[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[D. Withdrawal or Modification of Amendment]
[Â§ 20. Withdrawal]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 7019-7027]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
               D. WITHDRAWAL OR MODIFICATION OF AMENDMENT
 
Sec. 20. Withdrawal


    An ordinary or substitute amendment may be withdrawn in the House 
or in the ``House as in Committee of the Whole'' before a decision is 
rendered thereon,(17) but it may not be withdrawn or 
modified in Committee of the Whole except by unanimous 
consent.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Rule XVI clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 776 (101st 
        Cong.).
18. See Rule XIX, House Rules and Manual Sec. 822, 824 (101st Cong.).
            Rule XXIII clause 5 (a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 
        (101st Cong.) provides that, ``neither an amendment nor an 
        amendment to an amendment shall be withdrawn by the mover 
        thereof unless by the unanimous consent'' of the Committee of 
        the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon reintroduction of an amendment that has, by unanimous consent, 
been withdrawn in the Committee of the Whole, the Member is entitled to 
debate his amendment for a second five-minute period.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 28.50, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Unanimous Consent Requirement

Sec. 20.1 In the Committee of the Whole an amendment may not be 
    withdrawn except by unanimous consent.

    On Oct. 1, 1965,(1) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 111 Cong. Rec. 25794, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6519.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: 
        On page 2, line 2 . . . add the following proviso: . . .

[[Page 7020]]

        Mr. Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great interest 
    to the words of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Jones]. His 
    eloquence persuades me that I was in error in offering the 
    amendment. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Minnesota?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.  Charles L. Weltner (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert W.] Watson [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    object.

    The proceedings of July 28, 1970,(3) are a further 
illustration of the principle that an amendment pending in Committee of 
the Whole may be withdrawn by unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 26046, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 17654.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Lloyd] Meeds [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Arizona (Mr. Steiger) and amended by unanimous consent, be 
    withdrawn with the understanding that it will be offered later.
        Mr. [Leslie C.] Arends [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair would like to inform the 
    gentleman from Washington that he has the right to make the request 
    that the amendment be withdrawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Washington?

Sec. 20.2 A substitute amendment may be withdrawn in the Committee of 
    the Whole by unanimous consent.

    On Apr. 18, 1962,(5) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 108 Cong. Rec. 6913, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11289.
            See also 104 Cong. Rec. 11641-43, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., June 
        18, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: In view of the ruling 
    of the Chair, and as I understand it, the Chair ruled that my 
    substitute amendment would still be in order, I will be glad to 
    withdraw my amendment and will support the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Michigan.
        However, my impression is that we do not have the votes.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair will state that in his 
    opinion the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Stratton], would be in order only in the event that the Cederberg 
    amendment, which is now pending, is voted down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stratton: That was my understanding of the ruling, Mr. 
    Chairman, and with that assurance I ask unanimous consent that the 
    substitute amendment be withdrawn.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New York?
        There was no objection.

    The proceedings of June 18, 1958,(7) are a further 
illustration

[[Page 7021]]

of the principle that a substitute amendment once offered may not be 
withdrawn or modified except by unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 104 Cong. Rec. 11641-43, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 12858, making appropriations for civil functions 
        administered by the Department of the Army and certain agencies 
        of the Department of the Interior, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert] Hale [of Maine] as a 
        substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. [Clarence] Cannon 
        [of Missouri]: . . .

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment because it provides for items that are 
    not authorized by law.

    In response to inquiries by Mr. Hale as to how he should proceed, 
the Chairman (8) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman can ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
    substitute and offer an amendment.

    Mr. Hale subsequently made such request.

Sec. 20.3 Unanimous consent is required to withdraw an amendment 
    offered in Committee of the Whole.

    On Sept. 2, 1976,(9) during consideration of a bill 
(10) in the Committee of the Whole, objection was made to a 
unanimous-consent request to withdraw an amendment. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 122 Cong. Rec. 28939, 28941, 28942, 28957, 28958, 94th Cong. 2d 
        Sess.
10. H.R. 13636, extension of the Law Enforcement Assistance 
        Administration Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wiggins: On page 16, line 2, 
        strike ``(a)'' and on lines 10 through 24, and on page 17, 
        lines 1 through 5, strike the whole of section 108 (b) and (c). 
        . . .

        The Chairman: (11) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Wiggins). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Benjamin S. Rosenthal (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick: On page 16, line 16, 
        strike ``and'' following ``physical'' and on page 16, line 17, 
        strike out ``services'' and on page 17, line 3, following 
        ``physical'' strike out ``and services''. . . .

        Mr. [Charles E.] Wiggins [of California]: . . . [T]he 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey is offering to amend a section of the 
    bill which has been deleted by an earlier amendment.
        If, in fact, that is the amendment, it is rather late for me to 
    make a point of order with respect to it, but we are amending 
    something which is not in the bill to be amended.
        The Chairman: The Chair has examined the Wiggins amendment, 
    which struck out, on page 16, lines 10 to 24, down through line 5 
    on page 17.

[[Page 7022]]

    For that reason, in response to the gentleman's parliamentary 
    inquiry, the gentlewoman's amendment would have no effect.
        Mrs. Fenwick: Mr. Chairman, I should have included in my 
    amendment the restoration of the original phraseology, omitting 
    only those three or four words.
        The Chairman: Would the gentlewoman perhaps seek unanimous 
    consent to withdraw her amendment, and at her leisure and 
    prerogative redraft the amendment consistent with the situation the 
    bill is in as of now?
        Mrs. Fenwick: Mr. Chairman, I do so.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey? . . .
        Mr. [Robert] McClory [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
    from New Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick).

Sec. 20.4 Where a Member has been recognized by the Chair to offer an 
    amendment and the amendment has been reported by the Clerk, 
    unanimous consent is required to withdraw the amendment in 
    Committee of the Whole.

    On Mar. 16, 1978,(12) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 50,(13) this proposition was 
illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 7333-36, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: On page 106 add the 
        following new title:

                              ``Title V . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Before the Chair would entertain this 
    amendment, the Chair would like to know if there are other 
    amendments to title IV?
        Mr. [Clarence] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I wish to offer 
    an amendment. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: . . . [T]he amendment has been laid before the 
    House and unless it is withdrawn the gentleman from Maryland has a 
    right to press the amendment, does he not?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chairman would like to state to 
    the gentleman that the Chair should have inquired of the gentleman 
    from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) as to the nature of his amendment before 
    extending recognition. The Chair would hope the gentleman would 
    withhold his amendment at this time. . . . If the gentleman from 
    Maryland insists, the Chair will present his amendment.
        Mr. Bauman: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not insist and I withdraw my 
    amendment in deference to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long).
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Without objection the gentleman from 
    Maryland (Mr. Bauman) withdraws his amendment.

[[Page 7023]]

Sec. 20.5 Unanimous consent is not required to ``withdraw'' an 
    amendment which is at the Clerk's desk but which has not been 
    offered by the Member.

    On Sept. 30, 1971,(14) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 117 Cong. Rec. 34337, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 10351.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Floyd D.] Spence [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment which is at the desk 
    which is identical to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Kentucky (Mr. Perkins) and which was adopted.
        The Chairman: (15) It is not necessary to do that 
    since the amendment has not been offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unanimous-Consent Request Disposed of Before Point of Order Against 
    Amendment

Sec. 20.6 The Chair only rules on points of order when required to do 
    so, and will permit withdrawal of an amendment (by unanimous 
    consent in Committee of the Whole) prior to ruling on a point of 
    order.

    As demonstrated in the proceedings of June 7, 1983,(16) 
where a point of order is made or reserved against an amendment and a 
unanimous-consent request is then made for the withdrawal of the 
amendment, the Chair will first dispose of the unanimous consent 
request before ruling on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 129 Cong. Rec. 14656, 14657, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bob] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Edgar: On page 8, after line 2, 
        add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 104. Within funds available in the construction 
        general account, including but not limited to funds deferred, 
        the Corps of Engineers is directed to complete the navigation 
        and related features of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway at a 
        total additional Federal cost of $202,000,000. Section 206 of 
        the Inland Waterways Revenue Act of 1978 is amended by adding 
        at the end thereof the following: `(27) Tennessee-Tombigbee 
        Waterway: From the Pickwick Pool on the Tennessee River at RM 
        215 to Demopolis, Alabama, on the Tombigbee River at RM 215.4.' 
        ''.

        Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
    of order on this amendment.
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
    Bevill) reserves a point of order against the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ronnie G.] Flippo [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I also make 
    a point of order against the gentleman's amendment on the grounds 
    that it violates paragraph (b), clause 5, rule XXI of the rules of 
    the House.

[[Page 7024]]

        The Chairman: Would the gentleman suspend.
        Mr. Flippo: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman reserves a point of order. . . .
        Mr. Edgar: . . . I would like to ask unanimous consent to 
    withdraw my amendment at this time.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania?
        Mr. Flippo: Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object to the 
    unanimous-consent request.
        I wish to make a point of order against the amendment because 
    the amendment violates paragraph (b), clause 5, rule XXI of the 
    Rules of the House of Representatives.
        The Chairman: If the gentleman would suspend a moment, proper 
    procedure is for the gentleman to object to the unanimous-consent 
    request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, to withdraw his 
    amendment and then to make a point of order.
        Mr. Flippo: I do object to the unanimous-consent request.
        Mr. Edgar: Will the gentleman reserve the right to object?
        Mr. Flippo: I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Edgar: Before the gentleman makes his objection, the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania is attempting to remove the impediment 
    that the gentleman wants to call a point of order against, simply 
    because the gentleman has made the assurances.
        Mr. Flippo: Mr. Chairman, I do not object to the gentleman's 
    request and I withdraw my reservation of objection.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania to withdraw the amendment?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 20.7 Although a point of order is pending against a substitute for 
    an amendment, the Chairman of a Committee of the Whole may 
    entertain a unanimous-consent request to withdraw the substitute 
    and offer an amendment to the amendment.

    On June 18, 1958,(18) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 104 Cong. Rec. 11642, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 12858, making appropriations for civil functions 
        administered by the Department of the Army, certain agencies of 
        the Department of the Interior, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (19) . . . If the gentleman desires to 
    ask unanimous consent to withdraw the proposed substitute and offer 
    an amendment to the amendment, then the gentleman may proceed in 
    that order, if he so desires. A point of order is pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, can a unanimous-
    consent request be propounded while a point of order is pending 
    before the committee?
        The Chairman: The Chair would entertain such a unanimous-
    consent request.

Effect of Objection to Withdrawal

Sec. 20.8 Where objection is made to a unanimous-consent re

[[Page 7025]]

    quest that an amendment pending before the Committee of the Whole 
    be withdrawn, the Chairman puts the question on the amendment.

    On July 11, 1962,(20) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 108 Cong. Rec. 13149, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11921.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas M.] Pelly [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, in view of 
    the uncertainty as to the effect of my amendment, I ask unanimous 
    consent to withdraw the amendment.
        The Chairman: (1) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Washington?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: I would have to object to that, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Washington [Mr. Pelly].
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Gross), there were--ayes 32, noes 81.
        So the amendment was rejected.

Withdrawal of Substitute--Effect on Amendment to Substitute

Sec. 20.9 Where a substitute amendment is withdrawn by unanimous 
    consent, an amendment to the substitute is also withdrawn.

    On Mar. 17, 1975,(2) amendments were offered during 
consideration of H.R. 25, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 
Act of 1975, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 121 Cong. Rec. 6797-99, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Mark] Andrews of North Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Andrews of North Dakota: Page 194, 
        line 15, after the word ``less'' on line 15, strike out the 
        period and insert a comma and add the following words: ``except 
        that this reclamation fee for lignite coal shall be at a rate 
        of 5 percentum of the value of the coal at the mine, or 35 
        cents, whichever is less.'' . . .

        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Andrews).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Seiberling as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Andrews of North Dakota: page 194, 
        line 9, adopt the sentence starting on line 9, but change 
        ``35'' to ``50''. . . .

        Mr. [Philip E.] Ruppe [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the substitute amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ruppe to the substitute amendment 
        offered by Mr. Seiberling: On page 194, line 11, amend the 
        substitute by striking ``50'' and inserting the word ``ten.'' . 
        . .

        Mr. Seiberling: . . . Mr. Chairman, the Chair informs me that 
    the manner

[[Page 7026]]

    in which my amendment was offered would, in effect, wipe out Mr. 
    Andrews' amendment, and that was not my intention.
        I am perfectly willing to debate the issues of what the fee 
    should be with the gentleman from Michigan by offering a separate 
    amendment.
        Therefore, I would ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
    substitute amendment.
        The Chairman: (3) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The substitute of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Seiberling) is withdrawn, and the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ruppe) to the substitute is therefore 
    withdrawn.

Reoffering Substitute After Withdrawal

Sec. 20.10 The withdrawal of a substitute by unanimous consent does not 
    preclude its being reoffered at the same stage of the proceedings, 
    and unanimous consent is not required to reoffer the substitute if 
    otherwise in order.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on Dec. 18, 
1979,(4) during consideration of H.R. 5860 (authorizing loan 
guarantees to the Chrysler Corporation). The proceedings in the 
Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 125 Cong. Rec. 36794, 36801, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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, (section 4(a)(4) 
        through section 4(d)) and replace with the following. . . .

        Mr. [Dan] Quayle [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Peyser: Mr. Chairman, in the procedure we are now, with the 
    gentleman in the well, that gentleman had offered his amendment and 
    then asked unanimous consent to withdraw his amendment. That 
    request was granted. Within the same section can the gentleman 
    again offer the same amendment without unanimous consent to 
    reintroduce that amendment?
        The Chairman: The amendment may be offered.
        The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Quayle as a substitute for the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Moorhead 
        of Pennsylvania.

[[Page 7027]]

Amendment to Senate Bill in House

Sec. 20.11 A Senate bill was called up by unanimous consent in the 
    House with an amendment by the House Committee on Public Works but, 
    by unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.

    On Oct. 2, 1964,(6) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 110 Cong. Rec. 23698, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        S. 2968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Fallon [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (S. 
    2968) to amend subsection 120(f) of title 23, United States Code; 
    and I also ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment 
    thereto be withdrawn. . . .
        The Speaker: (7) Without objection, the committee 
    amendment is withdrawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

House as in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 20.12 An amendment may be withdrawn at any time before action has 
    been had thereon during the consideration of a bill ``in the House 
    as in Committee of the Whole.''

    On Feb. 11, 1937,(8) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 1175, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was S. 
        1439, to provide for loans made necessary by floods or other 
        catastrophes in the year 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) Without objection, the 
    amendment will be withdrawn. [After a pause.] The Chair hears no 
    objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Edith Nourse] Rogers of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I 
    reserve the right to object. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: With all due deference to the lady, 
    the Chair thinks her objection comes too late. . . . In further 
    answer, we are in the House as in Committee of the Whole, and it 
    would be in order for the gentleman to withdraw his amendment in 
    any event as a matter of right.