[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[E. Consideration and Voting]
[§ 25. Substitute Amendments; Amendments in Nature of Substitute]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 7099-7110]
CHAPTER 27
Amendments
E. CONSIDERATION AND VOTING
Sec. 25. Substitute Amendments; Amendments in Nature of Substitute
An amendment in the nature of a substitute is basically, in form, a
motion to strike out and insert. But the term ``amendment in the nature
of a substitute'' applies only to those motions which propose to strike
out an entire pending bill, or, less precisely, to motions proposing to
strike out an entire pending portion (section or title) of text and to
insert new matter and is not used to describe those motions to strike
out and insert which may be properly characterized as ``perfecting
amendments'' and which go only to a portion of the pending text.
An amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill may be
proposed before perfecting amendments to the pending portion of the
original text have been offered, but may not be voted on until after
such perfecting amendments have been disposed of. (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See 107 Cong. Rec. 8825-27, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., May 24, 1961,
where a Member was recognized to offer an amendment in the
nature of a substitute for a bill, and after it was read
another Member was recognized to offer a perfecting amendment
to the original text. The perfecting amendment was considered
and voted on before the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendments to a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
are voted on before a substitute amendment, and the effect of the
adoption of a substitute amendment striking out all after the title of
the committee amendment is to eliminate the language inserted by the
committee amendment as well as the language of the amendments thereto.
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See Sec. 25.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7100]]
Where a substitute--striking out all of the text and inserting new
matter--for an amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted, the
vote recurs immediately on the amendment, as amended, and no further
amendments to either proposition are in order since the original
amendment has been changed in its entirety by the substitute.
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See, for example, 116 Cong. Rec. 20206, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., June
17, 1970 (response of Chairman Charles M. Price [Ill.] to
parliamentary inquiry by Mr. James G. Fulton
[Pa.]). -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rejection of Substitute
Sec. 25.1 If a substitute amendment is adopted, the question recurs on
the amendment as amended by the substitute; but if the substitute
is rejected, the amendment is open to further amendment.
On Dec. 3, 1941, (5) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 87 Cong. Rec. 9395, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was
H.R. 4139, to further expedite national defense programs with
respect to naval construction, etc., by providing for the
investigation and mediation of labor disputes in connection
therewith. For discussion of the effect of rejection of
amendments generally, see Sec. Sec. 35 and 38, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: I desire to know if the
first vote is on the Smith substitute as amended, to the Ramspeck
amendment to the Vinson bill?
The Chairman: (6) The gentleman is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. William P. Cole, Jr. (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Cochran: Now I want to know if the Smith substitute is
adopted, if the vote then comes on the Ramspeck amendment as
amended by the Smith substitute?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct again. . . .
Mr. Cochran: I would like to make one further parliamentary
inquiry. If the Smith substitute is voted down, we then remain in
Committee of the Whole and consider the Ramspeck bill, open to
amendment under the 5-minute rule?
The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri is correct
throughout.
Adoption of Substitute for Amendment in Nature of Substitute
Sec. 25.2 Where an amendment in the nature of a substitute to a bill is
amended in Committee of the Whole by the adoption of a substitute
therefor, the question recurs on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
On Dec. 16, 1970,(7) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 116 Cong. Rec. 42032, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was
H.R. 18582. For discussion of the effect of adoption of
substitute amendments generally, see Sec. 32, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7101]]
The Chairman: (8) The question is on the substitute
amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Abbitt), as
amended for the amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Spark M. Matsunaga (Hawaii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the substitute for the amendment in the nature of a
substitute was agreed to.
The Chairman: The question now occurs on the amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Foley), as amended by the substitute amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Abbitt). . . .
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: The amendment was a
substitute amendment for the Foley committee amendment, and
therefore the question does not arise, does it?
The Chairman: The question is on the amendment in the nature of
a substitute offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley),
as amended by the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Abbitt).
Sec. 25.3 Amendments to an amendment in the nature of a substitute are
voted on before a substitute amendment, and the effect of the
adoption of a substitute amendment (here an amendment striking out
all after the title of the amendment in the nature of a substitute)
is to eliminate the language inserted by the amendments to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
On May 26, 1960,(9) while a committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute was pending, the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 106 Cong. Rec. 11282, 11292, 11296-98, 11301, 11302, 86th Cong. 2d
Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 10128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. [Carl A.] Elliott of Alabama: Page
13, strike out lines 5 through 12, and insert the following: .
. .
So the amendment was agreed to. . . .(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 106 Cong. Rec. 11282, 11292, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [Jr., of New
York]: Page 18, line 4, after section 6(a) insert: . . .
So the amendment was agreed to. . . .(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at pp. 11296, 11297.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [Frank T.] Bow of Ohio: On page
11, line 20, after ``Sec. 1.'' strike out all after section 1
and insert in lieu thereof the following: . . .
So the amendment was agreed to. . . .
The committee amendment as amended was agreed
to.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at pp. 11298, 11301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7102]]
Since the rule permitted separate votes in the House on amendments
to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, separate
votes were demanded on the three amendments. An inquiry was then
directed to the Chair: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 11302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Graham A.] Barden [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, what
effect will the Bow amendment have on the other amendments that
will be voted on?
The Speaker: (14) If the Bow amendment is agreed to
it will strike out the other two amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Barden: It strikes out the Elliott amendment and the Powell
amendment?
The Speaker: That is correct.
Sec. 25.4 Where a substitute for an amendment in the nature of a
substitute has been agreed to, the question recurs immediately upon
the amendment as amended by the substitute, and further perfecting
amendments to the amendment are not then in order.
On Feb. 5, 1976,(15) the Committee of the Whole having
under consideration H.R. 9464,(16) the Chair responded to a
parliamentary inquiry as described above. The proceedings were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 122 Cong. Rec. 2648, 2649, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (17) The question is on the amendment,
as amended, offered as a substitute by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Smith) for the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the substitute amendment, as amended, for the amendment in
the nature of a substitute to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute, was agreed to. . . .
The Chairman: The question is on the amendment in the nature of
a substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger) as
amended to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
. . . [I]t is my understanding that at this stage, since the
Smith substitute amendment has been agreed to narrowly, that there
are no further amendments to the Krueger amendment in the nature of
a substitute since it was a complete substitute, is that correct?
The Chairman: That is correct.
Amendments to Original Text While Amendment in Nature of Substitute Is
Pending
Sec. 25.5 An amendment in the nature of a substitute is not voted on
until the pending
[[Page 7103]]
portion of original text is perfected.
On June 21, 1962,(18) during consideration of the Food
and Agricultural Bill of 1962 (H.R. 11222), Mr. Charles B. Hoeven, of
Iowa, offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 108 Cong. Rec. 11324-26, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Hoeven: Page 15, line 16, strike out
lines 16 through 23, all of page 17 through 87 and lines 1 through
3 on page 88 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
``subtitle a--feed grains
``Sec. 401. Paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 105(c) of the
Agricultural Act of 1949 are amended by inserting after the words
`1962' wherever they appear the words `or 1963'.
``Sec. 402. Section 105(c) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 as
amended by adding new subsections (5)(a) and (5)(b) as follows:
`` `(5)(a) The Secretary is authorized and directed to make
payment-in-kind to producers eligible for price support on the 1963
crop of corn, grain sorghums, and barley who elect to take such
payments in lieu of price support. . . .
``Sec. 321. This subtitle may be cited as the `Wheat and Feed
Grain Disposal Act of 1962.'
Sec. 422. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary shall formulate and carry out a surplus wheat and feed
grain disposal program for each crop year beginning with the 1963
crop year for each of the following commodities: Wheat, corn, rye,
barley, oats, and grain sorghums. Each such program shall afford
producers, who agree not to plant that particular commodity, an
opportunity to purchase from the Commodity Credit Corporation, at
an attractive price, notwithstanding the provisions of section 407
of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, the quantity of such
commodity determined under section 404. . . .
Mr. Hoeven explained the effect of the amendment in part as
follows:
Mr. Hoeven: . . . Mr. Chairman, this substitute would strike
title IV from the bill and substitute a voluntary feed grain
program for 1 year, and the extension of the present wheat program
for another year, with certain additions.
Here are the main provisions of the substitute: No. 1, it
extends the present voluntary feed grain program for 1 more year,
but makes these important changes: It prohibits the ``dumping'' of
surplus feed grains back onto the domestic market, at less than 5
percent above the current support price, plus reasonable carrying
charges. . . .
Another provision of the substitute would make payments-in-kind
to participating feed grain farmers in lieu of price supports, thus
preventing wholesale shuffling of the Commodity Credit Corporation
inventory. . . .
Another important part of the substitute authorizes the
Secretary to extend expiring conservation reserve contracts for
periods of from 3 to 10 years
[[Page 7104]]
beyond the scheduled termination dates, thus preventing millions of
acres which are now retired from coming back into production.
Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, this
amendment, as I understand it, is in the nature of a substitute for
the entire section. Is it not correct that since it is a substitute
the amendment will go over until we have perfected the titles, and
that the gentleman's proposed substitute will then be subject to
perfection itself and be voted upon, after completing the work on
the titles of the bill?
The Chairman: (19) The Chair will state that the
gentleman is correct. If there are any perfecting amendments to
this section, they will be disposed of before the amendment in the
nature of the substitute is disposed of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 25.6 Where there is pending an amendment in the nature of a
substitute, perfecting amendments to the pending portion of
underlying text, and amendments thereto, 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,(20) the Committee of the Whole having
under consideration House Joint Resolution 13,(1) the above-
stated proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 129 Cong. Rec. 8402-04, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
1. 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: (2) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Amendments Offered Under Terms of Special Rule
Sec. 25.7 During consideration of a bill pursuant to a special rule
permitting the majority and minority leaders to offer amendments
not printed in the Record but requiring all other Members to offer
amendments to the bill which have been printed in the Record, the
majority leader was permitted to offer an amendment in the nature
of a substitute not printed in the Record, but while the substitute
was pending an
[[Page 7105]]
other Member was permitted to offer to the bill a perfecting
amendment printed in the Record.
During the proceedings of July 28, 1983,(3) in the
Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that, pending an amendment
in the nature of a substitute for an entire bill, perfecting amendments
to the pending portion of the bill could still be offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 129 Cong. Rec. 21468, 21469, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Wright: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in
lieu thereof the following:
That the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1983 is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new title. .
. .
Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: I have an amendment that was
printed in the Record. Will I be given an opportunity to offer it?
The Chairman: (4) The Chair will advise the
gentleman that a printed perfecting amendment to the bill can be
offered before the vote on the Wright amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendments to Amendment in Nature of Substitute, and to Substitute,
Under Limitation on Debate
Sec. 25.8 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.
[[Page 7106]]
On Feb. 5, 1976,(5) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 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) 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: (6) Not necessarily, because there
could be an amendment to the Krueger amendment, which would be
debatable. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 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 ques
[[Page 7107]]
tion 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.
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
[[Page 7108]]
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 (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.
If Amendment in Nature of Substitute Is Defeated in House
Sec. 25.9 When an amendment in the nature of a substitute is reported
to the House from the Committee of the Whole, the previous question
having been ordered on the bill and amendments to final passage,
the question is first on agreeing to that amendment. And if it is
defeated, the question would recur on the engrossment of the
original bill, and further amendment thereof is not in order.
On Aug. 13, 1959 (7) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 105 Cong. Rec. 15859, 15867, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. Under
consideration was H.R. 8342.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (8) Under the rule the previous
question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is on agreeing to the amendment. . . .
Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr.] of New Jersey: Is it my
understanding that the vote about to be taken is on whether or not
the substitute will be accepted, and that it is not a vote on final
passage?
The Speaker: It will be a vote on the amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole. . . .
Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]: If the amendment is
defeated, what is then the parliamentary situation?
The Speaker: Then the question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the so-called committee bill.
[[Page 7109]]
Separate Votes on Amendments in House
Sec. 25.10 The rule that an amendment in the nature of a substitute is
always perfected before a vote is taken on a substitute amendment
is followed in the House when operating under a special rule
permitting separate votes on amendments adopted in the Committee of
the Whole.
In the 86th Congress,(9) during consideration of a bill
(10) to authorize federal financial assistance to school
construction, the Committee of the Whole had adopted, in the following
order: (1) an amendment to section 4 of a committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute,(11) (2) then an amendment to section
6,(12) (3) an amendment, in effect a substitute, striking
out all after section 1 of the committee amendment (thus deleting all
after the title),(13) and finally (4) had agreed to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as
amended;(14) these amendments were then voted on in the
House, under a special rule permitting separate votes on any amendments
adopted in the Committee of the Whole to either the bill or the
committee amendment, in the order in which they had been
adopted.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See the proceedings at 106 Cong. Rec. 11282, 11292, 11296-98,
11301-03, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 26, 1960.
10. H.R. 10128.
11. 106 Cong. Rec. 11282, 11292, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. Id. at pp. 11296, 11297.
13. Id. at pp. 11298, 11301.
14. Id. at p. 11302.
15. Id. at pp. 11302, 11303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substitute Not Subject to Division of Question
Sec. 25.11 A substitute for an amendment is not subject to a division
of the question.
An example of the proposition stated above occurred on July 2,
1980,(16) during consideration of H.R. 7235, the Rail Act of
1980. The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 126 Cong. Rec. 18288, 18290-92, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James J.] Florio [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Florio: Page 103, line 14, insert
``or (c)'' immediately after ``subsection (b)''.
Page 104, line 20, strike out the closing quotation marks
and the following period.
Page 104, after line 20, insert the following new
subsection. . . .
Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amend
[[Page 7110]]
ment as a substitute for the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Madigan as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Florio:
Page 103, line 14 insert ``or (c)'' immediately after
``subsection (b)''.
Page 104, line 20, strike out the closing quotation marks
and the following period.
Page 104, after line 20, insert the following new
subsection. . . .
Mr. Madigan: Mr. Chairman, this amendment includes a number of
provisions designed to resolve problems which had been expressed by
agricultural groups since the bill was reported from committee. . .
.
Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I was not
aware at the time that this amendment was offered that it would
purport to deal with a number of very different subjects. I assume
that it would not be in order to raise a point of order concerning
germaneness at this late time, not having reserved it, but I would
like to ask if the question may be divided. There are several
subjects that are quite divisible in the amendment offered here,
and that deal with different matters.
The Chairman: (17) The Chair will advise the
gentleman from Texas that he is correct, it is too late to raise a
point of order on the question of germaneness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will further advise the gentleman from Texas that a
substitute is not divisible.