[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[D. Withdrawal or Modification of Amendment]
[Â§ 21. Modification of Amendment by Proponent or Others]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 7027-7044]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
               D. WITHDRAWAL OR MODIFICATION OF AMENDMENT
 
Sec. 21. Modification of Amendment by Proponent or Others

    A Member may not offer an amendment to his own amendment to a 
bill.(10) Accordingly, in the Committee of the Whole or in 
the House, an amendment once offered may not be modified by its 
proponent except by unanimous consent.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 18.22, supra.
11. See Sec. 21.1, infra. See also the proceedings at 118 Cong. Rec. 
        2180-82, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 2, 1972, relating to H.R. 
        7987; and at 118 Cong. Rec. 29582, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 6, 
        1972, relating to H.R. 13514.

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

[[Page 7028]]

                          -------------------Unanimous Consent 
    Requirement

Sec. 21.1 The proponent of an amendment may amend his own amendment 
    only by unanimous consent.

    On July 19, 1967,(12) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 19416, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 421.
            See also 90 Cong. Rec. 1188, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 3, 
        1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edwin E.] Willis [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words.

        Mr. Chairman, let me read again the principal amendment of the 
    gentleman from California:

            Nothing in this section shall circumscribe or hinder the 
        objectives of organized labor in a bona fide labor dispute in 
        urging strikes.

        It seems to me that there could be some criticism of the word 
    ``objectives.'' We have the term ``bona fide'' before the words 
    ``labor dispute,'' which modifies those words, but if there is no 
    adjective before ``objectives,'' there may be a problem. I wonder 
    if my friend, the gentleman from California, would accede to an 
    amendment, to add before the word ``objectives'' the word 
    ``legitimate''? . . .
        Mr. [Chet] Holifield [of California]: Yes. I accept the 
    amendment of the gentleman to my amendment. I ask unanimous consent 
    that that be done, that the amendment be amended by adding the word 
    ``legitimate'' before the word ``objectives.''. . .
        The Chairman: (13) . . . The Chair will state, we 
    have an amendment moved by Mr. Holifield, and an amendment has been 
    made by Mr. Holifield to amend his own amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Joseph L. Evins (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fletcher] Thompson of Georgia: Is it in order to offer an 
    amendment to the original amendment when we already have an 
    amendment to the amendment under consideration?
        The Chairman: By unanimous consent it may be 
    considered.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Compare 116 Cong. Rec. 19753, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., June 15, 1970 
        [proceedings relating to H.R. 15361], where a Member proposing 
        an amendment later offered an amendment to that amendment--and, 
        since no objection was raised, the Chair put the question on 
        the latter amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 21.2 The text of an amendment may not be changed by the mover in 
    the Committee of the Whole unless by unanimous consent of the 
    Committee.

    On Feb. 8, 1941, (15) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 87 Cong. Rec. 793, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 1776, to promote the defense of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Vorys of Ohio: I understood, Mr. Chairman, that 
    in the

[[Page 7029]]

    Committee of the Whole the author of an amendment does not have to 
    secure unanimous consent to change the text of an amendment.
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman is incorrect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Substitute Offered for Amendment

Sec. 21.3 A Member may not offer a substitute for his own amendment to 
    a bill.

    On June 13, 1947, (17) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 93 Cong. Rec. 6989, 6990, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 3342, relating to a cultural relations program under 
        the State Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: I ask unanimous 
    consent, Mr. Chairman, to modify my amendment.

    Objection was made, whereupon the following exchange took place:

        Mr. Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute amendment.
        The Chairman: (18) The gentleman cannot do that at 
    this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas A. Jenkins (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offering Amendment to Substitute for Own Amendment

Sec. 21.4 Where there is pending an amendment and a substitute 
    therefor, the Member who offered the original amendment may also 
    offer an amendment to the substitute, as he is not thereby 
    attempting to amend his own amendment.

    On May 22, 1974, (19) during consideration of H.R. 14592 
(military procurement authorization, fiscal 1975), the Chair responded 
to a parliamentary inquiry as set out below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 120 Cong. Rec. 16112, 16149, 16151, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Leggett: On page 10, line 3, 
        delete ``$1,400,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$900,000,000.''. . .

        Mr. [F. Edward] Hebert [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute amendment for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Substitute amendment offered by Mr. Hebert for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Leggett: On page 10, lines 3 and 4, 
        delete ``$1,400,000,000'' and substitute ``$1,126,000,000''.

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Leggett to the substitute 
        amendment offered by Mr. Hebert for the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Leggett: On page 10, strike on line 3 ``$1,126,000,000'' 
        and substitute ``$1,000,000''.

        Mr. Hebert: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. . . .

[[Page 7030]]

        The gentleman from California has one amendment pending, and I 
    offered a substitute. In a parliamentary procedure, can he offer 
    another amendment to a substitute for his own amendment for 
    consideration?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (20) The Chair will state 
    the gentleman from Louisiana offered a substitute amendment for the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from California. The gentleman 
    from California in turn is now offering an amendment to the 
    substitute amendment, which would be in order. The gentleman from 
    California is not attempting to amend his own amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

En Bloc Amendments

Sec. 21.5 Where a Member has, by unanimous consent, been permitted to 
    offer several amendments en bloc, and then desires to modify one of 
    the amendments, the Clerk may rereport a portion of the amendment 
    the Member seeks to modify.

    On Sept. 6, 1972, (1) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 118 Cong. Rec. 29582, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 13514.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Leonor K.] Sullivan [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    the remaining amendments at the desk and I ask unanimous consent 
    that they be considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: (2) The Clerk will report the 
    amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request . . . that the 
    amendments be considered en bloc?
        There was no objection.
        Mrs. Sullivan: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        Must I again ask unanimous consent to change the name Consumers 
    Union to the name Consumers Federation of America?
        The Chairman: The Chair had understood that the gentlewoman had 
    made the change before she submitted the amendment. Has the 
    gentlewoman made the change in her amendment?
        Mrs. Sullivan: I did make the request. I do not know if I did 
    it at the proper time.
        The Chairman: Will the gentlewoman send it to the desk?
        The Clerk will report the portion of the amendment that the 
    gentlewoman is asking unanimous consent to change.

Point of Order Pending Against Amendment

Sec. 21.6 Pending a decision by the Chairman on a point of order raised 
    against an amendment in the Committee of the Whole, the Member 
    proposing the amendment secured unanimous consent that it be 
    modified to delete certain language.

    On Oct. 10, 1963,(3) the following proceedings took 
place

[[Page 7031]]

with regard to a proposed limitation on the use of funds by the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 109 Cong. Rec. 19258-60, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 8747.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment. . . .
        . . . [H]ere is the thing that puzzles me. If the gentleman 
    will read with me the language found in his amendment beginning on 
    the fourth line from the bottom:

            Except pursuant to an agreement hereafter made by the 
        President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate as 
        provided by section 205 of the National Aeronautics and Space 
        Act of 1958.

        That language puts this Subcommittee on Appropriations right 
    into the middle of foreign affairs--and it is not in our field. It 
    puts an extra duty on us. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair would like to ask the 
    gentleman from Washington a question. What is the reason for the 
    inclusion of language at the end of the amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The problem the Chair is considering is why there is any need 
    to include the language at the end of the amendment unless in some 
    way it changes existing law?
        Mr. [Thomas M.] Pelly [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    say that it does not change existing law but simply follows it. 
    But, in order to clarify this matter I ask unanimous consent to 
    strike from the amendment the words from ``except pursuant to an 
    agreement'' to the end.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Washington?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the modified amendment.

Unanimous-Consent Request Following Demand for Recorded Vote

Sec. 21.7 Pending a request for a recorded vote following a voice vote 
    on an amendment the Committee of the Whole, by unanimous consent, 
    vacated the Chair's putting of the question on the amendment to 
    permit a modification or amendment thereof, and further debate 
    thereon.

    On Jan. 29, 1980,(5) during consideration of H.R. 4788 
(6) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 126 Cong. Rec. 958-60, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. The Water Resources Development Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (7) When the Committee of the Whole 
    rose on Monday, January 28, 1980, title I was open to amendment at 
    any point, and pending was a demand for a recorded vote made by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Edgar) on an amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Edgar) insist on his 
    demand for a recorded vote?

[[Page 7032]]

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the Chair's putting of the question on the 
    Michel amendment be vacated.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Illinois? . . .
        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Further reserving the 
    right to object, the gentleman will, after this action is taken, if 
    no one objects, then ask unanimous consent to substitute language 
    for the language in the amendment; is that not correct?
        Mr. Michel: That is correct. . . .
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) to vacate the proceedings by 
    which the Chair put the question on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel)?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    amendment be modified.
        The Clerk will report the modification to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            On page 71, immediately after line 7, insert the following 
        and redesignate the succeeding sections accordingly. . . .

        Mr. [Willaim H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, is the 
    parliamentary situation such, if there is no further objection to 
    the unanimous-consent request, we then get an opportunity to 
    discuss the amendment further, or do we just vote on it?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. The gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Michel) would be recognized for 5 minutes in support 
    of his modified amendment.
        Mr. Harsha: I thank the Chairman.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
    request of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel)?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) is 
    recognized for 5 minutes in support of his modified amendment.

Unanimous-Consent Request To Modify Reduced to Writing

Sec. 21.8 The Chair may insist that a unanimous-consent request to 
    modify a pending amendment be reduced to writing to indicate the 
    complete text of the amendment as proposed to be modified.

    On Dec. 18, 1979,(8) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 5860,(9) a modification of a 
pending amendment was proposed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 125 Cong. Rec. 36824, 36825, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. Authorizing loan guarantees to the Chrysler Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bethune to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania:

[[Page 7033]]

            Page 22, line 21, insert after ``outstanding.'' the 
        following new sentence: ``The final report for 1981 shall 
        include an evaluation of the long-term economic implications of 
        the Chrysler loan guarantee program, with findings, conclusions 
        and recommendations for legislative and administrative actions 
        considered appropriate to future Federal loan guarantee 
        programs.''.

        Mr. [Joseph L.] Fisher [of Virginia]: . . . Mr. Chairman, this 
    is along the line of the amendment that I had printed in the Record 
    and was going to offer. I want to inquire of the gentleman who has 
    just presented this amendment if he would accept an addition to his 
    amendment to incorporate some of the features of the amendment that 
    I was going to propose. . . .
        Mr. Bethune: I am familiar with the gentleman's amendment, 
    having read it in the Record. I think the gentleman has some 
    excellent points in his amendment. I would certainly be amenable to 
    the gentleman's suggestion.
        The Chairman: (10) A modification should be 
    submitted in writing and can be adopted by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fisher: Mr. Chairman, the amendment appears in writing. It 
    would be the part beginning with the sentence just prior to the 
    numbered items:

            The study shall consider for inclusion in guidelines 
        relating to aid of this kind the following factors:

        The factors are there listed.
        Mr. Chairman, I gather the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Bethune) would accept that.
        Mr. Bethune: Mr. Chairman, I would accept that.
        The Chairman: The Chair will have to ask that the amendment be 
    reduced to writing as modified. That is the only way in which it 
    can be considered without the possibility of error.
        Mr. Fisher: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is at the desk.
        The Chairman: The Chair feels that the committee should have 
    before it an amendment that includes the modification.
        Mr. Fisher: May I ask unanimous consent that the portion I just 
    read be included in this amendment with the consent of the maker of 
    it?
        The Chairman: Would the gentleman repeat that portion so that 
    we can see if we can accommodate the gentleman?
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Arkansas (Mr. Bethune).
        The amendment was agreed to.

Unanimous-Consent Request To Modify Pending a Request To Dispense With 
    Reading

Sec. 21.9 A unanimous-consent request to modify an amendment is not in 
    order pending a unanimous-consent request to dispense with the 
    reading of the amendment.

    On Oct. 27, 1977,(11) during consideration of H.R. 9346, 
the Social

[[Page 7034]]

Security Financing Amendments of 1977, the proceedings described above 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 35389, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Ketchum [of California] (during the reading): 
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
    considered as read and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: (12) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from California? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Now, if it were in order, I would 
    like to ask unanimous consent that that tax increase in 1982 be 
    included as part of his amendment to adjust for the discrepancy 
    that has been created by the addition of the Fisher amendment.

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that such a request would 
    not be in order at this time.

Amendment Offered by Another After Objection

Sec. 21.10 In the event of objection to a unanimous-consent request to 
    modify a pending amendment, any Member (other than the proponent of 
    the amendment) may offer a proper amendment in writing thereto.

    On Apr. 9, 1979,(13) an amendment was offered, as 
follows, during consideration of H.R. 3324, the International 
Development Cooperation Act of 1979:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 7755, 7756, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: On page 23, line 10, 
        strike all of Section 303(a) and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following new Section 303:
            ``Sec. 303. (a) Section 533 of the Foreign Assistance Act 
        of 1961 is amended to read as follows:
            `` `Sec. 533--Southern Africa Program
            `` `(a) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated to 
        carry out this chapter for the fiscal year 1980, $68,000,000 
        shall be available (only) for the countries of southern Africa. 
        . . .
            `` `Such funds may be used to provide humanitarian 
        assistance to African refugees and persons displaced by war and 
        internal strife in southern Africa, to improve transportation 
        links interrupted or jeopardized by regional political 
        conflicts and to provide support to countries in that region. . 
        . .
            `` `(c) Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated to 
        carry out the purposes of this section, $20,000,000 shall be 
        made available to the government of Zimbabwe/Rhodesia which is 
        installed in that nation as a result of the election held in 
        April 1979, which election may be evaluated and reported upon 
        by observers as provided for in this section.' ''

    Subsequently, after some discussion of the merits of a proposal to 
change ``shall'' to ``may'' in the last paragraph, a unanimous-consent 
request was made: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at 7761.

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

[[Page 7035]]

    Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, just to bring this 
to a head, I ask unanimous consent that the word ``shall'' which 
appears in two places in the last paragraph of the amendment be changed 
to ``may.''

        The Chairman: (15) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Illinois?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        The gentleman will have to submit an amendment in writing if 
    the Chair is to consider it.

Modification of Amendment Considered as Amendment in Third Degree

Sec. 21.11 Where there is pending an amendment and an amendment 
    thereto, a modification of the latter amendment is in order only by 
    unanimous consent and further amendment would be in the third 
    degree; but a substitute for the original amendment remains in 
    order.

    On June 25, 1975,(16) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 8069,(17) the proceedings, 
described above, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 20855, 20863, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare 
        appropriations, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (18) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For expenses of the Community Services Administration, 
        $399,185,000.
            For ``Community services program'' for the period July 1, 
        1976, through September 30, 1976, $99,800,000.

        Mr. [Augustus F.] Hawkins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer amendments, and I ask unanimous consent that they be 
    considered en bloc.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Hawkins: On Page 44, line 18, 
        strike ``$399,185,000'' and insert in lieu thereof, 
        ``$434,185,000'', and on line 20, strike ``$99,800,000'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof, ``$108,600,000''.

        Mrs. [Yvonne B.] Burke [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendments offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Hawkins).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Burke of California to the 
        amendments offered by Mr. Hawkins: On Page 44, line 18, strike 
        ``$399,185,000'' and insert in lieu thereof: ``$439,385,000''. 
        . . .

        Mrs. Burke of California: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
    in order to clarify the Record that the amendment be corrected so 
    it will include these figures to be inserted:

            On page 44, line 18, insert: ``$474,385,000'' and on page 
        44, line 20, insert ``$144,975,000''.

[[Page 7036]]

        The Chairman: If there is no objection, the Clerk will report 
    the figures.
        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I am 
    constrained to object, if it will save time.
        The Chairman: The gentlewoman has asked unanimous consent to 
    change the amendment to the amendment, and objection is heard.
        Therefore the amendment as originally offered by the 
    gentlewoman from California will have to be considered as the 
    amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California.
        Mr. [John] Buchanan [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry. Would it be in order for an amendment now to be offered if 
    it is not offered by unanimous consent?
        The Chairman: It would depend on the form in which the 
    amendment would come. If it is a substitute for the original 
    amendment, it would be in order, the Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Alabama. However, an amendment to the amendment to 
    the amendment would not be in order, it being in the third degree.

Modification of Amendment Offered Pursuant to Special Rule or Printed 
    in Record

Sec. 21.12 While a special rule adopted by the House controlling the 
    consideration of a bill may not be directly amended in the 
    Committee of the Whole even by unanimous consent, the Committee 
    may, by unanimous consent, permit the modification of an amendment, 
    when offered, made in order by that special rule.

    On Aug. 2, 1977,(19) during consideration of H.R. 8444 
(the National Energy Act), there was pending in the Committee of the 
Whole a committee amendment under a special rule permitting a 
designated amendment to be offered only to such committee amendment, 
rather than separately to the bill. The Chair,(20) during 
these proceedings, entertained a unanimous-consent request to modify 
the designated amendment, which had been made in order by the rule and 
offered by Mr. William D. Ford, of Michigan. The modified amendment, 
while retaining its status as an amendment to the committee amendment 
consistent with the rule adopted by the House, changed the substantive 
text of the amendment by limiting its application to the committee 
amendment to which offered rather than, as originally printed in the 
Record, to the entire title of the bill. The Ford amendment read as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 26163, 26166, 26167, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Frank E. Evans (Colo.), Chairman pro tempore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Ford of Michigan to the ad hoc 
    committee

[[Page 7037]]

    amendment: At the end of the committee amendment on page 180, 
    insert the following new section:
        ``Sec. 5. Application of Davis-Bacon Act.
        ``The Federal employee or officer primarily responsible for 
    administering any program established under any provision of, or 
    amendment made by, title I of this Act which provides for Federal 
    funding shall take such steps as are necessary to insure by 
    contractors or subcontractors in the performance of work on any 
    construction utilizing such funds will be paid at rates not less 
    than those prevailing on similar construction in the locality, as 
    determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Act of 
    March 3, 1931 (40 U.S.C. 276a-276a-5, known as the Davis-Bacon 
    Act); and the Secretary of Labor shall have with respect to the 
    labor standards specified in this section the authority and 
    functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950. . . 
    .

    At this point, Mr. Richard L. Ottinger, of New York, raised a 
parliamentary inquiry as follows:

        Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order to ask 
    unanimous consent that the Ford amendment be considered separately. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman from New York that the Ford amendment is in order only 
    under the rule and the rule cannot be changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ottinger: And it cannot be changed by unanimous consent?
        The Chairman: The Committee of the Whole cannot directly change 
    House Resolution 727, the special rule adopted by the House, even 
    by unanimous consent.

    Subsequently, after some discussion of the scope of the Ford 
amendment, Mr. Ford asked unanimous consent that it be modified:

        Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
    assist me . . . I would be very happy to ask unanimous consent to 
    add, before the words, ``title I,'' on line 17, the words, ``part 
    III of.''. . .
        Mr. [Garry] Brown of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, it is my 
    understanding that the Chair has ruled that even by unanimous 
    consent the gentleman could not amend his amendment. All I am 
    trying to do in this colloquy is establish the legislative 
    understanding.
        Mr. Ford of Michigan: I do not understand that there would be a 
    ruling that by unanimous consent I cannot modify my amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the Chair 
    merely stated that the rule cannot be amended by unanimous consent. 
    The Chair did not state that the amendment could not be amended by 
    unanimous consent.

    Mr. Ford then modified his amendment by unanimous consent, 
whereupon the amendment was agreed to, and the ad hoc committee 
amendment, as so amended, was agreed to. A parliamentary inquiry was 
raised, as follows:

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, earlier 
    today

[[Page 7038]]

    when the gentleman from Massachusetts occupied the chair, a 
    question was put to the Chair whether or not by unanimous consent 
    amendments could be offered to the bill.
        The resolution under which this bill is being considered says 
    on page 2:

            No amendment to the bill shall be in order except pro forma 
        amendments for the purpose of debate and except the following 
        amendments, which shall be in order without the intervention of 
        any point of order, which shall not be subject to amendment 
        except for amendments recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee on 
        Energy. . . .

        Now, subsequent to the Chair's ruling, with the gentleman from 
    Colorado in the chair, in response to a question when the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Ford) offered a unanimous-consent request, said 
    that the unanimous-consent request would be in order.

        My question to the Chair is, what is the ruling on unanimous-
    consent amendments to this bill or to the bill henceforth?
        The Chairman: The Chair will respond by indicating that the 
    Chair at the time understood the unanimous-consent request by the 
    gentleman from New York was to change the rule adopted by the 
    House.
        The Chair would agree that by unanimous consent modification of 
    a pending amendment is permissible in Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, so any pending amendment can be 
    modified by unanimous consent?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

    Parliamentarian's Note: See also the proceedings of Sept. 1, 
1976,(2) relating to H.R. 14238, legislative branch 
appropriations for fiscal 1977, which was considered under a ``modified 
closed'' rule (H. Res. 1507) allowing only designated amendments to be 
offered and prohibiting amendments to said amendments. An amendment 
that had been made in order under the rule and offered by Mr. George E. 
Shipley, of Illinois, was modified pursuant to a unanimous-consent 
request by Mr. Morris K. Udall, of Arizona.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 122 Cong. Rec. 28877, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 21.13 Where a special order providing for the consideration of a 
    bill permits the offering only of designated amendments which have 
    been printed in the Congressional Record, an amendment offered 
    under the rule should be in the exact form in which it was printed 
    in the Record, but the Committee of the Whole may by unanimous 
    consent permit modification of the amendment to correct erroneous 
    page and line numbers.

    On Aug. 3, 1977,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 7039]]

ering H.R. 8444, the National Energy Act, under a special order which 
permitted the offering only of certain amendments. The proceedings 
described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 123 Cong. Rec. 26450, 26451, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
            Compare the proceedings of Apr. 1, 1976, at 122 Cong. Rec. 
        9091, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., where the Chairman stated that it 
        was permissible to insert a page reference in an amendment 
        printed in the Record, where the printed amendment did not 
        contain one, the amendment being considered in substantial 
        compliance with the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I further 
    direct a question to the gentleman from Ohio; this is the amendment 
    published in the Record on July 27, 1977; am I correct?
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: But for the page and line 
    numbers; that is correct.
        Mr. Dingell: That is the reason for my inquiry, because I 
    observe that the page and line numbers cited therein were 
    incorrect. The reason I am inquiring is to make sure it is the 
    correct amendment.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, at the 
    time it was published in the Record we were using page and line 
    numbers of the bill then available to us. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, if I heard the Clerk correctly, I think the Clerk 
    read the proper page and line numbers. The amendment at the desk 
    relates to the page and line numbers as they would be related in 
    the bill. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I make the observation that the rule 
    does provide that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) shall have 
    the authority to offer the amendment now referred to according to 
    the terms and the conditions of the rule. The rule says as follows:

            (3) An amendment printed in the Congressional Record of 
        July 27, 1977, beginning on page H7996, by Representative Brown 
        of Ohio, to part IV, title I, which amendment shall be in order 
        only after disposition of the amendments to that part 
        recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee on Energy printed in or 
        adopted to the bill;

        Mr. Chairman, I observe that the amendment printed in the 
    Record is to one portion of the bill, but I observe that the 
    amendment offered is offered to a different portion of the 
    legislation before us.
        Mr. Chairman, I am curious to know whether or not the amendment 
    is offered in conformity with the rule.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: . . . The question of the slight differences 
    in page numbers and so forth which were necessitated because of the 
    fact that the printed bill in its final form was not available for 
    the gentleman from Ohio to make reference to when he printed his 
    amendment in the Record. Because of that circumstance we cleared 
    with the Parliamentarian, or so we thought, the appropriateness of 
    the amendment which was submitted to the desk in accordance with 
    the rule. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) the Chair finds that there is a 
    difference in the page and line numbers that are now before the 
    committee, and if the gentleman from Michigan insists upon his 
    request, the gentleman from Ohio will have to ask unanimous consent 
    that his amendment be modified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Does the gentleman from Michigan insist upon his request?

[[Page 7040]]

        Mr. Dingell: I think, Mr. Chairman, we would be better served 
    were that done. It will not prejudice my friend from Ohio.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to modification of the 
    amendment?
        Mr. [Clifford R.] Allen [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I make the same unanimous-consent 
    request.
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman that 
    the amendment will be in order regardless of the page and line 
    numbers since an amendment to part IV of title I is permitted in 
    the rule.
        Mr. Dingell: Perhaps I can obviate some of the problems. . . . 
    I am sure my good friend from Ohio . . . would assure us that the 
    two amendments are substantively identical.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: They are.
        [After some further discussion, the Chair again put the 
    unanimous-consent request to modify the amendment, and there was no 
    objection.]
        The Chairman: The amendment is now modified. The Clerk will 
    continue to read the amendment.

Sec. 21.14 Unanimous consent was obtained in the House to modify an 
    amendment printed in the Congressional Record and made in order for 
    consideration in the Committee of the Whole by a special order of 
    business.

    On Sept. 4, 1985,(5) Mr. James J. Howard, of New Jersey, 
sought and obtained unanimous consent in the circumstance described 
above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 131 Cong. Rec. 22837, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James J.] Howard [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the committee amendment at the desk which 
    was printed in the Congressional Record on July 11, 1985, and which 
    the rule, House Resolution 223, passed by the House on July 24 
    makes in order during the consideration of H.R. 10, be modified to 
    conform to funding ceilings represented by Senate Concurrent 
    Resolution 32, passed by the Congress August 1, 1985, setting forth 
    the congressional budget for the United States.

Sec. 21.15 Where there was pending an amendment to a title of a bill 
    being considered under a special rule permitting only germane 
    amendments printed in the Record for at least two calendar days to 
    be offered to that title, and prohibiting amendments thereto, a 
    modification of an amendment printed in the Record was permitted in 
    Committee of the Whole by unanimous consent.

    On Mar. 26, 1974,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill,(7) an amendment

[[Page 7041]]

was modified by unanimous consent, as described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 120 Cong. Rec. 8253, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. H.R. 69, to amend and extend the Elementary and Secondary Education 
        Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Patsy T.] Mink [of Hawaii]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee substitute.
        The Chairman: (8) Is the amendment printed in the 
    Record?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. Mink: It is, Mr. Chairman.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Mink to the committee substitute: 
        The first sentence of Section 103(a)(1), beginning on line 13 
        on page 28, is amended to read as follows: ``Sec. 103(a)(1) 
        There is authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year for 
        the purpose of this paragraph 1 per centum of the amount 
        appropriated for such year for payments to States under section 
        134(a). . . .

        Mr. [Lloyd] Meeds [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that at the end of the amendment . . . the 
    following words be added: ``and to the Secretary of the Interior 
    for payments pursuant to (d)(1) and (d)(2).''. . .
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Washington?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 21.16 Where a special rule precludes the offering of amendments 
    not printed in the Congressional Record by a previous date, 
    amendments may only be offered in the form as printed and may be 
    modified only by unanimous consent.

    On Oct. 1, 1985, the Committee of the Whole had under consideration 
H.R. 2100, the Food Security Act of 1985. The bill was being considered 
pursuant to a special rule, adopted on Sept. 20, 1985, which stated in 
part as follows: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See H. Res. 267, 131 Cong. Rec. 24521, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
        resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
        XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
        Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 
        the bill (H.R. 2100) to extend and revise agricultural price 
        support and related programs. . . . After general debate, which 
        shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed 
        two and one-half hours, two hours to be equally divided and 
        controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
        Committee on Agriculture, and thirty minutes to be equally 
        divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
        member of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, the 
        bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
        rule. It shall be in order to consider the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
        Agriculture now printed in the bill, as modified by the 
        amendments recommended by the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
        Fisheries now printed in the bill, as an original bill for the 
        purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule, said 
        substitute shall be considered for amendment by titles instead 
        of by sections, and each title shall be considered as having 
        been read. . . . No amendment to the bill or to the substitute 
        made in order by this resolution shall be in order except 
        amendments printed in

[[Page 7042]]

        the Congressional Record on or before September 24, 1985, and 
        except an amendment offered by the chairman of the Committee on 
        Agriculture or his designee to strike out section 1141 of the 
        substitute, as incorporated into the substitute by this 
        resolution, and to insert the text of section 1141 of the 
        substitute as reported by the Committee on Agriculture.

    During consideration of the bill, an amendment was offered by Mr. 
Dan Glickman, of Kansas, against which a point of order was made as 
indicated below: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 131 Cong. Rec. 25418-20, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) When the Committee of the Whole 
    rose on Thursday, September 26, title IV was open to amendment at 
    any point to amendments printed in the Congressional Record before 
    September 24, 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there amendments to title IV? . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Glickman: Title IV of H.R. 2100 is 
        amended by--
            On page 65, after line 8, striking all through ``shall'' on 
        line 11 and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``(2) If 
        the Secretary determines that the availability of nonrecourse 
        loans and purchases will not have an adverse effect on the 
        program provided for in paragraph (3), the Secretary may''; . . 
        .

        Title V of H.R. 2100 is amended by--
        On page 87, after line 15, striking all through ``shall'' on 
    line 18 and inserting in lieu thereof the following: . . .
        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I believe 
    a point of order would lie against the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Glickman) because the amendment, if I 
    understand the amendment that is being offered, goes to more than 
    one title of the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Dan] Glickman [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    amends two titles of the bill. To be frank with the Chair, it was 
    submitted as one amendment, but the intention of the author of this 
    amendment as well as the other authors was to deal with the issues 
    as they affected title IV and then title V. I put it in one title 
    of the bill, but, to be honest with the Chair, the issues are 
    divisible, they are separate. I could have amended it and put it in 
    two separate amendments. I did not because that is not the way the 
    issue came up in the Committee on Agriculture. . . .
        Mr. Robert F. Smith [of Oregon]: . . . Mr. Chairman, (the rule) 
    provides that consideration can only be by title, not by section. I 
    think the point remains that there is no question that this 
    amendment does affect two titles. . . .
        Mr. [Arlan] Stangeland [of Minnesota]: . . . I just want to 
    make the point that the amendment was printed in two distinctly 
    separate sections. One portion of the amendment dealt with wheat 
    and target prices and marketing loans. The second section of the 
    amendment deals with title V, the feed grain section. Two 
    distinctly different amendments but introduced in the Record as, 
    unfortunately, one amendment. . . . I would just appeal to the 
    Chair that the intent of the authors was that because they were 
    handled en bloc in committee, we would run that way, but they are 
    divisible, they can be

[[Page 7043]]

    addressed to title IV and title V very distinctly in the amendment. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair would state that the Chair can only look at the form 
    in which the amendment has been submitted for printing in the 
    Record. According to the rule, the substitute shall be considered 
    for amendment by title instead of by sections, and only amendments 
    to the bill which have been printed in the Record by September 24 
    may be offered.
        Therefore, the only way in which the amendment that the 
    gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Glickman) wishes to offer could be 
    considered is by unanimous consent.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 21.17 Amendments in the Committee of the Whole may be modified by 
    unanimous consent while they are pending to reflect the version of 
    the bill being considered but cannot initially be offered except in 
    the form required by the special rule.

    On Oct. 3, 1985,(12) Where a bill was being considered 
under a rule requiring prior printing of amendments in the 
Congressional Record, an amendment printed with specific page and line 
numbers was offered in that form, even though that form did not conform 
to the version of the bill under consideration. The proceedings in the 
Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 131 Cong. Rec. 26021, 26022, 99th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 2100, the Food Security Act of 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Beryl F.] Anthony [Jr., of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is the amendment printed in the 
    Record?
        Mr. Anthony: It is printed in the Record, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        Mr. Anthony: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    amendment be modified to read ``Page 323, strike lines 6 through 
    10.''
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Arkansas?
        Mr. [William W.] Franklin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, 
    reserving the right to object, is this the amendment that was 
    originally offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Rostenkowski]?
        Mr. Anthony: Yes, it is.
        Mr. Franklin: I would like to ask, under the reservation, if I 
    could, if the amendment that is presently at the desk is in the 
    same form as the one printed in the Record.
        Mr. Anthony: It is the identical amendment. All it does is 
    correct the pages, inasmuch as when the amendment was filed, it was 
    according to the bill that was reported out of the committee rather 
    than the one that was under the Union Calendar version. It is the 
    identical amendment. . . .
        Mr. Franklin: Mr. Chairman, continuing under my reservation, I 
    would

[[Page 7044]]

    like to raise a point of order to the amendment now offered, which 
    was originally filed by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Rostenkowski], and state that the amendment as printed in the 
    Record does not refer to the sections to be amended on H.R. 2100, 
    the Union Calendar, under which we are dealing.
        I would call the Chair's attention to a previous ruling on a 
    point of order when the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts 
    attempted to strike the honey provisions of H.R. 2100 and the Chair 
    ruled, because of a not specific reference to line and title and 
    page number, that that amendment was ruled out of order.
        I at this time insist on my point of order to the amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The amendment that is in the Record 
    has a specific line and title and may be offered in that form.
        The Clerk will report the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Anthony: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
    amendment to conform with the Union Calendar version of the bill.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Arkansas?
        There was no objection.
        The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Anthony, as modified: Page 323, 
        strike out lines 6 through 10.

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Anthony], as modified.
        The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

Sec. 21.18 An amendment specifically made in order under a ``modified 
    closed'' rule adopted by the House and not amendable thereunder may 
    be modified in Committee of the Whole only by unanimous consent.

    The proposition stated above was the basis of the following 
exchange, which occurred on Aug. 14, 1986,(13) during 
consideration of H.R. 4428 (14) in the Committee of the 
Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 132 Cong. Rec. 21686, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
14. The Department of Defense Authorization, fiscal year 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James A.] Courter [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, is this 
    modification of the amendment permissible and germane, or does it 
    need unanimous consent to be considered?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (15) The Chair will state 
    to the gentleman from New Jersey that a modification of this sort 
    is permitted only by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Cardiss] Collins [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I again ask 
    unanimous consent to offer the modification to the amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentlewoman from Illinois?
        Mr. Courter: Mr. Chairman, I object.

[[Page 7045]]