[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[B. When To Offer Amendment; Reading For Amendment]
[Â§ 9. Amendments to Text Not Yet Read; En Bloc Amendments]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6812-6828]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
           B. WHEN TO OFFER AMENDMENT; READING FOR AMENDMENT
 
Sec. 9. Amendments to Text Not Yet Read; En Bloc Amendments

    An amendment which goes beyond the scope of the pending section or 
paragraph and in effect modifies a paragraph or section which has not 
yet been reached in the reading is not in order.(20) Thus, 
it is not in order to strike out a portion of a bill which has not been 
read for amendment.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 9.9, infra.
 1. See Sec. 9.6, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unanimous Consent

Sec. 9.1 An amendment to a portion of a bill not yet read for amendment 
    is in order only by unanimous consent.

    On July 13, 1967,(2) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 113 Cong. Rec. 18662, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 10595 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, is it proper to 
    offer an amendment to a provision of the bill that has not been 
    read?
        The Chairman: (3) Only by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Charles H. Wilson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.2 By unanimous consent, amendments offered to a section of a 
    bill not yet read have been considered in Committee of the Whole.

    On Sept. 19, 1961,(4) the following proceedings took 
place with respect to an amendment offered by Mr. Charles E. Bennett, 
of Florida, to a bill (5) stablishing an arms control 
agency:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 107 Cong. Rec. 20303, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. H.R. 9118 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: . . . I submit that the 
    gentleman is offering one amendment which applies to two sections 
    of the bill, one of which has not yet been read. He should offer 
    the amendment, it seems, to lines 1 and 2 and then another 
    amendment to the rest of the bill when it is read.
        Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I understand that I may do that by 
    unanimous consent, and I ask unanimous consent that these 
    amendments be considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: (6) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Florida?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Clifford David (Tenn.).

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

[[Page 6813]]

        There was no objection.

--Unanimous Consent Applicable to Specific Amendment

Sec. 9.3 A unanimous-consent request to consider an amendment to a 
    section of a bill which has not been read for amendment, where the 
    bill is being read for amendment by sections, does not permit the 
    offering of other amendments to that section of the bill; thus, 
    while perfecting amendments to the text of a bill may ordinarily be 
    offered pending a motion to strike that text, perfecting amendments 
    may not be offered to a section of a bill not yet read for 
    amendment where unanimous consent has been obtained to consider a 
    motion to strike a portion of that section.

    On Oct. 5, 1977,(7) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 8410,(8) the proceedings, described 
above, occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 123 Cong. Rec. 32523, 32524, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. The Labor Reform Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) Are there further amendments to 
    section 7? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments to sections 7 and 8, and I ask unanimous consent that 
    the amendments may be considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Illinois? . . .
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Erlenborn: Page 22, line 14, 
        strike ``(1)''; page 22, line 15, strike ``or'' the second time 
        it occurs, and all that follows through line 5, page 23. . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    wonder if it is possible parliamentarily for the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Quie) to offer an amendment to the bill at this 
    point.
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from New 
    Jersey (Mr. Thompson) that an amendment to or a substitute for the 
    motion to strike would not be in order.
        Mr. Thompson: But an amendment to the bill, rather than a 
    substitute to strike, would be in order, Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from New 
    Jersey that, as the gentleman knows, section 8 is not open for 
    amendment at this time, other than the Erlenborn amendment, and 
    perfecting amendments to that section are not yet in order.

Committee Amendment

Sec. 9.4 An amendment to a committee amendment is not in order until 
    such committee amendment is reached in the bill and read.

[[Page 6814]]

    On June 29, 1949,(10) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 95 Cong. Rec. 8660, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 4009, the Housing Act of 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: The point of order is 
    that the committee amendment which the Sasscer amendment attempts 
    to amend has never been offered or considered.
        The Chairman: (11) The point of order is well taken. 
    The gentleman from Maryland will have to withhold his amendment 
    until the committee amendment has been reached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.5 The Chair indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry 
    that committee amendments printed in a bill may not be considered 
    in Committee of the Whole until the section where they appear has 
    been read for amendment.

    On Mar. 29, 1977,(12) during consideration of H.R. 5045, 
(13) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings, 
described above, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 123 Cong. Rec. 9353, 9355, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. The Reorganization Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) There being no further requests 
    for time, the Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James M. Hanley (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H.R. 5045

            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 ``Reorganization Act of 1977''. . . .

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Chairman, would the Clerk read the two 
    committee amendments and get the committee amendments adopted 
    before we go into other amendments from the floor?
        The Chairman: That portion of the bill has not yet been read.
        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill 
    be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment 
    at any point and that we take up the two committee amendments and 
    then at any point in the bill other amendments would be eligible 
    for presentation.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Texas?
        There was no objection.

Inserting New Section

Sec. 9.6 Where the first section of a bill has, by unanimous consent, 
    been considered as read and open to amendment, an amendment 
    inserting a new section at the end of that section of the bill is 
    in order.

[[Page 6815]]

    On June 26, 1972,(15) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 118 Cong. Rec. 22404, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 15507.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Mario] Biaggi [of New York]: Page 7, 
    insert after line 18 the following:

            Sec. 102. The Secretary of Transportation shall (1) conduct 
        a study. . . .

        Mr. [Earle] Cabell [of Texas]: Was this amendment to section 1, 
    which has been read? Does it apply to that?
        The Chairman: (16) It is an amendment to the first 
    section of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cabell: I believe the gentleman from Iowa himself asked 
    unanimous consent that it be open to amendment to the first 
    section.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, yes, but page 7 goes 
    beyond the first section of the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the unanimous-consent 
    request that was made by the gentleman from Iowa and that was 
    agreed to was to dispense with further reading of the first section 
    of the bill, which ends on page 7, line 18, and the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York is to the first section of 
    the bill and is therefore in order.

Striking Sections Not Yet Read

Sec. 9.7 To a bill being read for amendment by sections, an amendment 
    proposing to strike out a title consisting of several sections is 
    not in order following the reading of the first section.

    On July 25, 1973,(17) the following proceedings took 
place during consideration of a bill (18) relating to 
limitations on federal expenditures for fiscal 1974:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 119 Cong. Rec. 25829, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. As to the effect of a 
        unanimous consent request to strike portions of the bill not 
        yet read, see Sec. 9.3, supra.
18. H.R. 8480 (Committee on Rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Reuss: Strike out title II 
        (beginning on line 11, page 11, and ending on line 10, page 
        14). . . .

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment in that the amendment is 
    offered to strike the title. The title has not been read, and 
    therefore the amendment is not in order. . . .
        The Chairman: (19) A point of order has been raised 
    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Reuss) seeks to strike matter beyond the portion of the bill which 
    the Clerk has read, and there would be no way of striking anything 
    except what the Clerk has read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Dante B. Fascell (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is constrained to sustain the point of order.

Sec. 9.8 When a bill is being read for amendment in the Com

[[Page 6816]]

    mittee of the Whole by sections, an amendment to strike out both a 
    section that has been read and a section that has not been read is 
    not in order.

    On May 13, 1958,(20) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 104 Cong. Rec. 8621, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 12181, to amend further the Mutual Security Act of 1954, 
        etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Roy W.] Wier [of Minnesota]: Strike 
    out of the bill chapter I, line 1, page 2, the following: section 
    101 and section 102 on line 10. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: The gentleman's 
    amendment carries on to line 19 on page 2. . . . I make the point 
    of order that the section has not been read yet.
        The Chairman:(21) of course, the point of order is 
    well taken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Not Properly Drafted as Amendment in Nature of Substitute .

Sec. 9.9 Where only the first title of a bill had been read for 
    amendment, an amendment proposing to strike out portions of the 
    bill not yet read, and not properly drafted as an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute for the bill, was ruled out of order.

    On June 2, 1976,(22) during consideration of a bill 
(1) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair ruled on a 
point of order, described above, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 122 Cong. Rec. 16200, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. H.R. 13680, to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania] (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. . 
    . .
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Clifford R.] Allen [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Allen: That all language following 
        line 8, on page 1, shall be stricken with the exception of the 
        following, which shall be renumbered accordingly:
            Beginning with line 9, page 71, and continuing through line 
        2, page 72. . . .

        Mr. Morgan: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Morgan: Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes beyond the title. 
    The amendment amends sections of the bill that have not been read 
    yet and are not open for amendment. . . .
        Mr. Allen: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment admittedly is in 
    the form of a substitute for the bill now under consideration.

[[Page 6817]]

        It would, indeed, change the whole purport and thrust of the 
    bill from beginning to end. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, if this is not the proper time to offer a 
    substitute, I will offer it at a later time if the Chair so rules.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair informs the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Allen) that 
    because his amendment goes beyond title I, it is not in order at 
    this time.
        Therefore, the point of order of the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Morgan) is sustained.

--Repeating Paragraphs Without Change

Sec. 9.10 It is not in order, during the stage of amendment, to seek to 
    amend a paragraph not yet reached in the reading by offering a 
    substitute for several paragraphs which repeats without change a 
    number of intervening paragraphs of the bill and defers substantive 
    change to a portion of the bill not yet read.

    On July 29, 1969,(3) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 115 Cong. Rec. 21217, 21218, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 13111 (Committee on Appropriations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: On 
    page 25 strike out line 9 and all that follows on page 25 and 
    insert in lieu thereof the following: . . .
        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that the 
    paragraph which it amends has not yet been read. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, when the amendment was offered, the Clerk had 
    finished reading the paragraph which begins on line 9, page 25, and 
    concludes on line 24, page 25. . . . But the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Illinois does not change so much as a comma in that 
    paragraph; it repeats it absolutely verbatim. It is not an 
    amendment to that paragraph. It is only in subsequent paragraphs 
    that any amendment is made.
        As a matter of fact, it goes on through another paragraph 
    without any change whatsoever before it makes an amendment. The 
    amendment does not come until the paragraph beginning on line 9 of 
    page 26.
        I would make the point of order, Mr. Chairman, that the 
    gentleman from Illinois will have to wait until that paragraph is 
    read before he can offer an amendment to it. . . .
        If the Chair is going to hold that one can offer an amendment 
    at any place one wants in the bill in order to get a provision that 
    comes a page later, or two pages later, or 10 pages later--and that 
    is what he has done; he has offered an amendment here that changes 
    nothing but gets at something on the next page--and if we are going 
    to say that the precedents of this House say one can offer an 
    amendment any place and repeat some language until it gets to the 
    thing he wants to amend, we are heading for legislative chaos, Mr. 
    Chairman. . . .

[[Page 6818]]

        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    Chair is presented with a most difficult ruling at this time. He 
    has resorted to a precedent in ``Hinds' Precedents,'' volume V, 
    page 404, paragraph 5795, which reads as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            When it is proposed to offer a single substitute for 
        several paragraphs of a bill which is being considered by 
        paragraphs, the substitute may be moved to the first paragraph 
        with notice that if it be agreed to, motions will be made to 
        strike out the remaining paragraphs.

        The Chair notes that the gentleman from Illinois did not give 
    such notice. The amendment goes beyond the paragraph which has been 
    read and in effect modifies a paragraph which has not yet been 
    read.
        The Chairman, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Failure To Make Point of Order

Sec. 9.11 An amendment to a paragraph of an appropriation bill not yet 
    read by the Clerk is subject to a point of order, but if no point 
    of order is made, the amendment may be considered.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.  See 9.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.12 Although no point of order is made against an amendment 
    offered to a paragraph not yet read by the Clerk, further 
    amendments to the paragraph that has been read are not precluded.

    On Apr. 3, 1957,(6) during consideration of H.R. 6287, 
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health, Education, 
and Welfare, Mr. F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, offered an amendment 
which related, in part, to portions of the bill that had been read, 
and, in part, to portions not yet read. The language of the bill and 
proposed amendment were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 103 Cong. Rec. 5018, 5019, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Grants for hospital construction: For payments under parts 
        C and G, title VI, of the act, as amended, $121,200,000, of 
        which $99,000,000 shall be for payments for hospitals and 
        related facilities pursuant to part C, $1,200,000 shall be for 
        the purposes authorized in section 636 of the act, and 
        $21,000,000 shall be for payments for facilities pursuant to 
        part G, as follows: $6,500,000 for diagnostic or treatment 
        centers, $6,500,000 for hospitals for the chronically ill and 
        impaired, $4,000,000 for rehabilitation facilities, and 
        $4,000,000 for nursing homes: Provided, That allotments under 
        such parts C and G to the several States for the current fiscal 
        year shall be made on the basis of amounts equal to the 
        limitations specified herein.

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

[[Page 6819]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hebert: Page 25, line 6, after 
        ``as amended'', strike out ``$121,200,000'' and insert 
        ``$100,000,000''; line 7, after ``which'', strike out 
        '$99,000,000' and insert ``$77,800,000''; line 20, after the 
        words ``as amended'', strike out ``$1,450,000'' and substitute 
        ``$1,381,000.''

        Mr. Hebert: Mr. Chairman, in view of the remarks that have been 
    made on the floor during the last 7 days of debate and the 
    arguments advanced against the cutting of these sums and amounts, I 
    am now able to offer an amendment which meets the objections of 
    both sides and I am sure can well be supported because it does not 
    destroy any program; it does not reduce any salaries; it does not 
    reduce or increase any personnel. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas M.] Pelly [of Washington]: I did not understand 
    that the Clerk had read beyond line 17. May I inquire if this 
    amendment includes the figure on line 20?
        The Chairman: (7) The amendment that the gentleman 
    from Louisiana offered was addressed to the language beginning on 
    line 5 but does touch on a sum included in the next paragraph 
    beginning on line 18. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.  Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: It was my 
    understanding that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Louisiana went down to and included the language at the end of line 
    20 on page 25.
        The Chairman: The amendment does go down that far, but the 
    Clerk has not read those last three lines.
        Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that 
    further amendments cannot be offered to the language before line 20 
    on page 25, because the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Louisiana (Mr. Hebert) takes in 3 places in the bill and goes down 
    to and including the paragraph ``Salaries and expenses'' where his 
    amendment offers to cut the amount in line 20.
        The Chairman: The statement the gentleman makes is correct, but 
    the fact remains no point of order was made when the amendment was 
    read. . . .
        Mr. Pelly: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, if no 
    objection were made, would that preclude the consideration of my 
    amendment which begins on line 17, following the action on the 
    amendment of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hebert]?
        The Chairman: No.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The above proceedings, in which it was 
indicated in the circumstances that adoption of amendments to text not 
yet read would not preclude further amendments to the text that had 
been read, should be distinguished from those in which adoption of an 
amendment inserting a new section to follow the pending section would 
preclude further amendment to the pending section.

En Bloc Amendments

Sec. 9.13 Amendments to the pending title of a bill and to a subsequent 
    title may be offered en bloc only by unanimous consent.

[[Page 6820]]

    On Aug. 17, 1972,(8) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 118 Cong. Rec. 28886, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 13915 (Committee on Education and Labor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment. . . .
        [The Clerk read the amendment.]
        Mr. Fascell: Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment on the same 
    subject. . . . I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be 
    considered en bloc. . . .
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: . . . Does not the 
    rule require that the bill be read for amendment by title?
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair would advise the 
    gentleman that he is correct. However, a unanimous-consent request 
    to consider en bloc at this time an amendment in this title and an 
    amendment in a subsequent title is appropriate if there is no 
    objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Morris K. Udall (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Chairman, I object.

Sec. 9.14 Amendments affecting portions of a bill which have not yet 
    been read may be considered (en bloc) by unanimous consent only.

    On Aug. 7, 1978,(10) during consideration of H.R. 13635 
(the Defense Department appropriations) a unanimous-consent request was 
agreed to as set out below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 124 Cong. Rec. 24686, 24689, 24690, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dickinson: On page 2, line 11, 
        strike ``$9, 123,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$9,125,299,000''. . . .

        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to make a parliamentary inquiry. In the event the amendments 
    offered by the gentleman from Alabama, which probably go to . . . 
    more than one title, if they were adopted, would that preclude 
    thereafter a general 2-percent across-the-board amendment to the 
    same title?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The amendments of the gentleman from 
    Alabama go to at least four titles of the bill, and to the extent 
    that they change figures by amendment, they are not subject to 
    further amendment if adopted.
        Mr. Volkmer: Would a general 2-percent across-the-board cut, 
    which does not actually change the figure, be in order?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: That would still be in order.
        Mr. Volkmer: As far as my amendments to the bill, if the 
    gentleman from Alabama wishes to reoffer his amendments en bloc for 
    the rest of them, I would not object. . . .
        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that 
    the amendments be considered en bloc.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Alabama?

[[Page 6821]]

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the remaining 
    amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Dickinson: And on page 2, line 
        19, strike ``$6,456,450,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$6,448,150,000'';
            On page 3, line 3, strike ``$2,015,900,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$2,015,200,000'';
            On page 6, line 4, strike ``$9,097,422,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$9,115,422,000'';
            On page 6, line 15, strike ``$11,705,155,000'' and insert 
        in lieu thereof ``$11,691,755,000'';
            On page 14, line 24, strike ``$916,708,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$917,400,000''; and
            On page 56, beginning on line 1 and ending on line 4, 
        strike section 856 in its entirety and renumber all subsequent 
        sections accordingly.

        The Chairman Pro Tempore [Mr. (Richard A.) Gephardt (of 
    Missouri)]: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Alabama (Mr. Dickinson) to consider the amendments en bloc?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 9.15 To a bill being read for amendment by title, an amendment to 
    the pending title and to a subsequent title may be offered en bloc 
    only by unanimous consent.

    On Oct. 1, 1985,(11) during consideration of H.R. 2100 
(12) in the Committee of the Whole, the situation described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 131 Cong. Rec. 25418-20, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. The Food Security Act of 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (13) When the Committee of the Whole 
    rose on Thursday, September 26, title IV was open to amendment at 
    any point to amendments printed in the Congressional Record before 
    September 24, 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there amendments to title IV? . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Glickman: Title IV of H.R. 2100 is 
        amended by--
            On page 65, after line 8, striking all through ``shall'' on 
        line 11 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
            ``(2) If the Secretary determines that the availability of 
        nonrecourse loans and purchases will not have an adverse effect 
        on the program provided for in paragraph (3), the Secretary 
        may''; . . .
            Title V of H.R. 2100 is amended by--
            On page 87, after line 15, striking all through ``shall'' 
        on line 18 and inserting in lieu thereof the following: . . .

        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I believe 
    a point of order would lie against the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Glickman) because the amendment, if I 
    understand the amendment that is being offered, goes to more than 
    one title of the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Dan] Glickman [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    amends two titles of the bill. To be frank with the Chair, it was 
    submitted as one amendment, but the intention

[[Page 6822]]

    of the author of this amendment as well as the other authors was to 
    deal with the issues as they affected title IV and then title V. I 
    put it in one title of the bill, but, to be honest with the Chair, 
    the issues are divisible, they are separate. I could have amended 
    it and put it in two separate amendments. I did not because that is 
    not the way the issue came up in the Committee on Agriculture. . . 
    .
        Mr. Robert F. Smith [of Oregon]: . . . Mr. Chairman, rule III 
    of the rules provides that consideration can only be by title, not 
    by section. I think the point remains that there is no question 
    that this amendment does affect two titles. . . .
        Mr. [Arlan] Stangeland [of Minnesota]: . . . I just want to 
    make the point that the amendment was printed in two distinctly 
    separate sections. One portion of the amendment dealt with wheat 
    and target prices and marketing loans. The second section of the 
    amendment deals with title V, the feed grain section. Two 
    distinctly different amendments but introduced in the Record as, 
    unfortunately, one amendment. . . . I would just appeal to the 
    Chair that the intent of the authors was that because they were 
    handled en bloc in committee, we would run that way, but they are 
    divisible, they can be addressed to title IV and title V very 
    distinctly in the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair would state that the Chair can only look at the form 
    in which the amendment has been submitted for printing on the 
    Record. According to the rule, the substitute shall be considered 
    for amendment by title instead of by sections, and only amendments 
    to the bill which have been printed in the Record by September 24 
    may be offered.
        Therefore, the only way in which the amendment that the 
    gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Glickman) wishes to offer could be 
    considered is by unanimous consent.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 9.16 To a bill being read for amendment by sections, amendments to 
    more than one section may be considered en bloc by unanimous 
    consent only.

    On Oct. 5, 1977,(14) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 8410,(15) the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry concerning the procedure for offering amendments 
to two sections of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 123 Cong. Rec. 32523, 32524, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. The Labor Reform Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) Are there further amendments to 
    section 7? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    amendments that amend both sections 7 and 8. The amendment to 
    section 7 is technical and conforming in nature. The substance of 
    the amendments is to section 8.
        I would ask the Chairman if I might offer my amendments now, or 
    should I wait until section 8 has been read?

[[Page 6823]]

        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Erlenborn) that if the gentleman desires to offer his 
    amendments as one amendment, he will have to obtain unanimous 
    consent to do so, either now or when section 8 is read.

--Amendments Relating to Same Subject Matter Considered En Bloc

Sec. 9.17 Amendments to several portions of a title of a bill being 
    read by titles may be offered as one amendment where they relate to 
    the same subject matter, and unanimous consent is not required for 
    their consideration en bloc.

    On Oct. 5, 1978,(17) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 13471, the above-stated proposition was 
illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 124 Cong. Rec. 33799, 33810, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (18) When the Committee rose on 
    Tuesday, October 3, 1978, all time for general debate on this bill 
    had expired. Pursuant to the rule, the bill will be considered by 
    titles, and each title shall be considered as having been read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Mike McCormack (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Title I is as follows:

                                   H.R. 13471

            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 ``Financial Institutions Regulatory Act 
        of 1978''. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas N.] Kindness [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Kindness: Page 3, line 12, insert 
        ``(1)'' after ``(d)'', and on page 4, immediately after line 4, 
        insert the following:
            ``(2) The United States shall pay to any member bank or 
        person who prevails in an appeal pursuant to this section a 
        reasonable attorney's fee and other reasonable litigation 
        costs, which shall be assessed by the court in the manner 
        provided by law for the assessment of costs. . . .
            Page 5, line 25, insert ``(A)'' after ``(4)'', and on page 
        6, immediately after line 14 insert the following:
            ``(B) The United States shall pay to any member bank or 
        person who prevails in an appeal pursuant to this section a 
        reasonable attorney's fee. . . .
            Page 8, line 10, insert ``(A)'' after ``(4)'', and 
        immediately after line 24, insert the following:
            ``(B) The United States shall pay to any association or 
        person who prevails in an appeal pursuant to this section a 
        reasonable attorney's fee. . . .
            Page 20, line 17, after the period insert the following: 
        ``The United States shall pay to any company or person who 
        prevails in an appeal under section 9 a reasonable attorney's 
        fee. . . .

        Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, I would make the request, if it is 
    necessary, that the amendment be considered en bloc, because it is 
    a series of identical or practically identical amendments.

[[Page 6824]]

        The Chairman: It will be considered as one amendment.

--Perfecting Amendment and Amendment Inserting New Section

Sec. 9.18 Motions to strike out and insert provisions on diverse pages 
    and lines of a bill and to insert a new section constitute separate 
    amendments which can be offered en bloc only by unanimous consent.

    On Apr. 20, 1972,(19) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 118 Cong. Rec. 13641, 13642, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 14070 (Committee on Science and Astronautics).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Les] Aspin [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments and ask unanimous consent that they be considered as 
    read. . . .
        The amendments offered by Mr. Aspin are as follows:

            Page 1, line 8, strike out ``$1,094,200,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$894,000''. . . .
            Page 11, insert the following new section after line 25 
        (and redesignate the succeeding section accordingly):
            ``Sec. 7. . . .''

        Mr. [Olin E.] Teague of Texas: Do I understand the gentleman 
    has two amendments?
        Mr. Aspin: No; they are both one amendment.
        Mr. Teague of Texas: Is it not the intention of the gentleman 
    to ask unanimous consent to have the two amendments considered 
    together?
        Mr. Aspin: I did not make such a request, but I intend for them 
    to be put together. They are on two pieces of paper, but they are 
    supposed to be one amendment.
        Mr. Teague of Texas: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has one 
    amendment and we intend to make a point of order against one of 
    them.
        Is it not the proper procedure to have the two put together and 
    be considered together?
        The Chairman: (20) the Chair has examined the 
    amendments and determines that this is indeed more than one 
    amendment and, without unanimous consent, could not be joined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Sections Open for Amendment if Amendments Rejected

Sec. 9.19 Where there was pending a unanimous-consent request that 
    several amendments to sections of the bill which had not been read 
    be considered en bloc, the Chair indicated that those sections 
    would be open for amendment as they were read if the pending 
    amendments were rejected.

    On Aug. 3, 1971,(1) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.  117 Cong. Rec. 29094, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 9910 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amend

[[Page 6825]]

    ments; and I ask unanimous consent that this series of amendments 
    may be considered en bloc. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Do I correctly 
    understand that the gentleman is requesting unanimous consent to 
    have these amendments considered en bloc, and that they refer to 
    various sections in the bill, beginning with the development loan 
    section and continuing at various points to the East Pakistan 
    refugee section?
        Mr. Dellums: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: . . . If this 
    amendment is voted down can there be further amendments then 
    offered to the money provisions of the various sections of the 
    bill?
        The Chairman: (2) If this amendment is rejected, 
    when those particular sections are open to amendment there could be 
    other amendments offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Special Rule Providing for Disposition of En Bloc Amendments Prior to 
    Floor Amendment.

Sec. 9.20 Pursuant to a special rule making in order the offering of a 
    designated amendment to a part of a bill only after the disposition 
    of three groups of committee amendments to that part, the Chair 
    indicated the third group of amendments en bloc must be disposed of 
    prior to the offering of a floor amendment to that part.

    On Aug. 3, 1977,(3) during consideration of H.R. 8444 
(the National Energy Act), the Chair responded to a parliamentary 
inquiry as indicated above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 123 Cong. Rec. 26447, 26448, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (4) . . . The Clerk will designate the 
    next ad hoc committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 193, line 11, after ``the cost of'' insert 
        ``compression,''. . . .

        The question is on the ad hoc committee amendment.
        The ad hoc committee amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Is the amendment that was made in order by the rule in order 
    now?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman from 
    Ohio that there are other ad hoc amendments.
        The Clerk will designate the next ad hoc committee amendments, 
    which under the rule are considered as read and considered en bloc.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 209, lines 3 and 4, on page 209, lines 12 through page 
        210, line 6, on page 210, line 7, on page 210, lines 16 through 
        18, on page 211, line 6, on page 211, lines 23 through 25, on 
        page 212, lines 4 through 6,

[[Page 6826]]

        and on page 212, lines 16 through 18. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (5) The question is on ad 
    hoc committee amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The ad hoc committee amendments were agreed to.

--Amendments Made in Order by Special Rule Not Offered From Floor

Sec. 9.21 Where a bill is being considered under a special rule 
    providing for consideration en bloc of certain committee amendments 
    printed in the bill, the Chair directs the Clerk to report the 
    amendments en bloc and they need not be offered from the floor.

    On July 8, 1975,(6) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 49, pursuant to a special rule, the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 121 Cong. Rec. 21630, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (7) Under the rule, it shall now be in 
    order to consider en bloc the amendments recommended by the 
    Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendments:
            Page 3, between lines 19 and 20 insert the following: 
        ``TITLE I''.
            Page 3, line 20, strike out ``That in'' and insert ``Sec. 
        101. In''. . . .

        Mr. [F. Edward] Hebert [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I will not 
    offer the amendments of the Armed Services Committee as described 
    in the rule.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from 
    Louisiana that under the rule the amendments are offered and 
    presented en bloc. They have been presented.

--Further Amendment After En Bloc Amendments Agreed To

Sec. 9.22 Where, pursuant to a special order, amendments en bloc to 
    several titles of a bill have 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.

    On July 12, 1983,(8) it was illustrated that, 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

[[Page 6827]]

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. The proceedings in the Committee of the 
Whole, acting pursuant to a special order, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 129 Cong. Rec. 18771, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Steve] Bartlett [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair wishes to inquire of the 
    gentleman from Texas, is the gentleman from Texas offering these 
    amendments en bloc?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 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 to en bloc or to amend unamended portions 
    of the bill contained in title I and

[[Page 6828]]

    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.