[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[C. Offering Particular Kinds of Amendments; Precedence and Priorities]
[Â§ 18. Substitute Amendments]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6980-7008]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
 C. OFFERING PARTICULAR KINDS OF AMENDMENTS; PRECEDENCE AND PRIORITIES
 
Sec. 18. Substitute Amendments

    A ``substitute'' is a substitute for an amendment, and not a 
substitute for the original text. Of course, substitute amendments are 
amendments and as such are themselves subject to 
amendment.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See, for example, Sec. 15.29, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A substitute for a motion to strike out is not in 
order.(11) or is a motion to strike out in order as a 
substitute for a pending motion to strike out and 
insert,(12) or for a perfecting amendment to text 
generally.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 8.8, infra.
12. See Sec. 17.18, supra.
13. See Sec. 17.17, supra.
            If a motion to strike out and insert is rejected, the 
        simple motion to strike out is then in order. See Sec. 17.16, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Defined

Sec. 18.1 A ``substitute'' is a substitute for an amendment and not a 
    substitute for the original text.

    On July 26, 1955,(14) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 101 Cong. Rec. 11565, 84th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7474, to amend and supplement the Federal Aid Road Act, as 
        amended, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. Harry] McGregor [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. I make a point of order that the substitute amendment is not 
    in order. It is a substitute to the substitute.
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Ohio that it is offered as a substitute to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dondero).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McGregor: Then, if I understand the gentleman correctly, 
    the gentleman from Michigan did not offer a substitute, but offered 
    an amendment; is that correct?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dondero] offered 
    a motion to strike out and insert, which is . . . an original 
    amendment.

When To Offer

Sec. 18.2 In the Committee of the Whole, the proper time to offer a 
    substitute for an

[[Page 6981]]

    amendment is after the amendment has been read and the Member 
    offering it has been permitted to debate it under the five-minute 
    rule.

    On Aug. 3, 1966,(16) during consideration of H.R. 14765, 
the Civil Rights Act of 1966, Mr. Charles M. Mathias, Jr., of Maryland, 
sought to offer an amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 112 Cong. Rec. 18114, 18115, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mathias: Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment.
        The Chairman: (17) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clark] MacGregor [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. MacGregor: Mr. Chairman, when will it be in order for me to 
    seek recognition for the purpose of offering an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute to the Mathias perfecting amendment?
        The Chairman: It will be in order for the gentleman from 
    Minnesota to offer such an amendment after the gentleman from 
    Maryland has concluded his remarks on his amendment.
        [Several parliamentary inquiries here intervened.]
        Mr. Mathias: Was I not recognized, Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman: The Clerk has not yet reported the amendment. The 
    Clerk will report the amendment. . . .
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: Will the gentlemen who desire to make 
    parliamentary inquiries allow the Clerk to report the amendment?
        The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mathias: On page 65, after line 
        14, insert the following:
            ``(e) Nothing in this section shall prohibit, or be 
        construed to prohibit, a real estate broker, agent, or 
        salesman, or employee or agent of any real estate broker, 
        agent, or salesman from complying with the express written 
        instruction of any person not in the business of building, 
        developing, selling, renting, or leasing dwellings, or 
        otherwise not subject to the prohibitions of this section 
        pursuant to subsection (b) or (c) hereof, with respect to the 
        sale, rental, or lease of a dwelling owned by such person, if 
        such instruction was not encouraged, solicited, or induced by 
        such broker, agent, or salesman, or any employee or agent 
        thereof.''

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Iowa.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, is a moving of the previous question 
    on the Moore amendment in order at this time?
        The Chairman: The motion is not in order in the Committee of 
    the Whole.
        The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mathias] is recognized for 5 
    minutes.

Sec. 18.3 As long as the Chair has not put the question on an 
    amendment, a substitute is in order therefor, notwithstanding the 
    expiration of debate time.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on June

[[Page 6982]]

14, 1979, (18) during consideration of H.R. 4388 
(19) in the Committee of the Whole. The Committee had agreed 
to limit debate on an amendment, as amended, and the Chair had 
announced the expiration of all time for debate. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 125 Cong. Rec. 14993, 14994, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. The Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bill for fiscal year 
        1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment, as amended. . . .
        Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, on the amendment, 
    as amended, I ask for a rollcall vote.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair has not yet put the 
    question on the amendment, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bevill: I ask for a vote then.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I happen to have an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: The Chair had recognized the gentleman from 
    Michigan and asked him for what purpose he sought recognition. The 
    gentleman indicated that he had an amendment.
        Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman from Alabama, 
    the chairman of the subcommittee, requested an agreement to end 
    debate, there was no objection on the amendment and amendments 
    thereto. At that point the vote was put.
        I suggest to the Chair that it is in order now to vote on the 
    amendment.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment I desire to 
    offer as a substitute at this time.
        The Chairman: The Chair will indicate to the gentleman from 
    Washington that we are operating under a time limit; however, that 
    does not exclude the possibility of offering an amendment as a 
    substitute, though no debate will be in order in the absence of a 
    unanimous-consent request.
        Therefore, the Clerk will read the amendment.

Sec. 18.4 While there is pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and an amendment thereto, a substitute for the original 
    amendment may be offered.

    On Dec. 18, 1979,(1) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 5860,(2) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 125 Cong. Rec. 36794, 36801, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. Authorizing loan guarantees to the Chrysler Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brademas to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: 
        Strike line 7, page 5, through line 7, page 9,

[[Page 6983]]

        (section 4(a)(4) through section 4(d)) and replace with the 
        following:
            (4) the Corporation has submitted to the Board a 
        satisfactory financing plan which meets the financing needs of 
        the Corporation as reflected in the operating plan for the 
        period covered by such operating plan, and which includes, in 
        accordance with the provisions of subsection (c), an aggregate 
        amount of nonfederally guaranteed assistance of not less than 
        $1,930,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: If the gentleman 
    from Indiana (Mr. Quayle) should decide to offer his substitute to 
    the Moorhead-McKinney amendment before the vote on the Brademas 
    amendment, it would be in order, would it not?
        The Chairman: (3) It would be in order to offer it. 
    . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     amendment offered by mr. quayle as a substitute for the amendment 
         in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. moorhead of 
                                pennsylvania

        Mr. [Dan] Quayle [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.

What Is a Proper Substitute--Amendment Perfecting Another Portion of 
    Section

Sec. 18.5 For a perfecting amendment to a section of a bill, an 
    amendment to perfect another portion of the section may not be 
    offered as a substitute, but should be offered separately after the 
    first perfecting amendment is disposed of.

    On Oct. 10, 1974, (4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill, (5) the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 120 Cong. Rec. 35177, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. H.R. 17027, to amend the National Visitor Center Facilities Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 2. The National Visitor Center Facilities Act of 1968, 
        as amended, is further amended by revising section 102(a)(3) to 
        read as follows:
            ``(3) The Company, in consultation with the Secretary, 
        shall construct all or part of a parking facility. . . .
            Sec. 3. Section 102(c) of the National Visitor Center 
        Facilities Act of 1969 is amended by striking out 
        ``$8,680,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``$21,580,000''.

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gray: Page 2, line 9, strike out 
        ``1969'' and insert in lieu thereof ``1968.'' . . .

        Mr. Gray: Mr. Chairman, I will explain the amendment. It only 
    changes the date which is a typographical error on the part of the 
    printer. In referring to the National Visitors Center Facilities 
    Act the printer inserted ``1969'' instead of ``1968.'' It is a 
    technical error.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment 
    as substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 6984]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gross as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Gray: On page 2, line 10, strike out 
        $21,580,000' and insert in lieu thereof ``$8,780,000''.

        The Chairman: (6) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Iowa the amendment is not in order as a substitute, 
    but the gentleman can offer it separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Gray).
        The amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I now offer my amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gross: On page 2, line 10, strike 
        out ``$21,580,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$8,780,000''.

--Substitute Broadening Scope of Amendment to Which Offered

Sec. 18.6 For an amendment inserting new text in a bill, a proposition 
    not only inserting similar language but also striking out original 
    text of the bill may not be in order as a substitute, where the 
    portion striking original text has the effect of broadening the 
    scope of the amendment to which it is offered and therefore 
    violating the germaneness rule.

    On Sept. 8, 1976, (7) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 10498, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 122 Cong. Rec. 29225, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 108. (a) Title I of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 and 
    following), as amended by section 107 of this Act, is further 
    amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subtitle: . 
    . .

    Amendments were offered, as follows: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at pp. 29234, 29237.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers: Page 216, after line 23, 
    insert:
        (f) The Clean Air Act, as amended by sections 306, 201, 304, 
    312, 313, 108, and 211 of this Act, is further amended by adding 
    the following new section at the end thereof:

                    ``national commission on air quality

        ``Sec. 325. (a) There is established a National Commission on 
    Air Quality which shall study and report to the Congress. . . .

    Mr. [Bill] Chappell [Jr., of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
amendment as a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Rogers).

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Chappell as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Rogers: Page 198, line 5, after 
        section 108, strike out everything following Sec. 108 and 
        insert the following:

[[Page 6985]]

        ``Sec. 108. The Clean Air Act is amended by inserting a new 
    section 315 and renumbering succeeding sections accordingly:

                      ``national commission on air quality

        ``Sec. 315(a) There is established a National Commission on Air 
    Quality which shall study and report to the Congress on:
        ``(1) the effects of any existing or proposed policy on 
    prohibiting deterioration of air quality in areas identified as 
    having air quality better than that required under existing or 
    proposed national ambient standards on employment . . . the 
    relationship of such policy to the protection of the public health 
    and welfare as well as other national priorities such as economic 
    growth and national defense and its other social and environmental 
    effects. . . .
        Mr. [Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment offered as a substitute for my 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (9) Does the gentleman from Florida 
    (Mr. Rogers) wish to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rogers: Mr. Chairman, I would insist that at this time, not 
    that I would object to the unanimous-consent request, but probably 
    we should vote on my amendment and the amendment of the gentleman 
    from New Jersey first and then allow the gentleman from Florida to 
    offer h0, 1999 -Subformat:

        Mr. [Chauncey W.] Reed of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania. . . .
        Amendment offered by Mr. Reed of Illinois: On page 72, line 8, 
    strike out all of lines 8, 9, 10, and 11.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair would inform the 
    gentleman that is not a proper substitute for the pending 
    amendment. The gentleman may offer this amendment later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl T. Curtis (Nebr.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.12 A motion to strike out a portion of a section is not in 
    order as a substitute for a perfecting amendment to that section.

    On June 5, 1974,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 14747, to amend the Sugar Act of 1948. An amendment 
was pending which sought to insert an additional labor standard to 
those contained in a section of the bill. A motion to strike out a 
portion of the section was offered as a substitute for the pending 
amendment, but was ruled out as not a proper substitute for the 
perfecting amendment, and, furthermore, as not germane, in that it went 
beyond the scope of the perfecting amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 120 Cong. Rec. 17868, 17869, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. ChairI22The Chairman: 
    The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rogers) correctly stated the 
    situation. His amendment calls for a study and inserts a new 
    subsection in section

[[Page 6986]]

    108. The Chappell amendment is much broader, and does deal with the 
    standards which are set out in this particular section of the bill, 
    while the Rogers amendment merely adds the study.
        The Chair would, in support of the ruling the Chair is about to 
    make, refer to Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, 
    page 457, section 2880, wherein it is stated:

            An amendment striking out language other than in the 
        pending amendment is not in order as a substitute for an 
        amendment inserting language.

        The Chair would further point to a ruling set out on page 456 
    of the same volume, in section 2879, entitled ``A decision as to 
    what constitutes a substitute'':

            To qualify as substitute an amendment must treat in the 
        same manner the same subject matter carried by the text for 
        which proposed.

        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order, and would 
    advise the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Chappell) that his amendment 
    might be in order after the Rogers amendment and the amendment 
    thereto have been disposed of.

--Amendment Making Perfecting Changes in Bill Rather Than Amendment to 
    Which Offered

Sec. 18.7 To an amendment adding a new section to a bill, an amendment 
    making perfecting changes in the bill rather than in the amendment 
    is not a proper perfecting amendment, but, if germane, may be 
    offered as a substitute for the original amendment.

    On Apr. 26, 1984,(10) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 5172, (11) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 130 Cong. Rec. 10212, 10213, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. National Bureau of Standards Authorization Bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: On page 9, following line 
        17, add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 205. Of the sums authorized pursuant to this title, 
        each such sum is hereby reduced by 6.2 percent.'' . . .

    Mr. [Judd] Gregg [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
perfecting amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker). . . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Gregg to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Walker:
            On page 4, line 21, strike ``$57,948,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following, ``$52,030,000''. . . .

        Mr. [Don] Fuqua [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment that 
    I un

[[Page 6987]]

    derstand the gentleman offers as an amendment and a perfecting 
    amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker), the Walker amendment, as I read it, adds 
    a new section.
        Therefore, this perfecting amendment would not be in order to 
    the Walker amendment as a perfecting amendment.
        It appears to be a substitute for the Walker amendment, but it 
    is being offered as a perfecting amendment to the Walker amendment.
        The Chairman: (12) Does the gentleman from New 
    Hampshire offer his amendment as a substitute or as a perfecting 
    amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. William B. Richardson (N. Mex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gregg: Mr. Chairman, I will offer the amendment as a 
    substitute.

--Substitute for Motion To Strike

Sec. 18.8 A substitute for a motion to strike out is not in order.

    On Jan. 21, 1964, (13) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 110 Cong. Rec. 757, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 4879.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: On 
        page 3, strike out lines 8 through 16. . . .

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute.
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Minnesota that his amendment is not in order at this 
    time. We will have to vote on the pending amendment first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William S. Moorhead (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.9 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 
    may be offered.

    On Mar. 13, 1958, (15) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 104 Cong. Rec. 4325-27, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 376, to amend the Commodity Exchange Act to prohibit 
        trading in onion futures in commodity exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Victor L.] Anfuso [of New York]: On 
    page 2, strike out section 2.
        Mr. [Clifford G.] McIntire [of Maine]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    substitute amendment at the Clerk's desk for the Anfuso amendment.
        The Chairman: (16) It is not in order to offer a 
    substitute for a motion to strike out. The gentleman may offer his 
    amendment as a perfecting amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Wayne N. Aspinall (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.10 A substitute for a motion to strike out is not in order, but 
    a perfecting amendment may be offered when a motion to strike out 
    certain language is pending.

    On Apr. 3, 1957,(17) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 103 Cong. Rec. 5027, 5029, 85th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 6287, making appropriations for the Departments of 
        Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare, etc.

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

[[Page 6988]]

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Lee] Metcalf [of Montana]: On page 
    27, line 19, after ``June 30, 1959:'', strike out the remainder of 
    line 19 and all of line 20 and change the semicolon to a period.
        Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute amendment.
        The Chairman: (18) A substitute is not in order to a 
    motion to strike out. The gentleman can offer a perfecting 
    amendment to the paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Motion To Strike Out Not Proper Substitute

Sec. 18.11 To an amendment proposing to add new language in a 
    paragraph, an amendment proposing to strike out the portion of the 
    paragraph sought to be amended along with additional language of 
    such paragraph is not a proper substitute.

    On Mar. 5, 1948, (19) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 94 Cong. Rec. 2243, 2244, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 5607, the State, Justice, Commerce, and Judiciary 
        Appropriation Bill for 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: 
    On page 72, line 10, after ``referee'', insert ``appointed,'' and 
    after ``place'' where it first appears in line 10 insert ``created 
    since June 23, 1946.''

        Mr. [Chauncey W.] Reed of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania. . . .
        Amendment offered by Mr. Reed of Illinois: On page 72, line 8, 
    strike out all of lines 8, 9, 10, and 11.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair would inform the 
    gentleman that is not a proper substitute for the pending 
    amendment. The gentleman may offer this amendment later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl T. Curtis (Nebr.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.12 A motion to strike out a portion of a section is not in 
    order as a substitute for a perfecting amendment to that section.

    On June 5, 1974,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 14747, to amend the Sugar Act of 1948. An amendment 
was pending which sought to insert an additional labor standard to 
those contained in a section of the bill. A motion to strike out a 
portion of the section was offered as a substitute for the pending 
amendment, but was ruled out as not a proper substitute for the 
perfecting amendment, and, furthermore, as not germane, in that it went 
beyond the scope of the perfecting amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 120 Cong. Rec. 17868, 17869, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 6989]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. O'Hara: Page 18, after line 5, 
        insert:
            (5) That the producer who compensates workers on a piece-
        rate basis shall have paid, at a minimum, the established 
        minimum hourly wage.

        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Symms as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. O'Hara: In lieu of the amendment 
        offered by the gentleman from Michigan insert the following: 
        ``Section 11 of the bill, page 15, strike out all of line 11 
        through line 6 of page 17 and renumber the `(3)' on line 7, 
        page 17 as `(1)', and strike out line 15 on page 17 through 
        line 5 on page 18.'' . . .

        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment in that it is not germane to the provisions of my 
    amendment. It deals with different parts of section 11. . . .
        Mr. Symms: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment is germane to the 
    gentleman's amendment. It strikes it and all the labor provisions 
    from the bill.
        The Chairman (Mr. [James J.] Burke of Massachusetts]: It is the 
    ruling of the Chair that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Idaho (Mr. Symms) as a substitute for the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara) is not a proper 
    substitute. The substitute would strike portions of section 11 not 
    affected by the pending amendment. And, the substitute is broader 
    in scope than the amendment to which offered and is not germane 
    thereto. The Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 18.13 A motion to strike out an entire subsection of a bill is not 
    a proper substitute for a perfecting amendment to the subsection, 
    since it is broader in scope, but may be offered after disposition 
    of the perfecting amendment.

    On Sept. 23, 1982,(2) it was demonstrated that, for a 
perfecting amendment to a subsection striking out one activity from 
those covered by a provision of existing law, a substitute striking out 
the entire subsection, thereby eliminating the applicability of 
existing law to a number of activities, was not in order. The 
proceedings in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of H.R. 
5540 (3) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 128 Cong. Rec. 24963, 24964, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. Defense Industrial Base Revitalization Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bruce F.] Vento [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Vento: Page 41, line 24, strike 
        out ``, or the installation of equipment,''.
            Page 42, beginning on line 15, strike out ``, or the 
        installation of equipment,''.

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amend

[[Page 6990]]

    ment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Erlenborn as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Vento: Beginning on page 41, line 22, 
        strike all of subsection (m) through page 43, line 2.

        Mr. Vento: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment offered as a substitute by the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Erlenborn). . . .
        [T]he substitute offered by the gentleman is clearly not in 
    order. Under rule 19, Cannon's Procedure VIII, section 2879, the 
    precedents provide that ``to qualify as a substitute an amendment 
    must treat in the same manner the same subject carried by the 
    amendment for which it is offered.''
        My amendment would remove language from the committee bill and 
    limit the applicability of the Davis-Bacon Act in terms of one type 
    of activity. The gentleman's substitute would strike the entire 
    section of the committee bill which my amendment seeks to perfect 
    and thereby eliminate the Davis-Bacon provisions of this 
    legislation.
        In this case, the amendment offered by the gentleman clearly 
    does not treat the subject in the same manner which my amendment 
    does. Also, under Deschler's Procedure, chapter 27, section 14.1, 
    decisions made by the Chair on August 12, 1963, December 16, 1963, 
    and June 5, 1974, a motion to strike out a section of paragraph is 
    not in order while a perfecting amendment is pending. In addition, 
    the decisions of the Chair of December 16, 1963, and June 5, 1974, 
    and contained in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 27, section 14.4, 
    provides that a provision must be perfected before the question is 
    put on striking it out. A motion to strike out a paragraph or 
    section may not be offered as a substitute for pending motion to 
    perfect a paragraph or section by a motion to strike and insert. 
    The gentleman's amendment attempts to accomplish indirectly 
    something that he is precluded from doing directly. . . .
        Mr. Erlenborn: . . . The language to which both amendments are 
    directed is language in the bill that is applying the Davis-Bacon 
    Act to activities under the bill in question. The amendment offered 
    by the gentleman is reducing the extent of that coverage by taking 
    out the installation of equipment.
        My substitute also reduces that by eliminating the language so 
    there would be no extension of Davis-Bacon to the activities beyond 
    the present coverage of Davis-Bacon.
        So the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Vento) is affecting Davis-Bacon by reducing its 
    coverage. Mine also would affect the reduction of Davis-Bacon, only 
    in a broader manner; and I, therefore, believe the amendment is in 
    order.
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Wyche Fowler, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Vento) for the reasons advocated by the gentleman 
    from Minnesota that the substitute is too broad in its scope in its 
    striking the whole of subsection (m).

[[Page 6991]]

        The Chair would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Erlenborn) it would be appropriate as a separate amendment but it 
    is not in order as a substitute because of the scope of the 
    amendment.
        The point of order of the gentleman from Minnesota is 
    sustained.

Sec. 18.14 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 has nevertheless followed the 
    principle that the pending text should first be perfected before 
    the vote recurs on striking it out.

    On July 22, 1976,(5) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 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: (6) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

--Substitute Similar to Original Text

Sec. 18.15 For an amendment proposing to strike out an entire section 
    of a proposition and insert new language, an amendment proposing to 
    strike out that section and insert language similar but not 
    identical to the original section was held in order as a proper 
    substitute.

    In a ruling on July 22, 1974,(7) the Chair applied the 
principle

[[Page 6992]]

that a substitute for an amendment is in order so long as it is germane 
thereto and proposes to make some change in the original language being 
amended. Under consideration was an amendment to H.R. 11500, the 
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 120 Cong. Rec. 24450, 24451, 24453, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer my 
    amendment No. 15, according to rule XXIII, clause 6, to the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hosmer to the committee amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute: Page 145, line 21. Strike out 
        ``Sec. 201.'' and insert a ``Sec. 201.'' to read as follows: . 
        . .

        Mrs. [Patsy T.] Mink [of Hawaii]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Hosmer) to the committee amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Mink as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Hosmer to the committee amendment in 
        the nature of a substitute: Page 145, line 21, strike the 
        entire section 201 and insert the following new section 201: . 
        . .

        Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment, in that this is nothing more than a retread of the 
    language that is already in the section 201 of [H.R.] 11500. This 
    has only eight small changes in the total text, each of which could 
    be handled by an amendment, and no doubt even those amendments 
    could be offered en bloc.
        Yet we have here a subterfuge in order to blank out my original 
    amendment through offering this as a substitute. Then there will be 
    an up or down swoop on it from that standpoint.
        Further than that, it would then preclude the offering of any 
    further amendments on the language.
        So, in essence, Mr. Chairman, this is a closure motion to take 
    this with these minor amendments, and to take it or else. If this 
    passes, there will be no further amendments in order to section 201 
    except those specific amendments selected by the gentlewoman to put 
    into this substitute. . . .
        Mrs. Mink: . . . We have made changes to section 201, and 
    unlike the comments that have been made in support of the point of 
    order, further amendments would be possible on this substitute, as 
    I understand it; so it is not the intention of the author or of 
    this substitute to foreclose debate, but in an orderly way to 
    consider all those that pertain to section 201 at this point in the 
    debate, so that, for instance, title II is open for debate at any 
    point. The use of a substitute will enable us to look at this one 
    section and dispose of it. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) . . . The Chair is prepared to 
    rule on the point of order. The Chair has examined the substitute, 
    and no point of germaneness has been raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As long as it is germane, the gentlewoman from Hawaii is 
    entitled to offer her amendment as a substitute if she desires to 
    do so.

[[Page 6993]]

        The Chair overrules the point of order.

--Amendment Perfecting Lesser Portion of Text as Substitute

Sec. 18.16 For an amendment perfecting a bill, an amendment germane to 
    such amendment and perfecting a lesser portion of the same text is 
    in order as a substitute.

    On Feb. 1, 1978,(9) during consideration of H.R. 1614 
(10) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a 
point of order against an amendment to an amendment as described above. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 124 Cong. Rec. 1816-18, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
10. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fish: Page 192, lines 15 and 16, 
        strike out ``, the Secretary of Labor,''.
            Page 193, line 10, strike out ``achievable'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``feasible''.
            Page 193, line 15, strike out ``(1)''.
            Page 193, strike out lines 16 through 22, and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``of this section, the Secretary of the Department 
        in which the Coast Guard is operating shall promulgate 
        regulations or standards applying to diving activities in the 
        waters above the outer Continental Shelf, and to other 
        unregulated hazardous working conditions for which he 
        determines such''.
            Page 194, strike out lines 3 through 10.
            Page 197, line --, strike out ``Secretary of Labor'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``Secretary of the Department in which 
        the Coast Guard is operating. . . .

        Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Murphy of New York as a substitute 
        for the amendment offered by Mr. Fish: On page 193, strike 
        lines 15 to 24 and on page 194 strike lines 1 to 3 and insert: 
        ``(c) Notwithstanding section 4(b)(1) of the Occupa-''. . . .

        Mr. Fish: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
    amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) Does the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Fish) insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fish: Yes, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        Mr. Murphy of New York: . . . Mr. Chairman, I would say that 
    the substitute strikes a portion of the language; that the 
    amendment of the gentleman clearly strikes a much larger area and, 
    accordingly, would be in order. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. In the opinion of the 
    Chair, the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Murphy) deals with a lesser portion of the bill than the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Fish) desires to perfect, and

[[Page 6994]]

    as conceded by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fish) in a more 
    restricted fashion. The Murphy substitute deals only with interim 
    regulations, while the Fish amendment deals with OSHA's role in 
    promulgating both interim and final regulations.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order and holds the 
    substitute to be in order.

Sec. 18.17 A substitute for a pending amendment may be offered to 
    change a different or lesser portion of the pending section if it 
    relates to the same subject matter as the amendment.

    On Aug. 1, 1978,(12) where a perfecting amendment 
offered to H.R. 12514 (foreign aid authorization for fiscal 1979) 
sought to make several changes in a pending section, a substitute 
adding language at the end of the section rather than striking and 
inserting within the section was held in order since relating to the 
same subject as the amendment. The substitute was offered, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 23732, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Derwinski as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Stratton: Page 18, immediately after 
        line 4, insert the following new subsection:
            (e) It is the sense of the Congress that further withdrawal 
        of ground forces of the United States from the Republic of 
        Korea may seriously risk upsetting the military balance in that 
        region and requires full advance consultation with the 
        Congress. . . .

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, do I understand that the 
    gentleman's amendment is a substitute for my amendment.
        The Chairman: That is correct. It is a substitute for the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, unless I am mistaken, the gentleman 
    has not bothered to look at my amendment. My amendment makes 
    specific changes in the text in section 19. I am not clear where 
    the gentleman's amendment would come in section 19. He cannot 
    substitute a straight wording, as I understand it, for something 
    that has a series of changes in 3 pages of a particular section.
        Mr. Derwinski: Mr. Chairman, my amendment would come at the end 
    of section 19.
        The Chairman: The Chair might inform the gentleman from New 
    York that it is a proper substitute amendment. Both the proposed 
    amendment and the substitute are perfecting amendments to the 
    section and deal with the same subject.

Amending Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 18.18 An amendment in the nature of a substitute for

[[Page 6995]]

    several paragraphs of an appropriation bill is subject to amendment 
    by a substitute therefor.

    On July 29, 1969,(14) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 115 Cong. Rec. 21218, 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 paragraph on page 26. . . .
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: A substitute for the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Joelson) 
    would be in order if offered by someone?
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair will state that a 
    substitute for the amendment would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.19 Where a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    pending and is open to amendment at any point, it is subject to a 
    substitute therefor even after perfecting amendments have been 
    adopted.

    On Aug. 11, 1969,(16) the Chairman (17) 
responded to a parliamentary inquiry propounded by Mr. Brock Adams, of 
Washington:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 115 Cong. Rec. 23126-29, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 12982.
17. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Adams: Is the [amendment in the nature of a] substitute 
    which was passed by the committee, for the entire bill, presently 
    pending before the House?
        The Chairman: The substitute amendment is presently pending 
    before the House, and that substitute has been subsequently amended 
    by the gentleman from South Carolina in one area.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
        Mr. Adams: Mr. Chairman, I offer . . . a substitute for the 
    committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Adams as a substitute for the 
        committee amendment: . . .

Motion To Strike All After Enacting Clause and Insert Other Language 
    Not a Substitute

Sec. 18.20 A proposition, offered before other amendments are pending, 
    which proposes to strike out all after the enacting clause and 
    insert other language is an original amendment and not a sub

[[Page 6996]]

    stitute and as such may be amended by a substitute.

    On Apr. 29, 1949,(18) The following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 95 Cong. Rec. 5335, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 2032, the National Labor Relations Act of 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the Wood amendment was offered as a substitute 
    amendment, and that the gentleman from New York may not offer a 
    substitute for the substitute. . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Wood amendment is an original 
    amendment in that it seeks to strike out and insert. The pending 
    amendment is offered as a substitute for the Wood amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Addressed to Different Part of Section and Not Germane

Sec. 18.21 To an amendment to one part of a section of a bill, an 
    amendment to another part of such section, on a different page, was 
    ruled not in order as a substitute.

    On Mar. 31, 1948,(20) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 94 Cong. Rec. 3834, 3837, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was S. 2202, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                    bilateral and multilateral undertakings

            Sec. 115. (a) The Secretary of State, after consultation 
        with the Administrator, is authorized to conclude, with 
        individual participating countries or any number of such 
        countries or with an organization representing any such 
        countries, agreements in furtherance of the purposes of this 
        title. . . .
            (b) The provision of assistance under this title results 
        from the multilateral pledges of the participating countries to 
        use all their efforts to accomplish a joint-recovery program 
        based upon self-help and mutual cooperation as embodied in the 
        report of the Committee of European Economic Cooperation signed 
        at Paris on September 22, 1947, and is contingent upon 
        continuous effort of the participating countries to accomplish 
        a joint-recovery program through multilateral undertakings and 
        the establishment of a continuing organization for this 
        purpose. In addition to continued mutual cooperation of the 
        participating countries in such a program, each such country 
        shall conclude an agreement with the United States in order for 
        such country to be eligible to receive assistance under this 
        title. Such agreement shall provide for the adherence of such 
        country to the purposes of this title and shall, where 
        applicable, make appropriate provision, among others, for . . .
            (4) making efficient and practical use, within the 
        framework of a joint program for European recovery, of the 
        resources of such participating country, including any 
        commodities, facilities, or services furnished under this 
        title, which use shall include, to the extent practicable, 
        taking measures to locate and control, in furtherance of such 
        program, assets, and earnings therefrom, which belong to the 
        citizens of such country and which are situated within the 
        United

[[Page 6997]]

        States, its Territories and possessions; . . .

        Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Vorys: Page 86, line 25, delete 
        the word ``control'' and substitute the word ``identify.''

        Mr. Vorys: Mr. Chairman, this is an agreed committee amendment 
    to make it clear that we do not insist on other countries 
    controlling the assets of their citizens, but that they identify 
    them so that they may proceed along the principles set forth in 
    other parts of this section.
        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keating: I have an amendment to this section which I desire 
    to offer as a substitute for the committee amendment. Is it proper 
    to offer it at this time?
        The Chairman: If the gentleman has an amendment, he may offer 
    it as a substitute when the gentleman from Ohio has concluded.
        If the amendment of the gentleman from New York is a substitute 
    for the amendment which the gentleman from Ohio has offered, it 
    should be offered before the first amendment is disposed of.
        Mr. Keating: My purpose in offering it as a substitute for the 
    committee amendment is that my amendment tends to strengthen rather 
    than weaken section 4. My analysis of what the gentleman from Ohio 
    seeks to do in changing the word ``control'' to ``identify'' is 
    that that is rather to weaken it. Therefore, it seems to me it is 
    appropriate to offer this amendment as a substitute for the 
    committee amendment.
        Mr. Vorys: Mr. Chairman, I of course cannot discuss the 
    gentleman's amendment until I know what it is, but may I state to 
    the Committee of the Whole that our committee has worried and 
    fretted over this section and we are all somewhat dissatisfied with 
    it, as to whether it should be strengthened or weakened, and how 
    much, but one thing that we could agree upon was that we did not 
    want to authorize control. We thought that identification of the 
    assets in this country was a sound principle. Therefore, all I am 
    in a position to do now is to urge the adoption of the committee 
    amendment.
        Mr. Keating: Mr. Chairman, I offer my amendment as a substitute 
    for the Vorys amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Keating as a substitute for the 
        Vorys amendment: On page 87, line 4, strike out the semicolon 
        [at the end of subparagraph (4)], insert a comma, and add the 
        following: ``including but not limited to the establishment of 
        satisfactory conditions for guaranteeing that identifiable 
        assets of nationals of such country located in the United 
        States, its Territories and possessions, may be held by the 
        United States as security against any governmental credits from 
        the United States to such country.''

        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from New York 
    that the amendment as read obviously

[[Page 6998]]

    is not a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Ohio, which is on page 86. The gentleman's amendment is on page 87.

Member's Substitute for Own Amendment

Sec. 18.22 A Member may not offer a substitute for his own amendment to 
    a bill.

    On June 13, 1947,(2) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 93 Cong. Rec. 6989, 6990, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 3342, relating to a cultural relations program of the 
        State Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: I ask unanimous 
    consent, Mr. Chairman, to modify my amendment. . . .
        Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: I object. . . .
        Mr. Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute amendment.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman cannot do that at 
    this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Thomas A. Jenkins (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of Rejection: Reoffering Part of Substitute

Sec. 18.23 A substitute amendment having been rejected, a proposition 
    contained therein may nevertheless be offered as an amendment to an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.

    On Mar. 11, 1958,(4) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 104 Cong. Rec. 3981, 3984, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was S. 497, authorizing the construction, repair, and 
        preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors for 
        navigation, etc., and an amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute offered by Mr. John A. Blatnik (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Russell V.] Mack of Washington as 
        a substitute for the Blatnik amendment: Strike out all after 
        the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

                         ``title i--rivers and harbors

            ``Sec. 101. That the following works of improvement of 
        rivers and harbors and other waterways for navigation, flood 
        control, and other purposes are hereby adopted and authorized 
        to be prosecuted under the direction of the Secretary of the 
        Army and supervision of the Chief of Engineers, in accordance 
        with the plans and subject to the conditions recommended by the 
        Chief of Engineers in the respective reports hereinafter 
        designated . . . .
            ``The project for flood control and improvement of the 
        lower Mississippi River adopted by the act approved May 15, 
        1928, as amended by subsequent acts, is hereby modified and 
        expanded to include the following items and the authorization 
        for said project is increased accordingly. . . .
            ``(b) Modification and extension of plans of improvement in 
        the Boeuf and Tensas Rivers and Bayou Macon Basin, Ark., 
        substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the 
        Chief of Engineers in House Doc

[[Page 6999]]

        ument of No. 108, 85th Congress, at an estimated cost of 
        $631,000: Provided, That, in addition to the requirements for 
        local cooperation recommended in the report of the Chief of 
        Engineers, local interests agree to contribute 48 percent of 
        the cost of providing major drainage in cash or equivalent 
        work, to furnish without cost to the United States all lands, 
        easements and rights-of-way necessary for construction of the 
        project, and to hold and save the United States free from 
        damages due to the construction works.''

    The Mack substitute for the Blatnik amendment having been rejected, 
Mr. Mack offered an amendment: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 104 Cong. Rec. 4011, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mack of Washington: Page 31, line 
        12, strike out ``$1,212,000'' and substitute the following: 
        ``$631,000: Provided, That, in addition to the requirements for 
        local cooperation recommended in the report of the Chief of 
        Engineers, local interests agree to contribute 48 percent of 
        the cost of providing major drainage in cash or equivalent 
        work, to furnish without cost to the United States all lands, 
        easements and rights-of-way necessary for construction of the 
        project. . . .''

        Mr. [Robert E.] Jones [Jr.] of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order. As I understand, the amendment is in the same language as 
    the Mack substitute. Therefore the proposition has already been 
    decided by the Committee and the amendment has been rejected.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman is correct, except 
    that it is now offered as a specific proposition, and under the 
    ruling previously made (7) the point of order is 
    overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Carl Albert (Okla.).
 7. The Chair had previously overruled, without comment, a similar 
        point of order made by Mr. Frank E. Smith, of Mississippi, 
        against another amendment offered by Mr. Mack. See the 
        proceedings of the same day, at page 4010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of Rejection: Offering Another Substitute

Sec. 18.24 Where there was pending to a bill an amendment in the form 
    of a new section, a substitute therefor, and an amendment to the 
    substitute, the Chair indicated that the defeat of the amendment to 
    the substitute and of the substitute would not preclude the 
    offering of another germane substitute.

    On July 27, 1970,(8) in the circumstances described 
above, the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 25811, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 17654.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhart [of Texas]: . . . As I understand the 
    Smith amendment as it is sought to be amended by the Hays 
    amendment, all it would do is say that in addition to providing a 
    manually recorded type of vote by the method that is provided in 
    the O'Neill amendment, it would also provide an electronic record 
    type of vote. Now, if I am correct in that as

[[Page 7000]]

    sumption, would it not be in order, if we should vote down the Hays 
    amendment to the Smith amendment, to offer this as an additional 
    provision subsequent to the passage of the O'Neill amendment?
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair would like to inform the 
    gentleman in answer to his parliamentary inquiry that if the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hays) is voted 
    down and the substitute offered by the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Smith) is voted down, then another germane substitute would be 
    in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of Rejection: Proposition Reoffered as Amendment to Text

Sec. 18.25 Where a proposed substitute for an amendment is itself 
    amended and then agreed to as amended, the rejection of the 
    original amendment as amended by the substitute does not preclude 
    reoffering, as an amendment to text, a proposition essentially the 
    same as that initially contained in the substitute.

    In the 86th Congress, during the consideration of H.R. 8601, a bill 
to enforce voting rights, Mr. William M. McCulloch, of Ohio, offered 
the provisions of H.R. 11160 as a substitute for the amendment of Mr. 
John V. Lindsay, of New York, which contained the provisions of H.R. 
10035, made in order under a special rule (H. Res. 359). Mr. 
McCulloch's substitute, which provided for the court appointment of 
voting referees, was amended by the amendment of Mr. Robert W. 
Kastenmeier, of Wisconsin, to provide for Presidential appointment of 
enrollment officers. The substitute, as amended, was then agreed to; 
the amendment, as amended by the substitute, was rejected. Mr. 
McCulloch then offered, as a new title to the bill, the language of 
H.R. 11160.

        The proceedings were as follows: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 106 Cong. Rec. 5482, 5483, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 14, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lindsay: On page 12, immediately 
        following line 7, insert the following:

                                   ``title vi

            ``Sec. 601. That section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 
        U.S.C. 1971), as amended by section 131 of the Civil Rights Act 
        of 1957 (71 Stat. 637), is amended as follows:
            ``(a) Add the following as subsection (e) and designate the 
        present subsection (e) subsection `(f)':
            `` `In any proceeding instituted pursuant to subsection (c) 
        of this section, in the event the court finds that under color 
        of law or by State action any person or persons have been 
        deprived on account of race or color of

[[Page 7001]]

        any right or privilege secured by subsection (a) or (b) of this 
        section, and that such deprivation was or is pursuant to a 
        pattern or practice, the court may appoint one or more persons 
        (to be known as voting referees) to receive applications from 
        any person claiming such deprivation as the right to register 
        or otherwise to qualify to vote at any election and to take 
        evidence and report to the court findings as to whether such 
        applicants or any of them (1) are qualified to vote at any 
        election, and (2) have been (a) deprived of the opportunity to 
        register to vote or otherwise to qualify to vote at any 
        election, or (b) found by State election officials not 
        qualified to register to vote or to vote at any election.
            `` `Any report of any person or persons appointed pursuant 
        to this subsection shall be reviewed by the court and the court 
        shall accept the findings contained in such report unless 
        clearly erroneous. . . .

        Mr. Lindsay: This is H.R. 10035 verbatim, as originally 
    introduced, the voting referee bill.
        Mr. Chairman, may I say that the parliamentary situation is 
    such under the rule that the only voting referee measure at this 
    point that may be offered is the text of H.R. 10035. This is the 
    bill which provides for voting referees under the auspices and 
    supervision of the Federal courts. . . .
        If the court should find a pattern or practice of voting 
    denials, referees may then be appointed by the court in order to 
    receive applications from persons of like color who claim that they 
    also have been denied the right to vote. The point to bear in mind 
    about this amendment, and also about the substitute amendment that 
    will be offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch], for the 
    purpose of clarifying the amendment that I now offer, is this: that 
    in any area where there has been found by the court to exist a 
    pattern or practice of denials of the right to vote on 
    constitutional grounds, the matter from then on is resolved by the 
    court. A referee may be appointed by the Federal judge in order to 
    perform the normal functions that he would perform but obviously 
    cannot perform because of the burdens that would be placed upon 
    him. It is designed to keep the matter in local hands, a local 
    Federal judge, and local Federal referees appointed by the Court. . 
    . .
        I shall say a word about the differences between this amendment 
    and the proposed substitute. They are of procedure only. The 
    substitute will ensure, by specific language, that any local, State 
    registrar who takes exception to the action of a voting referee 
    will have an opportunity to have a full judicial hearing by the 
    court if he presents a genuine issue of fact. He is given plenty of 
    notice. The Deputy Attorney General testified that even under the 
    original bill, which I have introduced by way of amendment, due 
    process would require an opportunity for a hearing. The substitute 
    will spell this out in specific language. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) The Clerk will report the 
    substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
    McCulloch].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McCulloch as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Lindsay: On page 12, immediately below 
        line 7, in lieu of the text proposed to be

[[Page 7002]]

        added by the Lindsay amendment insert the following:

                                   ``title vi

                                ``Voting rights

            ``Sec. 601. Section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 
        1971), as amended by section 131 of the Civil Rights Act of 
        1957 (71 Stat. 637), is amended as follows:
            `` `(a) Add the following as subsection (e) and designate 
        the present subsection (e) as subsection ``(f)'':
            ``In any proceeding instituted pursuant to subsection (c), 
        in the event the court finds that any person has been deprived 
        on account of race or color of any right or privilege secured 
        by subsection (a), the court shall upon request of the Attorney 
        General, and after each party has been given notice and the 
        opportunity to be heard, make a finding whether such 
        deprivation was or is pursuant to a pattern or practice. If the 
        court finds such pattern or practice, any person of such race 
        or color resident within the affected area shall, for one year 
        and thereafter until the court subsequently finds that such 
        pattern or practice has ceased, be entitled, upon his 
        application therefor, to an order declaring him qualified to 
        vote. . . .
            `` `The court may appoint one or more persons who are 
        qualified voters in the judicial district, to be known as 
        voting referees, to serve for such period as the court shall 
        determine, to receive such applications and to take evidence 
        and report to the court findings as to whether or not at any 
        election or elections (1) any such applicant is qualified under 
        State law to vote, and (2) he has since the finding by the 
        court heretofore specified been (a) deprived of or denied under 
        color of law the opportunity to register to vote or otherwise 
        to qualify to vote, or (b) found not qualified to vote by any 
        person acting under color of law. . . .

    On the following day,(12) an amendment was offered to 
the substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 106 Cong. Rec. 5644, 5645, 5655-58, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 15, 
        1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert W.] Kastenmeier [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment to the substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Kastenmeier: On page 1, line 8 of 
        the McCulloch substitute, before the word ``In'', insert 
        ``(e)(1)(A)'' and on page 1 of the McCulloch substitute strike 
        out ``that any person has been deprived'' on line 9 and all 
        that follows down through the last page of such substitute, and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following: ``that, under color of 
        law or by State action, a voting registrar or other State or 
        local official has deprived persons in any locality or area of 
        registration, of the opportunity of registration, for elections 
        because of their race or color, the Attorney General shall 
        notify the President of the United States of such finding.
            ``(B) Whenever the Commission on Civil Rights . . . finds 
        that, under color of law or by State action, a voting registrar 
        or other State or local official has deprived persons in any 
        locality or area of registration of the opportunity of 
        registration, for election because of their race or color, the 
        Commission shall notify the President of the United States of 
        such finding.
            ``(2) Upon any notification of a finding pursuant to 
        paragraph (1) of this subsection, the President is authorized 
        to establish a Federal Enrollment Office in each registration 
        district that includes the locality or area for which such 
        finding has been made and to appoint one or more Federal 
        Enrollment Officers for such

[[Page 7003]]

        district from among officers or employees of the United States 
        who are qualified voters within such 
        district. . . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kastenmeier]. . . .
        So the amendment to the substitute amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the substitute amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch], as amended. . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, if I understand 
    the situation correctly, and I wish the Chair would explain what 
    the situation is, the Committee is now voting on the substitute 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch] to the 
    bill H.R. 10035.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, as the gentleman well knows, it 
    was made in order to consider the text of the bill H.R. 10035, as 
    an amendment to the bill H.R. 8601. The amendment was offered by 
    the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lindsay] and a substitute for that 
    amendment was offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch]. 
    The substitute amendment has been amended and the Committee is 
    about to vote upon the substitute amendment, as amended.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: In other words, we are voting on the 
    substitute amendment, and if that should be defeated, then the so-
    called Lindsay amendment will still be in order.
        The Chairman: If the substitute amendment is defeated, then the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lindsay] is 
    still before the Committee for further consideration.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: I thank the Chairman.
        The Chairman: The question is on the substitute amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch], as amended.

        The Committee divided, and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 179, noes 116.
        So the substitute amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question recurs on the Lindsay amendment as 
    amended by the McCulloch substitute.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Celler) there were--ayes 195, noes 155.
        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Celler and Mr. McCulloch.
        The Committee again divided and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 143, noes 170.
        So the amendment was rejected.
        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McCulloch: On page 12, immediately 
        below line 7, insert the following:

                                   ``title vi

            Sec. 601. That section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 
        U.S.C. 1971), as amended by section 131 of the Civil Rights Act 
        of 1957 (71 Stat. 637), is amended as follows:
            ``(a) Add the following as subsection (e) and designate the 
        present subsection (e) as subsection `(f)':
            ``In any proceeding instituted pursuant to subsection (c) 
        in the event

[[Page 7004]]

        the court finds that any person has been deprived on account of 
        race or color of any right or privilege secured by subsection 
        (a), the court shall upon request of the Attorney General and 
        after each party has been given notice and the opportunity to 
        be heard make a finding whether such deprivation was or is 
        pursuant to a pattern or practice. If the court finds such 
        pattern or practice, any person of such race or color resident 
        within the affected area shall, for one year and thereafter 
        until the court subsequently finds that such pattern or 
        practice has ceased, be entitled, upon his application 
        therefor, to an order declaring him qualified to vote. . . .
            `` `The court may appoint one or more persons who are 
        qualified voters in the judicial district, to be known as 
        voting referees, to serve for such period as the court shall 
        determine, to receive such applications and to take evidence 
        and report to the court findings as to whether or not at any 
        election or elections (1) any such applicant is qualified under 
        state law to vote, and (2) he has since the finding by the 
        court heretofore specified been (a) deprived of or denied under 
        color of law the opportunity to register to vote or otherwise 
        to qualify to vote, or (b) found not qualified to vote by any 
        person acting under color of law. . . .

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against this amendment for several reasons. One is that 
    the rule under which we are operating gives protection only to H.R. 
    10035 and to no other substitute proposal. In other words, the 
    original bill, the Lindsay amendment, which has already been 
    defeated, was a bill that the rule makes in order. We have already 
    voted upon this bill within the last 30 minutes. The only 
    difference between this bill and the bill we just voted down is two 
    or three very minor corrections; very minor; so minor that many of 
    us are greatly disappointed.
        Mr. Chairman, the matter has been passed upon. The House has 
    voted upon it within the last 30 minutes. I make the point of order 
    that it cannot be reintroduced. . . .
        Mr. [Edwin E.] Willis [of Louisiana]: I want to understand very 
    clearly the bill or the proposal that the gentleman has offered. 
    This is a very simple question. Am I correct that the proposal now 
    on the desk is identical to the bill H.R. 11160 except for the 
    deletion of the language appearing on page 5, lines 9 through 13?
        Mr. McCulloch: The answer is ``Yes.''. . .
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: . . . I make the . . . point of order 
    that this amendment has been once defeated. . . .
        The Chairman: May the Chair call the gentleman's attention to 
    the fact that this has never been voted on. The language contained 
    in this amendment was a substitute for another amendment.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: It was a substitute for that and it was 
    offered yesterday afternoon by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
    McCulloch] and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: But, I should like to remind the gentleman, as a 
    substitute for the bill made in order under the rule.

    After some further discussion of this and other points of order, 
the Chairman allowed the amendment.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Whether a proposition contained in a

[[Page 7005]]

substitute may be reoffered in a different form after it has failed of 
approval depends on the circumstances. Clearly, where the actual 
proposition was never voted on because of changes made through the 
amendment process (as where a substitute for an amendment is itself 
amended, then rejected in a vote on the amendment), the proposition may 
be offered again as, for example, an amendment to text. But even actual 
rejection of the proposition contained in the substitute should not 
necessarily preclude its being offered as an amendment to text. For 
example, where an amendment is offered, and then a substitute for that 
amendment, the consideration of that substitute necessarily proceeds 
with reference only to the particular amendment to which offered. This 
may present a different question from that which would arise if the 
language of the substitute were considered with reference to the text 
of the bill. For further discussion of when a proposition that has been 
rejected may be reoffered in different form, see 8 Cannon's Precedents 
Sec. 2843.
    On the other hand, it may happen that reoffering the language of 
the substitute presents precisely the same question that has already 
been voted on. Thus, if a substitute for an amendment is agreed to (in 
effect becoming an amendment to text by supplanting the original 
amendment), and then the amendment as amended by the substitute is 
rejected, the
proposition contained in the substitute may not be reoffered to that 
text. In this case, the question presented by reoffering the language 
as an amendment to text would be exactly the same as that already 
disposed of.

Amendment to Substitute Having Same Effect as Amendment to Original 
    Amendment

Sec. 18.26 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 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

[[Page 7006]]

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,(13) were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 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: (14) The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Zablocki) is recognized for 15 minutes in support of his amendment, 
    for purposes of debate only. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 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: 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

[[Page 7007]]

    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.

Substitute Made in Order by Special Rule--Effect of Ruling Out Primary 
    Amendment

Sec. 18.27 Where one committee's germane amendment printed in a 
    reported bill has been made in order by a special rule as a 
    substitute for another committee's amendment, and the primary 
    amendment is ruled out on a point of order, the committee amendment 
    made in order as a substitute retains the status of an amendment to 
    the bill as it was recommended by the reporting committee and is 
    reported by the Clerk.

    On Sept. 23, 1977, (15) he Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3, Medicare-Medicaid Antifraud and Abuse Amendments of 
1977. An amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means had 
been ruled out of order as not germane to the bill. An amendment 
recommended by another committee and made in order, by special rule, as 
a substitute for the amendment now ruled out of order, was ordered to 
be reported: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 30534, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. The rule, it should be noted, did not indicate that the amendment 
        made in order was to be considered only as a substitute 
        amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (17) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment recommended by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce, now printed begin

[[Page 7008]]

    ning on page 70, line 6, through page 72, line 16, in the reported 
    bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------