[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[F. Effect of Consideration or Adoption; Changes After Adoption]
[Â§ 29. Introduction; Adoption of Perfecting Amendment, Generally]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 7178-7232]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
     F. EFFECT OF CONSIDERATION OR ADOPTION; CHANGES AFTER ADOPTION
 
Sec. 29. Introduction; Adoption of Perfecting Amendment, Generally

    Generally, it is not in order to amend an amendment previously 
agreed to.(17) Nor is it in order to re-offer an amendment 
previously agreed to, or rejected (see Sec. 35, infra), but to be 
precluded, an amendment must be practically identical to the 
proposition previously considered.(18) And the concept 
embodied in an amendment can be addressed by a subsequent amendment, 
although such language may be inconsistent with the earlier amendment 
previously agreed to.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 29.2, infra.
18. See Sec. 29.1, infra.
19. See Sec. 29.21 et seq., infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So while it is not in order to strike out an amendment already 
agreed to, it is in order by way of amendment to strike out a greater 
substantive part of a paragraph which includes the adopted 
amendment.(1) Similarly, an amendment proposing to strike 
out a section which has been partially perfected is in 
order.(2) Moreover, after a section has been partially 
perfected by amendments, it is in order to move to strike such section 
as amended and insert a new one therefor.(3)

[[Page 7179]]

And it is in order to propose as an amendment for an entire section, by 
way of a motion to strike out and insert, an amendment inserting the 
same section with modifications and omitting amendments to the section 
that have been previously agreed to.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 17.31, supra.
 2. See Sec. 17.29, supra.
 3. See Sec. 16.14, supra.
 4. See Sec. 16.14, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In fact, it is in order to propose an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute for a bill and thereby omit amendments to the bill that have 
been previously agreed to by the Committee of the Whole.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 32.14, supra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Identical Language

Sec. 29.1 In order for an amendment to be ruled out of order on the 
    ground that the substance contained therein has already been passed 
    upon by the House, the language thereof must be practically 
    identical to that of the proposition already passed upon.

    On Feb. 9, 1937,(6) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 81 Cong. Rec. 1061, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.J. Res. 96, relating to foreign trade agreements. See also 81 
        Cong. Rec. 9272, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 18, 1937, where the 
        Chairman, Jere Cooper [Tenn.], seemed to indicate that, while 
        it is not in order to consider the same amendment twice, any 
        change in the language of an amendment will preclude its being 
        ruled out of order as having already been considered. The 
        question arose with respect to a contention that a proffered 
        amendment was, in effect and meaning, a repetition of one 
        already before the Committee of the Whole.
            And see 88 Cong. Rec. 6213, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., July 15, 
        1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Frank] Crowther [of New York]: . . .
        Mr. [Jere] Cooper [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment. The subject matter has already been 
    covered by amendments previously acted upon in the consideration of 
    the bill. . . .
        . . . There is no substantive difference between this amendment 
    and language heretofore incorporated in amendments previously 
    offered and considered.
        The Chairman: (7) . . . In the opinion of the Chair 
    this amendment is not at all identical with amendments of a similar 
    character which have been considered by the Committee this 
    afternoon. There may or may not be a substantial difference, but 
    the Chair has no manner or means of making a decision on that point 
    at this time. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Crowther] does not 
    offer an identical amendment to one previously considered; 
    therefore, in the opinion of the Chair, the amendment is in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. James M. Mead (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment to Amendment Previously Agreed To

Sec. 29.2 It is not in order to amend an amendment pre

[[Page 7180]]

    viously agreed to, nor is it in order to amend text already 
    stricken by adoption of an earlier amendment.

    On June 22, 1961,(8) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 107 Cong. Rec. 11093, 11097, 11101, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 6028.
            See also 115 Cong. Rec. 26586, 26588, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Sept. 23, 1969; and 112 Cong. Rec. 18411, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Aug. 5, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                         title i--new housing programs

                      Housing for moderate-income families

            Sec. 101. (a) Section 221 of the National Housing Act is 
        amended by--
            (1) inserting before the text of such section a section 
        heading as follows: . . .
            (2) striking out subsection (a) and inserting in lieu 
        thereof the following: . . .

        Mr. [Albert] Rains [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rains: Page 58, strike out line 7 
        and all that follows down through page 70, line 5, and insert 
        the following:

                     ``housing for moderate income families

            ``Sec. 101. (a) Section 221 of the National Housing Act is 
        amended by--
            ``(1) inserting before the text of such section a section 
        heading as follows: . . .
            ``(2) striking out subsection (a) and inserting in lieu 
        thereof the following: . . .''

        The Chairman: (9) The question recurs on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was agreed to. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Gordon L.] McDonough [of 
        California]: On page 60, lines 7 through 9, strike out ``a 
        public body or agency other than a public housing agency.''

        Mr. Rains: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that we have already passed the section. 
    This is part of title I.
        The Chairman: That section has been stricken, and an amendment 
    would be out of order.
        The amendment was offered to a section which was stricken by 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama, which has now 
    been adopted by the Committee. The amendment, therefore, is out of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. McDonough: Does the language which was inserted as the 
    result of the amendment include the language that was previously in 
    the bill in reference to the public bodies?
        The Chairman: That is not within the knowledge of the Chair. 
    The Chair does not know.
        Mr. McDonough: If the Chair please, if it is, I think my 
    amendment would be in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair rules that an amendment offered to 
    insert language which has now been changed is out of order. If the 
    gentleman has an amendment to offer to the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Alabama, that also is out of order. . . .

[[Page 7181]]

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: If we have adopted a 
    complete substitute are not amendments in order to any language in 
    the substitute?
        The Chairman: Not at this time. . . . The amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Alabama has now been adopted.

Sec. 29.3 When a perfecting amendment is agreed to, further amendment 
    of text stricken by that amendment is not in order.

    On Apr. 18, 1962,(10) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 108 Cong. Rec. 6913, 6914, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 11289.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                    title iv

               Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army

            For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
        research, development, test, and evaluation, including 
        maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of facilities 
        and equipment, as authorized by law, $1,317,000,000, to remain 
        available until expended.

        Mr. [Elford A.] Cederberg [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    three amendments, and I ask unanimous consent that they be 
    considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: (11) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Clerk will report the three amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Cederberg, of Michigan:
            On page 28, line 2, strike out ``$1,317,000,000'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``$1,318,000,000.''
            On page 28, line 16, strike out ``$3,480,900,000'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``$3,483,900,000.''
            On page 49, strike out lines 18 through 22. . . .

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Michigan [Mr. Cederberg].
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Stratton as a substitute to the 
        amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
        Cederberg]: Page 49, line 21, strike out ``15'' and insert 
        ``30.''. . .

        Mr. Stratton: There is a question regarding the parliamentary 
    situation, since the amendments are proposed en bloc with respect 
    to section 540 and other sections, and there is some question as to 
    whether, in the event the Cederberg amendment is defeated, section 
    540 would still be properly open to amendment.
        Mr. [Walter H.] Judd [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Judd: Mr. Chairman, if the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Cederberg] is voted on and defeated, 
    will not the gentleman from New York [Mr. Strat

[[Page 7182]]

    ton] then be in order to offer his amendment changing 15 percent to 
    30 percent?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that in his opinion at the 
    time the bill was read the gentleman from New York could at that 
    point offer his amendment, which is now offered as a substitute.
        Mr. Judd: Then I would suggest to my colleague from New York 
    that to withdraw his amendment will give us a chance to clarify the 
    matter, by permitting us to vote on the Cederberg amendment first, 
    and then on his amendment if that amendment is not adopted.
        Mr. Stratton: In view of the ruling of the Chair, and as I 
    understand it, the Chair ruled that my substitute amendment would 
    still be in order, I will be glad to withdraw my amendment and will 
    support the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan.
        However, my impression is that we do not have the votes.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that in his opinion the 
    amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Stratton], would be 
    in order only in the event that the Cederberg amendment, which is 
    now pending, is voted down.

        Mr. Stratton: That was my understanding of the ruling, Mr. 
    Chairman, and with that assurance I ask unanimous consent that the 
    substitute amendment be withdrawn.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New York?
        There was no objection.

    Similarly, it has been held that when an amendment to a substitute 
amendment has been adopted, the provisions inserted by the amendment 
cannot be further amended.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 31.17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 29.4 The Chairman indicated that if a point of order were raised 
    at the proper time to an amendment proposing to amend an amendment 
    already agreed to, it would be sustained by the Chair (based on the 
    principle that a figure changed by amendment cannot be thereafter 
    amended).

    On June 28, 1967,(13) The following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 113 Cong. Rec. 17754, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 10340.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Richard L.] Roudebush [of Indiana]: 
    On 
    page 1, line 5, strike out the 
    amount ``$4,992,182,000'' and insert 
    in lieu thereof the amount ``$4,982,182,000''. . . .
        Mr. [Joseph E.] Karth [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, my inquiry 
    is whether or not the figure on line 5, page 1, can be further 
    amended inasmuch as it has already been amended?
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair will state, if a timely 
    point of order is made, the Chair will respond to the gentleman's 
    parliamentary inquiry that line 5 on page 1 cannot be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John J. Flynt (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 29.5 To a pending committee amendment to a bill being

[[Page 7183]]

    considered in Committee of the Whole there may be offered an 
    amendment and a substitute, but if the committee amendment is 
    agreed to it is not then subject to further amendment.

    On June 1, 1972,(15) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 118 Cong. Rec. 19458, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 13918.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, if 
    the committee amendment is adopted, is it then possible to amend 
    the committee amendment with regard to that portion of the bill 
    having to do with the pending committee amendment?
        The Chairman: (16) If the committee amendment is 
    agreed to, it is not subject to further amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Waggonner: Is a substitute to the committee amendment in 
    order at this point?
        The Chairman: An amendment to the committee amendment or a 
    substitute is in order.

Sec. 29.6 An amendment cannot directly change text previously changed 
    by the adoption of a committee amendment.

    On June 18, 1969,(17) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 115 Cong. Rec. 16275, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6543.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, if the 
    amendments are adopted that are the committee amendments to the 
    bill, then would amendments by Members be in order to those 
    sections that were amended?
        The Chairman: (18) They would be unless they amended 
    the committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Jack Brooks (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments Changing Amendments Previously Agreed To En Bloc

Sec. 29.7 Where, pursuant to a special order, amendments en bloc to 
    several titles of a bill have been agreed to, a further amendment 
    which would (1) amend portions of the amendments already agreed to 
    en bloc or (2) amend unamended portions of a previous title already 
    passed in the reading is not in order, the bill not being open to 
    amendment at any point.

    On July 12, 1983,(19) it was illustrated that, while it 
may be in order to offer an amendment to the pending portion of a bill 
which not only changes a provision already amended but also changes an 
unamended pending portion of the bill, it is not in order merely

[[Page 7184]]

to amend portions of a bill that have been changed by amendment or to 
amend unamended portions that have been passed in the reading and are 
no longer open to amendment. While title III of the committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute was under consideration, the proceedings 
in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 129 Cong. Rec. 18771, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Steve] Bartlett [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair wishes to inquire of 
    the gentleman from Texas, is the gentleman from Texas offering 
    these amendments en bloc?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bartlett: These amendments are not offered en bloc, Mr. 
    Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: Could the gentleman from Texas identify which 
    amendment it is?
        Mr. Bartlett: The amendment begins, ``Strike out the item 
    agreed to in the amendment relating to page 50, line 3, of the 
    bill.''
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bartlett: Strike out the item 
        agreed to in the amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez relating to 
        page 50, line 3, of the bill and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following item:
            Page 50, line 3, strike out ``$729,033,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$549,949,000''.
            Strike out the item agreed to in the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Gonzalez relating to page 50, line 8, of the bill. . . .
            Page 106, strike out line 17 and all that follows through 
        page 117, line 22 (striking title III). . . .
            Strike out the item agreed to in the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Gonzalez relating to page 106, line 3, of the bill.
            Strike out the item agreed to in the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Gonzalez relating to page 106, line 8, of the bill.
            Strike out the item agreed to in the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Gonzalez relating to page 117, lines 19 through 22, of the 
        bill. . . .

        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        In the first place, this amendment attempts to perfect and 
    change the provisions of the bill that have already been perfected 
    under my amendment by nature of a substitute, the amendment 
    previously approved by the committee. As such I believe the 
    amendment is not in order and I raise a point of order against it.
        In addition, the amendment attempts to amend title II which has 
    already been passed in the reading and, therefore, for those two 
    basic reasons I wish to interject this point of order against the 
    pending amendment. . . .
        Mr. Bartlett: Mr. Chairman, I would comment that my amendment 
    is broader in scope than the Gonzalez amendment as it would strike 
    all of title III and strike section 231 of the bill which relates 
    to the 235 assistance, and my amendment is broader in scope than 
    merely the previously adopted Gonzalez amendment.
        The Chairman: With one exception, and that is the portion of 
    the amend

[[Page 7185]]

    ment that begins on page 106 striking title III, these amendments 
    en bloc seek either to amend portions of the Gonzalez amendment 
    already agreed to en bloc or to amend unamended portions of the 
    bill contained in title I and title II which have been passed in 
    the reading.
        Thus since the bill is not open at any point, the amendments en 
    bloc are not in order and the Chair sustains the point of order.
        Are there further amendments to title III?
        If not, the Clerk will designate title IV.

Amendment to Part of Bill Previously Amended

Sec. 29.8 The text of a bill perfected by amendment cannot thereafter 
    be amended.

    On Feb. 7, 1964,(1) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 110 Cong. Rec. 2489, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]: I make the parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Chairman, to find out whether, if the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Arkansas is adopted, that then becomes open to 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (2) Not after it is adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 29.9 While it is not in order to amend an amendment already agreed 
    to, the adoption of a perfecting amendment to a section does not 
    preclude the offering of further perfecting amendments to other 
    portions of the section or amendments broader in scope encompassing 
    other portions of the section as well as the perfected portion.

    On Dec. 13, 1973,(3) the following statement was made by 
the Chair:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 119 Cong. Rec. 41261, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11450.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (4) What the situation is--and the 
    Chair has tried to state this situation clearly a time or two 
    before--if an amendment to a section is adopted, then that 
    constitutes final action on that particular piece of that section 
    and that particular amendment cannot be further amended. But if 
    then there is an amendment offered to another part of that section, 
    that amendment might well be in order. But the basic point is that 
    the committee cannot amend something that has just been adopted. In 
    other words, if there is an amendment to a section which affects 
    the language of a portion of that section, if that is adopted then 
    that concludes the matter with regard to the language changed in 
    that portion of that section; but if there are other portions of 
    that section which are not affected by that amendment then they are 
    still open to amendment. A further amendment broader in scope

[[Page 7186]]

    than that adopted would still be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Entire Section Rewritten

Sec. 29.10 The Chair may refuse to recognize a Member to offer an 
    amendment to a section after that section has been changed in its 
    entirety by amendment.

    On June 22, 1961,(5) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 107 Cong. Rec. 11093, 11097, 11100, 11101, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. 
        Under consideration was H.R. 6028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                         Title I--New Housing Programs

                     Housing for moderate--income families

            Sec. 101. (a) Section 221 of the National Housing Act is 
        amended by--
            (1) inserting before the text of such section a section 
        heading as follows: . . .

    The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Albert] Rains [of Alabama]: Page 
        58, strike out line 7 and all that follows down through page 
        70, line 5, and insert the following: . . .

        The Chairman: (6) The question recurs on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was agreed to.

    In response to inquiries about the effect of adoption of the Rains 
amendment, the Chairman stated:

         . . . The gentleman from Alabama moved to substitute the 
    entire language in section 101, and the House has now done just 
    that, so amendments thereto are out of order.

    Subsequently, the following exchange took place: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 107 Cong. Rec. 11102, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John V.] Lindsay [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair has just ruled that all amendments to 
    section 101 are out of order.

--Second Amendment Broader in Scope

Sec. 29.11 An amendment striking out an entire section and inserting 
    new text is in order if it makes germane changes in the section, 
    and it may displace perfecting amendments which have been adopted 
    to portions of that section which are less comprehensive in scope.

    On July 22, 1974, (8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the bill H.R. 11500, Surface Mining Control 
and Reclamation Act of 1974, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 120 Cong. Rec. 24594, 24596, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Patsy T.] Mink [of Hawaii]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment

[[Page 7187]]

    as a substitute for section 211 of the committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Mink to the committee amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute: On page 184, line 10, strike 
        entire section 211 and insert the following new section 211:

                 environmental protection performance standards

            Sec. 211. (a) Any permit issued under any approved State or 
        Federal program pursuant to this Act to conduct surface coal 
        mining operations shall require that such surface coal mining 
        operations will meet all applicable performance standards of 
        this Act, and such other requirements as the regulatory 
        authority shall promulgate.
            (b) General performance standards shall be applicable to 
        all surface coal mining and reclamation operations and shall 
        require the operator as a minimum to--
            (1) conduct surface coal mining operations so as to 
        maximize the utilization and conservation of the solid fuel 
        resource being recovered so that reaffecting the land in the 
        future through surface coal mining can be minimized;
            (2) restore the land affected to a condition at least fully 
        capable of supporting the uses which it was capable of 
        supporting prior to any mining, or higher or better uses of 
        which there is a reasonable likelihood, so long as such use or 
        uses do not present any actual or probable hazard to public 
        health or safety or pose any actual or probable threat of water 
        diminution or pollution, and the permit applicants' declared 
        proposed land use following reclamation is not deemed to be 
        impractical or unreasonable, inconsistent with applicable land 
        use policies and plans, involves unreasonable delay in 
        implementation, or is violative of Federal, State, or local 
        law;
            (3) assure that any temporary environmental damage will be 
        contained in the permit area . . .
            (10) refrain from the construction of roads or other access 
        ways up a stream bed or drainage channel or in such proximity 
        to such channel so as to seriously alter the normal flow of 
        water;
            (11) restore the topsoil or the best available subsoil 
        which has been segregated and preserved . . .
            (c) The following performance standards shall be applicable 
        to steep-slope surface coal mining and to mining operations 
        which create a plateau with no highwall remaining in such a 
        manner as to otherwise meet the standards of this subsection 
        and shall be in addition to those general performance standards 
        required by this section . . .
            (1) No spoil, debris, soil, waste materials, or abandoned 
        or disabled mine equipment may be placed on the natural or 
        other downslope below the bench or cut created to expose the 
        coal seam except that where necessary spoil from the initial 
        block or short linear cut necessary to obtain access to the 
        coal seam may be placed on a limited specified area of the 
        downslope. . . .
            (e) The regulatory authority may impose such additional 
        requirements as he determines to be necessary. . . .

    Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
order against the substitute offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii 
(Mrs. Mink) on the ground that it is a subterfuge, a distortion of the 
rules, that is being attempted here.

        There are 16 pages of this document, which, but for a few 
    changes, are iden

[[Page 7188]]

    tical to the language that is already in the bill. . . .
         . . . (T)his is in effect an attempt to cut off the Members' 
    rights to offer amendments by making the parliamentary situation 
    confused and ambiguous. . . .
        The Chairman [Mr. Neal Smith of Iowa]: The Chair is ready to 
    rule.
        The Chair states that a similar question was before the 
    Committee yesterday, as put forth by the gentleman from California. 
    The amendment does make changes in this particular section of the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The fact that 
    the section is 16 pages instead of 1 paragraph long is really of no 
    moment. If the gentlewoman from Hawaii wishes to offer an amendment 
    in this form and there is no question of germaneness, then it is in 
    order. Accordingly, the Chair overrules the point of order. . . .
        Mr. [Sam] Steiger of Arizona: . . .
        Yesterday there was some confusion over an amendment that was 
    offered by the gentleman from Wyoming on behalf of the gentleman 
    from West Virginia (Mr. Slack) as to the nature of the language on 
    line 9 or line 12 of section 211.
        In the 16 pages offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii there is 
    a return to line 9 of the language offered by the gentleman from 
    Wyoming (Mr. Roncalio) on behalf of the gentleman from West 
    Virginia (Mr. Slack). . . .
        I would also point out to the Chair that, in effect, what the 
    gentlewoman from Hawaii is doing is not only obfuscating the 
    problem, but making a rather devious attempt to resubmit what we 
    had already determined yesterday by a vote of record of this House 
    to be the will of the House, which is now attempted to be 
    circumvented. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that an amendment striking 
    an entire section and inserting new language can replace a 
    perfecting amendment which has been adopted to that section by the 
    Committee, and if it is a more comprehensive amendment, that would 
    not preclude the amendment from being offered.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: . . . At what point are we unable to 
    further perfect an already perfected amendment when it occupies 
    over one-half of the new material or less than one-half or perhaps 
    two-thirds of the new material? . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that it would depend upon 
    the scope of the adopted amendments at the time the amendment is 
    offered.

--Entire Title Changed

Sec. 29.12 Where there is pending a motion to strike out a title of a 
    bill and a perfecting amendment (changing the entire title) is then 
    offered and agreed to, the motion to strike the title falls and is 
    not voted upon, and further perfecting amendments to the title are 
    no longer in order.

    On Sept. 23, 1975, (9) The Committee of the Whole having 
under

[[Page 7189]]

consideration a bill, (10) the proceedings, described above, 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 29827, 29829, 29835, 29836, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. H.R. 7014, Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis] Frey [Jr., of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, for the third 
    time, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Frey: Page 356, line 6, strike out 
        title VIII and all that follows through page 365, line 18. . . 
        .

        Mr. [John E.] Moss [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a perfecting amendment to the title.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Moss: Page 356, strike out line 7 
        and all that follows down through line 18 on page 365 and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:
            Sec. 801. (a) The Comptroller General may conduct 
        verification audits with respect to the books and records of--
            (1) any person who is required to submit energy information 
        to the Federal Energy Administration, the Department of the 
        Interior, or the Federal Power Commission pursuant to any rule, 
        regulation, order, or other legal process of such 
        Administration, Department, or Commission. . . .

        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    233, noes 162, not voting 38. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair wishes to announce that 
    the amendment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frey) falls 
    because an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the title 
    was adopted. The Frey amendment, therefore, would not be voted on. 
    . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, was the 
    amendment introduced as a substitute for the Frey amendment or was 
    it introduced as an amendment to the pending title of the bill?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state the amendment was introduced 
    as an amendment in the nature of a substitute striking out the 
    title and inserting new language. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frey) was a motion to strike the title. 
    Since the title in its present form has been changed in its 
    entirety the motion to strike falls and is not in order (Cannon's 
    VIII, Sec. 2854).
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is 
    this: Is an amendment to title VIII now in order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the title has been 
    amended in its entirety and no amendment to it is in order.

--One of Several Amendments, Offered Seriatim, Ruled Out of Order; 
    Unanimous Consent To Delete Amendment

Sec. 29.13 Where a portion of a title of a bill has been altered by 
    amendment, further amendments to that portion are not in order; 
    accordingly, on one occasion, where a

[[Page 7190]]

    title of a bill was open for amendment at any point and an 
    amendment was offered altering several provisions within that title 
    including a provision previously altered by amendment, a point of 
    order against the amendment was sustained and by unanimous consent 
    the amendment was altered to delete reference to that portion 
    already amended.

    On Oct. 9, 1975, (12) during consideration of H.R. 200 
(13) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings 
described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 121 Cong. Rec. 32588-90, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Marine Fisheries Conservation Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Waggonner: Page 29, strike out 
        line 5 and all that follows thereafter down through line 2 on 
        page 32 and insert the following:. . .
            (a) Commencement of Negotiations.--
            The Secretary of State, upon the request of and in 
        cooperation with the Secretary, shall initiate and conduct 
        negotiations with any foreign nation in whose fishery 
        conservation zones, or its equivalent, vessels of the United 
        States are engaged, or wish to be engaged, in fishing, or with 
        respect to anadromous species or Continental Shelf fishery 
        resources as to which such nation asserts management authority 
        and for which vessels of the United States fish, or wish to 
        fish. . . .

        The Chairman: (14) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Waggonner).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was agreed to.
        Mrs. [Millicent H.] Fenwick (of New Jersey): Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick: . . .

            Page 30, line 6, strike out ``the'' and all that follows 
        thereafter up to and including line 8, and substitute in lieu 
        thereof the following: ``any such ships of those countries 
        deemed to be in noncompliance within the meaning of paragraphs 
        (1)(A) and (1) (B) of this subsection from continuing their 
        fishing activities'';
            Page 31, line 4, strike subsection (c);
            Page 31, line 18, strike subsection (d);
            Page 33, line 1, strike Sec. 206.

        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order. We have already amended page 30, and this amendment 
    would purport to amend page 30. . . .
        It comes too late.
        Mrs. Fenwick: No, no; it is still germane--the part that starts 
    on page 31 striking subsection (c); page 31, line 18, striking 
    subsection (d); and page 33, line 1, striking section 206.
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentlewoman from New 
    Jersey that the part of the amendment that appears on page 30 would 
    not be in order at this time. The balance of the amendment would be 
    in order. Without objection, the amendment is modified

[[Page 7191]]

    to delete reference to that portion of title II already amended.
        There was no objection.

--Amendment in Nature of Substitute for Perfected Text, Distinguished

Sec. 29.14 While it is in order to offer an amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute for a bill which has the effect of modifying several 
    perfecting amendments to the bill which have been agreed to, it is 
    not in order to offer perfecting amendments which only change those 
    portions of the bill which have already been perfected by 
    amendment.

        On July 12, 1977, (15) the Committee of the Whole 
    having under consideration H.R. 5023, (16) the Chair 
    sustained a point of order against an amendment as described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 22499, 22511, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. A bill amending statute of limitations provisions relating to 
        claims by the United States on behalf of Indians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (17) The Clerk will report the second 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 1, lines 5 and 6: Strike ``twenty 
        one years'' and insert ``after December 31, 1981''.

        Mr. [William S.] Cohen [of Maine]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cohen to the committee amendment: 
        On page 1, line 7 strike ``after December 31, 1981'' and insert 
        ``after July 18, 1979''.

        [The Cohen amendment to the committee amendment was adopted, 
    and the committee amendment, as amended, agreed to.]
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the next committee 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 1, lines 9 and 10: Strike 
        ``twenty one years'' and insert ``on or before December 31, 
        1981''. . . .

        Mr. Cohen: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the committee 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cohen to the committee amendment: 
        On page 2, lines 1 and 2, strike ``on or before December 31, 
        1981'' and insert ``on or before July 19, 1979''.

        [The amendment to the committee amendment was agreed to.]
        The Chairman: The question is on the committee amendment as 
    amended.
        The committee amendment as amended was agreed to.
        Mr. Foley: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute 
    for the bill. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Foley as a substitute for the 
        (bill): Page 1, line 7, strike out ``December 31, 1981''.

[[Page 7192]]

        Page 2, line 2, strike out ``December 31, 1981'' and insert in 
    lieu thereof the following: ``July 18, 1979, except that no such 
    action which accrued in accordance with such subsection shall be 
    brought by the Attorney General on the basis of matters referred to 
    him by a Federal agency or department unless such referral was made 
    before July 18, 1977''. . . .
        Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: . . . I make a point 
    of order against the amendment in that the substitute now offered 
    by the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Foley, is in effect, the 
    same, and identical to the so-called Foley substitute which was 
    just debated by the Committee and was rejected. I further object in 
    that there is no new matter involved in it at all. It does not 
    broaden nor does it narrow the thrust of the bill. Therefore it is 
    a matter that has already been acted upon by the Committee and 
    should not be allowed to be debated inasmuch as it is out of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley) 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Foley: Mr. Chairman, it is the intention of the gentleman 
    from Washington to offer the text of the bill with the following 
    exceptions as a substitute.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the amendment would 
    have to be drafted in that form and in its present form it merely 
    changes the amendments which have already been agreed to by the 
    Committee of the Whole, and the point of order is sustained.

Sec. 29.15 An amendment in the nature of a substitute is in order after 
    an entire bill has been read and perfecting amendments have been 
    adopted thereto, as long as such perfecting amendments have not 
    changed the bill in its entirety.

    On Sept. 29, 1977, (18) the Committee of the Whole 
having completed general debate on H.R. 7010, (19) an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered which prompted a 
unanimous-consent request to withhold such amendment pending 
consideration of the committee amendments. The proceedings were as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 123 Cong. Rec. 31542, 31543, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. Victims of Crime Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20) When the Committee rose on 
    Wednesday, September 14, 1977, all time for general debate on the 
    bill had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H.R. 7010

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled,

      amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. railsback

        Mr. [Thomas F.] Railsback [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

[[Page 7193]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

                                  short title

            Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Elderly Victims 
        of Crime Act of 1977''. . . .

        Mr. [James R.] Mann [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois may withhold the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute while we consider the 
    committee amendment.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from South Carolina?
        Mr. [Mickey] Edwards of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Railsback: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Railsback: Mr. Chairman, in offering the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute, do I lose my right to offer that substitute 
    if the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mann) has the opportunity 
    to deal with the committee amendments first?
        The Chairman: No; it could be offered at the end of the bill 
    once the entire bill has been read.
        Mr. Railsback: But it could not be offered after the committee 
    amendments are dealt with?
        The Chairman: The committee amendments would not change the 
    whole bill, so an amendment in the nature of a substitute could be 
    offered.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The committee amendments on this bill began 
in section 2, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
therefore initially in order prior to consideration of any committee 
amendments.

Sec. 29.16 To a proposition which is open to amendment at any point 
    under the five-minute rule, an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute is in order notwithstanding adoption of perfecting 
    amendments if another amendment in the nature of a substitute has 
    not been adopted.

    An example of the principle stated above occurred on May 2, 
1979,(1) during consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 
107 (2) in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 125 Cong. Rec. 9556, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2.  The first concurrent resolution on the Budget, fiscal 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Parren J.] Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, House Concurrent 
    Resolution 107 is a little different from the other budget 
    resolutions that we have handled in the past in that a portion of

[[Page 7194]]

    it focuses in on fiscal year 1979 budget, and another portion 
    focuses in on fiscal year 1980 budget. I have a substitute 
    amendment which I want to offer to House Concurrent Resolution 107 
    which embraces both 1979 and 1980. We have just finished Mr. 
    Simon's amendment which dealt specifically with 1979.
        I want to make sure that there will be nothing to preclude me 
    from offering my amendment at some later point in this debate.
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman 
    that, as he knows, the concurrent resolution is open to amendment 
    at any point. The gentleman's amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute would be in order providing that another amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute was not adopted. If another amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute has not been adopted, the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Mitchell) would be in 
    order.

Motion To Strike Previously Amended Section

Sec. 29.17 A motion to strike a section of a bill, if adopted, strikes 
    the entire section including a provision added as a perfecting 
    amendment to that section.

    On Sept. 29, 1975, (4) during consideration of a bill 
(5) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to 
parliamentary inquiries as described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 30772, 30773, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. H.R. 8630, Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Chairman, in order to perfect the amendment 
    which was just passed, is it not necessary for this body to vote no 
    on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Derwinski) which is now before the House?
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot respond to the inquiry as the 
    gentleman stated it, but if the gentleman's inquiry is whether or 
    not the motion offered by the gentleman from Illinois, if agreed 
    to, would strike the entire section including the part that the 
    gentleman from Arkansas has perfected, the answer of the Chair 
    would be ``yes.'' . . .
        Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: Did I understand the Chair 
    to rule that even though the pending amendment of the gentleman 
    from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) is an amendment to strike the entire 
    section, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas was a 
    perfecting amendment to this section, that the gentleman's 
    amendment if it now carries would not strike the entire section 
    including the new language inserted by the gentleman from Arkansas?
        The Chairman: The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois

[[Page 7195]]

    (Mr. Derwinski) would strike the entire section including the 
    language offered by the gentleman from Arkansas and agreed to by 
    the Committee.

Sec. 29.18 If a pending motion to strike a section is defeated, the 
    provisions of that section as amended by perfecting amendments 
    would remain in the bill.

    On Sept. 29, 1975, (7) during consideration of a bill 
(8) in the Committee of the Whole, several parliamentary 
inquiries relating to the situation described above were directed to 
the Chair. After an amendment offered by Mr. Bill Alexander, of 
Arkansas, had been agreed to, a motion to strike the section as 
perfected was offered by Mr. Edward J. Derwinski, of Illinois. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 30772, 30773, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. H.R. 8630, Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Alexander: I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (9) the gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Chairman, in order to perfect the amendment 
    which was just passed, is it not necessary for this body to vote no 
    on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Derwinski) which is now before the House?
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot respond to the inquiry as the 
    gentleman stated it, but if the gentleman's inquiry is whether or 
    not the motion offered by the gentleman from Illinois, if agreed 
    to, would strike the entire section including the part that the 
    gentleman from Arkansas has perfected, the answer of the Chair 
    would be ``yes.''. . .
        Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: Did I understand the Chair 
    to rule that even though the pending amendment of the gentleman 
    from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) is an amendment to strike the entire 
    section, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas was a 
    perfecting amendment to this section, that the gentleman's 
    amendment if it now carries would not strike the entire section 
    including the new language inserted by the gentleman from Arkansas?
        The Chairman: The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) would strike the entire section including 
    the language offered by the gentleman from Arkansas and agreed to 
    by the Committee. . . .
        Mr. [John] Buchanan [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman 
    from Illinois has stated that the subsidy would remain in the bill, 
    notwithstanding the action voted by the committee; is that correct?
        I am saying, Mr. Chairman, that if the Derwinski amendment now 
    before us is voted down, the subsidy would remain, according to the 
    language as it stands.
        The Chairman: Section 2 would be amended by the Alexander 
    amendment.

[[Page 7196]]

--Motion To Strike Perfected Text and Insert That Same Text With One 
    Omission Thereby Undoing One of Several Perfecting Amendments

Sec. 29.19 An amendment to strike out the pending title of a bill and 
    reinsert all sections of that title except one is not in order 
    where that section has previously been amended in its entirety.

    On Aug. 1, 1975,(10) during consideration of a bill 
(11) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair, in response 
to a point of order, held that an amendment merely striking out 
language previously agreed to was not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 26945-47, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. H.R. 7014, Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: Strike out Title 
        III, as amended, and reinsert all except for Section 301, as 
        amended.

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of 
    order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Eckhardt: . . . [A]lthough it may have been appropriate to 
    offer a substitute for all of title III, this amendment does not 
    restate the language which should have been contained in such 
    substitute. If the gentleman has attempted to offer a substitute 
    which comprised the language adopted by this committee in sections 
    302, 303, 304, 305, 306, and 307, it would have been incumbent upon 
    him to reduce the same to writing and to introduce it in such a 
    manner that we would have had a complete amendment before us 
    instead of in effect offering at this late date, after a new 
    section 301 was adopted, a motion to strike that section 301. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: . . . In pressing the 
    point of order, I must commend my colleague, the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Brown), for a most masterful piece of draftsmanship. 
    Nevertheless, his draftsmanship and his display of rare talent to 
    the contrary notwithstanding, the gentleman's draftsmanship does 
    violate the rules. What the gentleman attempts to do here is simply 
    to undo an amendment which was previously agreed to by the House. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I will say that 
    this does not place before the House the same question that existed 
    prior to the vote on the Staggers amendment. This places before the 
    House the question of whether this title, with all the amendments 
    taken together as they have been added to the title, except the 
    Staggers amendment, should now be accepted. It does in fact raise a 
    different question. . . .
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, the posture is this: The bill 
    contained section 301, stricken by the Wilson amendment, at which 
    point the Krueger amendment was offered as an amendment to 
    reinstate section 301.

[[Page 7197]]

    The Staggers amendment was then offered as a substitute to replace 
    the Krueger amendment.
        Therefore, we completed 301, we acted upon 301, and had a 
    complete body of law on 301.
        It was at that time that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) 
    might have attacked the Staggers amendment and sought to defeat it 
    or, actually, the Krueger amendment, as amended by the Staggers 
    amendment. He did not do so, other than to merely vote against it. 
    Of course, that was the proper way to attack it, but what he is 
    attempting to do now is merely to come in at this late point and 
    seek to strike an amendment which was adopted by the House. Section 
    301 was at that time completed.
        Mr. Chairman, he is not offering here a substitute in any 
    proper form. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I would like to cite from page 
    351 of Deschler's Procedure in the House of Representatives, 
    section 28.9, as follows:

            After agreeing to several amendments to section 1 of a 
        bill, the Committee of the Whole agreed to a motion to strike 
        out and insert a new section which included some of the 
        amendments agreed to, but omitted one of them. . . .

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The fact of the matter is that the original section 301 has 
    been stricken from the bill and replaced by another section 301, 
    and the (pending) amendment in effect deletes the new 301. The 
    gentleman's amendment makes no change in the original text of title 
    III. Under the rules and the practice of the House of 
    Representatives, it is not in order to strike out an amendment that 
    has been adopted or to offer an amendment in the form of the 
    pending amendment which accomplishes solely that result--Cannon's 
    VIII, Sec. 2851-54.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the points of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The citation presented by Mr. Brown (found 
in Sec. 30.11, infra) can be differentiated from the situation here 
under discussion. The amendment cited by Mr. Brown included changes in 
original text as well as deletion of the one perfecting amendment.

Negating Amendment Previously Adopted

Sec. 29.20 While the Committee of the Whole may not strike out an 
    amendment previously agreed to, it may consider
    a subsequent amendment which has the effect of negating a 
    proposition previously agreed to.

    On Aug. 23, 1967, during consideration of the Foreign Assistance 
Act of 1967,(13) an amendment was adopted which limited the 
availability of all authorizations in the bill to a single fiscal year. 
The amendment stated: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 12048.
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 23699, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. The amendment was agreed 
        to id. at p. 23706.

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

[[Page 7198]]

        Amendment offered by Mr. (Ross) Adair (of Indiana): On the 
    first page, immediately after line 4, insert the following:

            Sec. 2. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, is 
        amended by inserting immediately after the first section 
        thereof the following new section:
            ``Sec. 2. Limitation on Fiscal Year Authorizations.--
        Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, nothing in 
        this Act authorizes appropriations for the fiscal year 1969.''

    On the next day, an amendment was offered to a later section of the 
bill: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See 113 Cong. Rec. 23934, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 24, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) If there are no further 
    amendments to this section of the bill, the Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                        title vi--alliance for progress

            Sec. 106. Title VI of chapter 2 of part I of the Foreign 
        Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, which relates to the 
        Alliance for Progress, is amended as follows: . . .
            (b) Section 252, which relates to authorization, is amended 
        as follows:
            (1) Strike out ``and for each of the fiscal years 1968 and 
        1969, $750,000,000' and substitute ``for the fiscal year 1968, 
        $650,000,000, and for the fiscal year 1969, $750,000,000''. . . 
        .

    Amendment offered by Mr. Adair: On page 17, beginning in line 15, 
strike out ``for the fiscal year 1968, $650,000,000, and
for the fiscal year 1969, $750,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof the 
following: ``for the fiscal year 1968, $578,000,000''. . . .
To such amendment, an amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Armistead I.] Selden [Jr., of 
    Alabama] to the amendment offered by Mr. Adair: Immediately after 
    the matter proposed to be inserted add the following: ``, and, 
    notwithstanding section 2 of this Act, for the fiscal year 1969 
    $750,000,000''.

    Subsequently, after a substitute amendment and amendment thereto 
had been offered, the following proceedings took place: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 113 Cong. Rec. 23938, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: . . . When action is 
    completed with respect to both the amendment, and the amendment to 
    the amendment, the substitute, and the amendment to the substitute, 
    would then an amendment to line 17 be in order, which would state 
    ``notwithstanding the provisions of section 2 of this act''?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state if the pending amendments 
    were voted down, an amendment to do that would be in order. . . .
        Mr. [Harold R.] Collier [of Illinois]: My parliamentary inquiry 
    is this: Mr. Chairman, in that event, would amendments throughout 
    the balance of the sections of this bill, phrased on the order set 
    forth by the gentleman from Florida, be in order, thereby 
    rescinding the action taken by the House yesterday?

[[Page 7199]]

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Committee may do so 
    if it so desires.

Consistency of Amendment With One Previously Adopted

Sec. 29.21 While an amendment may not change an amendment already 
    agreed to, it is in order to insert language immediately following 
    the adopted amendment, and the Chair will not rule on the 
    consistency of that language with the adopted amendment.

    In 1973, during consideration of the Energy Emergency 
Act,(18) an amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
amended to require the President to regulate allocation of petroleum 
products for public school transportation between the student's home 
and the school closest thereto. A further amendment permitting 
allocations within an area in which students are required to be 
transported as a result of lawful action by school authority was held 
in order as not directly changing the text previously amended. The 
amendment as to which an issue was raised stated: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 11450.
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 41701, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 14, 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas] to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: On 
    page 7, line 21, add the following language:

            (1) Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit allocation of 
        refined petroleum products for student transportation within an 
        area in which students are required or directed to be 
        transported as the result of lawful action by the appropriate 
        school board or school authority.

        The following discussion ensued: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 20. Id. at p. 41702.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: . . . Let me point out 
    first that the amendment seeks not to amend the bill itself but, 
    rather, to amend the amendment offered by me yesterday and adopted 
    by the House. The amendment is offered to page 7, line 21.
        The amendment further amends a section of the bill already 
    amended, again violating the rules of the House. . . .
        Mr. Eckhardt: . . . Mr. Chairman, the amendment does not touch 
    any language in the Dingell amendment but adds a new subparagraph 
    (1) to the bill which takes care of the specific matter the 
    gentleman from Texas was speaking about in the well.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (1) . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John J. McFall (Calif.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair would refer to a ruling by Mr. Price of Illinois in 1967 
which stated that while the Committee of the Whole may not strike out 
an amendment previously agreed to, it may adopt a subsequent amendment 
which has the effect of negating a propo

[[Page 7200]]

sition previously amended, and in response to the parliamentary inquiry 
at that time the Chair stated the Committee of the Whole may, if it 
desires to do so, adopt inconsistent amendments, but the Chair does not 
rule on the consistency of the amendments.

Sec. 29.22 Although the Committee of the Whole had agreed to an 
    amendment changing language of a section of existing law, an 
    amendment to add language to the same section of the bill was held 
    in order even though inconsistent with
    the amendment previously agreed to.

    On May 14, 1958,(2) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 104 Cong. Rec. 8714, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 12181, to amend the Mutual Security Act of 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. (Michael A.) Feighan (of Ohio): . . .
        (3) On page 3, immediately below line 7, insert the following:
        ``(b) Section 143 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as 
    amended, which relates to assistance to Yugoslavia, is amended to 
    read as follows:
        `` `Sec. 143. Assistance to Yugoslavia.--Notwithstanding any 
    other provision of law, no assistance under this title or any other 
    title of this act shall be furnished to Yugoslavia after the 
    expiration of 90 days following the date of the enactment of the 
    Mutual Security Act of 1958, unless the President finds and so 
    reports therefor, (1) that there has been no change in the 
    Yugoslavian policies. . . .' ''
        The amendment was agreed to.
        Amendment offered by Mr. [Paul A.] Fino [of New York]: . . . 
    (o)n page 3, immediately below line 7, insert the following:
        `` `(b) Section 143 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as 
    amended, is amended to read as follows:
        `` 'Sec. 143. Termination of Aid to Yugoslavia, Poland, India, 
    and Egypt.--No assistance shall be furnished under this act to 
    Yugoslavia, Poland, India, and Egypt after the date of enactment of 
    the Mutual Security Act of 1958.'' '

    Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
order against the amendment . . . (on) the ground that the Committee of 
the Whole has just perfected with an amendment to the section which he 
is again attempting to amend.

        The Chairman: (3) If the gentleman will read the 
    amendment, the amendment proposes a further perfection of the bill. 
    It is in addition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Ohio, which was adopted by the Committee a moment ago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 29.23 The Chair will not rule out an amendment as being

[[Page 7201]]

    inconsistent with an amendment previously adopted, as the 
    consistency of amendments is a question for the House and not the 
    Chair to determine.

    On Oct. 31, 1975,(4) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill,(5) the Chair made the ruling as 
described above. After the following amendment by Mr. Rousselot had 
been adopted, the proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 34552, 34553, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. H.R. 10024, Depository Institutions Amendments of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendments offered by Mr. (John H.) Rousselot (of 
        California): On page 6, line 23, immediately following the word 
        ``bank'', insert a comma, and strike all that follows through 
        the end of line 23. . . .
            (2) Section 5(A)(b) of the Home Owners' Loan Act of 1933 
        (12 U.S.C. 1425(a)(b) is amended by inserting, at the end 
        thereof, the following new sentence: ``In the case of any 
        member of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, the Federal Home 
        Loan Bank Board may establish a reserve ratio or the equivalent 
        thereof for negotiable order of withdrawal accounts (as defined 
        by section 5(b) of this Act), which may be set at a level 
        different from that applicable to demand deposits.''. . .

        Mr. J. William Stanton [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. J. William Stanton: On page eight, 
        after line eighteen add the following new paragraph:
            (g) Section 5A of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act as amended 
        (12 U.S.C. 1425a) is amended by adding a new subsection thereto 
        as follows:
            ``(g) Each member institution shall maintain reserves 
        against its negotiable order of withdrawal accounts, in 
        currency and coin or in balances in a Federal Reserve bank in 
        such ratios as shall be determined by the Board of Governors of 
        the Federal Reserve System.''. . .

        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, 
    the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. J. William Stanton) 
    addresses itself to section 5A of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, 
    as amended (12 U.S.C. 1425a), et cetera.
        We have just, immediately preceding this, amended section 5A of 
    the Federal Home Loan Bank Act of 1933 (12 U.S.C. 1425a), as 
    amended. In other words, we have just addressed ourselves to the 
    point that is contained in the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Ohio.
        Therefore, I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it would be 
    inconsistent at this point to consider this amendment since the 
    subject matter has already been dealt with. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Spark M. Matsunaga (Hawaii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is not going to rule on the consistency or 
    inconsistency of the amendment.
        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. J. William Stanton) offers an 
    amendment which is different from the amendment offered previously 
    by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot).

[[Page 7202]]

        There is no question of germaneness involved here.
        Accordingly, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 29.24 The Chair overruled a point of order against an amendment 
    adding a new subsection to a bill where the point of order was 
    based on the grounds that the amendment was inconsistent with an 
    amendment already adopted by the Committee of the Whole changing a 
    different portion of the bill.

    The proceedings of Sept. 15, 1977,(7) illustrate the 
principle that the Chair does not rule on the consistency of a proposed 
amendment with an amendment already adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole, if the proposed amendment does not directly change the amendment 
previously adopted. During consideration of H.R. 3744, the Fair Labor 
Standards Act of 1977, the following amendment was agreed to: 
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See 123 Cong. Rec. 29440, 29441, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Id. at pp. 29431, 29436.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Erlenborn: . . . Page 4, line 18, 
    redesignate ``Sec. 2. (a)(1)'' as ``Sec. 2. (a)'', and beginning 
    with line 20 strike out everything through line 21 on page 5 and 
    insert in lieu thereof:
        ``(1) not less than $2.65 an hour during the year beginning 
    January 1, 1978, not less than $2.85 an hour during the year 
    beginning January 1, 1979, and not less than $3.05 an hour after 
    December 31, 1979, except as otherwise provided in this section;''.

    Subsequently, another amendment was offered:

        Mr. Phillip Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Phillip Burton: Page 9, insert 
        after line 5 of the following:
            (b) Section 6 (29 U.S.C. 206) is amended by adding at the 
        end the following:
            ``(9)(1) Every employer shall pay to each of his employees 
        who in any workweek is engaged in commerce or in the production 
        of goods for commerce, or is employed in an enterprise engaged 
        in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, wages 
        at the following rates: during the period ending December 31, 
        1977, not less than $2.30 an hour, during the year beginning 
        January 1, 1978, not less than $2.65 an hour, during the year 
        beginning January 1, 1979, not less than 52 per centum of the 
        average hourly earnings excluding overtime, during the twelve-
        month period ending in June 1978, of production and related 
        workers on manufacturing payrolls, during the year beginning 
        January 1, 1980, and during each of the next three years, not 
        less than 53 per centum of the average hourly earnings 
        excluding overtime, during the twelve-month period ending in 
        June of the year preceding such year, of production and related 
        workers on manufacturing payrolls. . . .

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: . . . I must first say I 
    have had only a few minutes to look at the amendment which is 
    thrown together

[[Page 7203]]

    rather hastily in an attempt, as the gentleman said, to get a 
    recount on the issue of indexing, but, Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that the Committee has 
    voted on the issue of indexing, has expressed its will, and this is 
    an amendment which merely would have the House again vote on the 
    same issue already disposed of. . . .
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Phillip Burton) simply adds a new subsection to the end of the 
    section. In the opinion of the Chair the amendment is germane. As 
    to whether or not it is inconsistent with the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Erlenborn) adopted a few moments ago, 
    the Chair cannot rule upon that. The Chair holds the amendment to 
    be germane and not to directly change the amendment already 
    adopted. The point of order is overruled.

Consistency of Amendment With Another Part of Bill or With Prior 
    Amendments

Sec. 29.25 An amendment is not subject to a point of order that its 
    provisions are inconsistent with a section of the bill already 
    considered under the five-minute rule.

    The ruling of the Chair on Nov. 13, 1967, was to the effect that an 
amendment to a section of a pending bill which limits the amount which 
may be expended under one part of the bill is in order, notwithstanding 
the fact that the Committee of the Whole has previously considered a 
section of the bill which established a total authorization figure for 
the whole bill as well as authorization limits for each part 
thereof.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 8.18, supra, for further discussion of the proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 29.26 The Chair does not rule on the consistency of amendments; 
    and, while it is not in order to offer an amendment to directly 
    change an amendment already agreed to, an amendment in the form of 
    a new section to the bill and germane thereto may be offered 
    notwithstanding its possible inconsistency with an amendment 
    previously adopted.

    On July 31, 1975,(11) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the bill H.R. 7014,(12) a point of order 
was made against an amendment as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 26224, 26225, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 7204]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wright: On page 223, immediately 
        before line 4, insert the following:

                     marginal well recovery pricing policy

            Sec. 302 (a) In the interest of promoting maximum recovery 
        and eliminating waste, there is hereby created a category known 
        as ``marginal wells'', and, for purposes of oil pricing policy, 
        oil produced from these wells shall be treated as ``new crude 
        petroleum'' as defined under Sec. 212.72 of Title 10 of the 
        Code of Federal Regulations. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, it is with 
    great regret that I make a point of order against the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Texas, a learned member of the 
    committee. . . .
        The point of order is that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright) essentially seeks to redo or undo 
    matters attended to in the Staggers amendment of yesterday, printed 
    at page 25855 of the Congressional Record. . . .
        The amendment here would apply to classification of production 
    from properties which are covered in the Staggers amendment in 
    8(c)(1), and in which, in that section, a $5.25 pricing ceiling 
    would be applied.
        As I understand the rules, Mr. Chairman, amendments which 
    should have been offered to amendments previously offered are not 
    in order by reason of the fact that they should have been offered 
    at a time earlier to other amendments upon which the House has 
    acted.
        In a sense, Mr. Chairman, what the amendment here does, or 
    seeks to do, is to alter actions taken earlier by the House with 
    regard to pricing and with regard to the categories of oil which 
    were mentioned by me. . . .
        Mr. Wright: . . . The amendment which I offered, Mr. Chairman, 
    would be a separate section of the bill which would create a new 
    category not described in the amendment which we acted upon 
    yesterday, nor described in the section just passed.
        I think, Mr. Chairman, to follow the argument of the gentleman 
    from Michigan to its logical conclusion would be to say that we 
    could not at this juncture introduce any amendment which would bear 
    upon the production of oil in this country, upon the theory that we 
    had acted on that and dealt with old oil and new oil in the 
    amendment agreed to yesterday, since all oil, obviously, must fall 
    within the category of either old oil or new oil. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order made by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Dingell) against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
    (Mr. Wright) would be of some merit if the amendment were offered 
    to the new section 301--that is, to the amendment which was agreed 
    to on yesterday. But as the gentleman from Texas points out, his 
    amendment provides for a new section which is otherwise germane in 
    every way to the title of the bill in its amended form, and the 
    Chair does not rule on consistency of amendments.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

[[Page 7205]]

Anticipatory Ruling as to Effect of Adoption

Sec. 29.27 The Chair declines to make anticipatory rulings and will not 
    prejudge the propriety of amendments at the desk as to whether they 
    will be preempted by adoption of a pending amendment until they are 
    offered.

    On Dec. 18, 1979,(14) during consideration of H.R. 
5860,(15) in the Committee of the Whole, the proposition 
described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 125 Cong. Rec. 36794, 36801, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Authorizing loan guarantees to the Chrysler Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brademas to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: 
        Strike line 7, page 5, through line 7, page 9, (section 4(a)(4) 
        through section 4(d)) and replace with the following:
            (4) the Corporation has submitted to the Board a 
        satisfactory financing plan which meets the financing needs of 
        the Corporation as reflected in the operating plan for the 
        period covered by such operating plan, and which includes, in 
        accordance with the provisions of subsection (c), an aggregate 
        amount of nonfederally guaranteed assistance of not less than 
        $1,930,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [Mickey] Edwards of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk to section 4 of the Moorhead substitute as 
    does the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Weaver). Would our amendments 
    be in order if the Brademas amendment passes?

        The Chairman: (16) The Chair will have to examine 
    them if and when offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adoption of Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 29.28 While it is not in order to further amend an amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute for several paragraphs which has been 
    offered following the reading of the first paragraph and agreed to, 
    it is in order to insert language which does not directly change 
    the adopted amendment immediately thereafter, where the Clerk has 
    not yet read the next paragraph of the bill which would be stricken 
    out in conformity with the adopted amendment.

    The following proceedings, which took place on Oct. 1, 
1974,(17) illustrate the principle that, although an 
amendment may not change an amendment already agreed to, it is in order 
to

[[Page 7206]]

insert language immediately following the adopted amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 120 Cong. Rec. 33364, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 16900, supplemental appropriation bill, fiscal 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Marjorie S.] Holt [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Holt: On page 6, line 11, strike 
        out the period, insert a semicolon, and the following:
            Provided further, That none of these funds shall be used to 
        compel any school system as a condition for receiving grants 
        and other benefits from the appropriations above, to classify 
        teachers or students by race, religion, sex, or national 
        origin. . . .

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I raise 
    a point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (18) The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    will state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Flood: Mr. Chairman, I direct the attention of the Chair to 
    page 6 of the bill, and the Chair will find there that the Roybal 
    amendment which was just adopted by the committee strikes out 
    everything on page 6 down to and including line 11. That being the 
    case, this amendment now is too late, and if presented should have 
    been presented to the Roybal amendment, and therefore I think that 
    a point of order should lie in that it is too late under the 
    circumstances.
        The Chairman: The Chair would observe that the Clerk had not 
    begun to read at line 12 on page 6, so that this portion of the 
    bill is still open for amendment, the Roybal substitute for the 
    language appearing in the bill as presented by the committee, would 
    conclude at the same point on line 11.
        Therefore the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
    Maryland (Mrs. Holt) would insert language at the end of the Roybal 
    language, and would not directly change that language and therefore 
    would be in order.
        The point of order is overruled.

Adoption of Amendment Adding New Section

Sec. 29.29 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair indicated 
    that the adoption of an amendment adding a new section to a bill 
    would preclude further amendment to the pending section.

    On Mar. 20, 1975,(19) during consideration of a bill 
(20) in the Committee of the Whole, a parliamentary inquiry 
was addressed to the Chair and the proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 7666, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. H.R. 4296, emergency price supports for 1975 crops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Peyser: Page 3, immediately after 
        line 16, insert the following new section:
            ``Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, there 
        shall be no acreage allotment, marketing quota or price support 
        for rice effective with the 1975 crop of such commodity.''

[[Page 7207]]

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington] reserved a point of order 
    on the amendment.
        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Symms: Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment to section 2 
    of the bill. Will this amendment preclude the offering of the next 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: It will if the amendment is agreed to.

Adoption of Amendment Improperly Offered, Where No Point of Order 
    Raised

Sec. 29.30 While a motion to strike out a paragraph of a pending 
    section and insert new language is ordinarily a perfecting 
    amendment to that section, thereby precluding the offering of 
    another perfecting amendment to that section during its pendency, 
    where no point of order has been raised against another more 
    limited amendment that is offered subsequently, the Chair may treat 
    it as a perfecting amendment to that paragraph so that the vote 
    thereon is taken first; and when the improperly offered amendment 
    is adopted, the vote is taken on the motion to strike and insert.

    On Mar. 21, 1975,(2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill,(3) the proceedings, 
described above, occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 121 Cong. Rec. 7950, 7952, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. H.R. 4485, the Emergency Middle-Income Housing Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

        The Chairman: (4) The Chair will treat this 
    amendment as a perfecting

[[Page 7208]]

    amendment to the paragraph of the bill and it will be voted on 
    first. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the perfecting amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Oregon (Mr. AuCoin).
        The perfecting amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey.
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Does the Chairman mean the amendment, as amended?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. AuCoin) was a 
    perfecting amendment to section 9(d) on page 11, line 1 through 
    line 8. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
    (Mrs. Fenwick) is an amendment which would strike all of the 
    language in the paragraph of the bill and substitute her language. 
    . . .
        Mr. Ashley: . . . Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ashley: It is on this basis, Mr. Chairman, that I 
    misunderstood the parliamentary situation. I had thought that the 
    gentleman's amendment was in the nature of a substitute. Inasmuch 
    as the gentleman's amendment was adopted, is it also the fact that 
    the amendment of the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick) was 
    adopted?
        The Chairman: Yes, thereby deleting the language which 
    contained the perfecting amendment of the gentleman from Oregon.

    On a subsequent recorded vote, the amendment offered by Mrs. 
Fenwick was rejected.

Adoption of Amendment to Substitute

Sec. 29.31 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a bill, an amendment thereto, a substitute therefor 
    and an amendment to the substitute, the Chair indicated that 
    adoption of the amendment to the substitute would preclude further 
    amendment to those portions of the substitute so amended.

    On June 10, 1976,(5) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill,(6) the Chair responded to 
several parliamentary inquiries regarding the above-described 
circumstances. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 122 Cong. Rec. 17344-52, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. H.R. 13367, a bill to extend and amend the State and Local Fiscal 
        Assistance Act of 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 7209]]

            Amendments offered by Mr. John L. Burton to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Horton as a substitute for the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Brooks: In the substitute 
        offered by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Horton, strike out 
        everything after the first section thereof down through section 
        4 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

                                   definition

            Sec. 2. As used in this Act the term ``the Act'' means the 
        State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Would the Chair explain the 
    parliamentary situation so that we understand what it is that we 
    have before us.
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair will attempt to state 
    what the situation is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pending is the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered 
    by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks), to which is pending an 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
    Fountain), and there is also pending an amendment offered as a 
    substitute by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Brooks).
        Finally, we have pending amendments offered by the gentleman 
    from California (Mr. John L. Burton) to the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) as a substitute for the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Brooks). . . .
        The order in which (the amendments) would be dealt with would 
    be first the Fountain amendment, then the Burton amendments, and 
    then the Horton substitute amendment. . . .
        Mr. Horton: The question I would like to pose is with regard to 
    the amendment that has just been offered to the Horton substitute 
    by the gentleman from California (Mr. John L. Burton). As I 
    understand it, the amendment is such that the Horton substitute 
    would not be open for amendment except as it relates to that 
    portion that contains the entitlement, section 6.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that in the 
    event of the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from California, the new text inserted by the amendment would not 
    solely be subject to further amendment. The portion of the 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from New York not amended by 
    the gentleman's amendment would be subject to further amendment.

Sec. 29.32 The adoption of a perfecting amendment to a substitute for 
    an amendment does not preclude the consideration of further 
    perfecting amendments to the substitute which seek to change 
    additional portions of text not already perfected.

    On July 2, 1980,(8) during consideration of H.R. 7235, 
the Rail Act of 1980, the Chair indicated that a pending substitute 
would

[[Page 7210]]

be open to further amendment whether or not a pending amendment to the 
substitute was adopted. The Chair stated, however, that he could not 
respond to a hypothetical question as to whether a particular 
amendment, not submitted in writing, would be in order following 
adoption of the amendment to the substitute. The discussion was as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 126 Cong. Rec. 18299, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, let me ask, 
    if this amendment were agreed to, would it still be in order to 
    move to strike the entire intrastate section of the Madigan 
    substitute?
        This would apparently be a perfecting amendment with respect to 
    that matter, and an amendment to strike, I would think, would be in 
    order. I would like to know the answer to that question.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair will state that the 
    Madigan substitute still has to be voted on regardless of the 
    outcome of this amendment, and it is open for amendment after this 
    amendment has been disposed of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, the question I am asking, though, 
    is this: If this amendment were agreed to as a perfecting amendment 
    to the Madigan amendment respecting intrastate rates, would it then 
    be in order to strike the whole section limiting the exercise by a 
    State commission of intrastate rate authority?
        The Chairman: The Chair would have to state to the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) that it would depend, in the Chair's 
    judgment, on what form the amendment would take. The Chair knows of 
    no such amendment, sees no such amendment, and, therefore, finds it 
    difficult to answer the gentleman's question.

Adoption of Amendment to Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 29.33 The adoption of an amendment to a pending amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute precludes further amendment merely to that 
    portion of the said substitute already amended.

    On Dec. 18, 1979,(10) the proposition stated above was 
illustrated during consideration of H.R. 5860 (11) in the 
Committee of the Whole when a parliamentary inquiry was directed to the 
Chair. The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 36794, 36801, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Authorizing loan guarantees to the Chrysler Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brademas to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: 
        Strike line 7, page 5, through line 7, page 9, (section 4(a)(4) 
        through section 4(d)) and replace with the following:
            (4) the Corporation has submitted to the Board a 
        satisfactory financing

[[Page 7211]]

        plan which meets the financing needs of the Corporation as 
        reflected in the operating plan for the period covered by such 
        operating plan, and which includes, in accordance with the 
        provisions of subsection (c), an aggregate amount of 
        nonfederally guaranteed assistance of not less than 
        $1,930,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bethune: If the Brademas amendment is agreed to--as I 
    understand it, it runs from page 5 of the Moorhead substitute, line 
    7, all the way to page 9, line 7--would it then foreclose a 
    particular amendment to any of the sections that are within that 
    area of the substitute?
        The Chairman: Amendments only to those sections would be 
    precluded.

Adoption of Perfecting Amendments to Amendment as Not Precluding 
    Substitute or Amendments to Substitute

Sec. 29.34 The adoption of a perfecting amendment to a (committee) 
    amendment does not preclude the offering of a substitute for the 
    original amendment, as perfected.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on Sept. 13, 
1979,(13) during consideration of H.R. 4040 (14) 
in the Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 24427, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. The Defense Department appropriation bill, fiscal 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (15) The Clerk will report 
    the next committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 3, line 2, strike out 
        ``$7,515,500,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$7,515,400,000''.

        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Price to the committee amendment: 
        On page 3, line 2, in lieu of the matter proposed to be 
        inserted by the committee amendment, insert ``$6,790,400,000''. 
        . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The question is on the amendment to 
    the committee amendment.
        The amendment to the committee amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. [Vic] Fazio [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the committee amendment, as amended.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fazio as a substitute for the 
        committee amendment as amended: Page 3, line 2, strike out 
        ``$7,515,500,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$6,456,400,000''.

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order. . . .

[[Page 7212]]

        I understood that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Price) had 
    just offered an amendment that changed the figure of $7,515,500,000 
    to $6 billion--something else, and that was accepted by the 
    committee.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The committee amendment, as amended, 
    has not yet been agreed to, and it is open and subject to a 
    substitute amendment.
        Mr. Stratton: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Price) offered 
    an amendment that begins with $6 billion?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Price) offered an amendment to the committee amendment, and that 
    figure was for $6,790,400,000.
        Mr. Stratton: And that has not been accepted?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: And that was agreed to.
        Mr. Stratton: That was agreed to, so the amendment of the 
    gentleman from California is to what figure then?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman is substituting for the 
    original committee amendment, as amended.
        The Chair has overruled the point of order. . . .
        Mr. [Richard H.] Ichord [of Missouri]: I want to make sure in 
    making my point of order that I understand what is going on. I 
    distinctly heard the chairman announce that the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Illinois without objection, is adopted.
        Then the gentleman from California arose saying he had a 
    substitute amendment. If the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Illinois was adopted, that figure has been amended and would be 
    subject to a point of order, and I make that point of order that he 
    is amending a figure already amended by the gentleman from 
    Illinois.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair has indicated that the 
    technical amendment offered by the chairman of the committee to the 
    committee amendment has been accepted.
        The committee amendment, as amended, has not yet been accepted 
    and, therefore, is subject to a substitute amendment. That is what 
    the gentleman from California is offering at the present time.

Sec. 29.35 The adoption of perfecting amendments to an amendment do not 
    preclude the offering of further amendments to a substitute for an 
    amendment.

    On May 16, 1979,(16) during consideration of H.R. 39, 
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979, the Chair 
responded to a parliamentary inquiry as indicated above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 11369, 11420, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John B.]) Breaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Breaux to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by the Committee on Merchant 
        Marine and Fisheries: Page 278: Strike out all after line 2

[[Page 7213]]

        on page 278 through line 9 on page 622 and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following: . . .

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: My parliamentary inquiry 
    is, in the event that the pending Breaux amendment to the Breaux-
    Dingell substitute is adopted, would that preclude further 
    amendments to the pending Udall-Anderson substitute?
        The Chairman: (17) It would not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adoption of Amendment Not Printed in Record as Required

Sec. 29.36 Where a bill is being considered under a special order 
    requiring amendments to be printed in the Record, and the Chair 
    inadvertently permits the offering of an unprinted amendment which 
    is adopted, those proceedings may be vacated only by unanimous 
    consent.

    The circumstance stated above was the basis of the following 
proceedings which occurred on Oct. 1, 1985,(18) during 
consideration of H.R. 2100 (19) in the Committee of the 
Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 131 Cong. Rec. 25463, 25464, 25467, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. The Food Security Act of 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Berkley] Bedell [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment that takes care of some concerns that the Committee on 
    Ways and Means had.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. Bedell (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
    Record.
        The Chairman: (20) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Iowa?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Bedell: Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the 
    committee.
        Mr. [Kika] de la Garza [of Texas]: I thank my colleague for 
    yielding.
        Mr. Chairman, this takes care of a jurisdictional conflict 
    between our committee and the Committee on Ways and Means. After 
    diligent effort between the staffs and the respective chairmen, the 
    end result is this amendment which would satisfy the Committee on 
    Ways and Means and would do no harm to our committee version, and I 
    would urge the Members to accept it. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Bedell).
        The amendment was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    wanted to raise a problem that I have discovered where we have had 
    an amendment adopted here just a few minutes (ago) that was not 
    eligible for consideration under the rule. It is my understanding 
    that the Bedell amendment that was adopted to this section a few 
    minutes ago had not been printed in the Record in a timely fashion, 
    so under the rule, it was not eligible for consideration on the 
    floor except by unanimous consent.

[[Page 7214]]

        In fact, we did not have a unanimous-consent request for that 
    amendment, so therefore it should not have been considered under 
    the regular procedures. Given that situation, it seems to me that 
    the House should not be acting upon an amendment at this point that 
    is based upon perfecting language that was offered that was not in 
    fact eligible for consideration on the House floor.
        If I might, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    proceedings be vacated under which the Bedell amendment to this 
    section was adopted.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania?
        Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.

Agreement to One Portion of Divisible Amendment; Further Debate on 
    Remainder

Sec. 29.37 Where the question has been put on the first portion of a 
    divisible amendment, and that portion agreed to, further debate on 
    the remaining portion may be had under the five-minute rule before 
    the Chair puts the question thereon.

    On Aug. 4, 1983,(1) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 2230,(2) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 129 Cong. Rec. 23134, 23142, 23143, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. The Civil Rights Commission Act of 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Edwards of California: Page 2, 
        line 2, insert ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 2''.
            Page 2, line 4, strike out ``1998'' and insert ``1988'' in 
        lieu thereof.
            Page 2, after line 4, insert the following:
            ``(b) Section 104(c) of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (42 
        U.S.C. 1975c(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
        ``During the period which begins on the date of the enactment 
        of the Civil Rights Commission Act of 1983 and ends on 
        September 30, 1988, the President may remove a member of the 
        Commission only for neglect of duty or malfeasance in 
        office.''.

        Mr. [James F.] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, 
    pursuant to the rule, I demand a division of the question. . . .
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair would point out to the 
    gentleman that the amendment really contains three parts, the 
    second being, on page 2, line 4, to strike out ``1998'' and insert 
    ``1988''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Morris K. Udall (Arizona).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The first part is, on page 2, line 2, to insert ``(a)'' after 
    ``Sec. 2.''
        Then the third part is the insertion of a new subsection (b) 
    dealing with the removal of commissioners before the term of 
    office.
        The Chair would propose to put the question first only on the 
    date change, and then on the remainder of the amendment which 
    constitutes in effect one proposition. . . .

[[Page 7215]]

        The question now is on that portion of the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from California (Mr. Edwards) dealing with the date 
    change from ``1998'' to ``1988.''. . .
        (The portion of the amendment dealing with the date change from 
    ``1998'' to ``1988'' was agreed to.)
        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    understand the vote that was just taken was on the first part of a 
    divided question. My inquiry is: Is it in order at this time for 
    there to be any further debate on the second portion of the 
    question that has been divided?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that further 
    debed by the gentleman from California (Mr. John L. Burton) is a 
    further amendment adding new language at the end of the Brooks 
    amendment, as amended. . . .
        Mr. [Benjamin S.] Rosenthal [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
    as amended.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rosenthal to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Brooks, as amended: at 
        the end of the Brooks amendment, as amended, insert the 
        following new section:

                             population adjustment

            Sec. 17. Section 109(a)(1) of the State and Local Fiscal 
        Assistance Act of 1972 is amended by inserting immediately 
        before the period at the end thereof the following: ``, except 
        that the Bureau of the Census shall make available to the 
        Secretary data to correct for any substantial and systematicat 
        p. 16045.

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Page 10, 
    after line 4, insert the following:

         limitation on discretion of the administrator with respect to 
                          submission of energy actions

            Sec. 3. Section 5 of the Federal Energy Administration Act 
        of 1974 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
            ``(c) The Administrator shall not exercise the discretion 
        delegated to him pursuant to section 5(b) of the Emergency 
        Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 to submit to the Congress as 
        one energy action any amendment under section 12 of the 
        Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 which exempts crude 
        oil or any refined petroleum product or refined product 
        category from both the allocation provisions and the pricing 
        provisions of the regulation under section 4 of such Act.''

    A further amendment was subsequently offered:

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Eckhardt: Page 10, after line 4, 
        insert the following:

           limitation on discretion of the president with respect to 
                       delegation of certain authorities

            Sec. 3. Section 8(h) of the Federal Energy Administration 
        Act of 1974 is amended by adding before the period at the end 
        thereof the following: ``, except that the President may not 
        redelegate or terminate the delegation of those functions as 
        pertain to the submission of energy actions relating to an 
        amendment under section 12 of the Emergency Petroleum 
        Allocation Act of 1973 which had been delegated to the 
        Administrator on or before May 1, 1976, pursuant to section 
        5(b) of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973.''. . .

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, if I understand 
    the thrust of the amendment offered by

[[Page 7216]]

    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt), it amends an amendment 
    which the committee has already adopted, by additionally 
    prohibiting the President from redelegating or terminating the 
    delegations of functions that we have already modified in the 
    previous Eckhardt amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Eckhardt) provides for an additional section at the end of the 
    committee bill. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
    (Mr. Eckhardt) does not directly amend the first Eckhardt 
    amendment, which also added another section at the end of the bill.
        Therefore, the point of order is overruled.

Sec. 29.39 While an amendment may not change an amendment already 
    agreed to, it is in order to insert germane language immediately 
    following the adopted amendment, and the Chair will not rule on the 
    consistency of that language with the adopted amendment.

    On June 10, 1976,(7) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 13367,(8) a point of order was made 
against an amendment and the Chair ruled as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 122 Cong. Rec. 17381, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. A bill to extend and amend the State and Local Fiscal Assistance 
        Act of 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
    amended.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Adams to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Brooks, as amended: Add 
        at the end of the Brooks amendment as amended the following new 
        section: Sec. 14. Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
            (1) allocations among States of amounts authorized by any 
        provision of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 
        as amended by the preceding provisions of this Act . . . shall 
        be made only to such extent or in such amounts as are provided 
        in advance by appropriation Acts. . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        (A)s I understand the reading of the amendment, it has to do 
    with entitlement. The Brooks substitute had a provision with regard 
    to entitlement, the Fountain substitute had provisions for 
    entitlement, and now again this is an attempt to change the 
    entitlement provision. Therefore, it is my position that this is 
    out of order and should not be offered. . . .
        Mr. Adams: Mr. Chairman, this is a germane amendment, as 
    provided under the rule. It provides for a new section. It is a 
    limitation on what was in the substitute. It does not amend the 
    same section and, therefore, it is in order.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).

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

[[Page 7217]]

        The Chair cites Deschler's Procedure, chapter 27, section 
    27.11:

            While an amendment may not change an amendment already 
        agreed to, it is in order to insert language immediately 
        following the adopted language, and the Chair will not rule on 
        the consistency of that language with the adopted amendment.

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
    Adams), does add new language at the end of the Brooks amendment, 
    as amended.
        The Chair, in accordance with the precedent, will not rule on 
    the consistency of that language and holds that the amendment is 
    germane and, therefore, the Chair will overrule the point of order.

--Previously Adopted Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 29.40 Although an amendment which has been adopted to an amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute may not be further amended, another 
    amendment adding language at the end of the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute may still be offered.

    On June 10, 1976,(10) during consideration of a bill 
(11) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a 
point of order against an amendment as described above. The proceedings 
were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 17368-75, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. H.R. 13367, a bill to extend and amend the State and Local Fiscal 
        Assistance Act of 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (12) . . . The Chair will first put 
    the question on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
    Carolina (Mr. Fountain) to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [The Fountain amendment was adopted.]
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. John L. Burton to the amendment in 
        the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Brooks, as amended: 
        At the end of the Brooks amendment, as amended, add the 
        following:

                         funds for property tax relief

            Sec. 11. Section 123(a) of the Act is amended by inserting 
        after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) it will obligate at least 20% of the funds received 
        under subtitle A during each entitlement period beginning on or 
        after January 1, 1977, to specifically decrease taxes on real 
        property;''. . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I would like 
    the Chair to explain the parliamentary procedure. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from New 
    York that it is the understanding of the Chair that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. John L. Burton) is a 
    further amendment adding new language at the end of the Brooks 
    amendment, as amended. . . .

[[Page 7218]]

        Mr. [Benjamin S.] Rosenthal [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
    as amended.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rosenthal to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Brooks, as amended: at 
        the end of the Brooks amendment, as amended, insert the 
        following new section:

                             population adjustment

            Sec. 17. Section 109(a)(1) of the State and Local Fiscal 
        Assistance Act of 1972 is amended by inserting immediately 
        before the period at the end thereof the following: ``, except 
        that the Bureau of the Census shall make available to the 
        Secretary data to correct for any substantial and systematic 
        undercounting of the residents of any State and the Secretary 
        shall utilize such data to the extent that it represents a 
        reliable and uniform count of such residents''.

        Mr. Horton: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Horton: Mr. Chairman, the point of order is that there has 
    already been a substitute to the Brooks amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute, which has been adopted. Therefore, it is out of order 
    to offer another substitute to the Fountain amendment that was 
    adopted to the Brooks substitute. . . .
        Mr. Rosenthal: . . . The gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) 
    would have been correct if this were an amendment to an existing 
    substitute that had already been adopted. However, this amendment 
    adds a new section to the Brooks amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, section 17. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Rosenthal) is not a substitute or an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute. It adds new language at the conclusion of the Brooks 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Sec. 29.41 If a perfecting amendment to an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, striking out all after the short title and inserting a 
    new text, is adopted, further amendments to the text which has been 
    perfected are not in order, but amendments are in order to add new 
    language at the end of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    as amended.

    On May 16, 1979,(13) during consideration of H.R. 39 
(14) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings 
described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 11369, 11420, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

[[Page 7219]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Breaux to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by the Committee on Merchant 
        Marine and Fisheries: Page 278: Strike out all after line 2 on 
        page 278 through line 9 on page 622 and insert in lieu thereof 
        the following: . . .

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman from Arizona will 
    state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Udall: Mr. Chairman, in the event that the pending 
    amendment of the gentleman from Louisiana, which has been offered, 
    is adopted, would that foreclose further perfecting amendments to 
    the so-called Breaux-Dingell substitute?
        The Chairman: This pending amendment could not be further 
    amended, but additional language could be added at the end of the 
    Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute.

Amendment Changing Both Amended and Unamended Portions of Text or 
    Amendment

Sec. 29.42 While it is not in order to amend merely that portion of a 
    pending text which has already been changed by amendment, an 
    amendment changing not only the amended portion but also parts of 
    the original text not yet amended would still be in order.

    On May 2, 1979,(16) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Concurrent Resolution 107, (17) 
the above-stated proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 9530, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. The first concurrent resolution on the Budget, fiscal 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (18) The gentleman will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California: Mr. Chairman, if the Simon 
    amendment affects the spend-out rate for the national defense 
    category, Number 050 in fiscal year 1980; therefore, if it is 
    adopted, does that mean that any further amendments to the national 
    defense category for fiscal year 1980 would not be in order?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Charles H. Wilson) that on a previous budget 
    resolution the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bolling) 
    in occupying the chair ruled on a similar question. The Chair will 
    paraphrase a portion of the ruling on that occasion as follows:
        While it is not in order to amend merely that portion of a 
    pending text which has already been changed by amendment, an 
    amendment changing

[[Page 7220]]

    not only the amended portion but also parts of the original text 
    not yet amended would still be in order.

Sec. 29.43 An amendment to an amendment is not subject to amendment 
    while pending (as in the 3rd degree), and if adopted precludes 
    further amendments only changing the text which has been perfected; 
    but after adoption amendments are in order which add language to an 
    unamended portion (at the end) of the original amendment as 
    amended.

    On May 16, 1979,(19) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 39,(20) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 11422, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to 
    ask a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Weaver: Mr. Chairman, this amendment we have before us is 
    not amendable?
        The Chairman: That is correct. It does not preclude----
        Mr. Weaver: New sections?
        The Chairman (continuing): Amendments added to the end of the 
    Merchant Marine bill.

        Mr. Weaver: But the language in it cannot be amended, cannot be 
    further perfected?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Weaver: If we find imperfections in the bill, in this 
    amendment, they could not then further be changed? The 
    imperfections would have to stand; is that correct?
        The Chairman: Direct amendments would be precluded; but the 
    gentleman from Oregon or any Member could offer amendments at the 
    end of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries bill.

Amendment Striking Out Language of Adopted Amendment Plus Additional 
    Language

Sec. 29.44 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and an amendment thereto, the Chair indicated in 
    response to a parliamentary inquiry that adoption of the perfecting 
    amendment would not preclude the offering of another perfecting 
    amendment striking out the language inserted by the adopted 
    amendment plus additional language in the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute (and inserting new matter).

    On Sept. 11, 1974,(2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the

[[Page 7221]]

Whole of a bill,(3) the Chair responded to a parliamentary 
inquiry regarding the offering of an amendment, as described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 120 Cong. Rec. 30648, 30649, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. H.R. 13565, the nonnuclear energy source research and development 
        program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert W.] Kastenmeier [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Kastenmeier to the amendment in 
        the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Udall: On page 29, 
        after line 11, insert the following:
            ``(c) The Administrator, when he determines that the public 
        interest will be served thereby, may waive all or any part of 
        the rights of the United States in favor of a nonprofit 
        educational institution. . . .

        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, if the 
    amendment now pending should pass would it nevertheless still be in 
    order for an amendment of this nature to be offered; namely, that 
    the entire section 7 be stricken and that the matter be subject to 
    a study?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (4) The amendment as 
    suggested by the gentleman from California would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 29.45 Although it is not in order to propose to strike out an 
    amendment already agreed to, an amendment striking out not only an 
    amendment previously agreed to but also additional portions of the 
    bill is in order.

    Where the first section of a title of a bill being read by titles 
was modified by striking that section and inserting new language an 
amendment to strike that section and two additional sections of that 
title not so altered was held in order. The proceedings on Aug. 1, 
1975,(5) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 121 Cong. Rec. 26947, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7014, Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: Strike out sections 
        301, 302, 303.
            Renumber the succeeding sections of title III accordingly. 
        . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman . . . I renew 
    simply the point of order that I had made earlier against the prior 
    amendment by observing that this is again an attempt to undo 
    actions taken already by the House, as the Chair well noted when it 
    ruled just now on the prior attempt to remove section 301, which 
    failed. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not 
    stand on the same point that the previous amendment stood on. This 
    amendment

[[Page 7222]]

    strikes two additional sections, sections 302 and 303. The present 
    section 303 in the title has not been touched by amendment during 
    the amending process, the prohibition on pricing facts being sent 
    to the President, and is a section which has not been amended by 
    the Committee of the Whole during consideration of title III. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I believe the 
    gentleman from Ohio misconceives the basis of the original point of 
    order, since this amendment includes the striking of a section of 
    the bill that has been completed, and has been amended and 
    completed and includes another section of the bill that has been 
    amended and completed. It is for those reasons subject to a point 
    of order. The fact that it may include other matter that has not 
    been amended and completed does not free it from the objection 
    raised on the first point of order.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As to the argument on the amendment by the gentleman from 
    Texas, the Chair feels that it will disagree with that.
        The Chair now refers to volume 8, page 446, section 2855 of 
    Cannon's Precedents (where) it states that while an amendment which 
    has been agreed to may not be modified, a proposition to strike 
    that language from the bill with other language of the original 
    text is in order.
        Some language of the original text remains in section 303. 
    Therefore the point of order raised by the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Dingell) is not good, and the Chair overrules the point of 
    order.

Sec. 29.46 While an amendment which has been agreed to may not be 
    modified, an amendment to strike it from the bill together with 
    other language of the original text and to insert new text is in 
    order.

    In the instance set out below, during consideration of a bill 
(7) in the Committee of the Whole, an amendment which had 
previously been agreed to was stricken. The amendment, agreed to on 
Sept. 29, 1975, stated: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 8603, Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1975.
 8. 121 Cong. Rec. 30767, 30772, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Page 
    12, strike out line 20 and all that follows through page 13, line 
    6, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

            Sec. 2. (a)(1) Section 2401(a) of title 39, United States 
        Code, is amended to read as follows:
            ``(a)(1) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Postal Service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, such 
        sums as may be necessary to enable the Postal Service to carry 
        out the purposes, functions, and powers authorized by this 
        title.''. . .

    On Oct. 30,(9) the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 34415.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Hanley [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 7223]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hanley: Strike out section 2, as 
        amended, in its entirety, and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following:
            Sec. 2. (a) Section 2401 (b)(1)(G) of title 39, United 
        States Code, is amended to read as follows:
            ``(G) for each fiscal year after fiscal year 1984, an 
        amount equal to 5 percent of such sum for fiscal year 1971, 
        except that the Postal Service may reduce the percentage 
        figure, including a reduction to 0, if the Postal Service finds 
        that the amounts are no longer required to operate the Postal 
        Service in accordance with the policies of this title.
            (b) Paragraph 2 of subsection (b) of section 2401 of title 
        39, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
            ``(2)(A) As further reimbursement to the Postal Service for 
        public service costs incurred by it, there is authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Postal Service for the period commencing on 
        July 1, 1975, and ending on September 30, 1976, an amount not 
        to exceed $1.5 billion. . . .

        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order that 
    the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanley) is not in order in that it 
    seeks to change an amendment that has been previously adopted in 
    the Committee of the Whole. . . .
        Mr. Hanley: Mr. Chairman, in opposition to the point of order, 
    while it is generally true that an amendment once agreed to may not 
    be modified, the parliamentary situation at the present time 
    dictates otherwise.
        I cite from section 28.6 of chapter 27 of Deschler's Procedure 
    in the U.S. House of Representatives:

            Sec. 28.6. While an amendment which has been agreed to may 
        not be modified, an amendment to strike it from the bill with 
        other language of the original section and insert new text is 
        in order. 118 Cong. Rec. 16843, 16852, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., May 
        11, 1972 [H.R. 7130].

    It appears clear, then, that my amendment is indeed in order. . . .

        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Alexander) has made a point of order against the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanley) on the basis that 
    section 2 has been amended and, thus, further amendments thereto 
    are not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On September 29, 1975, the Committee adopted the Alexander 
    amendment to section 2 of the bill. At that time the Chairman noted 
    that the amendment was a perfecting amendment to section 2, 
    altering parts thereof and leaving other provisions unchanged. 
    While it would not be in order at this time to offer an amendment 
    to the Alexander amendment, nevertheless, an amendment striking 
    from the bill that amendment together with other language of the 
    original bill and inserting new text is in order and, therefore, 
    the point of order is overruled.

Reoffering Amendment Previously Offered and Adopted as Amended by a 
    Substitute

Sec. 29.47 While it is not in order to offer an amendment merely 
    changing the text of a proposition perfected by

[[Page 7224]]

    amendment or to offer an amendment identical to one which has been 
    defeated, a Member may re-offer an amendment which he has 
    previously offered and which has been adopted as amended by a 
    substitute, where the amendment is more extensive than the 
    substitute which was adopted in its place.

    On Apr. 27, 1977, the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration the first concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
1978, House Concurrent Resolution 195. Mr. Otis G. Pike, of New York, 
offered a perfecting amendment (11) which struck out certain 
figures and inserted others in their place, with respect to provisions 
relating to such items as total new budget authority; appropriate level 
of total budget outlays; appropriate level of the public debt; increase 
in the statutory limit on public debt; budget authority and outlays for 
national defense; and a category, ``allowances,'' a portion of which 
related to pay increases for certain executive employees and federal 
judges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 12483, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Omar Burleson, of Texas, offered an amendment (12) 
as a substitute for the Pike amendment, which affected most, but not 
all, of the figures in the Pike amendment. The Burleson amendment, and 
the Pike amendment as so amended, were agreed to.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 12485.
13. Id. at pp. 12503, 12504.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently, Mr. Pike offered an amendment (14) that 
was in its scope and effect substantially the same as the amendment he 
had previously offered. (It should be noted that technical changes had 
been made in the figures of the amendments so that they were in 
conformity with amendments adopted after the Pike amendment as amended 
by the Burleson substitute.) He explained the effect of his proposed 
amendment as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 12521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Pike: Mr. Chairman, when we entered the Chamber yesterday, 
    the Budget Committee had a budget resolution which called for a 
    deficit of $64.3 billion. At the moment we have a resolution which 
    calls for a deficit of $68.6 billion. In 2 days we have added $4.3 
    billion to the deficit. Mr. Chairman, everybody talks about 
    national priorities, and obviously we have different views of what 
    our national priorities are. It is obvious that things for defense 
    and for veterans are high on our list of national priorities, and 
    things for the benefit of social welfare programs are low on our 
    list of national priorities, because that is the way we voted here. 
    Frankly, I have

[[Page 7225]]

    voted against all of the amendments which increased the budget and 
    increased the budget deficit, and I am a little embarrassed that I 
    am again offering an amendment which reduces the budget and reduces 
    the budget deficit. This is the same amendment which I offered 
    earlier. It reduces spending in two categories--allowances and 
    defense--a total of $130 million, which is the amount of the 29 
    percent or 28 percent pay raise which people in those categories 
    outside of the Congress got. We have discussed it already. The 
    committee accepted it once. It got wiped out by the Burleson 
    amendment.

    After debate on the Pike amendment, the amendment was rejected.

Special Rule Permitting Amendments Which Change Portions of Amendments 
    Previously Agreed To

Sec. 29.48 While under general procedure an amendment may not be 
    offered which directly changes an amendment already agreed to, 
    where the House has adopted a special rule permitting amendments to 
    be offered even if changing portions of amendments already agreed 
    to that principle does not apply.

    Where the House had adopted a special rule permitting amendments to 
be offered although changing portions of the text of amendments already 
agreed to, the Chair overruled a point of order against an amendment 
changing provisions already amended. The proceedings of Nov. 30, 
1982,(15) in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 128 Cong. Rec. 28049, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 3809, Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Markey [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Markey: In section 114(a)(3), 
        strike out ``and legislature'' and insert in lieu thereof ``or 
        legislature''.
            In section 115(a), strike out ``and legislature'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``or legislature''. . . .

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on the amendment. . . .
        [T]he point of order is that the language that we adopted on 
    yesterday has already amended the sections and has stricken out 
    ``legislature,'' and thus this amendment would not be in order, 
    since it is action on amendments and sections that have already 
    been amended. . . .
        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I think 
    the amendment is clearly in order, because under the rule that was 
    adopted for consideration of this bill, House Resolution 601, on 
    page 3, in lines 14, 15, and 16, it says: ``and all such amendments 
    shall be in order even if changing portions of the text of said sub

[[Page 7226]]

    stitute already changed by amendment.'' . . .
        The Chairman: (16) Is there any further discussion 
    on the point of order? If not, the Chair will rule pursuant to the 
    rule that was adopted on page 3, lines 14 through 16, it clearly 
    states that all such amendments shall be in order even if changing 
    portions of the text of said substitute already changed by 
    amendment. And therefore, the point of order is not well taken, and 
    it is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special Rule Making Two Amendments in Order But Not Waiving Points of 
    Order Against Second Following Adoption of First

Sec. 29.49 During consideration of a special order reported from the 
    Committee on Rules providing a ``modified open'' rule ``making in 
    order'' only two amendments to a particular section of a bill, but 
    not waiving points of order against the second offered amendment 
    following adoption of the first, the Chair recognized the minority 
    leader to request unanimous consent to permit the offering of a 
    minority Member's amendment notwithstanding its possible change of 
    an amendment already adopted (the last adopted amendment to be 
    reported to the House).

    On Oct. 19, 1983,(17) during consideration of House 
Resolution 329 in the House, the proceedings described above occurred 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 129 Cong. Rec. 28307, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: I should like to alert 
    the other side to my making a rather unusual, a very unusual 
    unanimous-consent request, and it would be this, Mr. Speaker: that 
    I ask unanimous consent that during the consideration of H.R. 2968 
    in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Robinson of Virginia be 
    permitted to offer, as his amendment to section 108 provided for in 
    House Resolution 329, an amendment to strike out that section in 
    its entirety and insert a new section, even if an amendment to 
    strike out that section in its entirety and insert a new section 
    has already been adopted, and that only the last such amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute for the section, which has been adopted, 
    shall be reported back to the House.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A special order ``making in order'' an 
amendment offered by a designated Member but not specifically waiving 
points of order does not permit consideration of the amendment unless 
in conformity with the general rules of the House. In the above case, 
the unanimous consent request to permit consideration of the amendment 
was objected to by the manager of the special order on the

[[Page 7227]]

basis that it constituted a major change in the special order reported 
from the Committee on Rules.

Rejection of Amendment Made in Order by Special Rule Which Prohibited 
    Further Amendment in Event Amendment Was Adopted

Sec. 29.50 Where a special order adopted by the House makes in order an 
    amendment to strike out a portion of a bill and to insert new text, 
    and prohibits amendments to that amendment or further amendments 
    changing that portion of the bill if the designated amendment is 
    adopted, further amendments to that portion of the bill, including 
    a motion to strike, are in order if the designated amendment is 
    rejected.

    On Sept. 14, 1978,(18) the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole responded to several parliamentary inquiries concerning the 
procedure for offering amendments under the special rule providing for 
consideration of the bill H.R. 8729.(19) The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 124 Cong. Rec. 29477, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Aircraft Noise Reduction Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William A.] Steiger [of Wisconsin]: . . . If the amendment 
    from the Committee on Ways and Means is adopted, is a motion to 
    strike title III in order?
        The Chairman: (20) It would not be in order in that 
    event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Steiger: If the amendment from the Ways and Means Commitee 
    is rejected, is a motion to strike title III in order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that in the 
    event the pending Ways and Means Committee amendment made in order 
    under the rule were to be rejected, then germane amendments to 
    title III would be in order, including a motion to strike.

Rejection of Substitute and Amendment Thereto

Sec. 29.51 Where the House adopts an amendment to a substitute and then 
    rejects the substitute, the amendment to the substitute also falls.

    On Apr. 29, 1947,(1) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 93 Cong. Rec. 4232, 4233, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.J. Res. 153, relating to relief assistance to the people 
        of countries devastated by war.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (2) the question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Mundt]to the Colmer 
    substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. George B. Schwabe (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was agreed to.

[[Page 7228]]

        The Chairman: The question is on the Colmer substitute as 
    amended by the Mundt amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Karl E.] Mundt: So that we can clear up the situation, may 
    I inquire of the Chair if it is not true that if we should now vote 
    down the Colmer amendment it would also vacate the amendment which 
    we just approved so overwhelmingly?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

Substitute for Senate Bill

Sec. 29.52 Where the Committee of the Whole had adopted several 
    committee amendments to a Senate bill, an amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute for the entire bill which was similar to the Senate 
    version of the bill but contained corrective changes was held to be 
    in order.

    On Apr. 21, 1948,(3) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 94 Cong. Rec. 4711, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was S. 
        1641, Women's Armed Services Reserve Bill for 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mrs. [Margaret Chase] Smith of Maine: 
    Strike out all after the enacting clause of Senate 1641 and insert 
    in lieu thereof the following:

            That this act may be cited as the ``Women's Armed Services 
        Reserve Act of 1948.'' . . .

        Mr. [Overton] Brooks [of Louisiana]: The Committee just voted a 
    committee amendment which strikes out the amendment proposed by the 
    gentlewoman from Maine, and which approves the House Armed Services 
    Committee version of this bill. Now, is it in order to vote again 
    on the Senate version of the bill, which has been stricken out by 
    the House under those circumstances?

        The Chairman: (4) The Chair understands the 
    amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Maine is different from 
    the Senate version or the House bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Gordon Canfield (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rejection by House of Amendment Reported From Committee of the Whole; 
    Effect on Underlying Perfecting Amendment

Sec. 29.53 Where a perfecting amendment adopted in Committee of the 
    Whole is superseded by adoption of an amendment in Committee 
    striking out the section comprehending the perfecting amendment, 
    the perfecting amendment is not reported to the House, and the bill 
    returns to the form as originally introduced upon rejection by the 
    House of the amendment reported from Committee of the Whole.

    On Aug. 4, 1976, (5) the Committee of the Whole having 
re

[[Page 7229]]

ported a bill (6) back to the House with amendments, the 
proceedings described above occurred as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 122 Cong. Rec. 25425-27, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. H.R. 8401, the Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (7) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment?
        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    separate vote on the so-called Bingham amendment. . . .
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the amendment on which a 
    separate vote is demanded.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment: Starting on page 1, line 5, delete sections 2 
        and 3 of the bill, and renumber section 4 as section 2. . . .

        [The amendment was rejected.]
        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Anderson of Illinois: I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present 
    form.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Anderson of Illinois moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
        8401 to the House Members of the Joint Committee on Atomic 
        Energy with instructions to report back to the House forthwith 
        with the following amendments: . . .
            On page 2, line 20 strike all after ``public;'' and insert 
        the following: ``Provided however, That the guarantees under 
        any such cooperative arrangement which would subject the 
        Government to any future contingent liabilities for which the 
        Government would not be fully reimbursed shall be limited to 
        the assurance that the Government-furnished technology and 
        equipment will work as promised by the Government over a 
        mutually-agreed-to and reasonable period of initial commercial 
        operation.'' . . .

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: . . . I support private 
    business getting into the nuclear fuel enrichment business but I 
    oppose the guarantees provided in subsections 4 and 5 of section 
    45(a). . . .
        In listening to the motion to recommit, am I right that the 
    gentleman's motion to recommit in effect negates subsections 4 and 
    5 on page 3 of the bill?
        Mr. Anderson of Illinois: The gentleman is correct. . . .
        The Bingham amendment struck sections 2 and 3. Even with the 
    defeat of that amendment, we are now back to the original committee 
    bill in its unamended form. We must put back in the bill with this 
    motion to recommit any sections that provide for prior 
    congressional approval of any contract that provides that there can 
    be no contingent liability on the part of the Government, save that 
    provided for in an appropriation bill, plus the additional language 
    which I just read to the Members which will assure that we are 
    limiting this to a warranty of technology. . . .
        Mr. Price: . . . What the gentleman from Illinois is saying is 
    that unless we do recommit the bill with instructions, we will go 
    back to the original bill be

[[Page 7230]]

    fore it was worked on in the Joint Committee and amended in a way 
    that was palatable to the House and which caused the House 
    eventually to support it. Is that correct?
        Mr. Anderson of Illinois: The gentleman has stated the 
    parliamentary situation correctly. We will be back to the committee 
    bill before we had amended it with those committee amendments which 
    were accepted without dissent in the Committee of the Whole. 
    Because those sections as amended were stricken, even though we 
    defeated the Bingham amendment, we must now go back and assure this 
    House that we report this bill to this House in a form that 
    contains the provisions for a 60-day congressional review.

    Parliamentarian's Note: House Resolution 1242 had specifically 
waived points of order under Rule XVI clause 7, to permit the 
consideration of the amendment recommended by the Joint Committee on 
Atomic Energy printed in the bill. (The amendment was not germane, 
because it provided for a rules change to permit privileged 
consideration of resolutions of disapproval, whereas the original bill 
provided no such mechanism.) While the precedents indicate that a 
motion to recommit a bill with instructions may not direct the 
committee to report back forthwith with a nongermane amendment, it is 
nevertheless true that an amendment incorporated in such a motion is in 
order if it would have been in order to consider that recommended 
amendment as an amendment to the bill. Since the text of the motion to 
recommit was identical to the committee amendment protected by the 
waiver, the motion to recommit was in order in the form indicated 
above.

Motion To Recommit With Instructions

Sec. 29.54 A motion to recommit may not include instructions to modify 
    an amendment previously agreed to by the House in the absence of a 
    special rule permitting a motion to recommit with or without 
    instructions.

    On Apr. 5, 1967, (8) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 113 Cong. Rec. 8441, 8442, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H. Res. 221.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio] moves to recommit the 
        resolution (H. Res. 221) to the Committee on House 
        Administration with instructions to report the resolution 
        forthwith with the following amendment: On page 1, line 5, 
        strike out ``$350,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$400,000.'' . . .

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against the motion to recommit on the

[[Page 7231]]

    grounds that the House has just adopted the committee amendment to 
    cut the amount from $400,000 to $350,000. The gentleman now offers 
    a motion to recommit to restore it from the $350,000 to $400,000 
    and it is clearly out of order. . . .
        The Speaker: (9) The Chair will call attention to 
    that fact that the previous question was ordered and the amendments 
    were adopted by the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is not in order to do indirectly by a motion to recommit 
    with instructions that which may not be done directly by way of 
    amendment.
        An amendment to strike out an amendment already adopted is not 
    in order. The subject matter of the motion to recommit has already 
    been passed upon by the House.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Amendment Relating to a Previous Enactment

--Amendment to Resolution Previously Adopted

Sec. 29.55 The House, by resolution, amended a resolution previously 
    adopted and enlarged the investigative jurisdiction of a standing 
    committee for the 85th Congress.

    The following proceedings took place on Mar. 14, 1957: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 103 Cong. Rec. 3722, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                              House Resolution 197

            Resolved, That House Resolution 99, 85th Congress, is 
        amended by striking out the words ``within the United States''. 
        . . .

        Mr. (Howard W.) Smith of Virginia: . . . Mr. Speaker, the 
    Committee on Rules so far this session has not granted foreign 
    travel privileges to any committee. We have, however, included in 
    the resolution the right to visit any offshore territories and 
    possessions. Inadvertently that was omitted from the resolution of 
    the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee and this merely 
    corrects that oversight. It is unanimously approved by the 
    Committee on Rules. . . .
        The resolution was agreed to and a motion to reconsider was 
    laid on the table.

--Similarity of Amendment to Bill Already Passed

Sec. 29.56 A point of order against an amendment to a bill cannot be 
    based on the ground that the provisions of the amendment have 
    already been passed by the House as part of another bill.

    On June 20, 1962, (11) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 108 Cong. Rec. 11211, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11222.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: Page 
    2, line 13, after line 12, strike out lines 13, 14, and 15 and 
    insert the following: . . .
        Mr. [H. Carl] Andersen of Minnesota: May I ask the gentleman 
    from

[[Page 7232]]

    Wisconsin if this is not the same amendment that has already been 
    passed on by the House and is now lying over in the Senate in the 
    form of a separate bill?
        Mr. Reuss: The language of this is identical.
        Mr. Andersen of Minnesota: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order that this particular amendment has already cleared the House 
    and is awaiting action in the other body which does not care to act 
    upon the matter. It has no place in the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) . . . The question raised by the 
    gentleman from Minnesota was raised when the same question came up 
    last year. The Chairman at that time overruled the point of order 
    holding that it was germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order is overruled.

Sec. 29.57 The Committee of the Whole and not the Chair decides whether 
    it should adopt an amendment consisting of the exact language 
    agreed to in a bill previously passed by the House.

    On May 13, 1946, (13) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 92 Cong. Rec. 4957, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        S.J. Res. 159, extension of the Selective Training and Service 
        Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Dewey] Short [of Missouri]: Strike 
    out all after the enacting clause of Senate Joint Resolution 159 
    and insert the following: . . .
        Mr. [Walter G.] Andrews of New York: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment just offered by the gentleman 
    from Missouri on the ground that the exact language in another bill 
    has been acted on favorably by the House.
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair states to the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Andrews) that that is a matter for the Committee 
    to pass on, not the Chairman. The Chair overrules the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------