[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[E. Consideration and Voting]
[Â§ 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.