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


[Page 7116-7129]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
                      E. CONSIDERATION AND VOTING
 
Sec. 27. Considering Amendments En Bloc

    Amendments may be considered en bloc only by unanimous 
consent,(4) or where specified by special 
rule.(5) Such amendments are voted on en bloc.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. Sec. 27.2, 27.3, infra.
 5. See Sec. Sec. 27.14-27.16, infra.
 6. See Sec. 27.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where amendments reported to the House have been considered en bloc 
in Committee of the Whole and a separate vote thereon is demanded in 
the House, the Chair puts the question on the amendments en bloc where 
no Member demands a division of the question in the 
House.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. For discussion of House consideration of amendments reported from 
        Committee of the Whole, and demands for a separate vote on 
        amendments, see Sec. 36, infra.

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

[[Page 7117]]

Unanimous-Consent Requirement--Amendments to More Than One Section

Sec. 27.1 To a bill being read for amendment by sections, amendments to 
    more than one section may be considered en bloc by unanimous 
    consent only.

    On Oct. 5, 1977,(8) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 8410,(9) the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry concerning the procedure for offering amendments 
to two sections of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 123 Cong. Rec. 32523, 32524, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. The Labor Reform Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (10) Are there further amendments to 
    section 7? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    amendments that amend both sections 7 and 8. The amendment to 
    section 7 is technical and conforming in nature. The substance of 
    the amendments is to section 8.
        I would ask the Chairman if I might offer my amendments now, or 
    should I wait until section 8 has been read?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Erlenborn) that if the gentleman desires to offer his 
    amendments as one amendment, he will have to obtain unanimous 
    consent to do so, either now or when section 8 is read.

--Committee Amendment Required by Special Rule To Be Considered First

Sec. 27.2 Unanimous consent is required to consider en bloc separate 
    committee amendments printed in a bill, even where a special order 
    adopted by the House provides that the bill is considered as having 
    been read for amendment and that said committee amendments are 
    considered before other committee or individual amendments.

    On Aug. 10, 1978, (11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 13511, the Revenue Act of 1978, pursuant to House 
Resolution 1306, (12) a ``modified closed'' rule which 
provided that the bill be considered as read, allowed only designated 
amendments (including committee amendments), and prescribed the order 
of consideration for such amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 25453, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. Id. at pp. 25415, 25416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (13) All time has expired for general 
    debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).

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

[[Page 7118]]

        Pursuant to the rule the bill is considered as having been read 
    for amendment. No amendments shall be in order except the following 
    amendments which shall not be subject to amendment except 
    amendments recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, and 
    which shall be considerd in the following order:
        First. The committee amendments printed in the bill (except for 
    section 404);
        Second. The committee amendment adding a new section 404. . . .
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the first committee 
    amendment.
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent, in the interest of saving time, that the committee 
    amendments as printed in the bill, except for section 404, be 
    considered en bloc, considered as read, and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Oregon?
        There was no objection.

En Bloc Amendments Where Motion To Strike Pending

Sec. 27.3 While there is pending a motion to strike out a title of a 
    bill, only one perfecting amendment to that title may be offered at 
    a time; however, a series of perfecting amendments may be 
    considered en bloc by unanimous consent.

    On June 11, 1975,(14) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 6860,(15) motion to strike out a 
title of the bill was offered. The proceedings, described above, were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 18435, 18437, 18438, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Energy Conservation and Conversion Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Alexander: Strike out title II 
        (relating to energy conservation taxes), beginning on line 1 of 
        page 29, and ending on line 24 of page 57. . . .

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment to 
    strike will not be voted on until there is opportunity to vote on 
    all of the perfecting amendments to title II?
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman is correct. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fortney H.] Stark [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    several amendments, and ask unanimous consent that they be 
    considered en bloc.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Stark:
            Page 30, strike out line 1 and all that follows down 
        through line 5 on page 31.
            Page 32, strike out line 20 and 
        all that follows down through line 25. . . .
            Page 124, line 25, strike out ``section 44D(c)(2)'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``section 44B(c)(2)''.

        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from California?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Ullman: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California has 
    offered

[[Page 7119]]

    an amendment which would strike part B. The gentleman from Arkansas 
    has offered an amendment which would strike the whole title.
        I would assume, after part B is perfected, as the gentleman's 
    amendment to strike part B asks, it would come before the amendment 
    to strike the whole title. Am I correct?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the chairman of 
    the committee that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Stark) is a perfecting amendment and will be voted 
    on first. . . .
        Mr. Stark: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent at this point 
    to withdraw my amendment and offer it later, after the gentleman 
    from Ohio offers his amendment.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from California?
        Mr. [Herman T.] Schneebeli [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, 
    reserving the right to object, I will ask what the parliamentary 
    procedure is. In the event the gentleman withdraws his amendment, 
    where do we stand?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Schneebeli) that if the unanimous-consent request 
    is approved, we are back then to the Alexander amendment, which 
    would be the amendment before the Committee, to strike the whole 
    title, and other perfecting amendments to the title, as the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania knows, would be in order one at a time.
        Mr. Schneebeli: Mr. Chairman, if it is withdrawn and we get 
    back to the Alexander amendment, does that mean other amendments of 
    a lesser tax cut would be considered first?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Schneebeli: Mr. Chairman, I object because I want to vote 
    on the Stark amendment before I vote on any other alternative 
    amendments.

Points of Order While Request Pending

Sec. 27.4 Where unanimous consent is requested that two amendments to 
    different provisions in a bill be considered en bloc, points of 
    order against such amendments may be made or reserved pending 
    agreement to the request.

    On Feb. 19, 1970,(17) he following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 4028, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 15931.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer two 
    amendments and I ask unanimous 
    consent that they be considered en bloc. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Michigan that the amendments be considered en 
    bloc?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendments as legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan, the respected 
    minority leader, reserves a point of order.

[[Page 7120]]

Point of Order Against Part

Sec. 27.5 Where several amendments are offered en bloc by unanimous 
    consent, they are considered as one amendment, and a point of order 
    against any portion thereof renders the entire amendment subject to 
    a point of order.

    On Apr. 20, 1972,(1) The following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 118 Cong. Rec. 13641, 13642, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 14070.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Les] Aspin [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments and ask unanimous consent that they be considered as 
    read.
        The Chairman: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The amendments offered by Mr. Aspin are as follows:

            Page 1, line 8, strike out ``$1,094,200,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$894,000''.
            Page 3, strike out lines 16 and 17, and redesignate the 
        succeeding paragraphs accordingly.
            Page 6, line 24, strike out ``(15)'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``(14)''.
            Page 7, line 11, strike out ``(16)'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``(15)''.
            Page 11, insert the following new section after line 25 
        (and redesignate the succeeding section accordingly):
            ``Sec. 7. The Administrator, acting through the National 
        Academy of Sciences, is authorized and directed to conduct a 
        full and complete study of the proposed Space Transport System 
        (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``Space 
        Shuttle''), and to report thereon to the Speaker of the House 
        of Representatives and the President of the Senate and the 
        Committee on Science and Astronautics of the House of 
        Representatives and the Committee on Aeronautical and Space 
        Sciences of the Senate, in order to assist the Congress in 
        determining whether and to what extent funds should be included 
        for the Space Shuttle in a subsequent authorization Act. Such 
        study shall include--
            ``(1) a determination and evaluation of the military 
        applications of the Space Shuttle; . . .
            ``(5) and analysis of whether and in what ways the 
        expenditure of an equivalent amount for housing, education, 
        mass transportation, and similar purposes might produce a 
        larger or smaller net benefit to the Nation.''

        Mr. Aspin: Mr. Chairman, today we are considering the 
    authorization for NASA, and a part of that authorization is $200 
    million for the space shuttle.
        Mr. [Olin E.] Teague of Texas: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
    yield for an inquiry?
        Mr. Aspin: Yes, I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from 
    Texas.
        Mr. Teague of Texas: Do I understand the gentleman has two 
    amendments?
        Mr. Aspin: No; they are both one amendment.
        Mr. Teague of Texas: Is it not the intention of the gentleman 
    to ask unanimous consent to have the two amendments considered 
    together?
        Mr. Aspin: I did not make such a request, but I intend for them 
    to be put together. They are on two pieces of

[[Page 7121]]

    paper, but they are supposed to be one amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair has examined the amendments and 
    determines that this is indeed more than one amendment and, without 
    unanimous consent, could not be joined. . . .
        Mr. Aspin: Mr. Chairman, I make that request at this time.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to considering the gentleman's 
    amendments en bloc?
        Mr. Teague of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to 
    object.
        Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my objection to combining the 
    amendments and then, Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
    the whole amendment.
        The Chairman: Without objection, the amendments will be 
    considered en bloc. . . .
        The gentleman from Texas will state his point of order.
        Mr. Teague of Texas: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that 
    the gentleman's amendment directs the Administrator of NASA to make 
    a study of housing and, for sure, this is not germane to the space 
    authorization bill. The last paragraph of his second amendment, I 
    assume, directs the Administrator of NASA to make a study of 
    housing. . . .
        Mr. Aspin: Mr. Chairman, what the amendment does is ask the 
    people in NASA to instruct the National Academy of Sciences to 
    conduct a study, and I would like to see a rather broader 
    application of some of these questions with reference to the money 
    being spent in the Space Agency. It does not instruct the 
    Administrator of NASA to conduct the study, but asks that the 
    National Academy of Science conduct the study and then provides for 
    a broader spectrum of the questions that they should study.
        Mr. Teague of Texas: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard further on 
    the point of order?
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas 
    (Mr. Teague).
        Mr. Teague of Texas: May I read the exact language that is in 
    the amendment. It says:

            The Administrator, acting through the National Academy of 
        Science is authorized and directed to conduct a full and 
        complete study--

        And it gets down to housing.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The final paragraph of the amendment requires studies, 
    investigations, and analyses of subjects which are not carried in 
    the bill under consideration and not even within the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on Science and Astronautics which reported this 
    bill.
        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Sec. 27.6 If a point of order is sustained against any portion of a 
    package of amendments considered en bloc to a general appropriation 
    bill, all the amendments are ruled out of order and must be 
    reoffered separately, or those which are not subject to a point of 
    order may be considered en bloc by unanimous consent.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on Sept.

[[Page 7122]]

16, 1981,(3) during consideration of H.R. 4241, the military 
construction appropriation bill for fiscal year 1982. The proceedings 
in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 127 Cong. Rec. 20735-37, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bo] Ginn [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the bill be considered as read and open to amendment 
    at any point. . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [M. Caldwell] Butler [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments, and I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be 
    considered en bloc.

        The Chairman: (4) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Virginia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection. . . .

            Amendments offered by Mr. Butler: Page 2, line 11, strike 
        out ``$1,029,519,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$1,009,276,400''.
            Page 3, line 6, strike out ``$1,404,883,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$1,354,096,100''. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas F.] Hartnett [of South Carolina]: . . . My inquiry 
    is: Is this amendment being offered as one amendment, and if it is, 
    would the point of order be in order that the amendment was not 
    properly drawn and that I was being precluded from voting for--I 
    would have to vote for or against all of them where, in fact, I may 
    want to vote for one or the other?
        The Chairman: The Chair will respond to the gentleman's inquiry 
    by stating that the gentleman from Virginia has already gotten 
    unanimous consent to offer his amendments en bloc. However, if a 
    point of order is sustained against those amendments or any portion 
    thereof, under the precedent the remaining amendments will have to 
    be reoffered, at which point the gentleman from Virginia will again 
    have to ask permission to have them offered en bloc. If that is 
    denied, then the amendments would have to be offered individually.
        Mr. Hartnett: Mr. Chairman, what you are telling me is, in 
    order for the gentleman from Virginia to offer a series of 
    amendments like that, the gentleman has to obtain unanimous consent 
    prior to doing that or, in fact, he would have to offer each one of 
    them individually?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

En Bloc Amendments Subject to Amendment

Sec. 27.7 Amendments considered en bloc (by unanimous consent) are 
    subject to germane amendment.

    On Mar. 9, 1978,(5) during consideration of H.R. 50 
(6) in the Committee of the Whole, an amendment to an 
amendment was pending which prompted the following exchange concerning 
the proposition described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 124 Cong. Rec. 6281, 6282, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ronald A.] Sarasin [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I offer

[[Page 7123]]

    amendments and ask unanimous consent that the amendments be 
    considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: (7) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Connecticut?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Sarasin: Page 58, line 3, strike 
        out ``reasonable price stability'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``the absence of inflation''.
            Page 59, strike out line 1 and everything that follows 
        through line 5, and redesignate the following paragraphs (2), 
        (3), and (4) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively. . . 
        .

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

            Amendments offered by Mr. Wright to the amendments offered 
        by Mr. Sarasin: On line 2 of the Sarasin amendment, strike all 
        that follows the word ``thereof,'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        the following: ``the effective control of inflation.''
            Page 64, line 16, strike out ``and productivity'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``productivity and reasonable price 
        stability''. . . .

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, do I 
    understand the majority leader's proposal is an amendment to the 
    amendment or is it in the form of a substitute?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to advise the 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) that the gentleman from Texas 
    (Mr. Wright) offers an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Connecticut.

Multiple Changes to Single Section Not Considered Separate Amendments

Sec. 27.8 A single amendment may make several related changes in a 
    section of a bill, and each change in the section need not be 
    considered as a separate amendment.

    On Aug. 6, 1969,(8) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 115 Cong. Rec. 22545, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H. Res. 502.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
    Committee on House Administration, I offer two amendments and ask 
    unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Hays:
            On Line 6, strike out ``$26,000;'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``$27,000;''.
            On line 7, strike out ``$25,000.'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``$26,000.''

        The Speaker: (9) The Chair will state it is not 
    necessary to ask unanimous consent to consider the amendments en 
    bloc. All the amendments relate to one section of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments to Committee Amendment and to Bill

Sec. 27.9 By unanimous consent, obtained prior to the adoption of a 
    committee amendment, a Member was per

[[Page 7124]]

    mitted to offer, en bloc, several amendments which were, in part, 
    amendatory of a committee amendment previously adopted.

    On Aug. 18, 1959,(10) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 105 Cong. Rec. 16244, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Merwin) Coad (of Iowa): Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) Is this an amendment to the 
    committee amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. James W. Trimble (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Coad: I have an amendment to the bill.
        The Chairman: The question is on the committee amendment. . . .
        Mr. Coad: Mr. Chairman, my amendment will also embrace an 
    amendment to the amendment. Is this the appropriate time to offer 
    it?
        The Chairman: May the Chair say to the gentleman from Iowa if 
    it is an amendment to the committee amendment it may be offered 
    now.
        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, in order to 
    assist and to expedite the matter, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    gentleman may be permitted to offer his amendments en bloc, which 
    necessarily go to the basic provision of section 315, also to the 
    committee amendment. . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        The committee amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. Coad: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            On page 1, line 6 after the word ``office'' add the 
        following: . . .

Amendments to Committee Amendments Not Yet Reported

Sec. 27.10 Where a Member has amendments to each of several committee 
    amendments, he must offer such amendments singly, as each committee 
    amendment is reported; and it is not in order to consider ``en 
    bloc'' amendments to committee amendments which have not been 
    reported.

    On Feb. 20, 1964,(12) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 110 Cong. Rec. 3217, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 9637.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jeffery] Cohelan [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. Cohelan: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if at this time I should 
    offer my amendments en bloc, as I have two other amendments to the 
    bill.
        The Chairman: (13) There is pending now only the 
    first committee amendment to this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Harold D. Donohue (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cohelan: Very well. I will introduce the others at the 
    appropriate time.

[[Page 7125]]

Voting Upon

Sec. 27.11 When amendments are offered and considered en bloc, by 
    unanimous consent, the question is put on all the amendments at the 
    same time in the Committee of the Whole.

    On July 18, 1969,(14) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 22082, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 15263.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that I be permitted to offer the two amendments 
    en bloc to this section. . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: As I understand it 
    the two amendments are being considered en bloc and will be voted 
    upon en bloc?
        The Chairman: (15) that is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Time Allowed for Debate on En Bloc Amendments

Sec. 27.12 Where consideration en bloc is granted, by unanimous 
    consent, of several amendments which had been printed in the 
    Record, the proponent is entitled only to five minutes of debate on 
    the amendments.

    On July 25, 1974, (16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the bill H.R. 11500, the Surface Mining 
Control and Reclamation Act of 1974, the Chair responded to a 
unanimous-consent request as described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 120 Cong. Rec. 25244, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]:  . . . I offer in addition 
    my amendments Nos. 121, 127, 118, and 142 to the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute, and I ask unanimous 
    consent that all of these amendments be considered en bloc and 
    considered as read and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: (17) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Chairman, I make the additional unanimous-
    consent request that instead of the 25 minutes to which I might be 
    entitled because of the application of rule XXIII, consisting of 5 
    minutes for each one of these amendments, notwithstanding that 
    rule, I be recognized only for 5 minutes in toto.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that 5 
    minutes on his amendments considered en bloc is all the time the 
    gentleman is entitled to in any event.

[[Page 7126]]

Special Rule Providing for Consideration of Committee Amendments En 
    Bloc

Sec. 27.13 Where a bill is being considered under a special rule 
    providing for consideration en bloc of certain committee amendments 
    printed in the bill, the Chair directs the Clerk to report the 
    amendments en bloc and they need not be offered from the floor.

    On July 8, 1975, (18) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 49 (a bill relating to petroleum reserves on 
public lands, referred jointly to the Committees on Interior and 
Insular Affairs and Armed Services) pursuant to a special rule, the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 21630, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (19) Under the rule, it shall now be 
    in order to consider en bloc the amendments recommended by the 
    Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendments:
            Page 3, between lines 19 and 20 insert the following: 
        ``TITLE I''.
            Page 3, line 20, strike out ``That in'' and insert ``Sec. 
        101. In''. . . .
            Sec. 201. (a) Chapter 641 of title 10, United States Code, 
        is amended as follows--
            (1) Immediately before section 7421 insert the following 
        new section:
        Sec. 7420. Definitions

            ``(a) In this chapter--
            ``(1) `National defense' includes the needs of, and the 
        planning and preparedness to meet, essential defense industrial 
        and military emergency energy requirements relative to the 
        national safety, welfare, and economy particularly resulting 
        from foreign military or economic actions. . . .

        Mr. [John] Melcher [of Montana] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments en bloc may 
    be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment 
    at any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Montana?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [F. Edward] Hebert [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I will not 
    offer the amendments of the Armed Services Committee as described 
    in the rule.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from 
    Louisiana that under the rule the amendments are offered and 
    presented en bloc. They have been presented.
        Mr. Hebert: Mr. Chairman, if they have been presented, under 
    the parliamentary situation I ask for a vote.
        The Chairman: Does any Member wish to debate the committee 
    amendments?
        Mr. Melcher: Mr. Chairman, I rise to explain to the House that 
    the amendments that are now before us are almost identical to H.R. 
    5919, the Armed Services bill that we have just voted down. I would 
    encourage the

[[Page 7127]]

    House to reject these amendments, so that then we could get on 
    under the rule to considering our Interior bill, H.R. 49, as 
    presented by the Interior Committee.
        The Chairman: The question is on the committee amendments.
        The amendments were rejected.

Sec. 27.14 In accordance with the procedure for considering committee 
    amendments to a bill under the five-minute rule in Committee of the 
    Whole, pursuant to a special order providing that said committee 
    amendments be considered en bloc and be considered as having been 
    read, the Chairman instructs the Clerk to designate the page and 
    line number of the amendments.

    On Aug. 2, 1977, (20) during consideration of H.R. 8444, 
the National Energy Act, the proceedings described above were as 
indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 123 Cong. Rec. 26172, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (21) The Clerk will designate the page 
    and line number of the ad hoc committee amendments, the first group 
    of the amendments recommended by the ad hoc committee to be 
    considered en bloc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 183, line 11 through page 184, line 19 . . . and on 
        page 208, line 4 through page 209, line 2, and an amendment 
        inserting on page 188, line 11, the word ``domestic'' before 
        the word ``crude''.

En Bloc Consideration Pursuant to Special Rule: Separate Vote in House

Sec. 27.15 En bloc consideration of amendments in Committee of the 
    Whole pursuant to a special order results in a vote en bloc in the 
    House upon a demand for a separate vote on those amendments in 
    their perfected form.

    On Sept. 7, 1978,(22) during consideration of H.R. 
7308,(1) the situation described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 124 Cong. Rec. 28423, 28424, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Under the rule, the Committee rises.
        Accordingly the Committee rose, and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Murtha, Chairman pro tempore of the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee 
    having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 7308) to amend title 
    18, United States Code, to authorize applications for a court order 
    approving the use of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign 
    intelligence information, pursuant to House Resolution 1266, he 
    reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by 
    the Committee of the Whole.

[[Page 7128]]

        The Speaker: (2) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Thomas P. O'Neill (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of 
    the Whole?
        Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    demand a separate vote en bloc on the McClory amendments agreed to 
    on September 6. . . .
        The Speaker: Is a separate vote demanded on any other amendment 
    to the Committee amendment? The Clerk will report the amendments en 
    bloc on which a separate vote has been demanded.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, is it proper for the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Boland) to demand a separate vote en bloc on the 
    amendments, or must he ask for a vote on each one of these 
    amendments?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the rule provides that 
    it shall be in order to consider the amendments en bloc, so under 
    the rule the vote on the amendments would be considered as on the 
    amendments en bloc.

    Parliamentarian''s Note: En bloc consideration of amendments in 
Committee of the Whole pursuant to a unanimous-consent request therein 
does not result in an en bloc vote in the House upon demand for a 
separate vote, since that is an order of the Committee not binding on 
the House. Moreover, even amendments considered en bloc pursuant to a 
special rule are subject to a demand for a division of the question in 
the House if divisible, unless prohibited by the rule.

Separate Consideration Where Opposition Arises

Sec. 27.16 Where amendments are permitted en bloc by unanimous consent 
    they are normally voted upon en bloc, but where opposition develops 
    to one of the amendments during their consideration, the Chairman 
    (recognizing that the amendments could be divided for a vote) may 
    put the question separately on that amendment.

    On July 18, 1973,(3) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 19 Cong. Rec. 24682, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.J. Res. 542.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Madam Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the committee amendments may be considered 
    en bloc. . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) The question is on the committee 
    amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Martha W. Griffiths (Mich.).

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

[[Page 7129]]

        Mr. [Peter H. B.] Frelinghuysen [of New Jersey]: Madam 
    Chairman, I rise in opposition to the committee amendment on page 7 
    line 4, inserting section 9.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the other committee 
    amendments? If not the Chair will put the question on the remaining 
    committee amendments. . . .
        The remaining committee amendments were agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: All other committee amendments have been agreed 
    to. The gentleman will be recognized in opposition to the committee 
    amendment.

Division of Question Where Amendment Proposes To Strike Out Two 
    Sections

Sec. 27.17 An amendment proposing to strike out two sections of a 
    pending committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was, on 
    demand of a Member, subjected to a division of the question in 
    order to obtain separate votes on the proposals to strike out each 
    section.

    On July 25, 1974,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the bill H.R. 11500, the Surface Mining 
Control and Reclamation Act of 1974, the proceedings, described above, 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 120 Cong. Rec. 25238, 25239, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hosmer to the committee amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute: Page 252, line 15, through page 
        256, after line 19, strike out sections 404 and 405.

        The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman ask for a 
    division of the question?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hosmer: I do, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent for a 
    division of the question as to sections 404 and 405. . . .
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The question will be divided.
        The first question is upon the part of the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from California (Mr. Hosmer) referring to section 
    404.
        The portion of the amendment, referring to section 404, to the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the portion of the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hosmer) referring to 
    section 405.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Hosmer) there were--ayes 7, noes 29.
        So the portion of the amendment referring to section 405, of 
    the amendment to the amendment to the committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute was rejected.