[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[B. When To Offer Amendment; Reading For Amendment]
[Â§ 13. Time Yielded for Amendment or Other Purposes]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6882-6888]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
           B. WHEN TO OFFER AMENDMENT; READING FOR AMENDMENT
 
Sec. 13. Time Yielded for Amendment or Other Purposes

Time Yielded for Debate

Sec. 13.1 An amendment may not be offered in time yielded for debate 
    only.

    On Feb. 2, 1955,(2) the House had under consideration a 
resolution, debate proceeding under the hour rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 101 Cong. Rec. 1076-79, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ray J.] Madden [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up a resolution (H. Res. 63) and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, acting 
        as a whole or by subcommittee, is authorized and directed to 
        conduct an inspection of the Veterans' Administration with a 
        particular view to determining the efficiency of the 
        administration and operation of Veterans' Administration 
        installations. . . .

        Mr. Madden: Mr. Speaker, this resolution calls for the 
    continuation of the investigation which the Congress authorized in 
    the last session. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I now yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
    Oregon [Mr. Mathew H. Ellsworth]. . . .
        Mr. Ellsworth: . . . Mr. Speaker, referring now to the pending 
    resolution, House Resolution 63, it authorizes the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs, acting as a whole or by subcommittee, to conduct 
    full and complete investigations and studies of certain programs 
    enumerated in the resolution itself. . . . Mr. Speaker, I yield the 
    gentlewoman from Massachusetts 3 minutes.
        Mrs. [Edith N.] Rogers of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, if the 
    resolution can be amended I should like to offer an amendment, on 
    page 3, line 15, to strike out the sentence reading:

            The committee shall not undertake any investigation of any 
        matter which is under investigation by another committee of the 
        House.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) Does the gentleman from 
    Indiana yield for that purpose?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Robert C. Byrd (W. Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Madden: Mr. Speaker, I believe that not only the chairman 
    of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs but the chairman of the 
    Committee on Rules have stated the position in regard to this 
    resolution, that it very fully covers

[[Page 6883]]

    the objection the gentlewoman from Massachusetts has set out, and I 
    do not feel that I should yield for an amendment.
        Mrs. Rogers of Massachusetts: Is there any way to place such an 
    amendment in the resolution? Is there any prohibition against it? 
    Under the rules of the House, if there is not, I will offer that 
    amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair wishes to state that the 
    gentlewoman does not have that right in the time yielded her for 
    debate.

Time Yielded for Inquiry

Sec. 13.2 An amendment may not be offered during time that has been 
    yielded for a parliamentary inquiry.

    It is well established that a Member recognized to propound a 
parliamentary inquiry may not, having secured the floor for such 
limited purpose, offer an amendment. The Chair (4) referred 
to that principle in the following exchange of Mar. 12, 1964: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
 5. 110 Cong. Rec. 5140, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 8986 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [August E.] Johansen [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield to me so that I may make a parliamentary inquiry? . 
    . . [Time was yielded.] I direct this inquiry to the Chair as to 
    whether it will be in order if I secure recognition to offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio.
        The Chairman: Of course the gentleman, if he is recognized, may 
    offer an amendment.
        Mr. [James H.] Morrison [of Louisiana]: A parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman secured recognition first and 
    asked the parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman has not been recognized, except for 
    a parliamentary inquiry.

Manager of House Resolution Controls Purposes for Which He Yields

Sec. 13.3 In the House, during consideration of a resolution reported 
    from the Committee on House Administration, an amendment thereto 
    may be offered only by the Member having the floor unless he yields 
    for that purpose; and it is within the discretion of the Member in 
    charge whether, and to whom, he will yield.

    On Jan. 29, 1959,(6) during proceedings relating to a 
resolution providing for a clerk for the NATO Parliamentary Conference, 
the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 105 Cong. Rec. 1405, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel N.] Friedel [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the

[[Page 6884]]

    Committee on House Administration, I offer a privileged resolution 
    (H. Res. 36) and ask for its immediate consideration. . . .
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Am I privileged to offer an 
    amendment to this resolution?
        The Speaker: (7) The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
    Friedel] has the floor. If he does not yield for that purpose, the 
    gentleman may not offer the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Subsequently, on the same day,(8) during 
    consideration of a resolution (9) reported from the 
    Committee on House Administration providing for operating funds for 
    the Committee on Un-American Activities, the following exchange 
    took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 105 Cong. Rec. 1408, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. H. Res. 137.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Omar T.] Burleson [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, the Chair 
    indicated earlier that the manager of a bill in the House, in this 
    instance the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Friedel], may exercise 
    his discretion as to the reason for yielding to another Member; is 
    it correct that it is the gentleman's prerogative to inquire from 
    the Member requesting that he yield, the purpose for which the 
    Member makes the request? In other words, in the immediate case, 
    the gentleman from Maryland has the right to predetermine the 
    intent of those who wish him to yield. If to yield is for the 
    purpose of offering an amendment to the pending bill, the gentleman 
    may decline to yield for that purpose?
        The Speaker: The gentleman has entire discretion as to whether 
    he will yield or not and for any purpose.

Amendment to Amendment

Sec. 13.4 The Speaker held that a pending amendment to a resolution 
    under debate in the House prior to the adoption of the rules was 
    not subject to further amendment unless the proponent of the 
    amendment yielded for that purpose or the previous question on the 
    pending amendment was voted down.

    On Jan. 3, 1969,(10) prior to the adoption of the rules, 
during consideration of a resolution (11) authorizing the 
Speaker to administer the oath of office to Adam Clayton Powell, of New 
York, an inquiry was made as to the propriety of offering an amendment 
as indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 115 Cong. Rec. 28, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
11. H. Res. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, is the Celler 
    resolution as proposed, if amended by the MacGregor amendment, 
    subject to substitution at this point?
        The Speaker: (12) Does the gentleman inquire whether 
    or not it is in order to offer an amendment to the MacGregor 
    amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Whether it is in order to offer a substitute, Mr. 
    Speaker, for the Celler resolution and the pending amendment.

[[Page 6885]]

        The Speaker: The Chair will state that such an amendment is not 
    in order at this time unless the [proponent of the amendment] 
    yields for that purpose, or unless the previous question is 
    defeated.

Authority of Manager To Yield for Amendment

Sec. 13.5 A member of the Committee on Rules calling up a privileged 
    resolution reported by that committee does not normally yield for 
    an amendment unless authorized to do so by the committee.

    On May 1, 1968,(13) a member of the Committee on Rules 
called up a privileged resolution (14) and then entered into 
discussion with the Speaker Pro Tempore, (15) as to the 
possibility of yielding for an amendment to the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 114 Cong. Rec. 11304-06, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
14. H. Res. 1150 (Committee on Rules) providing for consideration of 
        H.R. 16729, extending the higher education student loan 
        program.
15. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Claude D.] Pepper [of Florida]: Would it be permissible 
    for a Member on the floor, without convening the Rules Committee, 
    to offer an amendment to the rule? I believe that perhaps I, as the 
    Member handling the rule, has a right to yield to a Member, only to 
    whom I wish to yield, to offer an amendment. Would it be 
    permissible for me to yield to the gentleman from Kentucky to offer 
    that amendment to the rule, so as to provide, on page 2, after the 
    period, I would presume, in the second line, ``and points of order 
    shall be waived with respect to one amendment to be offered by the 
    chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor''?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: May the Chair inquire of the gentleman 
    whether he has instructions from the Committee on Rules to offer 
    such an amendment?
        Mr. Pepper: I have no specific instructions for yielding for 
    the offering of that amendment, from the Committee on Rules, except 
    it was within the intendment, I understood, of the Committee on 
    Rules that this amendment would be admissible. I do not propose to 
    act by the authority of the Committee on Rules if I should yield 
    for such an amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman, of course, would be 
    doing it on his own responsibility, then, and not subject to the 
    order of the Committee on Rules.
        The Chair will add, the only other way an amendment could be 
    offered to the rule would be under the rules of the House. . . .
        Mr. Pepper: Mr. Speaker, I have not offered any such amendment. 
    I do not propose to yield for the purpose of offering such an 
    amendment, since I do not have authority to do so from the 
    Committee on Rules. I simply present the rule as it is written to 
    the House for its consideration.

Amendment to Committee Amendment

Sec. 13.6 A committee amendment printed in a resolution being

[[Page 6886]]

    considered in the House is not subject to amendment unless the 
    Member controlling the resolution yields for that purpose or the 
    previous question is voted down on the amendment.

    On Nov. 15, 1973,(16) a resolution 17 as 
under consideration to provide additional funds for investigations by 
the Committee on the Judiciary. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 119 Cong. Rec. 37141-44, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
17. H. Res. 702 (Committee on House Administration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Wiggins [of California]: . . . Mr. Speaker, 
    was the committee amendment agreed to? . . .
        The Speaker: (18) The committee amendment was 
    reported. It was not agreed to. The Chair had started to put the 
    question. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Will the gentleman yield for an amendment to the committee 
    amendment?
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not 
    yield for an amendment to the committee amendment.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman move the previous question on 
    the committee amendment?
        Mr. Hays: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    committee amendment.

Recognition Under Five-Minute Rule

Sec. 13.7 A Member recognized under the five-minute rule in Committee 
    of the Whole may not yield to another Member to offer an amendment; 
    a Member wishing to offer an amendment under the five-minute rule 
    must seek recognition from the Chair and may not be yielded the 
    floor for that purpose by another Member.

    This principle was demonstrated in the proceedings of Dec. 12, 
1973.(19) Mr. Robert C. Eckhardt, of Texas, sought 
unsuccessfully to withdraw an amendment and to yield to another Member 
to offer a different amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 41170, 41171, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 11450, the Energy Emergency Act.
            For a discussion of the five-minute rule, see Rule XXIII 
        clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 (101st Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
    this amendment at this time in order to permit the Rodino amendment 
    to be considered.
        The Chairman: (20) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Bolling (Mo.).

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

[[Page 6887]]

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    object. . . .
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
    the amendment at this time.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Texas?
        Mr. [Harold V.] Froehlich [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Derwinski).
        Mr. Derwinski: Mr. Chairman, I merely want to make this 
    observation:
        Here we are in the consideration of the first major amendment 
    to this bill. We have an amendment to an amendment to that offered, 
    and now we have had an attempt to withdraw that amendment because 
    our constitutional lawyers on the Committee of the Judiciary are 
    going to lift a new amendment out of the clear blue sky. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Seiberling).
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: I yield to the gentleman 
    from Texas.
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my colleagues 
    to vote against this amendment, since I have not been permitted to 
    withdraw it, because I do want the Rodino amendment to be before 
    the body, and I shall offer it as soon as I have an opportunity so 
    to do and yield to the gentleman from New Jersey the distinguished 
    chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
        Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, I wish to commend the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) not only for his magnanimous gesture but 
    especially for his initiative in trying to clean up this simply 
    terrible antitrust exemption in this bill. . . .
        I want to say that the amendment to be offered by the gentleman 
    from New Jersey has been approved by the Federal Trade Commission 
    and by the Justice Department. The gentleman from New Jersey is not 
    only the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, but he 
    is also the chairman of the Subcommittee on Antitrust. I am a 
    member of his subcommittee, and I think the Members can rest 
    assured that the amendment addresses itself to the problem in a 
    comprehensive way. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) to the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
    Staggers).
        The amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    was rejected.
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas 
    (Mr. Eckhardt) rise?
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield to the gentleman 
    from New Jersey (Mr. Rodino).
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman for that 
    purpose.

Sec. 13.8 The proponent of an amendment in Committee of the Whole is 
    entitled to five minutes of debate in favor of the amendment before 
    a perfecting amendment may be

[[Page 6888]]

    offered thereto, and he may not yield to another to offer an 
    amendment.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on May 31, 
1984,(1) during consideration of H.R. 5167, the Department 
of Defense authorization bill. The proceedings in the Committee of the 
Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 130 Cong. Rec. 14648, 98th 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: At the end of this bill 
        insert the following new section. . . .

        Mr. Dickinson (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and 
    printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Alabama?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield to me?
        Mr. Dickinson: I am very pleased to yield to the chairman of 
    the committee.
        Mr. Price: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer a perfecting 
    amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama. 
    The amendment is at the desk.
        The Chairman: The Chair will make the observation that the 
    gentleman has not yet discussed his amendment. At the conclusion of 
    that discussion, it will then be in order for the gentleman to 
    offer an amendment.