''. . . .

        Mr. [S. William] Green [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Green: Mr. Chairman, if I have an amendment to offer to 
    section 3 of the Moorhead substitute, may I ask, at what point is 
    it in order to offer it?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman's inquiry 
    is not in order until the Moorhead amendment has been read.
        The Clerk will read.
        (The Clerk continued the reading of the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute.)

Substitute for Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 7.19 While there is pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and an amendment thereto, a substitute for the original 
    amendment may be offered.

    On Dec. 18, 1979,(13) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 5860,(14) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 36794, 36801, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. Authorizing loan guarantees to the Chrysler Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brademas to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: 
        Strike line 7, page 5, through line 7, page 9, (section 4(a)(4) 
        through section 4(d)) and replace with the following:

[[Page 6775]]

            (4) the Corporation has submitted to the Board a 
        satisfactory financing plan which meets the financing needs of 
        the Corporation as reflected in the operating plan for the 
        period covered by such operating plan, and which includes, in 
        accordance with the provisions of subsection (c), an aggregate 
        amount of nonfederally guaranteed assistance of not less than 
        $1,930,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: If the gentleman 
    from Indiana (Mr. Quayle) should decide to offer his substitute to 
    the Moorhead-McKinney amendment before the vote on the Brademas 
    amendment, it would be in order, would it not?
        The Chairman: (15) It would be in order to offer it. 
    . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     amendment offered by mr. quayle as a substitute for the amendment 
         in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. moorhead of 
                                pennsylvania

        Mr. [Dan] Quayle [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.

Amendment to Original Text Where Amendment in Nature of Substitute 
    Pending

Sec. 7.20 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,(16) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 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: (17) 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, debate 
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Amendment Not Open to Amendment After Amendment in Nature of 
    Substitute Offered Thereto

Sec. 7.21 Where pursuant to a special rule the first section of a 
    committee amendment in the

[[Page 6776]]

    nature of a substitute had been read for amendment, and there was 
    pending an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    committee amendment, an amendment thereto and a substitute 
    therefor, the Chair indicated in response to a parliamentary 
    inquiry that the amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    committee amendment, and the substitute therefor, could each be 
    perfected by amendment before a vote was had on the substitute, but 
    that the original committee amendment had not been read and was not 
    open to amendment.

    On Feb. 5, 1976,(18) during consideration of a bill 
(19) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry regarding the situation described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 122 Cong. Rec. 2623, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. H.R. 9464, Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20) When the Committee rose on 
    yesterday there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger) for 
    the substitute committee amendment; an amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) to the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger) 
    and a substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
    Smith) for the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, do I correctly understand the 
    parliamentary situation to be this, that there is before the House 
    as one item of legislation which may be amended, the original bill 
    from the committee?
        There is also the Krueger amendment in the form of a 
    substitute, made in order, of course, by the Committee on Rules as 
    a rule; and there is also another substitute, the Smith amendment, 
    that is before the body, that these three all may be amended; but 
    no more than one amendment to each may be available for 
    consideration of the House at any given time?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman is nearly 
    correct. The basic bill, the basic committee product, has not been 
    read. Therefore, it is not subject to amendment at this point.
        The Krueger amendment is subject to amendment, and there is 
    pending to the Krueger amendment the gentleman's amendment. The 
    Smith substitute for the Krueger amendment is pending to the 
    Krueger amendment, and it can be amended. There is no

[[Page 6777]]

    amendment pending to the Smith substitute at this time.
        Mr. Eckhardt: Let me put it this way: It would be appropriate 
    to vote on an amendment pending to the Krueger amendment prior to 
    the time a vote would be taken with respect to the Smith 
    substitute?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Eckhardt: In other words, each of the pieces of legislation 
    before us is subject to being perfected before a choice is made 
    between the two?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Only the first section of the basic 
committee amendment had been read. The remainder would be subject to 
amendment, as read, if the Krueger amendment were ultimately defeated.

Special Order Providing for Consideration of Amendment Without 
    Requiring That It Be Offered

Sec. 7.22 Where a special order adopted by the House provides that in 
    lieu of committee amendments printed in a bill, it shall be in 
    order to consider a designated amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute as an original bill for amendment in Committee of the 
    Whole, but does not require that the amendment be offered, the 
    Chair directs the Clerk to read the amendment for consideration as 
    original text for the purpose of amendment and no motion from the 
    floor is required.

    On July 14, 1978,(1) during consideration of a bill 
(2) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings described 
above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 124 Cong. Rec. 20992-95, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. H.R. 12163, Department of Energy authorizations. The bill was being 
        considered pursuant to H. Res. 1261.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (3) . . . Pursuant to the rule the 
    Clerk will now read . . . the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute printed in the Congressional Record of June 23, 1978, by 
    Representative Fuqua of Florida as an original bill for the purpose 
    of amendment in lieu of the amendments now printed in the original 
    bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

[[Page 6778]]

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

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

    Parliamentarian's Note: If a special order provides that it shall 
be in order to consider an amendment ``if offered'' as an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, the amendment must be offered from the 
floor (after the first section of the bill is read).

Motion To Limit Debate Where Bill Has Not Been Read

Sec. 7.23 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a bill and amendments thereto, the Chair indicated 
    in response to parliamentary inquiries that a motion to limit 
    debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute and all 
    amendments thereto was in order although the bill itself had not 
    been read, and that all Members would be allocated equal time under 
    the limitation regardless of committee membership but that Members 
    seeking to offer amendments could be first recognized.

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

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

        Mr. Bauman: So that the motion is in order?
        The Chairman: The motion is in order. It is limited to the 
    Brooks

[[Page 6779]]

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

Amendment Not Covered Under Limitation on Debate

Sec. 7.24 Where debate has been limited on a pending section and all 
    amendments thereto and time allocated among those Members desiring 
    to offer amendments to that section, the Chair may decline to 
    recognize a Member to offer an amendment adding a new section and 
    therefore not covered by the limitation, until perfecting 
    amendments to the pending section have been disposed of under the 
    limitation.

    On June 26, 1979,(7) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 3930,(8) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 125 Cong. Rec. 16679, 16680, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

        Sec. 4. The Secretary of Energy is hereby authorized to 
    designate a proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock facility as a 
    priority synthetic project pursuant to the procedures and criteria 
    provided in this section.
        (2) For the purposes of this section the term--
        (A) Synthetic fuel or feedstock facility means any physical 
    structure, including any. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, is this amendment to section 3 
    or section 4?
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: This is an amendment to 
    section 3, the Udall fast-track amendment, which cuts through the 
    redtape.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: The copy I have indicates that it is to 
    section 4, Mr. Chairman. Is that correct?

[[Page 6780]]

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

Distribution by Clerk of Copies of Amendments

Sec. 7.25 While Rule XXIII clause 5 imposes a duty on the Clerk to 
    transmit to the majority and minority committee tables five copies 
    of any amendment offered in Committee of the Whole, a point of 
    order against the amendment does not lie based upon the inability 
    of the Clerk to comply with that requirement.

    On Mar. 25, 1976,(10) he Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 12566,(11) point of order was 
raised against an amendment and the Chair ruled as indicated above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 7997, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. 1, supra, 
        for further discussion of the requirement that copies of 
        amendments be distributed.
11. National Science Foundation authorization, fiscal 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        Mr. [James W.] Symington [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order. We do not have five copies of the amendment as far as I 
    can tell.

[[Page 6781]]

        The Chairman: (12) That is not a point of order, 
    although the Chair hopes the copies will be provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. George E. Danielson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.26 No point of order lies against an amendment on the grounds 
    that copies thereof are not available to Members, as Rule XXIII 
    clause 5, places upon the Clerk the responsibility to distribute 
    copies to the committee tables and cloakrooms.

    On Sept. 15, 1977,(13) during consideration of H.R. 
3744,(14) in the Committee of the Whole, the above-described 
proceedings were as indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 123 Cong. Rec. 29440, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Phillip Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Phillip Burton: Page 9, insert 
        after line 5 of the following:
            (b) Section 6 (29 U.S.C. 206) is amended by adding at the 
        end the following:
            ``(9)(1) Every employer shall pay to each of his employees 
        who in any workweek is engaged in commerce or in the production 
        of goods for commerce, or is employed in an enterprise engaged 
        in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, wages 
        at the following rates: during the period ending December 31, 
        1977, not less than $2.30 an hour. . . .

        Mr. [Clifford R.] Allen [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order. I can find no copy of this amendment. I would like to be 
    able to read the amendment and I believe under the rules a certain 
    number of copies are supposed to be available.
        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman does not state a 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Placing Amendment on Clerk's Desk

Sec. 7.27 Amendments at the Clerk's desk must be offered by a Member 
    before they will be read by the Clerk.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(16) the Chair indicated the procedure 
by which amendments are offered and read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 119 Cong. Rec. 41731, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11450 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] McClory [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I assume that the procedure will be to read each 
    of the amendments that remain at the Clerk's desk?
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman from Illinois that the Member having the amendment to 
    offer would have to rise and offer the amendment before it could be 
    read by the Clerk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advice by Chair as to Offering

Sec. 7.28 It is not within the province of the Chair to advise

[[Page 6782]]

    Members where an amendment may be in order in a bill.

    On June 19, 1939,(18) the Chair addressed an inquiry, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 84 Cong. Rec. 7500, 7501, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 6851, the revenue bill of 1939 (Committee on Ways and 
        Means).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (19) . . . [T]he amendment offered by 
    the gentleman is not germane to the subject matter of title IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William J.] Miller [of Connecticut]: Would it be in order 
    to ask the Chair this question: Where or when could such an 
    amendment be offered?
        The Chairman: It is not within the province of the Chair to 
    state that.

Time for Making Points of Order

Sec. 7.29 Points of order against the text of a title of a committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute being read by title must be 
    made immediately after unanimous consent is granted to consider the 
    title as read and open to amendment, but such consent does not 
    affect points of order which might lie against amendments to that 
    title or against a subsequent title not yet read.

    On Oct. 5, 1972,(20) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 118 Cong. Rec. 34115, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 16656 (Committee on Public Works).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas] (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. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, under the reservation I would make a 
    parliamentary inquiry as to whether or not points of order would 
    have to be lodged, that might be appropriate against title I, at 
    this time, if such unanimous-consent request is granted.
        The Chairman: (1) No. The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman, under the rule the committee amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute is read as an original bill by title for the purpose 
    of amendment. It is the understanding of the Chair that points of 
    order would need to be lodged only at the time a particular 
    amendment were offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Morris K. Udall (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If the gentleman wished to raise a point of order as to the 
    text of title I, that point of order would need to be lodged 
    immediately upon the granting of the unanimous-consent request now 
    pending before the committee. . . .
        The only thing pending before the committee is the unanimous-
    consent request relating to title I. The granting of that request 
    would have no effect on the parliamentary situation as to 
    subsequent titles.

Sec. 7.30 The Chair entertained a point of order against a por

[[Page 6783]]

    tion of a paragraph which had been passed in the reading for 
    amendment, where the Committee of the Whole had agreed that the 
    entire bill (rather than the remainder of the bill) would be open 
    to any point of order and where the point of order was conceded by 
    the manager of the bill.

    On June 7, 1972,(2) unanimous-consent request was agreed 
to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 118 Cong. Rec. 19900, 19901, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 15259 (Committee on Appropriations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky] [during the reading]: 
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered 
    as read, open to amendment at any point, and subject to any points 
    of order. . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, my point of 
    order should lie on page 3, line 8, following the colon, against 
    the phrase:

            Provided, That the certificates of the Commissioner (for 
        $2,500) and of the Chairman of the City Council (for $2,500) 
        shall be sufficient voucher for expenditures. . . .

        The Chairman: (3) The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman from Missouri that that part of the bill to which the 
    gentleman has raised his point of order was previously read prior 
    to the unanimous-consent request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Dante B. Fascell (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: But, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the unanimous-
    consent request was granted to the entire bill, that it be open to 
    amendment and open for points of order at any point. This request 
    was granted and therefore I have gone back to this point of order. 
    . . .
        Mr. Natcher: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Hall) is correct, and we concede the point of order.

Disposition of Points of Order Preceding Amendment

Sec. 7.31 Points of order raised against a proposition must be disposed 
    of before amendments are in order.

    On May 14, 1937,(4) the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration H.R. 6958, Interior Department appropriations for 1938:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 81 Cong. Rec. 4596, 4597, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                     Industrial Assistance and Advancement

            For the preservation of timber on Indian reservations. . . 
        .

        Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    the point of order against the proviso and move to strike out the 
    last word. . . .
        I do not withdraw my reservation of the point of order, Mr. 
    Chairman, but I have an amendment that I desire to offer.
        The Chairman: (5) The point of order will have to be 
    disposed of before an amendment is in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).

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

[[Page 6784]]

Amendment Inserting New Section or Title To Follow Pending Section

Sec. 7.32 Amendments to the pending section of a bill should be 
    disposed of prior to consideration of amendments inserting a new 
    section immediately thereafter.

    On Mar. 20, 1975,(6) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill,(7) an amendment was offered to a 
pending section and the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 121 Cong. Rec. 7665, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. H.R. 4296, emergency price supports for 1975 crops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment which I believe comes before that offered by the 
    gentleman from New York.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) that his amendment is to 
    section 2, while the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Peyser) would provide a new section 3. If the gentleman 
    from Vermont insists, his amendment is in order at this time. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jeffords: Mr. Chairman, I do insist and I do desire to have 
    my amendment considered at this time. . . .
        Mr. Peyser: Mr. Chairman, I may be mistaken, but I do not 
    believe the amendment I have at the desk forms a new section, but 
    follows on line 16 of the page.
        The Chairman: But the point made by the Chair is that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York does provide a new 
    section 3 and may be offered following disposition of amendments to 
    section 2.
        Mr. Jeffords: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jeffords: Page 3, after line 6 
        strike out ``the support price of milk shall be established at 
        no less than 80 per centum of the parity price therefor.''

Sec. 7.33 The Chair inquires whether any Member seeks to offer an 
    amendment to the pending portion of a bill before recognizing a 
    Member to offer an amendment inserting a new section or title 
    thereafter.

    The following exchange occurred on May 3, 1984,(9) 
during consideration of H.R. 4275, the Federal Reclamation 
Hydroelectric Powerplants Authorization Act:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 130 Cong. Rec. 10955, 10956, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk which adds a new title III, and I will offer 
    it now if this is the appropriate time.

[[Page 6785]]

        The Chairman: (10) First the Chair will inquire, are 
    there further amendments to title II?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Ronnie G. Flippo (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If not, are there further amendments?
        Mr. Udall: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk adding 
    a new title III, and I offer it at this time.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.

--Effect of Adoption

Sec. 7.34 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair indicated 
    that the adoption of an amendment adding a new section to a bill 
    would preclude further amendment to the pending section.

    On Mar. 20, 1975,(11) during consideration of a bill 
(12) in the Committee of the Whole, a parliamentary inquiry 
was addressed to the Chair and the proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 7666, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. H.R. 4296, emergency price supports for 1975 crops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Peyser: Page 3, immediately after 
        line 16, insert the following new section:
            ``Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, there 
        shall be no acreage allotment, marketing quota or price support 
        for rice effective with the 1975 crop of such commodity.'

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: reserved a point of 
    order on the amendment.
        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Symms: Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment to section 2 
    of the bill. Will this amendment preclude the offering of the next 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: It will if the amendment is agreed to.

Amendment Adding New Section at End of Bill

Sec. 7.35 An amendment adding a new section at the end of a bill is in 
    order when the last section of the bill has been read for amendment 
    and no amendments to that section are offered.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on June 26, 
1984,(14) during consideration of H.R. 5490, the Civil 
Rights Act of 1984. The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 130 Cong. Rec. 18857, 18858, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (15) Are there any further amendments 
    to title IV?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Al Swift (Wash.).

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

[[Page 6786]]

        If not, the Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 5. (a) Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
        (hereafter in this section referred to as the ``Act'') is 
        amended--
            (1) by striking out ``in'' the second time it appears;
            (2) by striking out ``the benefits of'' and inserting in 
        lieu thereof ``benefits''. . . .

        Mr. [Steve] Bartlett [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment which would create a section 6. Is now the appropriate 
    time to offer it, or should I wait until the completion of section 
    5?
        The Chairman: If there are no amendments to section 5 and when 
    it is determined there are no amendments to section 5, the Chair 
    will recognize the gentleman for his amendment.
        Mr. Bartlett: I thank the Chair.
        The Chairman: Are there any amendments to section 5?
        Hearing none, the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Texas 
    (Mr. Bartlett) for his amendment.

Substitute Adding Language at End Offered for Amendment Making Changes 
    Within Section

Sec. 7.36 For a perfecting amendment making several changes in a 
    pending section, a substitute adding language at the end of the 
    section rather than striking and inserting within the section was 
    held in order since relating to the same subject as the amendment.

    On Aug. 1, 1978,(16) during consideration of H.R. 12514 
(17) in the Committee of the Whole, it was held that a 
substitute for a pending amendment could be offered to change a 
different or lesser portion of the pending section if it related to the 
same subject matter as the amendment. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 124 Cong. Rec. 23732, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
17. The International Security Assistance Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Derwinski as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Stratton: Page 18, immediately after 
        line 4, insert the following new subsection:
            (e) It is the sense of the Congress that further withdrawal 
        of ground forces of the United States from the Republic of 
        Korea may seriously risk upsetting the military balance in that 
        region and requires full advance consultation with the 
        Congress. . . .

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (18) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, do I understand that the 
    gentleman's amendment is a substitute for my amendment.

[[Page 6787]]

        The Chairman: That is correct. It is a substitute for the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, unless I am mistaken, the gentleman 
    has not bothered to look at my amendment. My amendment makes 
    specific changes in the text in section 19. I am not clear where 
    the gentleman's amendment would come in section 19. He cannot 
    substitute a straight wording, as I understand it, for something 
    that has a series of changes in 3 pages of a particular section.
        Mr. Derwinski: Mr. Chairman, my amendment would come at the end 
    of section 19.
        The Chairman: The Chair might inform the gentleman from New 
    York that it is a proper substitute amendment. Both the proposed 
    amendment and the substitute are perfecting amendments to the 
    section and deal with the same subject.

Amendment to Committee Amendment That Is Not Pending

Sec. 7.37 An amendment may not be offered to a committee amendment that 
    is not yet pending.

    On Apr. 6, 1978,(19) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 10899,(20) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 124 Cong. Rec. 9090, 9097, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
20. International Banking Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (1) The Clerk will report the first 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Richard Nolan (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 14, strike out lines 2 through 15 
        and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            Sec. 5. (a) Except as provided by subsection (b)--
            (1) No foreign bank may directly or indirectly operate a 
        Federal branch outside its home State. . . .

        Mr. [William S.] Green [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Green to the committee amendment: 
        On page 16, line 10, strike ``May 1, 1978'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``May 23, 1977.''. . .

        The Chairman: The Chair wishes to announce that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Green) is technically 
    an amendment to the second committee amendment which is not before 
    the committee at this time. Therefore, it can be offered at the 
    appropriate time, when the next committee amendment has been 
    reported.

Amendment to Amendment That Has Not Yet Been Offered

Sec. 7.38 An amendment to an amendment that has not yet been offered is 
    not in order.

    On Sept. 8, 1976,(2) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 10498,(3) an

[[Page 6788]]

amendment was offered and proceedings occurred as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Cong. Rec. 29231, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Maguire----

        The Chairman: (4) Is this an amendment to the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Maguire: Yes; this is the amendment to section 108.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Maguire: In the last sentence of 
        section 160(c)(1) of the text inserted by the Rogers amendment. 
        . . .

        Mr. Maguire (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment be considered as read and I will explain 
    it. . . .
        The Chairman: Before the Clerk reads further, the Chair would 
    like to advise the gentleman from New Jersey that the amendment is 
    not properly drafted as an amendment to the committee bill, but has 
    been drafted as an amendment to an amendment which has not been 
    offered.

Amendment Offered to Amendment Before Vote

Sec. 7.39 An amendment must be offered to an amendment before the vote 
    thereon.

        On May 4, 1983,(5) the Committee of the Whole having 
    under consideration House Joint Resolution 13, the above-stated 
    proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 129 Cong. Rec. 11074, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Norman D.] Dicks [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, my 
    parliamentary inquiry is if I want to offer an amendment to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia I have to do it 
    before the vote on his amendment; is that not correct?
        Is this the appropriate time to offer that amendment?
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dicks: 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.''.

Substitute for Amendment in Order Before Question Put

Sec. 7.40 As long as the Chair has not put the question on an 
    amendment, a substitute is in order therefor.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on June 14, 
1979,(7) during consideration of H.R. 4388 (8) in 
the Committee

[[Page 6789]]

of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 125 Cong. Rec. 14993, 14994, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. The Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bill for fiscal year 
        1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment, as amended. . . .
        Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, on the amendment, 
    as amended, I ask for a rollcall vote.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair has not yet put the 
    question on the amendment, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bevill: I ask for a vote then.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I happen to have an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: The Chair had recognized the gentleman from 
    Michigan and asked him for what purpose he sought recognition. The 
    gentleman indicated that he had an amendment.
        Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman from Alabama, 
    the chairman of the subcommittee, requested an agreement to end 
    debate, there was no objection on the amendment and amendments 
    thereto. At that point the vote was put.
        I suggest to the Chair that it is in order now to vote on the 
    amendment.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment I desire to 
    offer as a substitute at this time.
        The Chairman: The Chair will indicate to the gentleman from 
    Washington that we are operating under a time limit; however, that 
    does not exclude the possibility of offering an amendment as a 
    substitute, though no debate will be in order in the absence of a 
    unanimous-consent request.
        Therefore, the Clerk will read the amendment.

Debate on Amendment Concluded Before Substitute Offered

Sec. 7.41 The House having adopted a special order governing 
    consideration of a bill in Committee of the Whole providing for the 
    consideration of a substitute for a designated amendment, but also 
    providing that ``before the consideration of any amendments to said 
    amendment, it shall be in order to debate said amendment for not to 
    exceed one hour'', debate on the amendment must conclude before the 
    substitute may be offered (unless otherwise provided by unanimous 
    consent).

    On Aug. 15, 1986,(10) during consideration of H.R. 4428 
(11) in the Committee of the Whole, the

[[Page 6790]]

proceedings described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 132 Cong. Rec. 22050, 22051, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. The Department of Defense Authorization, fiscal year 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (12) When the Committee of 
    the Whole rose on Thursday, August 14, 1986, amendment numbered 113 
    made in order pursuant to paragraph 3 of the House Resolution 531 
    had been completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is in order to consider an amendment if offered by 
    Representative Hawkins relating to the application of the Davis-
    Bacon Act at this point, which shall not be subject to amendment 
    except a substitute if offered by Representative Dickinson 
    consisting of the text of amendment numbered 114 printed in House 
    Report 99-766, which shall not be subject to amendment.
        The amendment and the substitute shall each be debatable for 1 
    hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and a Member 
    opposed thereto.
        Mr. [Augustus F.] Hawkins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment. . . .
        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, in order 
    to clarify the parliamentary situation, Mr. Chairman, I would like 
    to get a ruling from the Chair as to the procedure.
        The Chair has already announced the preference of offering the 
    amendments and what would be availabe as a substitute. My question 
    is, Under the rule, is it correct to say that Mr. Hawkins would 
    offer an amendment which would give him 1 hour to be divided, half 
    by him and half by some Member in opposition, which in this case 
    would be myself?
        At the end of that time, then the substitute, which I have, 
    would be offered and there would be another hour of debate, or is 
    there another allocation of time?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: That would be the scenario, the Chair 
    will state. . . . If the gentleman from California (Mr. Hawkins) 
    would yield to the gentleman at this point, we could have both the 
    amendments pending at the same time by unanimous consent.
        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, it was my thinking that perhaps it 
    would be advantageous, rather than having the gentleman go forward 
    for an hour and my going forward an hour, if we would agree that 
    there would be a total of 2 hours, half of which the gentleman 
    would control and half of which I would control. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair needs to make a 
    clarification.
        The Chair will state that under the rule, the gentleman's 
    amendment has to be debated for 1 hour.
        Mr. Dickinson: Well, that was my question.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Before the substitute can be offered.

Amendment Unrelated to Amendment to Which Offered

Sec. 7.42 Where no point of order was raised against an amendment which 
    was improperly drafted and unrelated to the amendment to which 
    offered, the Chair indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry 
    that if the amendment were adopted, it would be engrafted onto the 
    amendment to which offered.

[[Page 6791]]

    On Sept. 8, 1976,(13) during consideration of H.R. 10498 
(the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976), several parliamentary inquiries 
were directed to the Chair regarding an amendment. The proceedings were 
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 122 Cong. Rec. 29234-36, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

                      ``national commission on air quality

            ``Sec. 325. (a) There is established a National Commission 
        on Air Quality which shall study and report to the Congress 
        on--
            ``(1) the effects of the implementation of requirements on 
        the States or the Federal Government under this Act to identify 
        and protect from significant deterioration of air quality, 
        areas which have existing air quality better than that 
        specified under current national primary and secondary 
        standards. . . .

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

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

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: My parliamentary 
    inquiry further would be is it the intention to strike out the 
    language offered by the gentleman from Florida and insert this 
    language in lieu of that language? . . .
        The Chairman: (14) . . . The Chair cannot comment 
    further on the offering of the amendment to the amendment, since a 
    point of order was not raised at the appropriate time. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Broyhill: . . . If the Maguire amendment to the amendment 
    were adopted, would the Committee then be voting on the language 
    that is in the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
    Rogers] and the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman 
    from New Jersey [Mr. Maguire]? Would we then be acting on the 
    language offered by both the gentlemen or just one?
        The Chairman: The Chair would first put the question on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey to the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Florida. If that amendment should 
    prevail the question would then be propounded on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Florida as amended.
        Mr. Broyhill: . . . I would like to ask would the amendment be 
    the language offered by both gentlemen or just the language offered 
    by the gentleman from New Jersey? . . .
        The Chairman: The amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    Jersey is before the Committee, and if the

[[Page 6792]]

    amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey is adopted, then 
    it would be engrafted as an amendment to the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Florida, and then the question before the 
    Committee would be on the Rogers amendment as so amended.

Original Bill Considered After Amendment in Nature of Substitute Voted 
    Down

Sec. 7.43 Where a rule provides for consideration of a committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for 
    amendment, such substitute is read by sections for amendment, at 
    the conclusion of which the question is on agreeing to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute or the substitute as 
    amended; if the committee amendment is voted down, the original 
    bill is then read for amendment.

    On June 13, 1939,(15) the House had under consideration 
a special rule (H. Res. 219) providing for consideration of S. 1796, an 
act to amend the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933. The rule 
provided for consideration of a committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute as an original bill for amendment. A parliamentary inquiry 
arose as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 84 Cong. Rec. 7108, 7109, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: As I understand the 
    situation now, the entire Senate bill has been stricken out and the 
    House bill inserted as an amendment, so at the completion of the 
    consideration under the 5-minute rule the vote will come on 
    adopting the House bill as an amendment. If that is voted down, 
    then the Senate bill will be before the House for a vote.

        The Speaker: (16) As the Chair understands the 
    parliamentary situation, under the rule the House substitute 
    amendment for the Senate bill will be considered by sections as an 
    original bill, open to germane amendment. At the conclusion of the 
    reading for amendment the question will be put on agreeing to the 
    substitute, or the substitute as amended, for the Senate bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: If that is voted down, as I understand it, the 
    original Senate bill will be before the House.
        The Speaker: If the committee substitute amendment is voted 
    down, that will leave the Senate bill before the Committee of the 
    Whole for consideration.

Sec. 7.44 Where a special order adopted by the House provides that it 
    shall be in order to consider the text of a bill as an amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute for the pending bill and that said 
    amendment shall be considered before perfecting

[[Page 6793]]

    amendments and be considered as an original bill for the purpose of 
    amendment, said amendment is not offered from the floor but is 
    automatically reported by the Clerk; and in the event said 
    amendment is defeated, the original bill is considered for 
    amendment.

    On Sept. 20, 1979,(17) during consideration of H.R. 5229 
(18) n the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to 
several parliamentary inquiries regarding procedure under the special 
rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 125 Cong. Rec. 25526, 25527, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. Temporary Debt Limit Increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (19) Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
    considered as having been read for amendment. The text of H.R. 5310 
    shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of 
    amendment which shall be considered as having been read. No 
    amendments are in order except pro forma amendments, amendments 
    offered by direction of the Committee on Ways and Means or the 
    Committee on Rules, and germane amendments only changing the date 
    certain ``March 31, 1981'' or the numerical figure 
    ``$529,000,000,000'' in section 101(a) and said amendments shall 
    not be subject to amendment except pro forma amendments and germane 
    amendments only changing said date or said figure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                   H.R. 5310

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

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

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

                                  ``Rule XLIX

             ``ESTABLISHMENT OF STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT

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

        Mr. [Barber B.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Conable: Mr. Chairman, we are now on a pro forma resolution 
    and not on the Gephardt amendment? Is that correct? We are on pro 
    forma amend

[[Page 6794]]

    ments that were offered; is that correct?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Conable) that under the rule the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute to which the gentleman refers is considered an original 
    bill, and considered as read and so the Gephardt proposal is now 
    before the Committee of the Whole. . . .
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: I have a parliamentary inquiry, 
    Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ullman: Mr. Chairman, it has been my understanding that if 
    the substitute should fail, we would go back, however, to the 
    consideration of the committee bill?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Ullman: But the substitute is before the Committee and is 
    open to amendment at this point?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

Rejection of Motion To Strike Enacting Clause

Sec. 7.45 Rejection by the Committee of the Whole or by the House of a 
    preferential motion to strike the enacting clause permits the 
    offering of proper amendments notwithstanding expiration of all 
    debate time on the bill, but only amendments which have been 
    printed in the Record may be debated for five minutes on each side.

    On July 29, 1983,(20) the proposition described above 
was demonstrated during consideration of H.R. 2957,(1) in 
the Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 129 Cong. Rec. 21675, 21676, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. The International Monetary Fund Authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Chairman: (2) The Clerk will report the 
    preferential motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Earlier today, Mr. Chairman, a request was made for unanimous 
    consent to limit debate to 12 o'clock. That was defeated. Later it 
    was put in the form of a motion and that carried, limiting the 
    debate to 12 o'clock today. That, therefore, closed debate past the 
    hour of 12 o'clock.
        Now, a motion to rise is being made by the minority whip. Does 
    that foreclose now the offering of further amendments should that 
    motion to rise carry?
        The Chairman: If the preferential motion to strike the enacting 
    clause carries, further amendments would not be in order. . . .

[[Page 6795]]

        Mr. [Ronald E.] Paul [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, if this motion 
    were to fail, whose amendments will be protected? Only those who 
    have amendments printed in the Record, or anybody who has an 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: Under the rule, if this motion is defeated, any 
    amendment printed in the Record could be offered and debated for 5 
    minutes on each side. Any other germane amendment could also be 
    offered but no debate would be allowed.