[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[B. When To Offer Amendment; Reading For Amendment]
[Â§ 8. Amendments to Text Passed in the Reading]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6795-6812]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
           B. WHEN TO OFFER AMENDMENT; READING FOR AMENDMENT
 
Sec. 8. Amendments to Text Passed in the Reading

    Generally, an amendment comes too late when the Clerk has read 
beyond the section to which the amendment applies.(3) Thus, 
during the reading of a bill by sections in Committee of the Whole, it 
is not in order except by unanimous consent to return to a section that 
has been passed.(4) In the application of this principle, a 
question frequently arises as to when a section is, in fact, considered 
passed for amendment; similarly, an issue may arise as to whether 
Members have been afforded sufficient opportunity to offer amendments. 
These and related issues are discussed in ensuing sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 8.1, infra.
 4. See, in addition to those instances discussed in the following 
        sections, 105 Cong. Rec. 11789, 11790, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        June 24, 1959 (proceedings during consideration of H.R. 3 
        [Committee on the 
        Judiciary]).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Generally

Sec. 8.1 An amendment comes too late when the Clerk has read beyond the 
    section to which the amendment applies.

    On Sept. 15, 1965,(5) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 111 Cong. Rec. 23978, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., during consideration of 
        H.R. 9460 (Committee on Education and Labor). See also 108 
        Cong. Rec. 19465, 19470, 19475, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 14, 
        1962, during consideration of S. 2768 (Committee on Foreign 
        Relations), where objection was made to a unanimous-consent 
        request to return to a previous section for the purpose of 
        further amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Barratt] O'Hara of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. O'Hara of Illinois: . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on this amendment. This section has been 
    passed. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Illinois, inasmuch as this section of the bill has 
    been read and considered, that the

[[Page 6796]]

    Chair is constrained to sustain the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John A. Young (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate Begun on Next Title

Sec. 8.2 An amendment is not in order which would change a portion of a 
    bill which has been passed in the reading under the five-minute 
    rule.

    On Oct. 14, 1971,(7) The following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 117 Cong. Rec. 36194, 36211, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 10835 (Committee on Government 
        Operations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (8) Before the Committee rose on 
    yesterday, it had agreed that title II of the bill would be 
    considered as read and open to amendment at any point. There was 
    pending the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    (Mr. Moorhead) and the substitute amendment for the Moorhead 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fuqua).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For what purpose does the gentleman from California rise?
        Mr. [Chester E.] Holifield [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    move to strike out the last word.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
    minutes.
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rousselot: Page 1, strike line 5 
        and all that follow thereafter down through line 2 on page 2 
        and substitute the following: . . .

        Mr. [Frank J.] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I regret to 
    do so, but I do feel that I have to make a point of order against 
    the amendment. . . . We have passed that section of the bill. We 
    are now on section II. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. We have already 
    passed title I, and title II is under debate. The point of order of 
    the gentleman from New York is sustained.

Amending Previously Unamended Portions Passed in Reading

Sec. 8.3 While it may be in order to offer an amendment to the pending 
    portion of a bill which not only changes a provision already 
    amended but also changes an unamended pending portion of the bill, 
    it is not in order merely to amend portions of a bill that have 
    been changed by amendment or to amend unamended portions that have 
    been passed in the reading and are no longer open to amendment.

    On July 12, 1983,(9) it was demonstrated that where, 
pursuant to a special order, amendments en bloc to several titles of a 
bill have

[[Page 6797]]

been agreed to, a further amendment which would (1) amend portions of 
the amendments already agreed to en bloc or (2) amend unamended 
portions of a previous title already passed in the reading is not in 
order, the bill not being open to amendment at any point. The 
proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 129 Cong. Rec. 18771, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Steve] Bartlett [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair wishes to inquire of 
    the gentleman from Texas, is the gentleman from Texas offering 
    these amendments en bloc?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bartlett: These amendments are not offered en bloc, Mr. 
    Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: Could the gentleman from Texas identify which 
    amendment it is?
        Mr. Bartlett: The amendment begins, ``Strike out the item 
    agreed to in the amendment relating to page 50, line 3, of the 
    bill.''
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bartlett: Strike out the item 
        agreed to in the amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez relating to 
        page 50, line 3, of the bill and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following item:
            Page 50, line 3, strike out ``$729,033,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$549,949,000''.
            Strike out the item agreed to in the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Gonzalez relating to page 50, line 8, of the bill. . . .
            Strike out the item agreed to in the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Gonzalez relating to page 106, line 3, of the bill.
            Strike out the item agreed to in the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Gonzalez relating to page 106, line 8, of the bill.

        Strike out the item agreed to in the amendment offered by Mr. 
    Gonzalez relating to page 117, lines 19 through 22, of the bill.
        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        In the first place, this amendment attempts to perfect and 
    change the provisions of the bill that have already been perfected 
    under my amendment by nature of a substitute, the amendment 
    previously approved by the committee. As such I believe the 
    amendment is not in order and I raise a point of order against it.
        In addition, the amendment attempts to amend title II which has 
    already been passed in the reading and, therefore, for those two 
    basic reasons I wish to interject this point of order against the 
    pending amendment. . . .
        Mr. Bartlett: Mr. Chairman, I would comment that my amendment 
    is broader in scope than the Gonzalez amendment as it would strike 
    all of title III and strike section 231 of the bill which relates 
    to the 235 assistance, and my amendment is broader in scope than 
    merely the previously adopted Gonzalez amendment.
        The Chairman: With one exception, and that is the portion of 
    the amendment that begins on page 106 striking title III, these 
    amendments en bloc seek either to amend portions of the Gonzalez 
    amendment already agreed

[[Page 6798]]

    to en bloc or to amend unamended portions of the bill contained in 
    title I and title II which have been passed in the reading.
        Thus since the bill is not open at any point, the amendments en 
    bloc are not in order and the Chair sustains the point of order.
        Are there further amendments to title III?
        If not, the Clerk will designate title IV.

Appropriation Bills

Sec. 8.4 Amendments to a paragraph of an appropriation bill must be 
    offered immediately after the paragraph is read; it is ordinarily 
    too late to offer such amendments if the Clerk has read beyond the 
    paragraph.

    On Feb. 17, 1943,(11) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 89 Cong. Rec. 1050, 78th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 1762, the independent offices appropriation for 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: 
    Page 11, line 3, after the words ``disability fund,'' strike out 
    the balance of page 11 and all of page 12 and lines 1 to 4, 
    inclusive, of page 13.
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. We have passed that 
    paragraph. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair will remind the 
    gentleman that he will have to offer his amendment at the 
    conclusion of the reading of the paragraph that he proposes to 
    strike out. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Orville Zimmerman (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: I make the point of order that 
    the Clerk has not read beyond page 11, line 3.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from New 
    York and to the Committee that the Chair understood that while the 
    Clerk was reading fast he had read line 4 on page 13. However, in 
    order to be fair to the Members who were undertaking to listen, and 
    inasmuch as there was not good order in the Chamber, without 
    objection, the Clerk will again read the title beginning on page 
    11, line 3.

Sec. 8.5 It is too late to offer an amendment in the Committee of the 
    Whole after the paragraph to which it would have been germane has 
    been passed in the reading for amendment.

    On Jan. 31, 1938,(13) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 83 Cong. Rec. 1308, 1309, 75th Cong. 3d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 9181, the D.C. appropriation of 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Alfred N.] Phillips [Jr., of 
    Connecticut]: On page 11, line 13, after the period, insert two new 
    paragraphs, as follows: . . .
        Mr. [Vincent L.] Palmisano [of Maryland]: . . . [W]e have 
    passed that particular section and the amendment comes too late. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: (14) . . . The second ground raised by 
    the gentleman from

[[Page 6799]]

    Maryland, that the amendment comes too late, and the point of order 
    raised by the gentleman from Oklahoma, that the amendment is not 
    germane to the paragraph offered, the Chair will be forced to 
    sustain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unanimous Consent To Offer Amendment

Sec. 8.6 Unanimous consent is required to permit the offering of an 
    amendment to a section of a bill which has been passed in reading 
    under the five-minute rule, and there is no custom or tradition of 
    comity in the House which suggests that Members will always be 
    accorded that permission.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on Jan. 31, 
1984,(15) during consideration of H.R. 2878.(16) 
The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 130 Cong. Rec. 1078, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. The Library Services and Construction Act Amendments of 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George W.] Gekas [of Pennsylvania]: Madam Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment
        Mr. [Paul] Simon [of Illinois]: Madam Chairman, I reserve the 
    right to object to this amendment.
        Mr. Gekas: Madam Chairman, I was going to await the procedure 
    and ask unanimous consent to offer this amendment in that it 
    relates to a section already passed by the Clerk in the reading.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (17) The Clerk will first 
    report the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Marilyn Lloyd (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gekas: Page 5, strike out lines 3 
        through 5 and redesignate the succeeding paragraphs 
        accordingly. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
        Mr. Simon: Madam Chairman, reserving the right to object, with 
    all due respect to my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I do 
    object. This would simply result in prolonged debate, and I think 
    the amendment would clearly be defeated.
        So, Madam Chairman, I do object. . . .
        Mr. Gekas: Madam Chairman, perhaps the gentleman from Illinois 
    can enlighten me on this.
        I have never asked for this kind of consideration before, and I 
    ask the Chair and perhaps the gentleman from Illinois this 
    question: Is this not kind of a departure from the common courtesy 
    that is accorded to other Members when in a procedural matter such 
    a request is made? . . .
        Madam Chairman, the inquiry is whether or not it is a question 
    of comity among the Members to allow referral back to another 
    section by the use of the unanimous-consent request.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that any Member 
    has the right to object to a unanimous-consent request.

[[Page 6800]]

        Mr. Gekas: I understand that, Madam Chairman. What I am asking 
    is whether or not it is in violation of any rules of collegial 
    courtesy to object to that kind of request.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair knows of no such rule.

Unanimous Consent Allowing Specified Amendments to Titles Passed in 
    Reading

Sec. 8.7 Printing amendments in the Record pursuant to Rule XXIII 
    clause 6 only guarantees five minutes of debate to its proponent 
    notwithstanding a time limitation if the amendment is otherwise in 
    order, and a unanimous consent agreement to permit certain 
    designated amendments to be offered to a portion of the bill 
    already passed in the reading for amendment does not permit other 
    amendments printed in the Record to be offered.

    On Jan. 29, 1980,(18) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 4788,(19) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 126 Cong. Rec. 988, 992-4, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. The Water Resources Development Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that titles III and IV be open to amendment at 
    any point.
        The Chairman: (20) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Harsha: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we 
    have passed over title III, and without unanimous consent it is my 
    understanding that the gentleman could not offer any amendment to 
    title III. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Harsha: Further reserving the right to object, could the 
    gentleman explain to me what amendments he proposes to offer to 
    title III?
        Mr. Edgar: I would be glad to. I would hope that we could 
    protect the gentleman from Montana in offering his amendment to the 
    Libby Dam, and then I have three amendments I would like to offer, 
    amendments in title III. . . .
        Mr. Ertel: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I have 
    a parliamentary inquiry. If the amendments are printed in the 
    Record and we go back to title III and allow that time until 4:40, 
    any amendment in the Record would be entitled to an additional 5 
    minutes?
        Mr. Edgar: If the gentleman will yield, I think the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania has indicated that he does not intend, if this 
    unanimous-consent request is accepted, to go back in a dilatory way 
    on title III and offer any other amendments other than the three I 
    have asked unanimous consent for. My unanimous-consent request is 
    that the three amendments which I

[[Page 6801]]

    have offered, plus the one amendment of the gentleman from Montana, 
    plus the unanimous consent to revise and extend in title III, is 
    solely the context of my request, and this gentleman will not go 
    back to title III and offer any of the line-by-line and amendment-
    by-amendment amendments I have in the Record.
        The Chairman: In response to the gentleman's parliamentary 
    inquiry, the unanimous-consent request which was offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Edgar) will protect only those 
    amendments referred to by Mr. Edgar, and will not permit other 
    amendments printed in the Record to title III to be offered.

Effect of Rising of Committee

Sec. 8.8 In the Committee of the Whole, amendments to a section are in 
    order after the section has been read; and the fact that the 
    Committee rises after the section is read does not preclude 
    amendment when the Committee resumes its sitting.

    On June 29, 1965,(1) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 111 Cong. Rec. 15162, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be cited as the ``Housing and Urban Development Act of 
        1965''. . . .

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: We expect to read the first 
    section and then move that the Committee rise. . . .
        Mr. [William B.] Widnall [of New Jersey]: With the reading of 
    this section, does that mean that if we adjourn over until tomorrow 
    at this time there will still be the possibility of amendment of 
    this section?
        The Chairman: (2) Section 101 will be subject to 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Daniel J. Flood (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of Inserting New Title, Section or Paragraph

Sec. 8.9 A title of a bill is considered as having been passed in the 
    reading for amendment if an amendment inserting a new title is 
    agreed to.

    On Mar. 26, 1974,(3) during consideration of title I of 
a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute being read for 
amendment by titles, the Chair indicated in response to parliamentary 
inquiries that further amendment to that title would be precluded if an 
amendment inserting a new title II immediately thereafter were agreed 
to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 120 Cong. Rec. 8262, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 69, to amend and extend the Elementary and Secondary 
        Education Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (4) Are there further amendments to 
    title I? If not, the Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Melvin Price (Ill.).

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

[[Page 6802]]

        Mr. [Marvin L.] Esch [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee substitute.
        The Chairman: Has the amendment been printed in the 
    Congressional Record?
        Mr. Esch: Mr. Chairman, it is an amendment that comes at the 
    conclusion of title I, following the period in title I. So I rose 
    at this particular time to offer it.
        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        . . . In the event this amendment is read, and we begin 
    considering the amendment, would then title I be completed, and 
    there would be no way that anyone can go back to title I and offer 
    an amendment, even though printed in the Record?

        The Chairman: The Chair will answer the inquiry of the 
    gentleman from Minnesota by saying that further amendment to title 
    I would be precluded only if the amendment is agreed to.

Sec. 8.10 The Committee of the Whole having adopted an amendment 
    inserting a new title II in a committee amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute being read for amendment by titles, the Chair 
    indicated that further amendments to title I would be precluded.

    On Mar. 26, 1974,(5) during consideration of H.R. 69 (to 
amend and extend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) the Chair 
responded to a parliamentary inquiry as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 120 Cong. Rec. 8285, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Perkins: Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the vote has been 
    announced on the Esch amendment, I would like to make an inquiry as 
    to whether further amendments to title I are in order or will be in 
    order tomorrow when we take up further consideration of this bill?
        The Chairman: In view of the adoption of the Esch amendment, 
    all further action on title I is precluded.

Sec. 8.11 An amendment adding a new title to a bill having been 
    adopted, an amendment to the title of the bill pending when the 
    amendment was offered comes too late and may be offered only by 
    unanimous consent (the pending title being considered to be passed 
    in the reading for amendment).

    On May 3, 1984,(7) during consideration of H.R. 
4275,(8) in the

[[Page 6803]]

Committee of the Whole, the situation described above occurred as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 130 Cong. Rec. 10955-57, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. The Federal Reclamation Hydroelectric Powerplants Authorization 
        Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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.
        The Chairman: (9) First the Chair will inquire, are 
    there further amendments to title II?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 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.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: Page 27, (Union Calendar 
        No. 368), after line 11, add the following. . . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall).
        The amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. [Duncan L.] Hunter [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hunter: On page 18, immediately 
        before line 1, insert the following new subparagraph. . . .

        Mr. [John S.] McCain [of Arizona] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I have a point of order. . . .
        I believe that that amendment is to title II which we have 
    completed in the regular course of considering legislation. I 
    believe the amendment is out of order at this time. . . .
        Mr. Hunter: . . . It is true that after the amendment before 
    last, I rose. The Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona, rose also 
    and was heard and his amendment went into title III.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent--and I think the Chairman 
    would speak to this issue--I would ask unanimous consent that this 
    amendment be considered. I was on my feet and apparently was 
    overlooked, so I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be made 
    in order.
        The Chairman: An amendment adding a new title having been 
    adopted, the gentleman from California can only offer this 
    amendment by unanimous consent. Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from California?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will complete the reading of the 
    amendment.

Sec. 8.12 A section is considered passed for the purpose of amendment 
    after an amendment in the form of a new section has been adopted 
    following that section.

    On Mar. 10, 1971,(10) the Chairman (11) held 
that where a bill consisting of two sections has been read and 
committee amendments adding two new sections thereafter have been 
agreed to, an

[[Page 6804]]

amendment to the second section of the bill comes too late and is not 
in order. Under consideration was a bill (12) extending 
provisions of laws relating to interest rates and mortgage credit 
controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 117 Cong. Rec. 5856-58, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
11. George W. Andrews (Ala.).
12. H.R. 4246 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 8.13 An amendment to a section comes too late when the section has 
    been read and an amendment adding a new section to follow it has 
    been adopted.

    On Oct. 18, 1967,(13) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 113 Cong. Rec. 29312, 29313, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., during 
        consideration of H.J. Res. 888 (Committee on Appropriations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: . . . Mr. Chairman, this 
    portion of the bill had been read and approved and an amendment was 
    offered by the gentleman from Louisiana, which amendment was a 
    separate section following it. So this is decidedly untimely and 
    out of order and I make the point of order that the amendment is 
    not in order.
        The Chairman: (14) It is the opinion of the Chair 
    that since an amendment adding a new section to the bill was 
    adopted following the section that the gentleman from Virginia 
    seeks to amend now, the gentleman's amendment comes too late and 
    the point of order is well taken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Charles A. Vanik (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, on Apr. 19, 1972, (15) the following 
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 118 Cong. Rec. 13523, 13525, 13526, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 10488 (Committee on Public Works).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth J.] Gray [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gray: On page 29, after line 4, 
        add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 10. Section 6 of the John F. Kennedy Center Act, as 
        amended (72 Stat. 1968), is amended . . . .''

        The Chairman: (16) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gray).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Wayne N. Aspinall (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment applicable to the original section 9 as printed in the 
    bill. . . .
        Mr. Gray: Mr. Chairman, I regretfully rise to make a point of 
    order against the amendment. We have already passed section 9. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair . . . wishes to state that in 
    accordance with the parliamentary procedures the Gray amendment 
    added a new section 10. Because of that, of course, under the 
    procedures, section 9 has been passed and taken care of. 

Sec. 8.14 In reading a bill under the five-minute rule, a section or 
    paragraph is considered as having been passed for amendment when an

[[Page 6805]]

    amendment in the form of a new section or paragraph has been agreed 
    to.

    On Jan. 23, 1942,(17) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 88 Cong. Rec. 606, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 
        6448, the fourth supplemental national defense appropriation 
        bill of 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Tennessee Valley Authority Fund: For an additional amount 
        for the Tennessee Valley Authority fund, fiscal year 1942, for 
        (1) the construction of a hydroelectric project on the French 
        Broad River. . . .
            Amendment offered by Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: 
        Page 4, after line 9, insert:

                             ``Department of State

            ``Transportation, Foreign Service: For an additional amount 
        for Transportation, Foreign Service, fiscal year 1942 . . . 
        $800,000..

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

            Sec. 12 Section 401(e) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 
        (49 U.S.C. 1371(e)) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new paragraph:
            ``(7) Upon application of any air carrier seeking removal 
        or modification of a term, condition, or limitation attached to 
        a certificate issued under this section to engage in 
        interstate, overseas, or foreign air transportation, the Board 
        shall, within sixty days after the filing of such application, 
        set such application for oral evidentiary hearings on the 
        record. . . .

        Mr. [Glenn M.] Anderson of California (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that section 12 be considered as 
    read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from California?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Are there any amendments to section 12?
        Mr. [Allen E.] Ertel [of Penn an amendment offered as a new 
    section precludes amendment to the section pending when the 
    amendment was offered; but if the proposal for a new section is 
    voted down, amendments to such pending section are permitted.

    On June 14, 1944,(19) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 90 Cong. Rec. 5910, 5911, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 4941, extension of the Emergency Price Control and 
        Stabilization Acts of 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. August H. Andresen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent to have permission to offer an amendment.
        The Chairman: (20) Without objection, the gentleman 
    may offer his amendment. Technically the gentleman probably would 
    be entitled to offer an amendment, but when the committee goes on 
    and adopts a new section, then that would cut out other amendments 
    to the section. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George E.] Outland [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    object.
        The Chairman: The Chair holds that technically the gentleman is 
    entitled to offer the amendment. There has

[[Page 6806]]

    not been any new section adopted. If the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Wolcott] had been adopted, that would 
    be a different situation. The Chair holds that the gentleman from 
    Minnesota [Mr. August H. Andresen] is entitled to offer his 
    amendment.

--Point of Order Sustained Against Amendment Adding New Paragraph

Sec. 8.16 A point of order having been sustained against an amendment 
    proposing to insert a new paragraph, it was held in order to 
    perfect the paragraph that had been read before such amendment was 
    offered.

    On June 5, 1942,(1) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 88 Cong. Rec. 4959, 4960, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 7181, the Labor Federal Security Appropriation for 
        1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Par. 2. To provide continuance of part-time employment for 
        needy young persons in colleges and universities to enable such 
        persons to continue their education, $5,000,000.

        Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Keefe: Page 25, after paragraph 
        (2), insert a new paragraph, as follows: . . .

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is not authorized 
    by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) . . . The gentleman's amendment 
    undertakes to make another appropriation which is to be 
    administered under the Chairman of the Manpower Commission. It is 
    the opinion of the Chair that there is no authority in law for the 
    appropriation proposed in the amendment and the Chair is therefore 
    constrained to sustain the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keefe: In view of the holding of the Chair, I ask unanimous 
    consent to submit an amendment increasing the amount for student 
    aid contained in paragraph 2 on page 25 of the bill from $5,000,000 
    to $10,000,000.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Keefe]?
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, why does 
    the gentleman have to have unanimous consent to offer an amendment 
    to paragraph 2? Why may he not offer without the consent of anyone 
    an amendment increasing the amount in paragraph 2 from $5,000,000 
    to $10,000,000?
        Mr. Taber: We have already passed paragraph 2 for amendment.
        Mr. Tarver: Paragraph 2 has just been read and amendments are 
    in order. Nothing in the bill has been read after paragraph 2.
        The Chairman: Amendments may be offered at this time to 
    paragraph 2.
        Mr. Keefe: Mr. Chairman, I offer the amendment in the language 
    referred to, simply changing the amount in paragraph 2, on page 25, 
    from $5,000,000 to $10,000,000.

[[Page 6807]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Keefe) offers 
    an amendment, which the Clerk will report.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Keefe: Page 25, line 12, strike 
        out ``$5,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$10,000,000.''

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order the 
    amendment comes too late. Amendments have already been offered 
    adding additional paragraphs to the bill and under the practice, as 
    I understand it, that precludes amendments to the paragraph.
        The Chairman: The Clerk has concluded the reading of paragraph 
    2 and it was, therefore, subject to amendment. An amendment was 
    offered and ruled out on a point of order.
        The ruling of the Chair is that the section is subject to such 
    further amendments as may be properly offered by Members of the 
    House, and overrules the point of order.

When Amendment in Form of New Section May Be Offered

Sec. 8.17 An amendment in the form of a new section must be offered 
    while the section of the bill which it would follow is pending, and 
    comes too late after the next section of the bill has been read for 
    amendment.

    The procedure to be followed in offering an amendment in the form 
of a new section in the bill is indicated in the proceedings of Sept. 
21, 1978.(3) Under consideration was H.R. 12611, the Air 
Service Improvement Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 124 Cong. Rec. 30673, 30675, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (4) Are there any amendments to 
    section 11?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Benjamin S. Rosenthal (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Sec. 12 Section 401(e) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 
        (49 U.S.C. 1371(e)) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new paragraph:
            ``(7) Upon application of any air carrier seeking removal 
        or modification of a term, condition, or limitation attached to 
        a certificate issued under this section to engage in 
        interstate, overseas, or foreign air transportation, the Board 
        shall, within sixty days after the filing of such application, 
        set such application for oral evidentiary hearings on the 
        record. . . .

        Mr. [Glenn M.] Anderson of California (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that section 12 be considered as 
    read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from California?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Are there any amendments to section 12?
        Mr. [Allen E.] Ertel [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ertel: Page 100, before line 4, 
        insert the following new section:

[[Page 6808]]

           determination of consistency with public convenience and 
                                   necessity

            Sec. 12, Section 401(d) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 
        (49 U.S.C. 1371(d)) is further amended by adding at the end 
        thereof the following new paragraph:
            ``(9) Transportation covered by an application for a 
        certificate described in paragraph (1)(A), (2)(A), or (3)(A) of 
        this subsection shall, for the purposes of such paragraphs, be 
        deemed to be consistent with the public convenience and 
        necessity, unless the Board finds based upon clear and 
        convincing evidence that such transportation is inconsistent 
        with the public convenience and necessity.''
            Renumber the succeeding sections of the bill accordingly. . 
        .

        Mr. [Elliott] Levitas [of Georgia]: The amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania is purporting to amend page 96, 
    line 10, by inserting a new section there. According to the reading 
    of the Clerk, the Clerk had already begun to read section 12.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania wish to 
    speak to the point of order?
        Mr. Ertel: Mr. Chairman, I cannot recall whether the Clerk 
    started to read section 12 or not.
        The Chairman: Section 12 had been considered as read by 
    unanimous consent. The Chair is prepared to rule unless the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania wishes to address the matter further.
        Mr. Ertel: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that section 
    12 be treated as not read.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania?
        Mr. [Dale] Milford [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I object. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Clerk had read section 12, and in the opinion of the Chair 
    the amendment adds a new section prior to section 12 and comes too 
    late at this point and the point of order is sustained.

Amendment Affecting Earlier Section

Sec. 8.18 While the Committee of the Whole may not amend a section of a 
    bill already passed during the reading under the five-minute rule, 
    it may adopt an amendment to a later section which has the effect 
    of making more specific limitations on, or regarding, the 
    application of particular terms of the earlier section.

    On Nov. 9, 1967, in the Committee of the Whole, during 
consideration of a bill (5) comprising economic opportunity 
amendments of 1967, a section was considered which represented a 
limitation on the total amount authorized for the bill's purposes, as 
well as limitations on amounts to be made available for carrying out 
the provisions of specified titles of the bill, including title I. The 
section stated in part: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. S. 2388.
 6. 113 Cong. Rec. 31893, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 6809]]

        Sec. 2. For the purpose of carrying out programs under the 
    Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 . . . there is hereby authorized 
    to be appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, the 
    sum of $2,060,000,000, of which . . . the amounts appropriated or 
    made available by appropriation Act shall not exceed $874,000,000 
    for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of title I of such 
    Act, $1,022,000,000 for the purpose of carrying out title II.

    Subsequently, the above section having passed the stage of 
amendment, an amendment was offered to the bill (7) which 
sought to put a limit on the authorization for the Job Corps program, 
one of several programs included within the overall limit applicable to 
expenditures under title I, although no limit had been made 
specifically applicable to the Job Corps program within that title. The 
amendment stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 32253, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 13, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: On 
    page 154, after line 6, insert:

            Sec. 119. Any other provision of this Act to the contrary 
        notwithstanding, sums expended for programs authorized by this 
        part shall not exceed $200,000,000 in the fiscal year ending 
        June 30, 1968.

The following proceedings then took place:

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the gentleman's amendment is untimely. It 
    comes too late and it should have been offered to section 2. . . .
        Mr. Quie: . . . Mr. Chairman, the authorization of section 2 
    provides for the total amount of money for this act. Also, on lines 
    8 and 9 there is the figure for title I of $874,000,000.
        I offer a limitation of money only for part (a) of title I. My 
    amendment would not affect the sum of money on line 8 of page 128, 
    but only would be a further limitation within the $874,000,000 
    authorized for title I. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) . . . It would appear to the Chair 
    that this is a limitation on an entirely different subject and an 
    entirely different matter and, therefore, the amendment is in 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion To Return to Section

Sec. 8.19 In order to return to a section of a bill in the Committee of 
    the Whole in order to offer an amendment, a Member must obtain 
    unanimous consent; a motion to do so is not in order.

    On Aug. 18, 1944,(9) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 190 Cong. Rec. 7122, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 5125, the surplus property bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that we return to section 7 for the purpose of 
    offering an amendment. . . .

[[Page 6810]]

        Mr. [Carter] Manasco [of Alabama]: I object. . . .
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman can return to a 
    former section only with the unanimous consent of the Committee and 
    the Committee has not given it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. R. Ewing Thomason (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Placing Amendment on Clerk's Desk

Sec. 8.20 Members must offer their amendments from the floor at the 
    proper point in the reading of the bill, and the fact that an 
    amendment has been on the desk during such reading does not give 
    recognition.

    On Mar. 11, 1949,(11) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 95 Cong. Rec. 2307, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 1731, to extend certain provisions of the Housing and Rent 
        Act of 1947, as amended.
            See also 95 Cong. Rec. 5505, 5506, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., 
        May 3, 1949; and 95 Cong. Rec. 12258, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Aug. 25, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Isidore] Dollinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I ask for 
    consideration of an amendment which has been up at the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dollinger: On page 26, strike 
        out--

        The Chairman: (12) We have passed section 201. We 
    are now considering section 202. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Albert A. Gore (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dollinger: Mr. Chairman, that amendment has been on the 
    desk, and I had asked for the floor, but the Chair recognized 
    another Member.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman the fact 
    that an amendment has been on the desk gives no parliamentary 
    recognition at all. The gentleman may only offer an amendment when 
    he is recognized to do so.

Seeking Recognition

Sec. 8.21 A point of order that a paragraph has been passed and is 
    therefore not subject to amendment will not lie where a Member was 
    on his feet seeking recognition to offer an amendment and the Clerk 
    had continued to read.

    On Apr. 3, 1957,(13) The following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 103 Cong. Rec. 5034-36, 85th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 6287, making appropriations for the Departments of 
        Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is not in order 
    at this point in the bill, the Clerk having read down to line 2 on 
    page 33. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is ready to rule on 
    that point. The gentleman from North Carolina was on his feet while 
    the Clerk was reading. The Clerk continued to read before the gen

[[Page 6811]]

    tleman had a chance to offer his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman was entitled to recognition.

Inaudible Request for Recognition

Sec. 8.22 A point of order that an amendment to an appropriation bill 
    comes too late does not lie where the Member offering the amendment 
    was standing and seeking recognition at the time the pertinent 
    paragraph was read but the request for recognition was inaudible to 
    the Chair.

    On Oct. 27, 1971,(15) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 117 Cong. Rec. 37763, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11418 (Committee on Appropriations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elford A.] Cederberg [of Michigan]: . . . I believe the 
    amendment comes too late. . . .
        Ms. [Bella S.] Abzug [of New York]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I was 
    standing, and was seeking recognition and the microphone apparently 
    did not work at that point.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair will state that the 
    Chair did not hear the gentlewoman when she made her request at the 
    microphone; but the Chair did observe that the gentlewoman was on 
    her feet and looking at the Chair at that time, when this portion 
    of the bill was read by the Clerk. Therefore the Chair will hold 
    that the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York . . . 
    does not come too late and is in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Brock Adams (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Standing But Not Seeking Recognition

Sec. 8.23s A Member who was on his feet but not seeking recognition 
    when a paragraph of an appropriation bill was read is not entitled 
    to offer an amendment to that paragraph after a subsequent 
    paragraph has been read.

    On Dec. 8, 1971,(17) Member who had been on his feet but 
had not been seeking recognition sought to offer an amendment to a 
portion of the bill that had been passed in the reading. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 117 Cong. Rec. 45481, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 12067 (Committee on Appropriations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment to line 8 on page 2. I was standing at the time it was 
    being read.
        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, the Clerk 
    has read beyond that paragraph. I make a point of order against the 
    amendment on the basis that we have gone beyond that in the 
    reading.
        The Chairman: (18) The Clerk has gone beyond that 
    point in reading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Charles M. Price (Ill.).

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

[[Page 6812]]

Rereading Paragraph

Sec. 8.24 The Chair has on occasion directed the Clerk to reread a 
    paragraph of a bill, where, because of confusion in the Chamber a 
    question has arisen as to how far the Clerk had 
    read.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 8.4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------