[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[C. Offering Particular Kinds of Amendments; Precedence and Priorities]
[Â§ 15. Introductory; Perfecting Amendments, Generally]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6904-6940]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
 C. OFFERING PARTICULAR KINDS OF AMENDMENTS; PRECEDENCE AND PRIORITIES
 
Sec. 15. Introductory; Perfecting Amendments, Generally

    The broader principles governing the order in which amendments are 
considered during the process of reading a bill for amendment have been 
discussed in prior sections.(10) Similarly, the general 
rules governing the number and forms of amendments that may be under 
consideration at any one time have been treated 
elsewhere.(11) The purpose of this and ensuing sections is 
to consider procedures applicable in offering specific kinds of 
amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See, for example, Sec. 7-10, supra.
11. See, Sec. 5, 6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted at the beginning that a motion to strike out the 
enacting words of a bill, being a device used for purposes of rejecting 
the bill, has precedence over a motion to amend the 
bill.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule XXIII clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 875 (101st Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, the House follows the principle expressed in Jefferson's 
Manual that language should be perfected before taking other action on 
it. Thus, a perfecting amendment to the text of a bill is in order and 
takes precedence over a pending motion to strike out the 
text.(13) The term ``perfecting amendment,'' of course, 
includes amendments or motions to strike out and insert.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 15.3, infra.
14. See, generally, Sec. 16, infra.

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

[[Page 6905]]

        When a motion to strike out is pending, it is not in order to 
    offer a substitute therefor; but a perfecting amendment to the text 
    proposed to be stricken may be offered at such time.(15) 
    And while it is not in order to further amend an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute for several paragraphs which has been agreed 
    to, a perfecting amendment to a paragraph of the bill proposed to 
    be stricken out (in conformity with the purpose of the adopted 
    substitute) may be offered while the motion to strike out is 
    pending, and the perfecting amendment is first voted 
    upon.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 18.9, infra.
16. See Sec. 2.16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To illustrate further, where a paragraph (or section) of a bill is 
under consideration, there may be pending at one time the following 
separate motions to amend if offered in the order indicated:
    (1) to strike out the paragraph (or section) in its entirety;
    (2) to strike out the paragraph (or section) and insert;
    (3) to insert, strike out and insert, or strike out a portion of 
the paragraph (or section)--a perfecting amendment to the paragraph or 
section.
    However, if the perfecting amendment (3) is offered first, the 
motions to strike out the paragraph and insert new language (2) or to 
strike out the paragraph (1) may not be offered until the perfecting 
amendments are disposed of. The above motions to amend are voted on in 
the reverse order listed above, under the principle that language 
should first be perfected before changed in its entirety or stricken 
out. With the exception that (2) above may be amended by a perfecting 
amendment before it is voted upon, it is generally the rule that the 
above motions may not be offered as amendments to or substitutes for 
one another.                          -------------------

Generally; Precedence Over Motion To Strike

Sec. 15.1 To a paragraph of a bill, there may be pending at one time 
    the following separate motions to amend: (1) to insert; (2) to 
    strike out the paragraph and insert; and (3) to strike out the 
    paragraph. These motions are voted on separately in the order 
    listed; they may not be offered as amendments to or substitutes for 
    one another, and they need not be offered in the order in which 
    they are voted on.

    An illustration of the procedures described above is found in the 
proceedings of July 12, 1951,(17) during consideration of a

[[Page 6906]]

bill (18) to amend the Defense Production Act of 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 97 Cong. Rec. 8073, 8077, 8084, 8090, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
18. H.R. 3871.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Howard H. Buffett (of Nebraska): Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Buffett: Page 8, line 25, strike 
        out all of subsection (e). . . .

        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wolcott as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Buffett: Page 8, line 25, strike out 
        subsection (e) and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            ``(e) When in his judgment it will aid the national 
        defense, the President is authorized to install additional 
        equipment facilities, processes, or improvements to plants, 
        factories, and other industrial facilities owned by the United 
        States Government, and to install Government-owned equipment in 
        plants, factories, and other industrial facilities owned by 
        private persons.''. . .

        Mr. [Jacob K.] Javits [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment perfecting the language sought to be stricken by the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Buffett].
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Javits: On page 9, line 1, after 
        the word ``defense'', insert ``and upon the certification of 
        the Director of Defense Mobilization that it is required for 
        the national defense and is not otherwise obtainable.''. . .

        The Chairman: (19) The gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
    Buffett] has moved to strike certain language from the bill 
    beginning with line 25 on page 8 through line 20, page 9. The 
    gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Wolcott] has offered a motion which he 
    labeled a substitute, but which in reality is a motion to strike 
    out and insert. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Javits] has 
    offered a perfecting amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the rules the perfecting amendment will be voted upon 
    first; the motion to strike out and insert will be voted upon next; 
    and, should the amendment by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
    Wolcott] be adopted, the motion made by the gentleman from Nebraska 
    [Mr. Buffett] would fall.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: Is the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Javits] an amendment to the Wolcott substitute or to the 
    Buffett amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Javits] has 
    offered a perfecting amendment to the text of the bill; it is not 
    an amendment to the Wolcott amendment.
        Mr. Javits: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    amendments may be read before they are voted on.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New York?
        There was no objection.

[[Page 6907]]

        The Chairman: The Clerk will read the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Javits].
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Javits: Page 9, line 1, after the 
        word ``defense'', insert ``and upon certification of the 
        Director of Defense Mobilization that it is required for the 
        national defense and is not otherwise obtainable.''

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question recurs on the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Wolcott], which the Clerk under 
    the unanimous-consent agreement will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wolcott as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Buffett: Page 8, line 25, strike out 
        subsection (e) and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            ``(e) When in his judgment it will aid the national 
        defense, the President is authorized to install additional 
        equipment facilities, processes, or improvements to plants, 
        factories, and other industrial facilities owned by the United 
        States Government, and to install Government-owned equipment in 
        plants, factories, and other industrial facilities owned by 
        private persons.''

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Wolcott) there were--ayes 125, noes 116. . . .
        So the amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Accordingly the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Buffett] falls.

Sec. 15.2 While a motion to strike out is pending, it is in order to 
    offer an amendment to perfect the language proposed to be stricken 
    out; such a perfecting amendment (which is in the first degree) may 
    be amended by a substitute (also in the first degree), and 
    amendments to the substitute are then in the second degree and in 
    order.

    On Oct. 19, 1983,(20) during consideration of H.R. 
3231,(1) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings 
described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 129 Cong. Rec. 28274, 28282, 28283, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. Export Administration Act Amendments of 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      amendment offered by mr. courter

        Mr. [James A.] Courter [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Courter: Page 14, line 4, strike 
        out ``If'' and all that follows through ``involved.'' on line 
        8.
            Page 16, line 18, strike out ``If'' and all that follows 
        through ``involved.'' on line 22. . . .

                 perfecting amendment offered by mr. bonker

        Mr. [Don] Bonker [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Bonker: Page 14, line 
        4, strike

[[Page 6908]]

        out ``If '' and all that follows through ``involved.'' on line 
        8 and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``If, within 6 
        months after the President's determination, the foreign 
        availability has not been eliminated, the Secretary may not, 
        after the end of that 6-month period, require a validated 
        license for the export of the goods or technology involved.''. 
        . .

    amendment offered by mr. solomon as a substitute for the perfecting 
                      amendment offered by mr. bonker

        Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon as a substitute for the 
        perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Bonker: Page 14, line 8, 
        insert the following immediately after the first period: ``The 
        President may extend the 6-month period described in the 
        preceding sentence for an additional period of one year if the 
        President determines that the absence of the export control 
        involved would prove detrimental to the national security of 
        the United States.''. . .

      amendment offered by mr. hunter to the amendment offered by mr. 
    solomon as a substitute for the perfecting amendment offered by mr. 
                                   bonker

        Mr. [Duncan L.] Hunter [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hunter to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Solomon as a substitute for the perfecting amendment 
        offered by Mr. Bonker: At the end of the Solomon amendment add 
        the following new sentence: ``If at the end of said year, 
        foreign availability remains, and the President determines that 
        transfer of the subject technology by the United States would 
        damage national security, the Secretary shall require a license 
        as a prerequisite to transfer.''. . .

        Mr. Bonker: Mr. Chairman, I have offered an amendment to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute but as I understand it the 
    gentleman from New Jersey simply strikes. So my amendment would be 
    to the text of the bill.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman is correct. His 
    amendment is in the first degree as a perfecting amendment to the 
    provision which the gentleman from New Jersey would strike out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  2. John F. Seiberling (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bonker: The amendment that has been offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), is that in the form of an 
    amendment to my substitute or in the form of an amendment to my 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: As the Chair understands it, it is an amendment 
    to the substitute offered by the gentleman from New York. It is an 
    amendment to the Solomon substitute for the Bonker perfecting 
    amendment.
        Mr. Bonker: Is that an amendment in the third degree?
        The Chairman: No, it is not. The Solomon amendment is a 
    substitute and this is an amendment to the substitute for the 
    Bonker amendment.
        Mr. Bonker: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

[[Page 6909]]

Sec. 15.3 A perfecting amendment to the text of a bill is in order and 
    takes precedence over a pending motion to strike out the text.

    On Oct. 3, 1969,(3) The following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  3. 115 Cong. Rec. 28454, 28455, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 14000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Motion offered by Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: 
        On page 16, line 9, strike all of Title V. . . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana] 
        to title V: On page 17, immediately after line 13 insert the 
        following:

        ``Sec. 505. (a) The Comptroller General of the United States 
    (hereinafter in this section referred to as the `Comptroller 
    General') is authorized. . . .''
        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, is 
    this an amendment to the amendment or is this another amendment?
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair will state that this is 
    an amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana to title V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rivers: Mr. Chairman, I submit that this amendment is not 
    germane because the amendment before embodied is to strike the 
    section. How can you have an amendment to a section that is to be 
    stricken? . . .
        The Chairman: . . . Perfecting amendments to a title in a bill 
    may be offered while there is pending a motion to strike out such 
    title. . . . The Chair will state that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana is to title V; a perfecting amendment, and 
    it is in order to offer perfecting amendments when a motion to 
    strike is pending. . . .
        Mr. (Frank E.) Evans of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, if the 
    amendment of the gentleman from Indiana passes, and thereafter the 
    motion of the gentleman from New York passes, what is the status of 
    the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana?
        The Chairman: If the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Indiana is agreed to and the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    New York to strike the whole title is agreed to, then the amendment 
    will be stricken.

Sec. 15.4 A perfecting amendment may be offered while a motion to 
    strike out is pending and the perfecting amendment is first acted 
    upon.

    On Aug. 14, 1963,(5) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 109 Cong. Rec. 14987, 14988, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 6143.
            See also 109 Cong. Rec. 2462, 2488, 2489, 88th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Feb. 7, 1963, for a further ruling that a perfecting 
        amendment may be offered while a motion to strike out is 
        pending.
            And see 96 Cong. Rec. 4518, 4521, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 
        31, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) The Clerk will report the 
    committee amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. W. Homer Thornberry (Tex.).

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

[[Page 6910]]

                              Committee Amendments

            Page 7, line 4, insert ``State'' immediately before 
        ``commission''. . . .
            Page 15, beginning with line 5, strike out everything down 
        through line 16 on page 16.
            Page 23, beginning in line 5, strike out ``, 
        notwithstanding the provisions of any other law,''.
            Page 23, line 7, strike out ``may be'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``are''.
            Page 26, line 7, after ``divinity'' insert the following: 
        ``(For the purposes of this subparagraph, the term `school or 
        department of divinity' means an institution, or a department 
        or branch of an institution, whose program is specifically for 
        the education of students to prepare them to become ministers 
        of religion. . . .

        Mr. [John B.] Anderson [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment to the text of the bill which the committee 
    amendment proposes to strike out on page 15, line 9.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Anderson as a perfecting amendment 
        to the text of the bill: On page 15, beginning with line 9, 
        strike out everything down through line 21 on page 16 and 
        insert the following:
            ``(b)(1) The Commissioner's approval or disapproval of an 
        application for a grant under title I or loan under title III 
        shall be effected by an order which shall be conclusive except 
        as otherwise provided in this subsection. Notice of such order 
        shall be published in the Federal Register and shall contain 
        such information as the Commissioner deems necessary to 
        effectuate the purposes of this subsection. . . .

        Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]: Mr. Chairman, is not the 
    effect of the gentleman's amendment to wipe out all of the 
    committee amendments, not just the one to which he refers? And 
    secondly, Mr. Chairman, would it not therefore be in order for the 
    gentleman to withdraw his amendment at this time and offer it 
    afresh after the adoption of the committee amendments?
        The Chairman: In answer to the parliamentary inquiry of the 
    gentleman from California, the gentleman from Illinois can offer 
    the amendment at this time if he so desires. . . .
        The Chair will state that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Anderson] is offering a perfecting amendment to the text of the 
    bill which the committee amendment proposes to strike out and the 
    gentleman's amendment does not affect the other committee 
    amendments except this particular amendment. The gentleman's 
    amendment takes precedence over just this one committee amendment.

Sec. 15.5 A perfecting amendment to a paragraph may be offered while a 
    motion to strike out the paragraph is pending, and the perfecting 
    amendment is voted on first.

    On June 24, 1975,(7) The Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill,(8) an amendment was offered and 
proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  7. 121 Cong. Rec. 20569, 20570, 20573, 20574, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
  8. H.R. 8070, Department of Urban Development appropriations, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Leo J.] Ryan [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 6911]]

        The portion of the bill to which the amendment relates is as 
    follows:

                            Selective Service System

                             salaries and expenses

            For expenses necessary for the Selective Service System, 
        including expenses of attendance at meetings and of training 
        for uniformed personnel assigned to the Selective Service 
        System, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 4101-4118) for civilian 
        employees; and not to exceed $1,000 for official reception and 
        representation expenses: $40,000,000: . . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ryan: Page 26, strike out line 18 
        and all that follows thereafter through page 27, line 13.

        Mr. [Robert F.] Drinan [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a perfecting amendment to the paragraph of the bill which the Ryan 
    amendment seeks to strike.

        The Chairman: (9) The Clerk will report the 
    perfecting amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  9. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Drinan to the paragraph 
        which the Ryan amendment seeks to strike: On page 27, line 1, 
        strike out ``$40,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$17,672,000.''

        On page 27, line 11, strike out ``$8,300,000'' and insert in 
    lieu thereof ``$3,272,000.''. . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the perfecting amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Drinan). . . .
        [T]he perfecting amendment was rejected.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Ryan).
        The amendment was rejected.

Sec. 15.6 While an amendment to strike out a section of a bill is 
    pending, a perfecting amendment to that section (to strike out a 
    portion of that section and insert new language) may be offered.

    On July 26, 1973,(10) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 26201-05, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 9360.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: 
        Strike out everything after line 13, page 41, through line 7, 
        page 47.

        Mr. Passman: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, as I 
    mentioned earlier, this item was not requested in the budget; it 
    was not submitted to the Committee on Appropriations; and we have 
    not had hearings on it.
        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Fascell: On page 42, 
        strike out lines 13 through 18 and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following: . . .

        The Chairman: (11) The question is on the perfecting 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fascell).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The perfecting amendment was agreed to. . . .

[[Page 6912]]

        Mr. Passman: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to belabor this 
    discussion any longer. What will the vote be on? Will it be on my 
    own amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman's amendment is the pending 
    amendment.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Louisiana (Mr. Passman).

Sec. 15.7 A perfecting amendment to the text of a bill (inserting new 
    words) is in order and takes precedence over a pending motion to 
    strike out that portion of the text of the bill.

    On Mar. 19, 1970,(12) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 116 Cong. Rec. 8188-91, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [David W.] Dennis [of Indiana]): . . .

            Page 304, strike out lines 1 through 21 in their entirety, 
        thus striking out all of subsection (b) of section 907A of the 
        bill. . . .

        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Amendment offered by Mr. Harsha: On page 304, line 7, after the 
    word ``burglary'' insert ``in the first degree''. . . .
        Mr. Dennis: Mr. Chairman, there is a motion here to strike that 
    is pending. I query whether this amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Ohio is in order under those circumstances. Only a motion to 
    strike is before the committee.
        The Chairman: (13) The motion of the gentleman from 
    Indiana is to strike the section. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio is a perfecting amendment in that language that 
    is moved to be stricken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. James C. Corman (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dennis: Pardon me, Mr. Chairman. I think it is a perfecting 
    amendment in connection with the bill but not as to my amendment. I 
    raise a point of order against it.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio is in the nature of a 
    perfecting amendment that falls within that section of the bill 
    that the gentleman from Indiana would strike by his amendment. 
    Therefore it is in order.

Sec. 15.8 Where a motion to strike out is pending, perfecting 
    amendments may be offered and acted on before consideration of the 
    motion to strike; and if the motion to strike is rejected, further 
    perfecting amendments to the pending text are in order.

    On Oct. 3, 1977,(14) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 3816,(15) the proceedings described 
above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 123 Cong. Rec. 32013, 32017, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. A bill to amend the Federal Trade Commission Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Krueger [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 6913]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Krueger: On page 35, strike line 
        14 and all that follows through line 5 on page 44, and 
        redesignate the following sections accordingly. . . .

        Mrs. [Millicent] Fenwick [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick:

        Page 37, strike out the period in line 12 and insert in lieu 
    thereof a semicolon and the following: ``except that in the case of 
    an action commenced under subparagraph (B) of such subsection, the 
    court may grant such relief only if the plaintiff in such action 
    satisfies the court that the act . . . is one which a reasonable 
    man would have known under the circumstances was . . . 
    fraudulent.''
        Mr. [Charles E.] Wiggins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        . . . [P]ending before the committee is an amendment to the 
    bill striking section 7 in its entirety. The gentlewoman from New 
    Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick) has offered what she characterizes as a 
    perfecting amendment to an amendment to strike which amends a 
    portion of section 7.
        It is my view, Mr. Chairman, that that amendment is not in 
    order since section 7 is to be stricken entirely if the original 
    amendment carries. The second amendment, the perfecting amendment, 
    is inconsistent with the original amendment in its entirety, and 
    for that reason it is out of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The perfecting amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New 
    Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick) is not an amendment to the amendment to 
    strike. It is an amendment in the nature of a perfecting amendment 
    to the bill.
        Perfecting amendments to the text of the bill are in order and 
    take precedence over a pending motion or amendment to strike the 
    pending portion of the bill.
        Therefore, the Chair respectfully overrules the point of order. 
    . . .
        Mr. Wiggins: Mr. Chairman, several of us have amendments which 
    will be offered if the motion to strike does not carry. Will those 
    perfecting amendments be in order after the vote on the motion to 
    strike?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that if the amendment or 
    motion to strike does not carry, those amendments will be in order.

Sec. 15.9 Where an amendment striking out a section is first offered, 
    an amendment to change a portion of the section proposed to be 
    stricken is then offered as a perfecting amendment (in the first 
    degree) to the bill and not as an amendment to the motion to 
    strike; the perfecting amendment is voted on first and remains part 
    of the bill if the motion to strike is then rejected.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on Sept. 18, 
1986,(17) during consideration

[[Page 6914]]

of H.R. 1426.(18) The proceedings in the Committee of the 
Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 132 Cong. Rec. 24120-22, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. Indian Health Care amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard C.] Nielson of Utah: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Nielson of Utah: Page 12, strike 
        line 1 and all that follows through page 14, line 20 (and 
        redesignate the subsequent sections of title II of the bill 
        accordingly). . . .

        Mr. [John S.] McCain [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Chairman: (19) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Beryl F. Anthony, Jr. (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. McCain. Section 201 is 
        amended by striking:
            ``(h) There are authorized to be appropriated for the 
        purposes of carrying out the provisions of this section--
            ``(1) $28,000,000 for fiscal year 1988. . . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the perfecting amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. McCain) to title II.
        The perfecting amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Utah (Mr. Nielson).
        The amendment was rejected.
        The Chairman: Are there other amendments to title II? . . .
        Mr. Nielson of Utah: Mr. Chairman, on the perfecting amendment 
    of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. McCain), that amendment passed 
    but my amendment failed. That means that his amendment went down 
    with mine; is that correct?
        The Chairman: The perfecting amendment of the gentleman from 
    Arizona prevailed to the bill, not to the gentleman's amendment, 
    and at the present it is the prevailing amendment.
        Mr. Nielson of Utah: It is part of the bill, then?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. Yes; it is part of the 
    bill.

Sec. 15.10 The Chair indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry 
    that an amendment to add words to a paragraph, offered while a 
    motion to strike that paragraph was pending, was a preferential 
    perfecting amendment and not a substitute for the motion to strike.

    On Feb. 24, 1977,(20) the Chair, responding to a 
parliamentary inquiry, indicated that where it was proposed to strike 
out a paragraph of a bill (1) and an amendment was offered 
perfecting the text of the bill, such amendment was a preferential 
amendment and not a substitute for the mo

[[Page 6915]]

tion to strike. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 123 Cong. Rec. 5321, 5323, 5325, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. H.R. 11, Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act 
        amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sam] Gibbons [of Florida]: Madam Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

            Page 2, strike out line 23 and all that follows down 
        through and including line 7 on page 3. . . .

        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Madam Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Harsha: Page 3, line 7, 
        after the first period insert the following:
            ``This subsection shall not apply in any case where the 
        Secretary determines it to be inconsistent with the public 
        interest, or the cost to be unreasonable. . . .

        Mr. Gibbons: Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I 
    only take the floor for the purpose of asking the gentleman from 
    Ohio to clarify his amendment. As I understand it, his amendment is 
    a substitute for my amendment. If the gentleman's amendment is 
    adopted, my amendment would be wiped out and his would, in effect, 
    be reaffirmation of the existing buy American law. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair would say to the 
    gentleman from Florida that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Ohio is a perfecting amendment to the text of the bill, and it 
    will be voted on first because of its precedence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert A.] Roe [of New Jersey]: Madam Chairman, would the 
    Chair explain the parliamentary situation?
        The Chairman: The parliamentary situation is this:
        The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons) offered an amendment 
    to strike a paragraph from the bill. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Harsha) offered an amendment which is a perfecting amendment to the 
    original bill and which, if it is adopted, would be a part of the 
    original text which the gentleman from Florida proposes to strike.
        The question would then occur on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons). If the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Florida were adopted, then the language which 
    had been included as a perfecting amendment would also be stricken, 
    along with the rest of the paragraph.
        The question is on the perfecting amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha).
        The perfecting amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons).
        The amendment was rejected.

Debate on Motion To Strike May Precede Offering of Perfecting Amendment

Sec. 15.11 While a motion to strike a pending portion of a bill will be 
    held in abeyance until perfecting amendments to that portion are 
    disposed of, a Member who has been recognized to debate his motion 
    to strike may not be deprived of the floor by an

[[Page 6916]]

    other Member who seeks to offer a perfecting amendment; after the 
    Member so recognized has completed his five minutes in support of 
    his motion to strike, but before the question is put on the motion 
    to strike, the perfecting amendment may be offered and voted upon.

    On Oct. 31, 1975,(3) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill,(4) the proceedings, described 
above, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 121 Cong. Rec. 34564, 34565, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. H.R. 10024, Depository Institutions Amendments of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rousselot: Beginning on page 10, 
        line 18, strike all that follows through page 188, line 10. . . 
        .

        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: I believe that 
    under the rules of the House since this amendment involves a motion 
    to strike the title, that perfecting amendments that are at the 
    desk take precedence over such a motion to strike a title. Is that 
    not correct?
        The Chairman: (5) That is true, if any are offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Spark M. Matsunaga (Hawaii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. St Germain: I believe there are amendments pending.
        Mr. [John Joseph] Moakley [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    might state that I was standing when the Chairman recognized the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot), and I have a perfecting 
    amendment at the desk.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from California, Mr. Rousselot, is pending now, 
    and that the gentleman from California has been recognized. The 
    gentleman may offer his perfecting amendment after the gentleman 
    from California has completed his five minutes in support of his 
    amendment to strike.

En Bloc Amendment Striking Text

Sec. 15.12 Where by unanimous consent, several committee amendments are 
    being considered en bloc, an amendment to perfect text proposed to 
    be stricken by one of the en bloc amendments is in order; it takes 
    precedence over that particular committee amendment, and is first 
    acted upon.

    On Aug. 14, 1963,(6) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 109 Cong. Rec. 14987, 14988, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 6143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the committee amendments be considered en 
    bloc. . . .

[[Page 6917]]

        There was no objection. . . .
        [The Clerk here read several committee amendments, one of which 
    follows:]

                             [Committee Amendments]

            Page 15, beginning with line 5, strike out everything down 
        through line 16 on page 16. . . .

        Mr. [John B.] Anderson [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment to the text of the bill which the committee 
    amendment proposes to strike out on page 15, line 9.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Anderson as a perfecting amendment 
        to the text of the bill: . . .

    In response to parliamentary inquiries as to the propriety of the 
amendment, the Chairman (7) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. W. Homer Thornberry (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will state that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Anderson] is offering a perfecting amendment to the text of the 
    bill which the committee amendment proposes to strike out and the 
    gentleman's amendment does not affect the other committee 
    amendments except this particular amendment. The gentleman's 
    amendment takes precedence over just this one committee amendment.

Perfecting Amendment Not Offered to Motion To Strike

Sec. 15.13 When a motion to strike out a pending portion of a bill is 
    pending, perfecting amendments are in order to the text proposed to 
    be stricken--not to the motion to strike.

    On Aug. 4, 1966,(8) the following proceedings took place 
after a unanimous-consent request had been made that, when the 
Committee of the Whole resumed consideration of the bill, there would 
be thirty minutes of debate followed by a vote on the pending motion to 
strike a title of the bill, and, if that motion were defeated, the 
Committee would then continue to consider the title:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 112 Cong. Rec. 18207, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 14765.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: . . . [T]he Chair 
    repeatedly ruled in the last 2 weeks of debate, if you will recall, 
    that perfecting amendments must be heard to the Moore amendment 
    before you called for a vote and then thereafter there will be 
    additional votes on title IV. This was thoroughly understood.
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman from Missouri must 
    have misheard the Chair, because there have been and there are and 
    there could be no perfecting amendments to the Moore motion to 
    strike. The perfecting amendments are to the title, and the title 
    must be perfected prior to a vote on the Moore amendment unless 
    this

[[Page 6918]]

    unanimous-consent agreement is entered into.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Construed as Offered to Bill

Sec. 15.14 Since a perfecting amendment to strike out and insert takes 
    precedence over a motion to strike out, the Chair may examine the 
    effect of an amendment proposed to a pending motion to strike to 
    determine whether it is properly a perfecting amendment in the 
    first degree to that portion of the bill proposed to be stricken.

    On July 18, 1979,(10) while a motion to strike out 
certain words in a bill was pending, the Chair interpreted another 
amendment, imprecisely drafted as an amendment to that amendment 
reinserting with one change all the words proposed to be stricken, as 
in reality a perfecting amendment to the bill which merely changed some 
of the language proposed to be stricken. The proceedings, during 
consideration of H.R. 4473, foreign assistance appropriations for 
fiscal 1980, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 19310-12, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

           contribution to the international development association

            For payment to the International Development Association by 
        the Secretary of the Treasury $292,000,000 for the United 
        States contribution to the fourth replenishment as authorized 
        by the Act of August 14, 1974 (Public Law 93-373), to remain 
        available until expended. . . .

        Mr. [C. W. Bill] Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Florida: On page 4, line 
        4, after the comma, strike the remainder of line 4 and lines 5 
        through 7.

        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment by Mr. Obey to the amendment offered by Mr. Young 
        of Florida: Restore the matter stricken by said amendment, 
        changing the sum named in such matter to ``$286,160,000''. . . 
        .

        Mr. Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order 
    that this amendment is not in proper form. It is not germane to the 
    amendment it seeks to amend. To the contrary, it would seek to 
    amend the bill.
        The gentleman's amendment mentions a dollar figure. There is no 
    dollar figure mentioned in the Young amendment which it seeks to 
    amend. The Young amendment simply is an amendment to strike 
    language from the bill. It neither substitutes nor replaces, it 
    merely strikes. I submit that this amendment is not in proper form 
    and is not germane to the amend
    ment. . . .

[[Page 6919]]

        The Chairman: (11) The Chair has looked at the 
    amendment, and the Chair would say that the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Florida strikes a part of the bill, that the 
    amendment sent up by the gentleman from Wisconsin is, in fact, a 
    perfecting amendment to the bill, which is one of the exceptions of 
    having two amendments pending at the same time. The amendment of 
    the gentleman from Wisconsin only changes the figure that is part 
    of the text of the bill which the gentleman from Florida seeks to 
    strike altogether, and therefore the Chair will respectfully 
    overrule the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments Disposed of Seriatim; Perfecting Amendment Striking Smaller 
    Portion of Text

Sec. 15.15 Perfecting amendments to a paragraph may be offered (one at 
    a time) while a motion to strike out the paragraph is pending, and 
    such perfecting amendments are first disposed of.

    On Mar. 29, 1966,(12) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 112 Cong. Rec. 7104-06, 7118, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 14012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: On page 
        4, strike out lines 6 through 22, inclusive. . . .

        Mr. [Leonard] Farbstein [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Farbstein: On page 4, line 14, 
        strike out ``$12,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$30,000,000''.

        Mr. [Joseph L.] Evins of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York since the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
    [Mr. Bow] is pending.
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York is a 
    perfecting amendment to the paragraph, which the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Ohio would completely strike out. Since the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York is a perfecting 
    amendment, it is in order. . . .
        The amendment was rejected.
        Mr. [William F.] Ryan [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ryan: On page 4, strike out lines 
        15 through 22.

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York.
        The amendment was rejected.
        The Chairman: The question now occurs on the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow].

[[Page 6920]]

Perfecting Amendments Where Motion To Strike Being Considered by 
    Unanimous Consent

Sec. 15.16 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 one portion of a section of a bill not yet 
    read for amendment where unanimous consent has been obtained to 
    consider a motion to strike another portion of that section.

    On Oct. 5, 1977,(14) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 8410,(15) the proceedings, 
described above, occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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.

Amendment Striking Lesser Portion of Text

Sec. 15.17 Where it is proposed to strike out certain words in a

[[Page 6921]]

    bill, it is in order to perfect the words before acting on the 
    motion to strike; and the perfecting amendment may take the form of 
    a motion to strike out a lesser portion of the words encompassed in 
    the pending motion to strike.

    On Oct. 3, 1969,(17) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 115 Cong. Rec. 28454, 28455, 28459, 28460, 28463, 28464, 91st Cong. 
        1st Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 14000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Motion offered by Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: 
        On page 16, line 9, strike all of Title V. . . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana] 
        to title V: On page 17, immediately after line 13 insert the 
        following:
            Sec. 505. (a) The Comptroller General of the United States 
        (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``Comptroller 
        General'') is authorized and directed, as soon as practicable 
        after the date of enactment of this section, to conduct a study 
        and review on a selective basis of the profits made by 
        contractors and subcontractors on contracts on which there is 
        no formally advertised competitive bidding entered into by the 
        Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, the 
        Department of the Air Force, the Coast Guard, and the National 
        Aeronautics and Space Administration under the authority of 
        chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, and on contracts 
        entered into by the Atomic Energy Commission to meet 
        requirements of the Department of Defense. . . .

     Substitute Amendment Offered by Mr. Anderson of Illinois for the 
                 Amendment to Title v Offered by Mr. Jacobs

        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment to title V.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Anderson of Illinois: On page 16, 
        line 13, after the period, strike out the balance of the 
        language of title V which appears on pages 16 down to the 
        period on line 24, and add a new section 502 which reads as 
        follows:
            Sec. 502 (a) The Secretary of Defense, in cooperation with 
        the Comptroller General, shall develop a reporting system for 
        major acquisition programs managed by the Department of 
        Defense, any department or agency thereof, or any armed service 
        of the United States, for the acquisition of any weapons system 
        or other need of the United States.
            ``(b) The Secretary of Defense shall cause a review to be 
        made of each major acquisition program as specified in 
        subsection (a). . .''.

        The Chairman: (18) . . . Does the gentleman from 
    Illinois offer this amendment as a substitute for the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Jacobs)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Anderson of Illinois. Yes. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the substitute amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson) for the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Jacobs). . . .
        So the substitute amendment was rejected. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Jacobs). . . .

[[Page 6922]]

        So the amendment was rejected. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [William F.] Ryan [of New York]: 
        On page 16, after the period on line 13, strike out the 
        remainder of line 13. . . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Ryan).
        The amendment was rejected.
        The Chairman: . . . The question is on the motion to strike 
    offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton).
        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 15.18 Where there is pending a motion to strike an entire title of 
    a bill, it is in order to offer, as a perfecting amendment to that 
    title, a motion to strike out a lesser portion of the title, and 
    that perfecting amendment is voted on first.

    On June 11, 1975,(19) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 6860,(20) motion to strike out a 
title of the bill was offered. The proceedings, described above, were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 18435, 18437, 18438, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Energy Conservation and Conversion Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Alexander: Strike out title II 
        (relating to energy conservation taxes), beginning on line 1 of 
        page 29, and ending on line 24 of page 57. . . .

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment to 
    strike will not be voted on until there is opportunity to vote on 
    all of the perfecting amendments to title II?
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fortney H.] Stark [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    several amendments, and ask unanimous consent that they be 
    considered en bloc.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Stark:
            Page 30, strike out line 1 and all that follows down 
        through line 5 on page 31.
            Page 32, strike out line 20 and all that follows down 
        through line 25. . . .

        Mr. Ullman: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California has 
    offered an amendment which would strike part B. The gentleman from 
    Arkansas has offered an amendment which would strike the whole 
    title.
        I would assume, after part B is perfected, as the gentleman's 
    amendment to strike part B asks, it would come before the amendment 
    to strike the whole title. Am I correct?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the chairman of 
    the committee that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Stark) is a perfecting amendment and will be voted 
    on first.

    Parliamentarian's Note: When title II of the bill was read, an 
amendment was offered to strike

[[Page 6923]]

out the entire title (no one sought recognition at that point with a 
perfecting amendment). Perfecting amendments to the text of the bill 
proposed to be stricken were in order although the motion to strike 
itself was not amendable. The first such perfecting amendment offered 
was to strike out a portion of the title. The Committee on Ways and 
Means sought to consider amendments to modify that portion prior to the 
consideration of a motion to strike that portion, but since only one 
perfecting amendment could be pending at a time and there is no degree 
of preference as between perfecting amendments, unanimous consent was 
required to withdraw the perfecting amendment to strike; objection to 
that request precluded the offering of other perfecting amendments at 
that time.

Member Offering Motion To Strike as Precluded From Offering Perfecting 
    Amendment

Sec. 15.19 A Member who has offered a motion to strike a section of a 
    bill may not thereafter offer a perfecting amendment to that 
    section while his motion to strike is pending.

    On Sept. 29, 1975,(2) during consideration of a bill 
(3) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to 
parliamentary inquiries as described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.  Cong. Rec. 30772, 30773, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. H.R. 8630, Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I will 
    try to propound a proper parliamentary inquiry. . . .

    . . . My original amendment was to strike section 2 in its 
entirety. We have just accepted striking from line 20, section 2, 
through line 6 on page 13. Is an amendment in order at this point to 
strike the remainder of that section?

        The Chairman: (4) the Chair will respond to the 
    gentleman by saying that an amendment would be in order to strike 
    so much of the section that was not amended by the gentleman from 
    Arkansas' amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Derwinski: But obviously I am precluded at this point from 
    offering an amendment to strike beginning on line 20, page 12.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Illinois that other Members would not be precluded from offering 
    such an amendment.

Amendment Striking Out Title

Sec. 15.20 Where there was pending an amendment to strike

[[Page 6924]]

    out a title of a bill, the Chairman indicated that a perfecting 
    amendment inserting a new section within that title could be 
    offered.

    On Nov. 4, 1971,(5) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 117 Cong. Rec. 39287, 39288, 39290, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 7248.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Edith S.] Green of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Green of Oregon: Beginning with 
        line 7 on page 256, strike out everything down through line 25 
        on page 262.

        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, is an 
    amendment in order at this point which would amend that title as it 
    now stands, when we have an amendment to strike the title now 
    pending?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (6) the Chair will state 
    to the gentleman that an amendment to the title would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion To Strike Precluded

Sec. 15.21 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair indicated 
    (1) that the pendency of a perfecting amendment to a title of a 
    bill would preclude the offering of an amendment to strike out the 
    title; but (2) that the motion to strike could be offered following 
    disposition of the perfecting amendment.

    On Sept. 9, 1971,(7) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 117 Cong. Rec. 31132, 31133, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 9727.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne N.] Aspinall [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I have the 
    following inquiry of the Chairman: If a member of the committee 
    should offer a perfecting amendment to title III, would that 
    prevent the Member now speaking from offering his amendment to 
    strike?
        The Chairman: (8) If a perfecting amendment were 
    pending, a motion to strike would not at that time be in order. The 
    gentleman's motion could, however, be made at a subsequent time. . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Aspinall: I understood the Chair to say that after a motion 
    to perfect had been made by a member of the committee, then my 
    motion to strike the section as perfected would be in order. Is 
    that correct?
        The Chairman: After the perfecting amendment is disposed of the 
    motion to strike would be in order at that time.

Motion To Strike Not in Order as Substitute

Sec. 15.22 Where a perfecting amendment to a section of a bill was 
    pending in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair indicated that an

[[Page 6925]]

    amendment to strike out that entire section would not be in order 
    as a substitute for the pending amendment.

    On Aug. 16, 1972,(9) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 118 Cong. Rec. 28400, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 16071.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: 
        Page 38, strike out lines 23 and 24 and insert in lieu thereof 
        the following: . . .

        Mr. [Marion G.] Snyder [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I should 
    like to ask if an amendment to strike the entire section is in 
    order as a substitute to this kind of amendment.
        The Chairman: (10) the Chair will advise the 
    gentleman that it is not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John Slack (W. Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 15.23 An amendment proposing to strike out a section is not a 
    proper substitute for a perfecting amendment to that section (to 
    strike out and insert), but where no point of order is raised 
    against the substitute, the Chair nevertheless has followed the 
    principle that the pending text should first be perfected before 
    the vote recurs on striking it out.

    On July 22, 1976,(11) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 13777, the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act of 1976, the proceedings described above occurred as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 122 Cong. Rec. 23457, 23459, 23460, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: On page 41, 
    strike line 10 and all that follows through line 7 on page 43. 
    Insert in lieu thereof the following:
        Sec. 210(a)(1) The Secretary with respect to the commercial 
    grazing of livestock on the public lands under the Taylor Grazing 
    Act . . . shall charge, commencing with the calendar year 1980, an 
    annual fee or fees per animal unit month for such grazing which 
    shall be the approximate fair market value of the forage provided. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Yates as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Eckhardt: Page 41, strike out line 10 
        on page 41 and all lines thereafter on page 41. . . .

        The Chairman: (12) The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) is a perfecting amendment to 
    section 210. The ``substitute'' offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Yates) is, in effect, a motion to strike the entire 
    section against which no point of order was raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The first vote will be on the perfecting amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt).

Vote on Motion To Strike

Sec. 15.24 Whether or not preferential perfecting amend

[[Page 6926]]

    ments to the pending text, offered pending a motion to strike that 
    text, are adopted or rejected, a vote still must be taken on the 
    motion to strike (assuming that the perfecting amendments do not 
    change the entire text pending).

    On Oct. 3, 1977,(13) during consideration of H.R. 
3816,(14) in the Committee of the Whole, a perfecting 
amendment was offered to a section of a bill while there was pending a 
motion to strike out that section. The proceedings were as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 123 Cong. Rec. 32013, 32017, 32019, 32020, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. A bill to amend the Federal Trade Commission Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Krueger [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Krueger: On page 35, strike line 
        14 and all that follows through line 5 on page 44, and 
        redesignate the following sections accordingly. . . .

        Mrs. [Millicent] Fenwick [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick:
            Page 37, strike out the period in line 12 and insert in 
        lieu thereof a semicolon and the following: ``except that in 
        the case of an action commenced under subparagraph (B) of such 
        subsection, the court may grant such relief only if the 
        plaintiff in such action satisfies the court that the act . . . 
        is one which a reasonable man would have known under the 
        circumstances was . . . fraudulent.''. . .

        Mr. [Matthew J.] Rinaldo [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, am I 
    correct in my understanding if there were a vote now, the vote 
    would be on the Fenwick amendment and regardless whether it passes 
    or fails, there would still be a vote on the Krueger amendment to 
    strike the entire section?
        The Chairman:(15) That is correct. All perfecting 
    amendments will be in order before a vote on the Krueger amendment. 
    The Krueger amendment will still be pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adoption of Perfecting Amendment Coextensive With Motion To Strike

Sec. 15.25 The motion to strike out and insert takes precedence as a 
    perfecting amendment over a motion to strike out, and if the 
    perfecting amendment is agreed to, and is coextensive with the 
    material proposed to be stricken, the motion to strike out the 
    amended text falls and is not acted on.

    On Dec. 17, 1970,(16) during consideration of H.R. 
19446, the Emergency School Aid Act of

[[Page 6927]]

1970, an amendment was offered by Mrs. Patsy T. Mink, of Hawaii:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 116 Cong. Rec. 42227, 42230, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Mink: Amend section 3c on page 20 
        of the bill to read as follows:
            ``(c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of this 
        section and commencing with fiscal year 1972, no funds are 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out the provisions of 
        this Act where any funds appropriated for the preceding fiscal 
        year for any authorized program administered by the Office of 
        Education are withheld from expenditure by the Department 
        except as allowed by law.''

        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentlewoman yield for a further parliamentary inquiry?
        Mrs. Mink: I yield.
        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: May I inquire of the Chair as to 
    whether or not, if the Mink amendment presently before the 
    committee is adopted an amendment would be in order to strike that 
    section?
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman that the Mink amendment proposes to strike subsection (c) 
    and insert new language. If that amendment is adopted it would not 
    then be in order to strike subsection (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. James C. Corman (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. Mink: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute 
    amendment for the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin as a 
        substitute for the amendment offered by Mrs. Mink: On page 20, 
        strike out lines 11 through 16.

        The Chairman: The Chair would like to state the parliamentary 
    situation before putting the question on the pending amendments.
        The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii is a 
    motion to strike out the subsection and insert new language. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin is a motion to 
    strike out the subsection. The precedents indicate that in this 
    situation the proponents of the subsection should be given a chance 
    to perfect it before the vote is taken on striking it from the 
    bill.
        If the Mink amendment is agreed to, the motion to strike out 
    then falls and is not voted on. If the amendment of the gentlewoman 
    from Hawaii is defeated, then the vote will recur on the motion to 
    strike.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In this instance, without objection, a 
motion to strike out was permitted to be offered as a substitute for a 
motion to strike out and insert, although under the precedents such an 
amendment is not in order as a substitute. (See Rule XVI clause 7, 
House Rules and Manual Sec. 793 (101st Cong.), stating that a motion to 
strike out and insert is not divisible.)

Amendments After Vote on Motion To Strike

Sec. 15.26 Where a motion to strike out is pending, per

[[Page 6928]]

    fecting amendments may be offered, seriatim, and acted on before 
    consideration of the motion to strike; and if the motion to strike 
    out is ultimately defeated, further perfecting amendments to the 
    pending text are yet in order.

    On Aug. 3, 1966,(18) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 18136, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 14765.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William C.] Cramer [of Florida]: Did I understand the 
    Chair to say that all amendments have to be disposed of to this 
    title before the Moore motion to strike is taken up?
        The Chairman: (19) As it has been indicated, the 
    title will be open to perfecting amendments before the vote on the 
    motion of the gentleman from West Virginia. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cramer: It is my understanding that action could be taken 
    on the Moore amendment to strike and if that did not prevail, then 
    further amendments to the title would be in order?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

Sec. 15.27 While a perfecting amendment has precedence over an 
    amendment to strike out, the rejection of the motion to strike does 
    not preclude perfecting amendments.

    On July 26, 1939,(20) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 84 Cong. Rec. 10107, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        S. 2009, the Transportation Act of 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Lindsay C.] Warren [of North 
    Carolina]: On page 266, line 17, strike out ``2'' and insert ``3''.
        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this amendment comes too late. Perfecting 
    amendments should be offered before a motion to strike out the 
    section. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is of the opinion that 
    while the gentleman had the privilege of offering this amendment 
    before a vote was taken on the motion to strike, the action taken 
    on the motion to strike does not preclude the offering of a 
    perfecting amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will read section 7 of rule XVI, as follows:

            A motion to strike out and insert is indivisible, but a 
        motion to strike out being lost shall neither preclude 
        amendment nor motion to strike out and insert.

Amendments to Amendment and to Substitute; Order of Voting

Sec. 15.28 Perfecting amendments to an amendment are offered and voted 
    on before a perfecting amendment pending to the substitute is voted 
    on;

[[Page 6929]]

    but disposition of the perfecting amendment to the substitute does 
    not preclude the offering of further amendments to the amendment.

    On May 15, 1979,(2) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 39,(3) the above-stated proposition 
was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 125 Cong. Rec. 11180, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: I would ask the Chair, is 
    it appropriate now that we consider voting on the Seiberling 
    amendment?
        The Chairman:(4) The Chair will put the question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don] Young of Alaska: Mr Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Young of Alaska: There is an additional amendment to the 
    Breaux-Dingell bill by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Swift). 
    Is that not what is before the House right now?
        The Chairman: The Chair would make clear that voting on the 
    Seiberling amendment does not preclude further amendments to the 
    Merchant Marine and Fisheries amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling) to the substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall).
        The amendments to the substitute were agreed to.

Sec. 15.29 Where there is pending an amendment to the text and a 
    substitute for such amendment, amendments are in order to any part 
    of the amendment and the substitute, and after the amendments are 
    perfected, the substitute is voted on first.

    On Feb. 4, 1946,(5) during consideration of a bill 
relating to the investigation of labor disputes,(6) a motion 
was made, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 92 Cong. Rec. 836, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. H.R. 4908.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike out all after the enacting clause and insert as a substitute 
    the text of the bill H.R. 5262. . . .
        Subsequently, the following proceedings took place: 
    (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 92 Cong. Rec. 839, 844, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sherman] Adams [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    South Dakota [Mr. Case].
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Adams as a substitute for the Case 
        amendment:
            ``That the Congress hereby declares that the objectives of 
        this act

[[Page 6930]]

        are to avoid and diminish strikes and other forms of industrial 
        strife or unrest, which have the intent or the necessary effect 
        of burdening, or obstructing commerce, and to aid in attaining 
        increased prosperity by achieving the highest degree of 
        production at wages assuring a steadily advancing standard of 
        living, by encouraging the acceptance of collective bargaining 
        and voluntary conciliation, mediation, and arbitration 
        agreements, thereby disposing of controversies between labor 
        and management by peaceful means and discouraging avoidable 
        strife through strikes and lock-outs.
            ``Sec. 2. When used in this act--
            ``(1) The term `commerce' means trade, traffic, commerce, 
        transportation, or communication among the several States . . .

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Are amendments to the 
    substitute also in order at this time?
        The Chairman: (8) They are. Amendments to the Case 
    amendment and to the Adams substitute are in order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Emmet O'Neal (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: May I ask, so that it will be clear 
    to everybody, that the Chair state the order in which amendments 
    will be voted upon?
        The Chairman: Amendments to the Case bill are in order, 
    amendments to the substitute are in order and when those two are 
    perfected, one or the other, the substitute will be voted on first, 
    the Case bill second.

Sec. 15.30 Once a perfecting amendment to an amendment is disposed of, 
    the original amendment, as amended or not, remains open to further 
    perfecting amendment, and all such amendments are disposed of prior 
    to voting on substitutes for the original amendment and amendments 
    thereto.

    The proposition stated above was the basis of the following 
proceedings, which occurred on July 26, 1984,(9) during 
consideration of H.R. 11 (10) in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 130 Cong. Rec. 21231, 21241, 21242, 21251, 21253, 98th Cong. 2d 
        Sess.
10. The education amendments of 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Indiana (Mr. Coats).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Coats: Page 91, after line 14, 
        insert the following new section (and redesignate the 
        succeeding sections accordingly):

                            Voluntary School Prayer

            Sec. 806. Part B of the General Education Provisions Act is 
        amended by inserting after section 420 (20 U.S.C. 1228) the 
        following new section: . . .

        Mr. [Steven] Gunderson [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        Mr. [Dan R.] Coats [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order on the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gunderson to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Coats:
            In Section 420A of the General Education Provisions Act (as 
        pro

[[Page 6931]]

        posed to be added by the amendment of the amendment of the 
        gentleman from Indiana) strike out the first sentence and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following: 'No State or local 
        educational agency shall deny individuals in public schools the 
        opportunity to participate in moments of silent prayer.''. . .

        Mr. [Duncan L.] Hunter [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hunter as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Coats: In lieu of the matter proposed 
        to be inserted, insert the following:

                            Voluntary School Prayer

            Sec. 806. Part B of the General Education Provisions Act is 
        amended by inserting after section 420 (20 U.S.C. 1228) the 
        following new section: . . .

        Mr. [Don] Bonker [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, we have a 
    fairly complex parliamentary procedure. I wonder if the Chair would 
    explain to the Members the various motions as they would occur.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (11) The first vote will 
    be on the Gunderson amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coats. If no 
    further amendments are offered to the Coats amendment, then the 
    vote will occur on the substitute amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) if no amendments are offered 
    to his substitute amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bonker: As amended?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: As amended or not.
        Mr. Bonker: Possibly by Gunderson, if that amendment is 
    adopted?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Or possibly by another Member . . .
        Mr. [Charles E.] Schumer [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I was 
    confused by that explanation; could the Chair go over it once 
    again?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: . . . The first vote will be on the 
    Gunderson amendment to the Coats amendment. If no other amendments 
    are offered, then the next vote will be on the Hunter amendment, 
    which is a substitute for the Coats amendment. Any amendment to the 
    Hunter substitute would have to be offered before the vote on the 
    Hunter substitute. Then after the Hunter substitute is voted on, 
    the Coats amendment will be voted on.

Point of Order Against Amendment to Substitute Does Not Lie Even Where 
    Identical to Original Amendment

Sec. 15.31 A point of order against an amendment to a substitute does 
    not lie merely because its adoption would have the same effect as 
    the adoption of a pending amendment to the original amendment and 
    would render the substitute as amended identical to the original 
    amendment as amended.

    Where there was pending an amendment to a joint resolution to 
insert text (A), an amendment

[[Page 6932]]

to said amendment to insert instead text (B), and a substitute for the 
amendment to insert text (A) and (B) together, the Chair overruled a 
point of order against an amendment to the substitute to delete text 
(A), since there is no precedent which would preclude the offering of 
an amendment to a substitute merely because it is similar to or 
achieves the same effect as an amendment to the original amendment. The 
proceedings of May 4, 1983,(12) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 129 Cong. Rec. 11046, 11052, 11056, 11059, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lungren: On page 5 at line 19, 
        insert ``(a)'' after ``2.'', and after line 23 add the 
        following:
            ``(b) Consistent with the treaty-making powers of the 
        President under the Constitution, nothing in this resolution 
        shall be construed to be binding on the President or his 
        negotiators in the formulation of strategy, instructions or 
        positions in the conduct of the strategic arms reduction talks 
        (START).''.

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Lungren: In the text of the matter proposed to be added 
        to the resolution by the Lungren amendment, strike out all that 
        follows ``(b)'' through ``(START)'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        the following:
            Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to supersede 
        the treaty-making powers of the President under the 
        Constitution.

        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Zablocki) is recognized for 15 minutes in support of his amendment, 
    for purposes of debate only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James A.] Courter [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Courter as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Lungren: In lieu of the matter 
        proposed by said amendment, insert the following:
            On page 5, line 19, insert ``(a)'' after ``2.'', and after 
        line 23 add the following:
            ``(b) Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to 
        supercede the treaty-making powers of the President under the 
        Constitution, and therefore nothing in this resolution shall be 
        construed to be binding on the President or his negotiators in 
        the formulation of strategy, instructions or positions in the 
        conduct of the Strategic Arms Reductions Talks (START).''. . .

        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
    amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Courter as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. 
        Lungren:

[[Page 6933]]

        In proposed new subsection (b), strike out all that follows 
        ``Constitution'' through ``(START)'' . . .

        Mr. Courter: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order against the 
    amendment to the substitute.
        Mr. Chairman, I have had a chance to look very briefly at the 
    amendment to the substitute and it is simply a restatement of the 
    gentleman's amendment to the amendment and as such is improper at 
    the present time, the purpose of which is dilatory only and the 
    purpose of which is not obviously to legitimately amend a 
    substitute. . . .
        Mr. Zablocki: . . . The gentleman from New Jersey marries, so 
    to speak, the two amendments, the amendment of the gentleman from 
    California and the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin as a 
    substitute.
        All the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin does is amend 
    the substitute, divorcing, or at least, deleting the latter part of 
    the gentleman's amendment so that we can have an up and down vote 
    on the two proposals.
        And I believe an amendment to a substitute is in order whether 
    it takes away or adds on to the language of a substitute.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair rules that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) to the substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from New Jersey, is germane to the substitute. There is 
    no precedent which would preclude the offering of that amendment to 
    the substitute merely because it is similar or the same in effect 
    as the amendment offered to the original amendment.
        Therefore, the point of order is rejected.

Amendments to Original Text While Amendment in Nature of Substitute 
    Pending; Order of Voting

Sec. 15.32 A perfecting amendment to the first section of a bill may be 
    offered while an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    entire bill is pending.

    On Apr. 10, 1962,(14) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 108 Cong. Rec. 6167-69, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 10788.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis of Missouri: 
        Page 1, line 1, strike out all after the enacting clause and 
        insert: ``That section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956 is 
        hereby repealed.''

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, if I may submit a 
    parliamentary inquiry, does the Chair wish to dispose of the 
    pending amendment first? I have an amendment to offer.
        The Chairman: (15) Is the gentleman's amendment a 
    perfecting amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Clark W. Thompson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: No; it is an amendment to the bill.
        The Chairman: That would be a perfecting amendment, the Chair 
    will state.

[[Page 6934]]

        [The amendment was offered and rejected.]

Sec. 15.33 A perfecting amendment to a pending paragraph of an 
    appropriation bill is in order and is not precluded by the 
    intervention of an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    paragraph and several of those following.

    On July 29, 1969,(16) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 115 Cong. Rec. 21218, 21219, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 13111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles S.] Joelson [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the paragraph just read which is a simple 
    substitute to several paragraphs of the bill dealing with the 
    Office of Education, and I hereby give notice that after the 
    amendment is agreed to I will make a motion to strike out the 
    paragraphs appearing as follows: . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Joelson: On page 25 strike out 
        lines 9 through 24 and substitute in lieu thereof the following 
        paragraph: . . .

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, the entire 
    substitute, as I understand, is open to amendment at any point, but 
    insofar as the bill is concerned is the paragraph on page 25 which 
    was read by the Clerk also open to amendment?
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 15.34 While there is pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute to a bill, perfecting amendments to the bill may be 
    offered to that portion (usually only the first section) of the 
    text of the bill which has been read and is open to amendment.

    On Nov. 24, 1970,(18) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 116 Cong. Rec. 38704, 38705, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 16785.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Am I correct in 
    understanding that the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman 
    from Kentucky was to end debate on the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, H.R. 19200, and any amendments thereto at 2:15 p.m.?
        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: That is correct, only on 
    the substitute. We hope that the committee bill will prevail, and 
    that we will then proceed to the amendment process on the committee 
    bill. . . .
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: As I understand the rule and 
    the procedure, amendments can be offered to the committee bill at 
    the present time; is that correct? . . .
        The Chairman: (19) Amendments may be offered to the 
    substitute until 2:15. All debate on the substitute and any 
    amendments to the substitute will be terminated at that time. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. James C. Corman (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, may I more specifically 
    define my parliamentary inquiry: Is the Chair

[[Page 6935]]

    ruling that there can be no amendments offered between now and 2:15 
    to the committee bill?
        The Chairman: Only to that portion of the committee bill which 
    has been read.

Sec. 15.35 Where a perfecting amendment to the first section of a bill 
    is offered and rejected, a second perfecting amendment may be 
    offered prior to the vote on a pending amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for the entire bill.

    On Apr. 10, 1962,(20) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 108 Cong. Rec. 6167-69, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 10788.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Thomas B.) Curtis of Missouri: 
        Page 1, line 1, strike out all after the enacting clause and 
        insert: ``That section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956 is 
        hereby repealed.''. . .

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: . . . I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gross: On page 1, line 12, strike 
        out the period and quotation marks and insert a colon and add 
        the following: . . .

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Gross) there were--ayes 46, noes 76.
        So the amendment was rejected.
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On page 1, line 12, after 
        the word ``agreement'' strike out the period and insert a colon 
        and the following: . . . .

        The amendment was rejected.
        The Chairman: (1) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Curtis].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Clark W. Thompson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was rejected.

Sec. 15.36 Where there is pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and a substitute therefor, it is in order to offer a 
    perfecting amendment to the pending portion of original text, and 
    the perfecting amendment is first voted upon.

    On May 1, 1975,(2) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Concurrent Resolution 218,(3) the 
proceedings described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 121 Cong. Rec. 12765, 12771, 12776, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. Setting forth the congressional budget on an aggregate basis for 
        fiscal 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: 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. 
        O'Neill:
            Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:

[[Page 6936]]

            ``That the Congress hereby determines and declares, 
        pursuant to section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
        1974, that for the fiscal year beginning on July 1, 1975''--
            ``(1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $295,181,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Latta as a substitute for the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. O'Neill: 
        Strike out all after the resolving clause in House Concurrent 
        Resolution 218 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            ``That the Congress hereby determines and declares, 
        pursuant to section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
        1974, that for the fiscal year beginning on July 1, 1975--
            ``(1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $296,400,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [Phil M.] Landrum [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    series of amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Landrum: Page 1, line 11, strike 
        out ``$395,600,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$387,486,000,000''.
            Page 2 line 2, strike out ``$368,200,000,000'' and insert 
        in lieu thereof ``$361,012,000,000''. . . .

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rousselot: Is this an amendment to the substitute offered 
    by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta)?
        The Chairman: The Chair understands that it is perfecting 
    amendment to the original resolution.
        Mr. Rousselot: Is it in order, then, at this time?
        The Chairman: It is, the Chair will state.

    After further proceedings, the following exchange occurred:

        Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington]: . . . It is my understanding 
    that there is presently pending the O'Neill amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute to the original text, a Latta substitute to the 
    O'Neill amendment, a perfecting amendment by Mr. Reuss to the 
    O'Neill amendment, a perfecting amendment by Mr. Rousselot to the 
    Latta substitute, and an amendment to the original text by Mr. 
    Landrum.
        I intend to oppose the Landrum amendment, the Latta substitute, 
    and the Rousselot amendment, and I would like to know which one 
    will be first voted on by the body, so that I can address myself to 
    that one.
        The Chairman: The Chair will respond to the gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. Adams) that the first vote will occur on the 
    Landrum perfecting amendment to the concurrent resolution.

Sec. 15.37 While an amendment in the nature of a substitute is pending 
    to a proposition which is open to amendment at any point, a 
    perfecting amendment to the original

[[Page 6937]]

    text may be offered, and a perfecting amendment to the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute may be offered; but the perfecting 
    amendment to the original text is voted on first.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on May 3, 
1979,(5) during consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 
107 (6) in the Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 125 Cong. Rec. 9654, 9660, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. The first concurrent resolution on the Budget, fiscal 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: 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. 
        Rousselot: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
            That the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant 
        to section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that 
        for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1979--
            (1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $515,000,000,000, and the amount by which the aggregate level 
        of Federal revenues should be decreased is $10,000,000,000. . . 
        .

        Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment to the text of the concurrent resolution (H. 
    Con. Res. 107).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Wylie: Strike out 
        sections 1 through 5 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            That the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant 
        to section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that 
        for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1979. . . .

        Mr. [Charles E.] Grassley [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Grassley to the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Rousselot:
            In the matter relating to the appropriate level of total 
        new budget authority reduce the amount by $1,100,000,000. . . .

        Mr. Wylie: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman from Ohio will state 
    his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wylie: The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Grassley) is offering 
    an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered 
    by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot) as I understand 
    it.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Wylie: That would be voted on before my perfecting 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: No. The perfecting amendment offered by the 
    gentleman

[[Page 6938]]

    from Ohio (Mr. Wylie) to the concurrent resolution would be voted 
    on first.
        Mr. Wylie: That was my understanding Mr. Chairman. My amendment 
    includes the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
    Grassley).
        Mr. Grassley: Mr. Chairman, I am offering the perfecting 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot).
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Grassley) is 
    offering the perfecting amendment to the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Rousselot). The perfecting amendment to the main resolution offered 
    by the gentleman from Ohio would be voted on first.

Sec. 15.38 Pending the vote on a perfecting amendment to an amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute (to a proposition open for amendment 
    at any point), a perfecting amendment to the original text may be 
    offered and must be voted on first.

    On May 3, 1979,(8) during consideration of House 
Concurrent Resolution 107 (9) in the Committee of the Whole, 
the proceedings described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 125 Cong. Rec. 9664, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. The first concurrent resolution on the Budget, fiscal 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to 
    the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot).
        Mr. Solarz: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Solarz: Mr. Chairman, if I were to withdraw my request to 
    speak at this particular time on the Rousselot amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute, would a vote then be in order on the 
    Grassley amendment to the Rousselot amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk which I think would precede the vote on the 
    Rousselot amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: Is the gentleman's amendment a perfecting 
    amendment to the resolution?
        Mr. Solomon: To the basic resolution, yes, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment.

    The Clerk read the perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Solomon and, 
following brief debate, the Chair put the question thereon.

Sec. 15.39 During consideration of a bill pursuant to a special

[[Page 6939]]

    rule permitting the majority and minority leaders to offer 
    amendments not printed in the Record but permitting all other 
    Members to offer only amendments to the bill which have been 
    printed in the Record, the majority leader was allowed to offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute not printed in the Record, 
    but while the substitute was pending, another Member was permitted 
    to offer to the bill a perfecting amendment printed in the Record.

    During the proceedings of July 28, 1983,(11) in the 
Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that, pending an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute for an entire bill, perfecting amendments 
to the pending portion of the bill could still be offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 129 Cong. Rec. 21468-70, 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. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: I have an amendment that was 
    printed in the Record. Will I be given an opportunity to offer it?
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman that a printed perfecting amendment to the bill can be 
    offered before the vote on the Wright amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Consisting of One Section

Sec. 15.40 An amendment in the nature of a substitute is ordinarily 
    offered after the reading of the first section of a bill being read 
    by sections, prior to committee amendments adding new sections; 
    however, where a bill consists of one section and is therefore open 
    to amendment at any point when read, committee amendments adding 
    new sections are considered perfecting amendments and are disposed 
    of prior to the offering of amendments in the nature of a 
    substitute.

    On Nov. 7, 1975,(13) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 6346,(14) the

[[Page 6940]]

Chair ruled as described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 35525, 35526, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. Rural Development Act amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 
        subsection (a) of section 503 of the Rural Development Act of 
        1972 (7 U.S.C. 2663(a)) is amended by striking the word 
        ``and'', and changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, 
        and adding the following: ``not to exceed $5,000,000 for the 
        period July 1, 1976, through September 30, 1976, and not to 
        exceed $20,000,000 for each fiscal year thereafter''.

        Mr. [Charles] Rose [of North Carolina] (during the reading): 
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered 
    as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: (15) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from North Carolina?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Tom Bevill (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Keith G.] Sebelius [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk.
        The Chairman: First we will have the Clerk report the committee 
    amendments.

                            committee amendments

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

            Committee amendment: Page 1, line 8, strike the word 
        ``each'' and insert in lieu thereof the word ``the'', and in 
        line 9, strike the word ``thereafter'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof the words ``ending September 30, 1977''.

        The committee amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the next committee 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. Sebelius: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that I have 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk, and that 
    that takes precedence at this time over the committee amendments.
        The Chairman: The Chair rules that the bill, consisting of one 
    section, has been read and that the committee amendments are 
    perfecting amendments and, therefore, take precedence over any 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.

    Parliamentarian's Note: With a bill consisting of several sections, 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute should be offered after the 
reading of the first section and following disposition of perfecting 
amendments to the first section; but if a committee amendment adding a 
new section two were permitted to be considered first in that context, 
its adoption would preclude offering an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute until the end of the bill (since the first section of the 
bill would no longer be subject to amendment, a new section having been 
inserted).