[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[E. Consideration and Voting]
[Â§ 23. Order of Consideration Generally]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 7055-7087]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
                      E. CONSIDERATION AND VOTING
 
Sec. 23. Order of Consideration Generally

    The four forms of amendment permitted by Rule XIX may be pending 
simultaneously. They must, however, be voted on in a definite sequence, 
as follows: (1) amendments to the amendment, if any, are disposed of 
first, seriatim, until the amendment is perfected; (2) amendments to 
the substitute are next voted on, seriatim, until the substitute is 
perfected; (3) the substitute is next voted on; (4) the amendment is 
voted on last, so that if the substitute has been agreed to, the vote 
is on the amendment as amended by the substitute. (18) Thus, 
where there is pending in the House an amendment, a substitute therefor 
and an amendment to the substitute, the vote is

[[Page 7056]]

first taken on the amendment to the substitute, then on the substitute 
as amended, and then on the amendment as amended by the substitute; and 
defeat of the amendment as amended by the substitute results in the 
rejection of the language included in the substitute as amended. 
(19) Where the House has adopted a special rule permitting 
the consideration of amendments in Committee of the Whole only in a 
prescribed order, the Committee of the Whole must rise to permit the 
House, by unanimous consent, to change the order of consideration of 
certain amendments in Committee of the Whole. (Only the House, and not 
the Committee of the Whole, may by unanimous consent alter the terms of 
a special rule previously agreed to by the House.) (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See, for example, 108 Cong. Rec. 13415, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., July 
        12, 1962 (response of Chairman Wilbur D. Mills [Ark.] to the 
        parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Hale Boggs [La.], during 
        consideration of H.R. 11921).
            The order in which amendments are to be voted on is 
        prescribed by Rule XIX, House Rules and Manual Sec. 822 (101st 
        Cong.).
            Amendments to a bill reported by a standing committee are 
        taken up in Committee of the Whole in proper sequence and not 
        as shown in the reported bill when, through error, the standing 
        committee submitted them for printing in improper order. 112 
        Cong. Rec. 8428, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 19, 1966.
19. See 119 Cong. Rec. 21320, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., June 26, 1973 
        (proceedings during consideration of H.J. Res. 636, including 
        response of Speaker Carl Albert [Okla.] to parliamentary 
        inquiry by Mr. Sidney R. Yates [Ill.].
20. For discussion of special rules and their effect generally, see 
        Sec. 3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

In General

Sec. 23.1 Where there was pending in Committee of the Whole an 
    amendment, an amendment thereto, a substitute therefor and an 
    amendment to the substitute, the Chairman indicated that the vote 
    would first be taken on the amendment to the original amendment, 
    then on the amendment to the substitute, then on the substitute, 
    and finally on the original amendment (as amended).

    On May 6, 1970, (21) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 116 Cong. Rec. 14424, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 17123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (1) The first amendment to be voted on 
    will be the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Bingham) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Reid).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Findley: Then, I further suggest that the Bingham amendment 
    be defeated, and as I understand the parliamentary situation, 
    assuming that the Bingham amendment is defeated, the next vote will 
    be on the Leggett amendment. Am I correct on that?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct; to the substitute 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois.
        Mr. Findley: And then next will be the substitute which I 
    offered?

[[Page 7057]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Sec. 23.2 Where there was pending an amendment, a substitute therefor 
    and an amendment to the substitute, the Chair indicated in response 
    to a parliamentary inquiry that the vote would first be taken on 
    the amendment to the substitute, then on the substitute as amended, 
    and finally on the amendment as amended by the substitute.

    On June 5, 1974, (2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the bill H.R. 14747 (to amend the Sugar Act 
of 1948), a parliamentary inquiry was addressed to the Chair as set out 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 120 Cong. Rec. 17872, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold R.] Collier [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. Is the new Ford proposal an amendment to the 
    amendment, since there is already an amendment with a pending 
    substitute before the House?
        The Chairman: (3) The new Ford amendment is an 
    amendment to the substitute. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. James J. Burke (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Collier: Then the parliamentary situation in voting on this 
    would be what?
        The Chairman: The Members will vote on the amendment to the 
    substitute first, and then vote on the substitute, as amended.
        Mr. Collier: And then there would be a vote on the substitute 
    amendment, as amended?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

Sec. 23.3 Where there were pending in Committee of the Whole an 
    amendment in the form of a new section, an amendment thereto and a 
    substitute therefor, the Chairman indicated that the vote would 
    first be taken on the amendment to the amendment and then on the 
    substitute.

    On June 17, 1971, (4) The following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 117 Cong. Rec. 20553, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 8687.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles S.] Gubser [of California]: Could the Chair inform 
    the gentleman regarding the order in which votes might come, 
    assuming that no other amendments or substitutes are offered at 
    this time?
        The Chairman: (5) The first vote would come on the 
    Robison amendment to the Nedzi-Whalen amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gubser: Then, if that vote fails, the vote would come on 
    the Mink substitute?
        The Chairman: That is right.

Sec. 23.4 Where there is pending an amendment, an amend

[[Page 7058]]

    ment thereto and a substitute therefor, the vote is taken on the 
    amendment to the amendment before the vote recurs on the 
    substitute.

    On Sept. 26, 1973,(6) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 119 Cong. Rec. 31463, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. [William J.] Keating [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, will the vote be 
on the amendment offered as a substitute by the gentleman from Texas to 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rodino)?

        The Chairman: (7) The Chair will state that there is 
    a perfecting amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from New Jersey (Mr. Rodino). The first question occurs on the 
    perfecting amendment to the amendment. Thereafter the vote will 
    occur on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Gonzalez), as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rodino).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Brock Adams (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If the substitute amendment is agreed to, the vote will recur 
    on the original amendment, as amended. If the substitute fails, the 
    vote will then occur on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New Jersey (Mr. Rodino) in the form in which it was offered.

Sec. 23.5 Where the four amendments permitted under Rule XIX are 
    pending, the amendment is perfected before the substitute.

    On July 12, 1962,(8) The following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 108 Cong. Rec. 13415, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11921.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana]: I would appreciate it if the 
    Chair would explain exactly what the voting situation is on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Casey], the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Morgan], 
    the substitute offered by the gentleman from Ohio, and the 
    amendment to the substitute.
        The Chairman: (9) If the gentleman from Louisiana 
    would permit the Chair to respond to the parliamentary situation, 
    the Chair would advise that the vote first will occur on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Morgan] 
    to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Casey]. 
    The next vote will occur on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen] to the substitute amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Feighan]. The next vote 
    will occur on the substitute offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
    [Mr. Feighan]. The last vote then occurs on the Casey amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Boggs: That is, provided the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Ohio as amended by the 
    gentleman from New Jersey is voted down?

[[Page 7059]]

        The Chairman: The vote finally occurs on the Casey amendment 
    whether the substitute is agreed to or not. It would be the Casey 
    amendment as amended by the substitute if the substitute is agreed 
    to.
        The question now occurs on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Morgan] to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Casey].

Sec. 23.6 The Chairman advised that should a pending amendment to an 
    amendment be agreed to, the vote would then recur on the amendment, 
    as amended.

    On June 28, 1967,(10) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 17748, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 10340.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William F.] Ryan [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, if the 
    amendment of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roudebush] is adopted, 
    will the House have an opportunity to vote on the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fulton]?
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair will state, in response 
    to the parliamentary inquiry, that if the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Indiana to the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania is adopted, the vote will then recur on the amendment 
    of the gentleman from Pennsylvania as amended by the amendment of 
    the gentleman from Indiana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 23.7 Where there was pending a committee amendment in the form of 
    a new title, an amendment thereto and a substitute therefor, the 
    first vote was on the amendment to the committee amendment, then on 
    the substitute, and then on the committee amendment as it may have 
    been amended.

    On Apr. 6, 1977,(12) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill,(13) the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry as described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 123 Cong. Rec. 10773, 10774, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H.R. 5262, providing for increased participation by the United 
        States in international financial institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tsongas) to the 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Robert Duncan (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul E.] Tsongas: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Tsongas: Mr. Chairman, I believe it is in order that we 
    vote first on the substitute offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Wylie), is it not?
        The Chairman: No. The Chair will state that the vote on the 
    amendment to the committee amendment will occur first. Following 
    that there will be a vote on the substitute for the committee 
    amendment, as amended, if the amendment offered by the gentleman

[[Page 7060]]

    from Massachusetts (Mr. Tsongas) to the committee amendment is 
    adopted. Following that there will be a vote on the committee 
    amendment, as it may have been amended.

Sec. 23.8 The question is first put on a perfecting amendment to an 
    amendment, and then on a substitute for the original amendment, and 
    if the substitute is adopted, the vote recurs immediately upon the 
    original amendment as amended by the substitute, and further 
    perfecting amendments are not in order.

    On May 1, 1979,(15) during consideration of House 
Concurrent Resolution 107 (16) in the Committee of the 
Whole, the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry concerning the 
order in which amendments would be voted upon, as described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 125 Cong. Rec. 9299-9301, 9311, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. The first concurrent resolution on the Budget, fiscal 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Paul] Simon [of Illinois]: In the 
    matter relating to the appropriate level of total new budget 
    authority increase the amount by $2,223,000,000;
        In the matter relating to the appropriate level of total budget 
    outlays increase the amount by $1,522,000,000. . . .
        In the matter relating to Function 050--National Defense 
    increase the amount for budget authority by $628,000,000; and 
    increase the amount for outlays by $315,000,000. . . .
        In section (3);
        In the matter relating to Function 050--National Defense 
    increase the amount for outlays by $166,000,000. . . .
        Amendment offered by Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California to the 
    amendment offered by Mr. Simon: Strike out the amount by which the 
    appropriate level of total new budget authority for fiscal year 
    1979 is proposed to be increased and insert in lieu thereof 
    ``$2,871,000,000''. . . .
        Strike out the amount by which the amount for outlays for 
    fiscal year 1979 for National Defense is proposed to be increased 
    and insert in lieu thereof ``$702,000,000''. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Edwards of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Edwards of Alabama as a substitute 
        for the amendment offered by Mr. Simon: In the matter relating 
        to the appropriate level of total new budget authority increase 
        the amount by $1,122,368,000. . . .
            In Section 6(b):
            In the matter relating to Function 050 increase the amount 
        for budget authority by $1,458,368,000; and increase the amount 
        for outlays by $505,176,000. . . .

        Mr. Edwards of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, this 
    amendment strikes all of the Simon amendment except for the defense 
    function, and in that case it uses the Charles H.

[[Page 7061]]

    Wilson of California amendment as the defense number. . . .
        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, so that I 
    understand the situation, if the Edwards substitute were to prevail 
    and some Member had an amendment to the Simon amendment, we would 
    not have a bill to amend at this time; is that correct? In other 
    words, a Member would have to offer a totally separate amendment 
    because this amendment is not speaking to the matters to which the 
    Simon amendment spoke?
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair would like to advise 
    the gentleman from New York (Mr. Peyser) that the first vote would 
    come on the Charles H. Wilson of California amendment to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Simon). The 
    second vote would come on the substitute offered by the gentleman 
    in the well, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Edwards), and if that 
    substitute were adopted the vote would recur immediately without 
    further amendment on the Simon amendment as amended by the 
    substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Peyser: I thank the Chair.

Sec. 23.9 Once a perfecting amendment to an amendment is disposed of, 
    the original amendment, as amended or not, remains open to further 
    perfecting amendment, and all such amendments are disposed of prior 
    to voting on substitutes for the original amendment and amendments 
    thereto.

    On July 26, 1984,(18) during consideration of H.R. 11 
(19) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings 
described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 130 Cong. Rec. 21231, 21251, 21253, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. The education amendments of 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

                            voluntary school prayer

        Sec. 806. Part B of the General Education Provisions Act is 
    amended by inserting after section 420 (20 U.S.C. 1228) the 
    following new section: . . .
        Mr. [Steven] Gunderson [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        Mr. [Dan R.] Coats [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order on the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gunderson to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Coats:
            In Section 420A of the General Education Provisions Act (as 
        proposed to be added by the amendment of the amendment of the 
        gentleman from Indiana) strike out the first sentence and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following: ``No State or local 
        educational agency shall deny individuals in public schools the 
        opportunity to participate in moments of silent prayer.''. . .

        Mr. [Duncan L.] Hunter [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an

[[Page 7062]]

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

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

                            Voluntary School Prayer

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

        Mr. [Don] Bonker [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, we have a 
    fairly complex parliamentary procedure. I wonder if the Chair would 
    explain to the Members the various motions as they would occur.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (20) The first vote will 
    be on the Gunderson amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coats. If no 
    further amendments are offered to the Coats amendment, then the 
    vote will occur on the substitute amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) if no amendments are offered 
    to his substitute amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Amendments to Original Amendment Disposed of First

Sec. 23.10 While the Chair may, in his discretion, recognize a senior 
    committee member to offer an amendment to a pending substitute 
    before recognizing a junior committee member to offer a perfecting 
    amendment to the original amendment, the question will not be put 
    on the amendment to the substitute until all amendments to the 
    original amendment are disposed of.

    Perfecting amendments to an amendment may be offered and voted on, 
seriatim, before the question is put on a pending perfecting amendment 
to a substitute for the amendment. An application of this procedure may 
be seen in the proceedings of May 15, 1979,(1) during 
consideration of H.R. 39, the Alaska National In

[[Page 7063]]

terest Lands Conservation Act of 1979. Pending was an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Merchant Marine 
and Fisheries (also called the ``Breaux-Dingell'' amendment). Also 
pending was a substitute for that amendment, offered by Mr. Morris K. 
Udall, of Arizona.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 125 Cong. Rec. 11152, 11153, 11158, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (2) The question is on the amendments 
    offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby) to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the Committee on 
    Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    were agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    group of amendments I wish to offer (to the amendment offered by 
    Mr. Udall as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute).
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Huckaby [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I also 
    have amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute at 
    the desk.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that he is advised by the 
    Parliamentarian that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling) may 
    offer his amendments [to the Udall substitute], but that the votes 
    will come on any amendments which would be offered to Breaux-
    Dingell before they will come on the amendments offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling).
        The Clerk will report the amendments.
        The amendments to the substitute read as follows:

            Page 4, add to the Table of Contents:
            Sec. 935. Protraction Diagrams.
            Page 11, lines 17-18, strike ``subsistence-oriented 
        lifestyle'' and insert in lieu thereof ``subsistence way of 
        life''. . . .

        Mr. [Keith G.] Sebelius [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    Sebelius amendments 1 and 2 to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute offered by the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
    Fisheries.
        Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe we have voted on 
    this amendment yet.
        The Chairman: That is correct. As long as there are amendments 
    pending for the Merchant Marine and Fisheries matter proposed, we 
    will take those prior to voting on the gentleman's amendments.
        The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Sebelius) has, I understand, 
    amendments to the Merchant Marine and Fisheries matter.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendments.
        The amendments offered to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute are as follows:

            Section 201 of the Breaux-Dingell bill is amended by 
        revising paragraph (3) (page 294, line 23) to read as follows: 
        . . . .

[[Page 7064]]

--Amendments to Original Amendment in Order Following Disposition of 
    Amendment to Substitute

Sec. 23.11 Perfecting amendments to an amendment are offered and voted 
    on before a perfecting amendment pending to the substitute is voted 
    on; but disposition of the perfecting amendment to the substitute 
    does not preclude the offering of further amendments to the 
    amendment.

    On May 15, 1979,(3) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 39,(4) the above-stated proposition 
was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 125 Cong. Rec. 11180, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: I would ask the Chair, is 
    it appropriate now that we consider voting on the Seiberling 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair will put the question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Proposition Read as Original Text for Amendment, and Amendments Thereto

Sec. 23.12 To a proposition being read as original text for amendment 
    there may be pending at one time only one amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute, a substitute therefor, a perfecting amendment to 
    the original amendment in the nature of a substitute and a 
    perfecting amendment to the substitute, and any further amendment 
    to perfecting amendments would be in the third degree; and the vote 
    is first taken on perfecting amendments to the original amendment, 
    then on perfecting amendments to the substitute, then on the 
    substitute (as per

[[Page 7065]]

    fected), and finally on the original amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute (as amended).

    In the proceedings described below, which occurred on May 18, 
1978,(6) the Committee of the Whole had under consideration 
H.R. 39, the Alaska National Interest Conservation Lands Act of 1978. 
An amendment in the nature of a substitute (the Leggett amendment) was 
offered which, pursuant to House Resolution 1186, agreed to the 
previous day, was to be read for amendment under the five-minute rule 
as an original bill by titles. To such amendment, an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute (the ``Meeds amendment'') was subsequently 
offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 124 Cong. Rec. 14391, 14394, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. For discussion of 
        permissible pending amendments, and amendments in the third 
        degree, see Sec. Sec. 5 and 6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (7) When the committee rose on 
    yesterday, Wednesday, May 17, 1978, all time for general debate had 
    expired, the Clerk had read through line 4 on page 1 of the bill. . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute, the text of H.R. 12625.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will read the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute by titles.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Leggett: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following. . . .

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: . . . The script we have 
    put together here was that when section 1 of the Leggett amendment, 
    the consensus substitute, was read, the gentleman from Washington 
    (Mr. Meeds) would offer his substitute, but that I would offer a 
    substitute for the Meeds amendment, and we would then have 
    foreclosed these nongermane things that we have been talking about. 
    But it would also be understood that both sides, the Meeds and the 
    Udall substitutes, would be open. As long as anybody has serious 
    amendments, we would be prepared to stay here and take them and 
    discuss those serious amendments.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry. . . .
        At that point have we gotten into amendments in the third 
    degree, or would amendments to both the pending substitutes be in 
    order?
        The Chairman: Perfecting amendments to the Meeds amendment if 
    offered or amendments to a substitute thereto would be in order.
        Mr. Bauman: But no further amendments in the nature of a 
    substitute would be in order at that point?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Udall: I am advised that the parliamentary preference is 
    that the main amendment, the Meeds amendment, get priority and 
    could be perfected first, after which the substitute

[[Page 7066]]

    I have could be perfected before the committee chooses between 
    those two, so we are not going to try to foreclose any opportunity 
    to have the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Meeds) perfect his 
    amendment as much as he desires, or as much as the Members desire. 
    . . .
        Mr. Bauman: I would like to put the parliamentary inquiry to 
    the Chair, whether, indeed, that is the parliamentary situation.
        The Chairman: Perfecting amendments to the Meeds' amendment if 
    offered will be voted on first, and the amendments to the Udall 
    substitute offered would (then) be voted upon.

All Amendments Voted On

Sec. 23.13 The vote is first taken on a perfecting amendment to an 
    amendment, then on a perfecting amendment to a substitute therefor, 
    then on the substitute and then on the amendment; and all such 
    pending amendments must be voted on, even where a perfecting 
    amendment which substantially replaces the text of the original 
    (primary) amendment is adopted.

    On Aug. 1, 1978,(8) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 12514,(9) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 124 Cong. Rec. 23694-96, 23709, 23717, 23725, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. The International Security Assistance Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                         assistance and sales to turkey

            Sec. 16. (a) Section 620(x) of the Foreign Assistance Act 
        of 1961 is repealed.
            (b) Section 504(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
        is amended by striking out the following:
        ``Turkey--------48,000,000''. . . .

    Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
amendment.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fascell: To section 16 of H.R. 
        12514, as reported: On page 13, line 2, delete all of section 
        16 through line 7 and insert, in lieu thereof, the following:
            ``Sec. 16. Section 620(x) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
        1961 is amended as follows:
            Strike out the language following the colon in the first 
        sentence, through the period, and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following: ``Provided, That the President may suspend the 
        provisions of this subsection. . . .

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wright to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Fascell: In lieu of the section proposed to be inserted, 
        insert the following section:
            Sec. 16. (a) Section 620(x) of the Foreign Assistance Act 
        of 1961 shall be of no further force and effect upon the 
        President's determination and certification to the Congress 
        that the resumption of full military cooperation with Turkey is 
        in the national interest of the United States. . . .

        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.

[[Page 7067]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Seiberling as a substitute for 
        amendment offered by Mr. Fascell: Page 13, strike out lines 2 
        through 7 and insert in lieu thereof the following section:

                              turkey arms embargo

            Sec. 16. (a) Section 620(x) of the Foreign Assistance Act 
        of 1961 shall be of no further force and effect upon the 
        President's determination and certification to the Congress 
        that the resumption of full military cooperation with Turkey is 
        in the national interest of the United States. . . .

        Mr. [David F.] Emery [of Maine]: 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. Emery to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Seiberling as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. 
        Fascell: Page 2, at the end of line 21 (of the Seiberling 
        Substitute), insert the following new sentence: ``In 
        particular, defense articles furnished to the government of 
        Turkey after the enactment of this act shall not be transferred 
        to Cyprus.''. . .

        Mr. Fascell: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to get the parliamentary 
    situation straight as to what is now pending. Am I correct in 
    stating that there is an amendment, the Fascell amendment, pending; 
    that there is a substitute to the Fascell amendment?
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fascell: There is an amendment to the substitute?
        The Chairman: There is an amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Maine to the substitute. There is also an amendment to the 
    Fascell amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright).
        The vote will occur on the Wright amendment first. Should it be 
    adopted or defeated, the votes will occur on the Emery amendment to 
    the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Seiberling).
        Mr. Fascell: So the first vote, then, I ask the Chair, is on 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright) to 
    the Fascell amendment?
        The Chairman: Correct.
        Mr. Fascell: Then the substitute will be offered, then the 
    amendment will be perfected?
        The Chairman: The perfecting amendment to the substitute will 
    be voted on, and then the substitute. . . .
        Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, am I correct in stating that the 
    substitute which will be voted on after the Wright amendment is 
    voted on is identical to the Wright amendment except for the 
    Seiberling addition?
        The Chairman: That is not in the form of a parliamentary 
    inquiry, the Chair will state to the gentleman from Ohio. . . .
        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: If the Wright 
    amendment stands--known as the ``wrong'' amendment--if the Wright 
    amendment is agreed to, then the Seiberling and Emery amendments 
    have fallen by the wayside?
        The Chairman: That is not correct. They still must be voted on.

Where Amendment in Nature of Substitute Considered Original Text

Sec. 23.14 Where pursuant to a special rule the first section

[[Page 7068]]

    of a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute had been 
    read for amendment, and there was pending an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute for the committee amendment, an amendment 
    thereto and a substitute therefor, the Chair indicated in response 
    to a parliamentary inquiry that the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and the substitute therefor could each be perfected by 
    amendment before a vote was had on the substitute, but that the 
    original committee bill had not been read and was not open to 
    amendment.

    On Feb. 5, 1976,(11) during consideration of a bill 
(12) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry regarding the situation described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 122 Cong. Rec. 2623, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. For further discussion of 
        amendments in the nature of a substitute, see Sec. 25, infra.
12. H.R. 9464, Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (13) When the Committee rose on 
    yesterday there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger) for 
    the substitute committee amendment, an amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) to the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger) 
    and a substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
    Smith) for the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, do I correctly understand the 
    parliamentary situation to be this, that there is before the House 
    as one stem of legislation which may be amended, the original bill 
    from the committee?
        There is also the Krueger amendment in the form of a 
    substitute, made in order, of course, by the Committee on Rules as 
    a rule; and there is also another substitute, the Smith amendment, 
    that is before the body, that these three all may be amended; but 
    no more than one amendment to each may be available for 
    consideration of the House at any given time?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman is nearly 
    correct. The basic bill, the basic committee product, has not been 
    read. Therefore, it is not subject to amendment at this point.
        The Krueger amendment is subject to amendment, and there is 
    pending to the Krueger amendment the gentleman's amendment. The 
    Smith substitute for the Krueger amendment is pending to the 
    Krueger amendment,

[[Page 7069]]

    and it can be amended. There is no amendment pending to the Smith 
    substitute at this time.
        Mr. Eckhardt: Let me put it this way: It would be appropriate 
    to vote on an amendment pending to the Krueger amendment prior to 
    the time a vote would be taken with respect to the Smith 
    substitute?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Eckhardt: In other words, each of the pieces of legislation 
    before us is subject to being perfected before a choice is made 
    between the two?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

Time Limit on One Branch of Amendment Tree

Sec. 23.15 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, a substitute therefor and an amendment to the 
    substitute, and debate had been limited on the substitute and all 
    amendments thereto but not on the original amendment or amendments 
    thereto, the Chair indicated that (1) further amendments to the 
    substitute or modifications of the substitute by unanimous consent 
    must await disposition of the pending amendment to the substitute; 
    (2) amendments to the original amendment could be offered and 
    debated under the five-minute rule and would be voted on before 
    amendments to the substitute; (3) amendments to the substitute 
    could be offered and voted upon without debate unless printed in 
    the Record pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6; and (4) the question 
    would not be put on the substitute until all perfecting amendments 
    to it and to the original amendment were disposed of.

    On Feb. 5, 1976,(14) during consideration of H.R. 9464, 
the Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1976, there was pending an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute (the Krueger amendment); a substitute 
therefor (the Smith amendment); and an amendment to the substitute (the 
Eckhardt amendment). A unanimous-consent request was made to limit 
debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 122 Cong. Rec. 2646-48, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    strike the requisite number of words.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the 
    Smith amendment and all amendments thereto terminate immediately 
    upon the conclusion of consideration of the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt). . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, as I understood 
    it, the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Dingell)

[[Page 7070]]

    was that all debate on the Smith substitute amendment cease after 
    the disposition of the Eckhardt amendment. The Eckhardt amendment 
    would be the pending business then, and immediately after the 
    determination of the Eckhardt amendment, we would vote on the Smith 
    amendment. Is that not correct? . . .
        The Chairman: (15) Not necessarily, because there 
    could be an amendment to the Krueger amendment, which would be 
    debatable. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Before we vote on the Smith substitute, amendments to the 
    Krueger amendment are debatable if offered. . . . 
        The point that the Chair is trying to make, regardless of what 
    agreements are reached, is that until the Krueger amendment is 
    finally perfected to the satisfaction of the Committee, the Chair 
    cannot put the question on the Smith substitute.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: The Chair cannot put the question on the 
    Smith amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot put the question on the Smith 
    substitute until the Krueger amendment is perfected to the 
    satisfaction of the Committee.
        There has been no limitation of debate on the Krueger amendment 
    or amendments thereto. The basic parliamentary situation is that we 
    have a substitute amendment for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, the Krueger amendment. Both of those are subject to 
    amendment, but both must be perfected before the Chair can put the 
    question on the substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: With respect to the unanimous-consent 
    request of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the Eckhardt 
    amendment is still to be voted upon, and then there are to be no 
    other amendments to the Smith amendment?
        The Chairman: There is to be no further debate on such 
    amendments. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, if my time still applies, I 
    would like to ask the Chair to state the circumstances. If I may, 
    before the Chair does that, I would like to ask the question this 
    way: As the situation stands at this moment, the Krueger amendment 
    is still perfectable by amendments under the normal course of time, 
    and there is no limitation on the Krueger amendment.
        The Smith amendment, however, can be perfected only by the vote 
    on the Eckhardt amendment, and then if there are other amendments 
    to the Smith amendment there is no debate time remaining on those 
    amendments.
        Is that correct?
        The Chairman: Unless they are printed in the Record.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: And if they are printed in the Record, the 
    debate time is 5 minutes per side pro and con. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: That is correct. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, it is, however, a fact that the 
    gentleman may have an amendment at the desk and it may be voted on 
    without debate under the unanimous-consent request?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. [Robert] Krueger [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 7071]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Krueger: Mr. Chairman, there are still those of us who are 
    not certain of the parliamentary situation. I am among them.
        Mr. Chairman, my question is this: We will vote first on the 
    Eckhardt amendment to the Smith substitute?
        The Chairman: That is right.
        Mr. Krueger: Following that, there will then be a vote without 
    further debate on the Smith substitute, or no?
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot say, because if there were 
    amendments printed in the Record, there can be both an amendment 
    offered and debate on the amendment. If there were no amendments 
    that were qualified for debate by being printed in the Record, they 
    could not be offered and voted on without debate.
        But if they are offered to the Krueger amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute, they would both be considered and would be 
    debatable under the 5-minute rule. . . .
        The 5-minute rule applies only to amendments to the Smith 
    amendment which has been printed in the Record. Other amendments to 
    the Smith amendment do not have debate time; they are just voted 
    on. . . .
        Mr. [Benjamin A.] Gilman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the Krueger amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute. My amendment has been printed in the Record.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Krueger immediately after 
        section 26 of the Natural Gas Act (as added by section 208) 
        insert the following:

        ``treatment of rates and charges for natural gas sold to senior 
                                    citizens

            ``Sec. 27. (a) The Commission shall prohibit any natural-
        gas company from selling or otherwise supplying natural gas to 
        any local natural gas company which increases the rates for 
        natural gas sold to senior citizens. . . .

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana] (during the 
    reading): Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
        The point of order lies to the fact that the amendment now 
    being read is to the Krueger amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and is not in order until there has been a disposition 
    of the Eckhardt amendment to the Smith substitute.
        The Chairman: The Chair has stated that any amendment to the 
    Krueger amendment in the nature of a substitute may now be offered 
    and is debatable.
        Mr. Waggonner: But, Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not in order 
    until there has been a disposition of the Eckhardt amendment to the 
    Smith substitute which is now under consideration.
        The Chairman: This amendment takes precedence. This amendment 
    takes precedence over the amendment to the substitute amendment. 
    That is what the Chair has been trying to say now, repeatedly. The 
    amendment that has precedence is an amendment to the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute, and this is the amendment that is now 
    before the committee. . . .
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Texas

[[Page 7072]]

    (Mr. Eckhardt) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa 
    (Mr. Smith) as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger).
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Eckhardt) there were--ayes 33, noes 35.
        So the amendment to the substitute amendment for the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute was rejected.

Precedence of Perfecting Amendments to Original Text

Sec. 23.16 Where there is pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, perfecting amendments and amendments thereto to the 
    pending portion of underlying text may be offered and are voted on 
    prior to the vote on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    and amendments thereto.

    On Apr. 13, 1983,(16) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Joint Resolution 13,(17) the 
above-stated proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 129 Cong. Rec. 8402-04, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. Nuclear Weapons Freeze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    perfecting amendment at the desk to section 2 of House Joint 
    Resolution 13.
        The Chairman: (18) the Chair will advise that 
    perfecting amendments to the underlying text are in order at this 
    time while the Levitas amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    pending. But the Chair will also point out that if any Member is 
    recognized to offer a perfecting amendment at this time, debate 
    will not be limited on the perfecting amendment and the vote will 
    first come on the perfecting amendment and on any potential 
    amendments thereto before the question is put on the Levitas 
    substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Perfecting Amendment to Original Text Voted On First

Sec. 23.17 While an amendment in the nature of a substitute is pending 
    to a proposition which is open to amendment at any point, a 
    perfecting amendment to the original text may be offered, and a 
    perfecting amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    may be offered; but the perfecting amendment to the original text 
    is voted on first.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on May 3, 
1979,(19) during consideration of House Concurrent 
Resolution 107 (20) in the Committee of the

[[Page 7073]]

Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 9654, 9660, 9663, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. The first concurrent resolution on the Budget, fiscal 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Rousselot: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:

        That the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant to 
    section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that for 
    the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1979--(1) the recommended 
    level of Federal revenues is $515,000,000,000, and the amount by 
    which the aggregate level of Federal revenues should be decreased 
    is $10,000,000,000. . . .
        Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment to the text of the concurrent resolution (H. 
    Con. Res. 107).
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

        Mr. Wylie: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman from Ohio will state 
    his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wylie: The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Grassley) is offering 
    an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered 
    by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot), as I understand 
    it.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Wylie: That would be voted on before my perfecting 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: No. The perfecting amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wylie) to the concurrent resolution would 
    be voted on first.
        Mr. Wylie: That was my understanding Mr. Chairman. My amendment 
    includes the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
    Grassley).
        Mr. Grassley: Mr. Chairman, I am offering the perfecting 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot).
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Grassley) is 
    offering the perfecting amendment to the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Rousselot). The perfecting amendment to the main resolution offered 
    by the gentleman from Ohio would be voted on first.

[[Page 7074]]

Sec. 23.18 Pending the vote on a perfecting amendment to an amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute (to a proposition open for amendment 
    at any point), a perfecting amendment to the original text may be 
    offered and must be voted on first.

    On May 3, 1979,(2) uring consideration of House 
Concurrent Resolution 107 (3) n the Committee of the Whole, 
the proceedings described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 125 Cong. Rec. 9664, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. The first concurrent resolution on the Budget, fiscal 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to 
    the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot).

                          parliamentary inquiries

        Mr. Solarz: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                perfecting amendment offered by mr. solomon

        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment.

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

Committee Amendments and Amendments Offered From Floor

Sec. 23.19 Amendments recommended by a committee reporting a bill are 
    normally considered before amendments offered from the floor; and 
    where a ``modified closed'' rule adopted by the House permitted 
    consideration of reported committee amendments en bloc and 
    permitted three designated

[[Page 7075]]

    amendments to be offered without specifying the order of 
    consideration, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole required 
    that the committee amendments be first disposed of unless the 
    Committee of the Whole determined otherwise by unanimous consent.

    On Dec. 1, 1982, (5) during consideration of H.R. 6995 
(6) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 128 Cong. Rec. 28206, 28209, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. For further 
        discussion of committee amendments, see Sec. 26, infra.
 6. The Federal Trade Commission Authorization Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (7) Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
    considered as having been read for amendment under the 5-minute 
    rule. No amendments are in order except: First, the amendments en 
    bloc recommended by the Committee on Rules now printed in the bill; 
    second, the amendment printed in the Congressional Record of 
    September 15, 1982, by, and if offered by, Representative Luken or 
    Representative Lee which shall be subject to a substitute printed 
    in the Congressional Record of September 15, 1982, by 
    Representative Broyhill and if offered by Representative Broyhill 
    or Representative Dingell. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would entertain first the amendments en bloc 
    recommended by the Committee on Rules now printed in the bill, 
    unless someone requests unanimous consent to proceed otherwise.
        Mr. [James J.] Florio [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Dannemeyer) be authorized at this point to offer the so-called 
    Luken-Lee amendment. . . .
        There was no objection.

Perfecting Amendments and Motions To Strike

Sec. 23.20 While a motion to strike out language in a bill is pending, 
    a perfecting amendment to a portion of the language sought to be 
    stricken may be offered, and it is further in order to offer an 
    amendment to such amendment, a substitute for said amendment and an 
    amendment to the substitute; the vote is taken first on the 
    amendment to the amendment, then on the amendment to the 
    substitute, then on the substitute, and then on the amendment; the 
    vote then recurs on the original motion to strike, which if adopted 
    deletes any perfections adopted to the original language sought to 
    be stricken.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on July 18,

[[Page 7076]]

1979,(8) during consideration of H.R. 4473 (9) in 
the Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 125 Cong. Rec. 19310-12, 19314, 19316, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. For 
        discussion of perfecting amendments, or motions to strike and 
        insert, and motions to strike, generally, see Sec. Sec. 15-17, 
        supra, and Sec. 24, infra.
 9. Foreign Assistance Appropriations, Fiscal Year 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

           contribution to the international development association

            For payment to the International Development Association by 
        the Secretary of the Treasury, $292,000,000 for the United 
        States contribution to the fourth replenishment as authorized 
        by the Act of August 14, 1974 (Public Law 93-373), to remain 
        available until expended and $800,000,-000, for the third 
        installment of the United States contribution to the fifth 
        replenishment as authorized by the Act of October 3, 1977 
        (Public Law 95-118), to remain available until expended. . . .

    Mr. C. W. Young, of Florida, offered an amendment to strike the 
language after ``Treasury,'' down to (but not including) the figure of 
$800,000,000:

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

        Mr. Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes to the 
    International Development Association of the World Bank.
        That is the soft-loan window of the World Bank that makes loans 
    that are 50 years' repayment with no repayment during the first 10 
    years, no interest, less than a 1-percent handling charge.
        Now, the amount of cut this amendment would accomplish is $292 
    million. The $292 million was arrived at because that is the amount 
    of the so-called IDA IV replenishment.
        Now, the Congress last year refused to appropriate this money 
    for the IDA IV replenishment. We also refused to do it the year 
    before that. So what we have in effect is the administration coming 
    back now and asking to put money back into the IDA account that we 
    refused to do last year and the year before.
        Now, we are already appropriating money for the IDA V 
    replenishment. We are already negotiating for the IDA VI 
    replenishment.
        It is just my feeling that we can save our taxpayers a lot of 
    money if we just go ahead and let IDA IV go by the board, like we 
    did last year and like we did the year before. It is not going to 
    hurt anybody. IDA has plenty of money. . . .
        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment by Mr. Obey to the [bill]: Restore the matter 
        stricken by said amendment, changing the sum named in such 
        matter to ``$286,160,000''. . . .

        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from Florida 
    insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).

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

[[Page 7077]]

        Mr. Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of 
    order. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair has looked at the amendment, and the 
    Chair would say that the amendment of the gentleman from Florida 
    strikes a part of the bill, that the amendment sent up by the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin is, in fact, a perfecting amendment to the 
    bill, which is one of the exceptions of having two amendments 
    pending at the same time. The amendment of the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin only changes the figure that is part of the text of the 
    bill which the gentleman from Florida seeks to strike altogether, 
    and therefore the Chair will respectfully overrule the point of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. [Matthew F.] McHugh [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered by Mr. Obey.
        Mr. Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about this 
    further amendment. It seems to me that would be a third-degree 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: No, the Chair will explain to the gentleman that 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin was in the 
    nature of a perfecting amendment to the bill, and it of itself is 
    in the first degree. . . .
        Mr. Young of Florida: . . . The amendment I am reading that was 
    originally offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was 
    offered by Mr. Obey as an amendment to the amendment offered by Mr. 
    Young of Florida.
        The Chairman: This is correct. However, the Chair has stated 
    that the amendment has been interpreted by the Chair as being a 
    perfecting amendment to the bill; not to the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Florida, but to the bill, and subject to 
    amendment itself. The precedents support the Chair on this point. . 
    . .
        Mr. Young of Florida: We now have pending the original Young of 
    Florida amendment.
        The Chairman: Yes.
        Mr. Young of Florida: An amendment to that amendment offered by 
    Mr. Obey, which, in effect, was not an amendment to that amendment 
    but which was, in effect, a perfecting amendment to the bill.
        The Chairman: This is correct. There would still be an 
    opportunity to vote on the Young of Florida amendment striking 
    whatever is perfected by these two amendments. . . .
        Mr. Young of Florida: After the Young amendment and the Obey 
    amendment, we now have the McHugh amendment to the Obey amendment. 
    Is that correct?
        The Chairman: This is correct.
        Mr. Young of Florida: So the parliamentary situation is that we 
    have three amendments before us, but technically one of them is an 
    amendment to the bill and one of them is really an amendment to the 
    bill. So, in effect, there is a further amending procedure that 
    could be used; that would be a substitute for the final amendment 
    offered by Mr. McHugh.
        The Chairman: A substitute for the Obey amendment would still 
    be in order.
        Mr. Young of Florida: I thank the Chairman.

[[Page 7078]]

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. McHugh to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Obey: Strike out ``$286,- 160,000'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``$286,159,000''. . . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Smith of Nebraska as a substitute 
        for the amendment offered by Mr. Obey: Restore the matter 
        stricken by said amendment, changing the sum named in such 
        matter to ``$86,000,000.'' . . .

        Mr. Young of Florida: 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. Young of Florida to the amendment 
        offered by Mrs. Smith of Nebraska as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Obey: Strike out ``$86,000,000'' and 
        insert ``$85,000,000''. . . .

        Mr. Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Young of Florida: . . . I want to find out now in what 
    order the votes will be coming, if I might.
        The Chairman: The Chair will inform the gentleman that the 
    first vote will be agreeing on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) to the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
        The second vote will come on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) to the substitute amendment 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Nebraska (Mrs. Smith). Then there 
    will be a third vote on the Smith substitute itself, and then there 
    will be a fourth vote on the Obey amendment. Then we will have a 
    vote on the original Young amendment.
        Mr. Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I have a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        If the Obey amendment, as amended or substituted or however it 
    might turn out, is voted on in its original form, the way that the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) first submitted it, it strikes 
    and replaces a figure that would not have been stricken in the 
    first place.
        The Chairman: Then the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Florida (Mr. Young) would come in for a vote after that of the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
        Mr. Young of Florida: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but if I may pose 
    another parliamentary inquiry, that is the problem in which I find 
    myself.
        Until the original amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Florida is accepted, there is no language stricken. However, the 
    amendment that we would be voting on, the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), in fact says: Restore the 
    matter stricken. But at that point nothing had been stricken. I am 
    having a little problem with the parliamentary situation there.
        The Chairman: But the Chair has explained to the gentleman that 
    the Obey amendment was a perfecting amendment to the bill, not to 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and 
    in effect

[[Page 7079]]

    the instructions in the Obey amendment to restore language are to 
    be disregarded. If the Obey amendment carries, the Young amendment 
    will still be voted upon after the Obey amendment has been voted 
    on.
        Mr. Young of Florida: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Young of Florida: Then, Mr. Chairman, will the Young 
    amendment be in its original form, or will it have also been 
    amended by the Obey amendment to perfect the bill?
        The Chairman: It will be in its original form.
        Mr. Young of Florida: So the Young amendment then will be voted 
    on in its original form regardless of what happens?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Where Amendments To Strike, Strike and Insert, and Insert Are Pending 
    Simultaneously

Sec. 23.21 A perfecting amendment to a paragraph takes precedence over 
    a motion to strike out the paragraph and insert a new text; and 
    where a motion to strike out a paragraph, a motion to strike out 
    the paragraph and insert a new text, and a perfecting amendment to 
    the paragraph are pending, the amendments are voted on in the 
    reverse order.

    On July 12, 1951, the Chair indicated that, if a motion to strike 
out a paragraph and insert new language is agreed to, a pending 
amendment proposing to strike out the paragraph falls and is not voted 
upon. On that date, a bill (11) was under consideration to 
amend the Defense Production Act of 1950. An amendment was offered as 
follows: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 3871.
12. 97 Cong. Rec. 8073, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Howard H.] Buffett [of Nebraska]: 
    Page 8, line 25, strike out all of subsection (e). . . .
A further (perfecting) amendment was offered: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 8077. A motion to strike and insert is not a proper 
        substitute for a motion to strike. However, a perfecting 
        amendment to strike and insert was in order and the Wolcott 
        amendment was so treated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan] as a 
    substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Buffett: Page 8, line 
    25, strike out subsection (e) and insert in lieu thereof the 
    following: . . .
The following proceedings then took place:

        Mr. [Jacob K.] Javits [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment perfecting the language sought to be stricken by the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Buffett). . . 
    .
        Amendment offered by Mr. Javits: On page 9, line 1, after the 
    word ``de

[[Page 7080]]

    fense'', insert ``and upon the certification of the Director of 
    Defense Mobilization that it is required for the national defense 
    and is not otherwise obtainable.'' (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 8084.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (15) . . . Under the rules the 
    perfecting amendment will be voted upon first; the motion to strike 
    out and insert will be voted upon next; and, should the amendment 
    by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Wolcott] be adopted, the motion 
    made by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Buffett] would fall. 
    (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
16. 97 Cong. Rec. 8090, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Sept. 15, 1970,(17) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 31840, 31845, 31846, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 17654.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Sam M.] Gibbons [of Florida]: On page 
    41 strike all of section 120, lines 1 through 23, inclusive. . . .
        Amendment offered by Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: On 
    page 41, strike out line 1 through line 23 and insert the 
    following:

            Motions in the House to Dispose of Nongermane Amendments 
        Between the Two Houses to House or Senate Bills or Resolutions. 
        . . .

        [The O'Hara amendment was agreed to.]
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. Have we voted on the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons)?
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair would like to inform 
    the gentleman from Missouri that since the amendment to strike and 
    insert of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara) was adopted, 
    that means that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
    (Mr. Gibbons) the motion to strike, that is, falls as a result of 
    the adoption of the first amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 23.22 Where it is proposed to strike out a paragraph of a bill, it 
    is in order to perfect the paragraph, as by adding new language 
    thereto, before acting on the motion to strike, and the perfecting 
    amendment is first disposed of.

    On Feb. 24, 1977,(19) in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry, the Chair indicated that a perfecting amendment adding words 
to a paragraph of a bill (20) would be voted on before a 
pending motion to strike such paragraph. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 5321, 5323, 5325, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. H.R. 11, Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act 
        Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[[Page 7081]]

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

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

        Mr. Gibbons: Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I 
    only take the floor for the purpose of asking the gentleman from 
    Ohio to clarify his amendment. As I understand it, this amendment 
    is a substitute for my amendment. If the gentleman's amendment is 
    adopted, my amendment would be wiped out and his would, in effect, 
    be reaffirmation of the existing buy American law. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair would say to the 
    gentleman from Florida that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Ohio is a perfecting amendment to the text of the bill, and it 
    will be voted on first because of its precedence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Amendments To Strike All After Enacting Clause and Insert New Matter

Sec. 23.23 A committee amendment to the first paragraph or section of a 
    bill is voted on before a vote is taken on an amendment to strike 
    out all after the enacting clause and insert new matter.

    On Feb. 9, 1940,(2) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 86 Cong. Rec. 1330, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 960, extending the classified executive civil service of 
        the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: May an amendment which 
    proposes to

[[Page 7082]]

    strike out all after the enacting clause and insert other matter be 
    offered at any time during the process of the reading of the bill, 
    or must it be offered at some particular point in the bill?
        The Chairman: (3) It may be offered at the 
    conclusion of the reading of the first section, with notice that if 
    it is adopted, motions will be made as subsequent sections are read 
    that they be stricken out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Charles F. McLaughlin (Nebr.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Nichols: Does the Chair mean by that statement that an 
    amendment offered at the close of the reading of the first section 
    to strike out all after the enacting clause would not be in order?
        The Chairman: It can be done after the reading of the first 
    section as soon as the committee amendment is disposed of.

Motion To Strike Enacting Clause

Sec. 23.24 A motion to strike out the enacting clause of an omnibus 
    private bill takes precedence over an amendment to strike out a 
    title of the bill, and if adopted, applies to the entire bill.

    On May 16, 1939,(4) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 84 Cong. Rec. 5613, 5616-18, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            H.R. 6182. A bill for the relief of sundry aliens. . . .
            Mr. [A. Leonard] Allen of Louisiana moves that the enacting 
        clause be stricken out. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The gentleman from 
    Louisiana (Mr. Allen) has offered a preferential motion to strike 
    out the enacting clause. If that motion is adopted, then there 
    would be no further consideration of the bill. It would apply to 
    all titles enumerated in the bill. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If the gentleman's motion is not adopted, the next procedure 
    would be to vote upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Ohio [Mr. Jenkins] to strike out title I of the bill.

Order of Consideration, as Specified in Special Rule, Changed by 
    Unanimous Consent

Sec. 23.25 Where a special rule adopted by the House governing 
    consideration of a bill specifies the order in which amendments may 
    be considered in Committee of the Whole, the House (but not the 
    Committee of the Whole) may by unanimous consent change the order 
    of consideration of the amendments.

    The proposition stated above was the basis of the following 
proceedings in the House, which oc

[[Page 7083]]

curred on June 14, 1984,(6) during consideration of H.R. 
1510: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 130 Cong. Rec. 16404-05, 98th Cong. 2d Sess. For discussion of the 
        effects of special rules on consideration generally, see Sec. 
        Sec. 3, supra.
 7. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Romano L.] Mazzoli [of Kentucky]: . . . Therefore, the 
    gentleman from Kentucky now, Mr. Speaker, makes the unanimous-
    consent request that amendments numbered 46, 47, and 48 to the bill 
    (H.R. 1510) be postponed for consideration until Tuesday next, to 
    become the first order of business on that day.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) To become the first 
    order of business upon the resumption of the sitting of the 
    Committee of the Whole under the terms of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mazzoli: Precisely.
        Mr. [Howard L.] Berman [of California]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, are 46, 47, and 48 king of the mountain 
    amendments?
        Mr. Mazzoli: It says king of the mountain, on page 3, yes. The 
    gentleman is correct. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
    Mazzoli] asks unanimous consent that amendments numbered 46, 47, 
    and 48 be postponed for consideration until Tuesday next and that 
    they be in that order, the first order of business, when the 
    Committee resumes sitting under the Committee of the Whole for the 
    further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1510).
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Kentucky?
        There was no objection.

Amendments to Preamble

Sec. 23.26 Amendments to the preamble of a joint resolution are 
    considered in the Committee of the Whole following the disposition 
    of any amendments to the body of the resolution; and, in the House, 
    amendments to the preamble of a joint resolution reported from 
    Committee of the Whole are considered following engrossment and 
    prior to third reading of the resolution.

    On Oct. 29, 1975, (9) the Committee of the Whole having 
amended the preamble of a joint resolution reported the joint 
resolution (10) back to the House, the proceedings described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 34282, 34283, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. For discussion of 
        amendments to titles and preambles generally, see Sec. 19, 
        supra.
10. H.J. Res. 92, census statistics, economic and social, relating to 
        Americans of Spanish origin or descent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) Are there further amendments to 
    the bill? If not, the Clerk will report the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William J. Randall (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Whereas more than twelve million Americans identify 
        themselves as

[[Page 7084]]

        being of Spanish-speaking background and trace their origin or 
        descent from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Central and South 
        America, and other Spanish-speaking countries. . . .

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

            Committee amendment: Amend the preamble by striking out 
        ``Western Hemisphere''.

        The committee amendment to the preamble was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the committee rises.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Randall, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, 
    having had under consideration the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 92) 
    relating to the publication of economic and social statistics for 
    Americans of Spanish origin or descent, pursuant to House 
    Resolution 799, reported the joint resolution back to the House 
    with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker: (12) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair 
    will put them en gross.
        The amendments were agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment of the joint 
    resolution.
        The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the amendment to the 
    preamble.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amend the preamble by striking out ``Western Hemisphere''.

        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment to the preamble.
        The amendment to the preamble was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the third reading of the joint 
    resolution.
        The joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, and 
    was read the third time.

Sec. 23.27 Amendments to the preamble of a concurrent resolution are 
    considered in the House after the resolution has been agreed to.

    On Feb. 21, 1966, (13) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 112 Cong. Rec. 3473, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      House Concurrent Resolution 552

        Whereas June 15, 1966, will mark the fiftieth anniversary of 
    the granting by Act of Congress of the charter of the Boy Scouts of 
    America. . . .
        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That the Congress hereby pay tribute. . . .
        The concurrent resolution was agreed to and a motion to 
    reconsider was laid on the table.
        The following committee amendment was agreed to:

            On pages 1 and 2, strike all ``Whereas'' clauses.

        Mr. [Arch A.] Moore [Jr., of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent for the present consider

[[Page 7085]]

    ation of Senate Concurrent Resolution 68, which is similar to House 
    Concurrent Resolution 552. . . .
        There being no objection, the Clerk read the Senate concurrent 
    resolution. . . .
        Mr. Moore: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Moore: Strike out all after the 
        [resolving] clause and insert the provisions of House 
        Concurrent Resolution 552 as passed.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) Would the amendment of 
    the gentleman from West Virginia strike out the preamble or all 
    after the [resolving] clause and substitute the language of the 
    House concurrent resolution just passed?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Moore: It would strike out all after the [resolving] 
    clause.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That would not eliminate the preamble.

    Mr. Moore having indicated he would move to strike the preamble, 
the Senate concurrent resolution was agreed to and a motion to 
reconsider was laid on the table, whereupon the Chair instructed the 
Clerk to read Mr. Moore's motion:

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the amendment of 
    the gentleman from West Virginia.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Moore moves to strike out the preamble.

        The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment of Table of Contents

Sec. 23.28 By unanimous consent, the Committee of the Whole delayed 
    consideration for amendment of the table of contents at the 
    beginning of a bill until the bill had been considered for 
    amendment in its entirety.

    On Aug. 2, 1977, (15) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 8444, (16) the unanimous-consent 
request described above was agreed to as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 26124, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. National Energy Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (17) When the Committee rose on 
    Monday, August 1, 1977, all time for general debate had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered by parts and each 
    part is considered as having been read for amendment. No amendment 
    shall be in order except pro forma amendments and amendments made 
    in order pursuant to House Resolution 727, which will not be 
    subject to amendment, except amendments recommended by the ad hoc 
    Committee on Energy and amendments made in order under House 
    Resolution 727.
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the Committee amendments

[[Page 7086]]

    to the table of contents and the table of contents be passed over 
    and considered after all other amendments have been considered, in 
    order that they can be correctly disposed of.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Ohio?
        There was no objection.

Instance Where Two Perfecting Amendments to Same Text Were Pending 
    Simultaneously

Sec. 23.29 While there may be pending only one perfecting amendment to 
    a section at a time and there are no degrees of preference as 
    between perfecting amendments, in one instance where there was 
    pending an amendment proposing to strike out a subsection and 
    insert new language, the Chair announced that an amendment which 
    merely perfected the subsection of the bill (and which could have 
    been drafted as a substitute) would be treated as a perfecting 
    amendment to the bill and would be voted on first.

    On Mar. 21, 1975,(18) during consideration of a bill 
(19) in the Committee of the Whole the proceedings, 
described above, occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 7950, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. H.R. 4485, the Emergency Middle-Income Housing Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick: Page 11, strike out 
        lines 1 through 12 and insert in lieu thereof:
            ``(d) Not more than 50 per centum of the aggregate mortgage 
        amounts approved in appropriation Acts may be allocated (1) for 
        use with respect to existing previously occupied dwellings 
        which have not been substantially rehabilitated and (2) for use 
        with respect to new, unsold dwelling units the construction of 
        which commenced prior to the enactment of this Act. Not more 
        than 10 per centum of the aggregate mortgage amounts approved 
        in appropriation Acts may be allocated with respect to dwelling 
        units with appraised values in excess of $38,000.''. . .

        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. AuCoin: On page 11, 
        line 1, strike out ``25'' and insert in lieu thereof ``30.''
            On page 11, line 3, insert ``with respect to existing units 
        and'' immediately after ``use.''

        The Chairman: (20) The Chair will treat this 
    amendment as a perfecting amendment to the paragraph of the bill 
    and it will be voted on first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The AuCoin amendment could have been 
interpreted as a substitute for the Fenwick amendment, but it was far 
less comprehensive in scope and if agreed to would not

[[Page 7087]]

have precluded the reoffering of the Fenwick amendment in its original 
form.