[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[B. When To Offer Amendment; Reading For Amendment]
[Â§ 11. Amendments to Bills Considered as Read and Open to Amendment]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6837-6854]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
           B. WHEN TO OFFER AMENDMENT; READING FOR AMENDMENT
 
Sec. 11. Amendments to Bills Considered as Read and Open to Amendment

Unanimous Consent as Requirement

Sec. 11.1 The Committee of the Whole may, by unanimous consent, agree 
    that a bill being read by sections under the five-minute rule be 
    considered as read and open to amendment at any point, but a motion 
    to that effect is not in order.

    On June 26, 1972,(18) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 118 Cong. Rec. 22404, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 15507.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Earle] Cabel [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I move that the 
    bill be considered as read and printed at this point in the Record 
    and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair must rule that the 
    gentleman from Texas is not in order in making that motion at this 
    time. The Chair will entertain, however, a unanimous-consent 
    request to that effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.2 A bill may be considered as read and open to amendment at any 
    point only by unanimous consent, and a motion to that effect is not 
    in order.

[[Page 6838]]

    On June 4, 1975,(20) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 6219,(1) a unanimous-consent 
request, as described above, was objected to as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 121 Cong. Rec. 16895, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. Voting Rights Act extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: . . . Mr. Chairman, I believe 
    we have an agreement to vote on the final passage of the bill at 
    6:30 and with a time limitation on certain amendments that remain, 
    so I ask unanimous consent at this time that the bill be considered 
    as read in full and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James P.] Johnson of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        Mr. Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I so move.

        The Chairman: The motion is not in order. Only title II could 
    be closed at this time by a motion.

Sec. 11.3 On one occasion, no objection being raised, a motion was made 
    and agreed to that a bill be considered as read and open for 
    amendment at any point, following objection to a unanimous-consent 
    request for that purpose.

    On May 28, 1958,(3) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 104 Cong. Rec. 9747, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7999, to provide for the admission of the State of Alaska 
        into the Union.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Leo W.] O'Brien of New York (during the reading of the 
    bill): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
    considered as read and be open for amendment at any point. . . .
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        Mr. O'Brien of New York: Mr. Chairman, I move that the bill be 
    considered as read and be opened for amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: (4) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. O'Brien].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 11.4 During the reading of a section for amendment, that section 
    can be considered as read and open to amendment at any point only 
    by unanimous consent.

    On Aug. 17, 1972,(5) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 118 Cong. Rec. 2887, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 13915.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 ``Equal Educational Opportunities Act 
        of 1972''. . . .

        Mr. [Roman C.] Pucinski [of Illinois] (during the reading): A 
    parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. . . .

[[Page 6839]]

        Mr. Chairman, is it in order to move that the paragraph be 
    considered as read and open to amendment at any point?
        The Chairman: (6) It is not in order to make such a 
    motion at this point. It is in order to make a unanimous-consent 
    request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Morris K. Udall (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion To Dispense With Reading of Amendment

Sec. 11.5 Pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 5(b), as amended in the 97th 
    Congress, it is in order in Committee of the Whole to move to 
    dispense with the reading of an amendment which has been printed in 
    the Congressional Record and submitted to the clerk or designated 
    staff member of the reporting committee at least one day prior to 
    consideration of the amendment, and said motion is not subject to 
    debate.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on May 6, 
1981,(7) during consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 
115.(8) the proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 127 Cong. Rec. 8716, 8721, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Revising the congressional budget for fiscal year 1981 and setting 
        forth the congressional budget for fiscal years 1982, 1983, and 
        1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: (9) Has the gentleman's amendment been 
    printed in the Record?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. James M. Frost (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Latta: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it has been printed in the 
    Record.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

         title i--revision of the congressional budget for the united 
               states government for the fiscal year 1981. . . .

        Mr. Latta (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
    Record. . . .
        Mr. [Theodore S.] Weiss [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, my concern really is that we have full 
    opportunity to debate the Gramm-Latta substitute resolution, and if 
    in fact we have the assurance that there will be no attempt to cut 
    off, to curtail debate, I will withdraw my reservation.
        However, if in fact this is a preliminary move then to start 
    the express train rolling, I have no choice except to object. . . .
        Mr. Latta: Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendment be 
    considered as read and printed in the Record.

[[Page 6840]]

        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 11.6 Pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 5(b), a motion to dispense with 
    the reading of an amendment in Committee of the Whole is only in 
    order if that amendment has been printed in the Record.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on July 28, 
1983,(10) during consideration of H.R. 2760. The proceedings 
in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 129 Cong. Rec. 21468, 21470, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Wright: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
        That the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1983 is 
        amended by adding at the end thereof the following new title. . 
        . .

        Mr. [James A.] Courter [of New Jersey] (during the reading): 
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
    considered as read and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: (11) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from New Jersey?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wyche] Fowler [Jr., of Georgia]: I object, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Courter: Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendment be 
    considered as read.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that would 
    not be a proper motion, since the amendment has not been printed in 
    the Record.

Clerk Designates Page and Line Number

Sec. 11.7 Where a special order provided that a bill be considered for 
    amendment by parts and that each part and the committee amendments 
    thereto be considered as having been read, the Chair directed the 
    Clerk to designate only the page and line number of the pending 
    part or committee amendment; the text of the pending part or 
    committee amendment was printed in full at that point in the 
    Congressional Record.

    On Aug. 2, 1977,(12) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill (13) pursuant to a special order 
as described above, the proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 123 Cong. Rec. 26124, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H.R. 8444, National Energy Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) When the Committee rose on 
    Monday, August 1, 1977, all time for general debate had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered by parts and each 
    part is con

[[Page 6841]]

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

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

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

        The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the page and line number 
    of the first ad hoc committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Ad hoc committee amendment: Page 12, strike line 9, and 
        insert the matter printed on lines 11 through 14. (The ad hoc 
        committee amendment reads as follows:)

        and

            (9) to provide incentives to increase the amount of 
        domestically produced energy in the United States for the 
        benefit and security of present and future generations.

Portions of Bill Already Passed in Reading

Sec. 11.8 During the reading of a bill for amendment an agreement that 
    the remainder of the bill be considered read and open for amendment 
    at any point does not admit an amendment to a portion of the bill 
    already passed in the reading.

    On Oct. 8, 1969,(15) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 115 Cong. Rec. 29219, 29220, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 14159.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph L.] Evins of Tennessee (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be 
    considered as read and open to amendment at any point. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: . 
        . .

        Mr. Evins of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, we have already passed 
    that item in the bill. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee just 
    made a unanimous-consent request that the bill be considered as 
    read, printed in the Record, and open for amendment at any point. I 
    would consider that under the unanimous-consent request, regardless 
    of whether we have read beyond the point, the amendment would be 
    very much in order.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Michigan that the unanimous-consent request of the 
    gentleman from Tennessee was that the remainder of the bill be 
    considered as having been read and open to amendment at any point, 
    and the Clerk had read two paragraphs beyond the paragraph to which 
    the amendment would apply. So the Chair upholds the point of order. 
    . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Wayne N. Aspinall (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.9 Where unanimous consent is granted that the re

[[Page 6842]]

    mainder of a bill be considered as read and open for amendment at 
    any point, amendments may then be offered to any portion of the 
    bill not yet read for amendment at the time the permission is 
    granted.

    On Feb. 19, 1970,(17) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 4028, 4029, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 15931.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: 
        On page 60. . . .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: If I understood 
    correctly, sections 408 and 409 have been considered and acted 
    upon, after which action was taken on section 410. It was after we 
    had passed sections 408 and 409 that unanimous consent was asked 
    the bill be opened thereafter. I raise the point that the 
    amendments come too late. We finished action on these sections, and 
    had acted on section 410.
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair will state that the 
    opening of the bill occurred on page 36, and all language 
    thereafter is open to amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provisions Previously Amended

Sec. 11.10 Where a title of a bill was open for amendment at any point 
    and an amendment was offered altering several provisions within 
    that title including a provision previously altered by amendment, a 
    point of order against the amendment was sustained and by unanimous 
    consent the amendment was altered to delete reference to that 
    portion already amended.

    On Oct. 9, 1975,(19) during consideration of H.R. 200 
(20) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings 
described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 32588-90, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Marine Fisheries Conservation Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Waggonner: Page 29, strike out 
        line 5 and all that follows thereafter down through line 2 on 
        page 32 and insert the following: . . .
            (a) Commencement of Negotiations.--
            The Secretary of State, upon the request of and in 
        cooperation with the Secretary, shall initiate and conduct 
        negotiations with any foreign nation in whose fishery 
        conservation zones, or its equivalent, vessels of the United 
        States are engaged, or wish to be engaged, in fishing, or with 
        respect to anadromous species or Continental Shelf fishery 
        resources as to which such nation asserts management authority 
        and for which vessels of the United States fish, or wish to 
        fish. . . .

        The Chairman: (21) the question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gen

[[Page 6843]]

    tleman from Louisiana (Mr. Wag- gonner).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was agreed to.
        Mrs. [Millicent H.] Fenwick [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick: . . .
            Page 30, line 6, strike out ``the'' and all that follows 
        thereafter up to and including line 8, and substitute in lieu 
        thereof the following: ``any such ships of those countries 
        deemed to be in noncompliance within the meaning of paragraphs 
        (1)(A) and (1) (B) of this subsection from continuing their 
        fishing activities''; . . .
            Page 33, line 1, strike Sec. 206.

        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order. We have already amended page 30, and this amendment 
    would purport to amend page 30. . . .
        It comes too late.

        Mrs. Fenwick: No, no; it is still germane--[including the part 
    at] page 33, line 1, striking section 206.
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentlewoman from New 
    Jersey that the part of the amendment that appears on page 30 would 
    not be in order at this time. The balance of the amendment would be 
    in order. Without objection, the amendment is modified to delete 
    reference to that portion of title II already amended.
        There was no objection.

Pending Portion of Bill Still Open to Amendment When Request Agreed To

Sec. 11.11 If unanimous consent is granted that the remainder of a bill 
    be considered as read and open to amendment at any point, the 
    portion of the bill pending when the request is agreed to remains 
    open to amendment as well.

    On June 4, 1975,(1) during consideration of a bill 
(2) in the Committee of the Whole, a unanimous-consent 
request was made and the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 16899, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. H.R. 6219, Voting Rights Act extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be 
    considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at 
    any point. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas N.] Kindness [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, if this 
    unanimous consent request is agreed to, would that affect action on 
    title II of the bill; would amendments to title II be still in 
    order?
        The Chairman: (3) Title II is still open.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    California?
        There was no objection.

Points of Order Against Bill

Sec. 11.12 When an appropriation bill is considered as read and open 
    for amendment by unanimous consent, the

[[Page 6844]]

    Chair first entertains points of order against the bill prior to 
    recognizing for amendments.

    On June 16, 1964,(4) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 110 Cong Rec. 13974, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11579.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Michael J.] Kirwan [of Ohio] (interrupting reading of the 
    bill): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
    considered as read, and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: (5) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Ohio?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Are there any points of order to be made to the 
    bill? [After pause.] Are there any further amendments? [No 
    response.]
        A motion that the Committee rise was agreed to.

Committee Amendments

Sec. 11.13 Where a bill is considered read and open to amendment, the 
    Chair directs that the Clerk report the committee amendments in the 
    order in which they appear in the bill, and the question is put on 
    each amendment as it is read; and any amendment to one of these 
    amendments must be offered while the committee amendment is 
    pending. But a Member having an amendment to a section of the bill 
    that is not amended by the committee amendments may still offer 
    such an amendment after all the committee amendments have been 
    considered.

    On June 18, 1969,(6) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 115 Cong. Rec. 16275, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6543.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia] (during the 
    reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
    considered as read and printed in the Record and open to amendment 
    at any point. . . .
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: (7) The Clerk will report the first 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Jack B. Brooks (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, if the 
    amendments are adopted that are the committee amendments to the 
    bill, then would amendments by Members be in order to those 
    sections that were amended?
        The Chairman: They would be unless they amended the committee 
    amendment.
        Mr. Adams: Mr. Chairman, that is what I was inquiring about. In 
    other words, an amendment to the committee amendment would not be 
    in order if that committee amendment were adopted.
        Therefore, we would be required to offer our amendments which 
    would go

[[Page 6845]]

    to the same section and the same language prior to the adoption of 
    the committee amendment by the Committee of the Whole?
        The Chairman: The amendments should be offered as amendments to 
    the committee amendments when submitted.

Sec. 11.14 Where the Committee of the Whole agrees that the remainder 
    of a bill be considered as read and open to amendment at any point, 
    the remaining committee amendments are first disposed of and then 
    other amendments may be considered at any point.

    On Aug. 18, 1949,(8) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 95 Cong. Rec. 11797, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 5895, the Mutual Defense Assistance Act of 1949.
            For further discussion of the proceedings, see Sec. 11.18, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: Under the unanimous-consent 
    request, in what order would the various committee amendments be 
    considered? Would they not have precedence over other amendments? . 
    . .
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair feels that the gentleman 
    is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.15 Where, by unanimous consent, a bill is considered as read 
    and open to amendment at any point, all perfecting committee 
    amendments printed in the bill are disposed of prior to 
    consideration of amendments offered from the floor.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(10) during consideration of a bill 
(11) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 11533, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. H.R. 6096, Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (12) The Clerk will report the first 
    committee amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the second committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 3, line 1, insert: The authority 
        granted by this section shall not permit or extend to any 
        action or conduct not essential to effectuate and protect the 
        evacuation referred to in this section.

        The committee amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the third committee 
    amendment.
        Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Harkin: Are we on section 4? I have an amendment to section 
    4.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that he will 
    be pro

[[Page 6846]]

    tected. The bill by unanimous consent has been deemed to be 
    considered as read in toto and is open to amendment at any point.
        The Clerk will report the third committee amendment.

Sec. 11.16 Where a bill is considered as having been read for 
    amendment, it is open to amendment at any point and all committee 
    perfecting amendments must be disposed of, regardless of their 
    place in the bill, prior to offering of amendments to the bill from 
    the floor.

    On Feb. 9, 1976,(13) H.R. 5808 (14) having 
been read and opened to amendment in the Committee of the Whole, the 
proceedings, described above, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 122 Cong. Rec. 2872, 2876, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
14. Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (15) . . . Under the rule, the bill is 
    considered as having been read and open to amendment at any point 
    under the 5-minute rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Richard H. Ichord (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the next committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 19, line 24, insert ``knowingly'' 
        immediately before ``sell''.

        The committee amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. [Charles E.] Wiggins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I now 
    offer an amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California (Mr. Wiggins) will 
    be advised that his amendment would not be in order at this time 
    under the rule. There are 2 additional committee amendments to be 
    considered. . . .
        The Chair will advise the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Wiggins) further that his amendment will be in order after the 
    consideration of the committee amendments. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment I wish to offer that comes 
    before that committee amendment on the same page. Would that 
    amendment be in order, or is it not in order until after this time?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Maryland 
    (Mr. Bauman) that his amendment would not be in order at this time 
    unless it is an amendment to this committee amendment.

--Amendments To Be Read Although Bill Open to Amendment at Any Point

Sec. 11.17 Where, under a special rule, a bill is considered as having 
    been read for amendment, committee amendments to the bill must be 
    read in full or their reading dispensed with by unanimous consent.

[[Page 6847]]

    On Feb. 9, 1976,(16) during consideration of H.R. 
5808,(17) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair stated 
that, pursuant to the rule, the bill was open to amendment. The 
proceedings occurred as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 122 Cong. Rec. 2872, 2875, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
17. Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (18) . . . Under the rule, the bill is 
    considered as having been read and open to amendment at any point 
    under the 5-minute rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Richard H. Ichord (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Wiggins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, under 
    the rule, is the first committee amendment considered to have been 
    read?
        The Chairman: There have been no requests for considering the 
    amendment as having been read, the Chair will advise the gentleman 
    from California, but the Chair will entertain such a request. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, it is my 
    understanding that the rule itself provides that the bill shall be 
    considered as read and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: Yes, that is the bill, the Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Washington, not the amendment.
        Mr. Foley (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the first committee amendment may be considered as 
    read and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Washington?
        There was no objection.

Order of Amendments

Sec. 11.18 Where the Committee of the Whole had agreed that the 
    remainder of a bill be considered as read and open to amendment at 
    any point, a subsequent unanimous-consent request authorized the 
    Clerk to call the remaining sections so that amendments could be 
    offered in order.

    On Aug. 18, 1949,(19) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 95 Cong. Rec. 11797, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 5895, the Mutual Defense Assistance Act of 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that after the committee amendments have been 
    disposed of the Clerk call the section numbers of the bill for 
    amendment, so that we may have them in order. . . .
        There was no objection.

Priority in Recognition

Sec. 11.19 Where a pending title of a bill is open to amendment and a 
    unanimous-consent request is made that the next two succeeding 
    titles also be considered as open to amendment, all three titles 
    would be open to amendment, with priority in rec

[[Page 6848]]

    ognition being given to members of the Committee reporting the 
    bill.

    On Jan. 29, 1980,(20) during consideration of H.R. 4788 
(1) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 126 Cong. Rec. 973, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. The Water Resources Development Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ray] Roberts [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that titles III and IV be considered as read and open for 
    amendment at any point. . . .
        Mr. [Allen E.] Ertel [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, am I 
    under the understanding at this point that titles II, III, and IV 
    are now open to amendment?
        The Chairman: (2) That is correct, if no objection 
    is heard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ertel: I have no objection.
        Mr. [Don H.] Clausen [of California]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, I want to make sure we are going to be 
    proceeding in an orderly manner. I am assuming we will proceed 
    through title II for the consideration of the amendment and then 
    follow on with the consideration of titles III and IV.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that if the 
    unanimous-consent request is adopted without objection, titles II, 
    III, and IV will be open for amendment at any point. Committee 
    members will, of course, have priority in recognition.

Inserting New Section

Sec. 11.20 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.

    On June 26, 1972,(3) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 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: (4) It is an amendment to the first 
    section of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 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 of

[[Page 6849]]

    fered by the gentleman from New York is to the first section of the 
    bill and is therefore in order.

Effect of Adding New Section at End of Bill

Sec. 11.21 Where by unanimous consent in Committee of the Whole a bill 
    is considered as read and open to amendment at any point, adoption 
    of an amendment adding a new section at the end of the bill does 
    not preclude subsequent amendments to previous sections of the 
    bill.

    The proposition stated above was the basis for the following 
proceedings which occurred on Apr. 17, 1986, (5) during 
consideration of H.R. 281 in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 132 Cong. Rec. 7858, 7859, 7861, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) Pursuant to the rule, each section 
    of the bill is considered as having been read under the 5-minute 
    rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will designate section 1.
        Mr. [William L.] Clay [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record and open 
    to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Missouri?
        There was no objection.
        The text of H.R. 281 is as follows:

                                    H.R. 281

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be referred to as the ``Construction Industry Labor Law 
        Amendments of 1985''. . . .

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Clay: At the end of the bill, add 
        the following new section:
            Sec. 3. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the 
        amendments made by section 2 shall take effect upon the date of 
        the enactment of this Act. . . .

        Mr. Clay (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
    Record. . . .
        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, I do so for the purpose of inquiring of the 
    Chair at this point, or perhaps the author, as to whether or not 
    this is a new section 3, or whether this would preclude further 
    amendments to section 2 of the bill if this amendment is adopted?
        The Chairman: The Chair would point out to the gentleman from 
    Vermont that the bill is now open for amendment at any point, as 
    was requested by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) a little 
    while earlier.

[[Page 6850]]

Bill Considered as Read and Open for Amendment in House as in Committee 
    of the Whole

Sec. 11.22 Under current practice, when a bill is considered in the 
    House as in Committee of the Whole, general debate is dispensed 
    with, and the bill is considered as having been read and is open to 
    amendment at any point under the five-minute rule.

    On Aug. 10, 1970,(7) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 116 Cong. Rec. 28050, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 18619.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: (8) The gentleman will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, are we not operating in the House as in 
    the Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker: We are.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, has this bill been read for amendment?
        The Speaker: When the bill is being considered in the House as 
    in Committee of the Whole, it is considered as read and printed in 
    the Record.
        Amendments are in order to any part of the bill under the 5-
    minute rule.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The earlier precedents (e.g. 8 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec. 2433) requiring that a bill be read by sections for 
amendment under this procedure have been superceded by this current 
practice.

Sec. 11.23 Where a bill is by unanimous consent considered in the House 
    as in the Committee of the Whole, the bill is considered as read 
    and open to amendment at any point, despite the fact that the House 
    has previously adopted a special order providing that the bill be 
    read by title in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Feb. 9, 1977,(9) the House having previously adopted 
a special order (10) providing that H.R. 692 be read by 
title in the Committee of the Whole, a unanimous-consent request was 
agreed to to consider the bill in the House as in the Committee of the 
Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 123 Cong. Rec. 3977, 3981, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. H. Res. 270, 123 Cong. Rec. 3976, 3977, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I call up the bill H.R. 
    692 to amend the Small Business Act and the Small Business 
    Investment Act of 1958 to increase loan authorization and surety 
    bond guarantee authority; and to improve the disaster assistance, 
    certificate of competency and small business set-aside programs, 
    and ask unani

[[Page 6851]]

    mous consent that the bill be considered in the House as in the 
    Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker: (11) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Iowa?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

Amendment in Nature of Substitute Made in Order by Special Rule

Sec. 11.24 An amendment in the nature of a substitute being read as an 
    original bill pursuant to a special order is read by sections for 
    amendment (unless otherwise specified in the rule), and the 
    amendment may be considered as read and open for amendment at any 
    point by unanimous consent only.

    On Mar. 20, 1978,(12) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 7700,(13) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 7558, 7559, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. The Postal Service Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) Pursuant to the rule, it shall be 
    in order to consider an amendment printed in the Congressional 
    Record of March 14, 1978, by Representative Hanley of New York if 
    offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the bill, 
    said substitute shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule 
    as an original bill, and all points of order against said 
    substitute for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 7, 
    rule XVI, are hereby waived. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Edward W. Pattison (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        At this time the Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Postal Service 
        Act of 1977''.

        Mr. [James M.] Hanley [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to 
    the rule, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute for 
    the bill.

        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment by sections.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
            That this Act may be cited as the ``Postal Service Act of 
        1978''.

        Mr. Hanley (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment in the nature of a substitute be 
    considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at 
    any point. . . .
        [Objection was heard.]
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute is to be read by sections.

[[Page 6852]]

        Are there amendments to section 1?

Sec. 11.25 Where a bill was being considered under a special rule 
    making in order the text of a designated amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute but not providing for reading of said substitute by 
    sections as an original bill, the Chair indicated that if the 
    entire amendment were considered as read and printed in the Record 
    it would automatically be open to amendment at any point.

    On Feb. 3, 1976,(15) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 9464,(16) the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry regarding the situation as described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 122 Cong. Rec. 2008, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Krueger [of Texas] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute be considered as read and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: (17) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Continuing my reservation 
    of objection, Mr. Chairman, first of all, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry. Was it the request that the amendment be considered as 
    read and open to amendment at any point?
        The Chairman: That is the pending matter. The Chair was about 
    to put the question when the gentleman rose and said he reserved 
    the right to object further.
        Mr. Dingell: I just want to be sure that I understand the 
    unanimous-consent request properly. . . .
        The Chairman: Let me say in clarification the unanimous-consent 
    request that the gentleman made was that the amendment be 
    considered as read and printed in the Record, and it automatically 
    will be open for amendment at any point.

En Bloc Amendments Affecting Diverse Portions of Bill

Sec. 11.26 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, 
    even if the bill has been considered as read and open to amendment 
    at any point.

    On Sept. 16, 1981, (18) during consideration of H.R. 
4241 (19) in the Committee of the Whole, the

[[Page 6853]]

proceedings described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 127 Cong. Rec. 20735-37, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. Military construction appropriations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bo] Ginn [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the bill be considered as read and open to amendment 
    at any point. . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [M. Caldwell] Butler [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments, and I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be 
    considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: (20) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Virginia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection. . . .

            Amendments offered by Mr. Butler: Page 2, line 11, strike 
        out ``$1,029,519,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$1,009,276,400''.
            Page 3, line 6, strike out ``$1,404,883,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$1,354,096,100''. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas F.] Hartnett [of South Carolina]: . . . My inquiry 
    is: Is this amendment being offered as one amendment, and if it is, 
    would the point of order be in order that the amendment was not 
    properly drawn and that I was being precluded from voting for--I 
    would have to vote for or against all of them where, in fact, I may 
    want to vote for one or the other?
        The Chairman: The Chair will respond to the gentleman's inquiry 
    by stating that the gentleman from Virginia has already gotten 
    unanimous consent to offer his amendments en bloc. However, if a 
    point of order is sustained against those amendments or any portion 
    thereof, under the precedent the remaining amendments will have to 
    be reoffered, at which point the gentleman from Virginia will again 
    have to ask permission to have them offered en bloc. . . .
        Mr. Hartnett: Mr. Chairman, what you are telling me is, in 
    order for the gentleman from Virginia to offer a series of 
    amendments like that, the gentleman has to obtain unanimous consent 
    prior to doing that or, in fact, he would have to offer each one of 
    them individually?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. The very first action 
    the gentleman from Virginia engaged in was to ask for such 
    unanimous consent.

Effect of Limitation on Debate on Titles

Sec. 11.27 Where the Committee of the Whole has, by unanimous consent, 
    considered the remainder of a bill as read and open to amendment at 
    any point, and has then separately limited debate on each remaining 
    title and all amendments thereto to a number of hours of debate, 
    equally divided and controlled, the Chair may, through the power of 
    recognition, continue to require debate and amendments to proceed 
    title by title.

    During consideration of H.R. 2100 (1) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Oct. 3, 1985,(2) the situ

[[Page 6854]]

ation described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. The Food Security Act of 1985.
 2. 131 Cong. Rec. 25897, 25947, 25948, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kika] de la Garza [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, in order to 
    facilitate the debate for the rest of the day, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the remainder of the bill after this title be printed 
    in the Record, and open to amendment at any point. . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. de la Garza: Mr. Chairman, further to facilitate and 
    expedite the debate of today, I ask unanimous consent that all 
    debate on title VIII on peanuts, and all amendments thereto on that 
    title, be limited to 1 hour, the time to be divided equally between 
    the proponents and the opponents. . . .
        There was no objection.
        Mr. de la Garza: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
    debate on title XV and all amendments thereto, which is the food 
    stamps section, be limited to 1 hour, to be divided equally between 
    the proponents and the opponents, and further, that the debate on 
    the Petri amendment to title XXI be limited to 1 hour, the time to 
    be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents. . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. de la Garza: Mr. Chairman, under the unanimous-consent 
    agreement on the time and on opening the bill for amendment at any 
    point, does the Chair intend to proceed title by title?
        The Chairman: It is the intention of the Chair to proceed title 
    by title for amendments.