[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[F. Effect of Consideration or Adoption; Changes After Adoption]
[Â§ 30. Adoption of Amendment as Affecting Motions To Strike or To Strike and Insert]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 7232-7248]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
     F. EFFECT OF CONSIDERATION OR ADOPTION; CHANGES AFTER ADOPTION
 
Sec. 30. Adoption of Amendment as Affecting Motions To Strike or To 
    Strike or To Strike and Insert

Adoption of Perfecting Amendment as Affecting Vote on Pending Motion To 
    Strike Text

Sec. 30.1 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,(15) the Committee of the Whole having 
under

[[Page 7233]]

consideration a bill,(16) the proceedings, described above, 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 29827, 29829, 29835, 29836, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
            For further discussion of circumstances in which a vote may 
        or may not be taken on a pending motion to strike, after 
        perfecting amendments to the text have been agreed to, see Sec. 
        17, supra.
16. 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: (17) 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. 
    . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 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.

Sec. 30.2 Where there is pending a motion to strike out a section, and 
    a perfecting amendment (to strike the section and insert new 
    language) is then offered and agreed to,

[[Page 7234]]

    the motion to strike the section falls and is not voted upon, and a 
    renewed motion to strike the section is not in order since the 
    section has been amended in its entirety.

    On Sept. 24, 1975,(18) during consideration of a bill 
(19) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry regarding the proceedings described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 30092, 30097, 30098, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
            For further discussion of circumstances in which a vote may 
        or may not be taken on a pending motion to strike, after 
        perfecting amendments to the text have been agreed to, see Sec. 
        17, supra.
19. H.R. 6844, Consumer Product Safety Commission Improvements Act of 
        1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McCollister: Page 20, strike out 
        lines 8 through 22. Redesignate the succeeding sections 
        accordingly. . . .

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Moss: Page 20, strike out lines 8 
        through 22 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

                                compliance tests

            Sec. 11. Section 7(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act 
        (15 U.S.C. 2056(a)) is amended (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after 
        ``(a)''. . . . and (3) by adding at the end the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(2) No consumer product safety standard promulgated under 
        this section shall require, incorporate or reference any 
        sampling plan. . . .

        Mr. [Lionel] Van Deerlin [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Bob Bergland (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Van Deerlin: Pending before the Committee is a substitute 
    amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Moss) to section 11 
    of the bill having to do with the system of sampling.
        My parliamentary inquiry is this. In the event that the 
    Committee votes favorably on the Moss substitute to this section, 
    would there then be an ensuing vote on the McCollister motion to 
    strike, or would we then be finished with the activities for this 
    evening, it being the intention to rise as soon after 6 o'clock 
    p.m. as possible?
        The Chairman: The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Nebraska would not be voted on in the event the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from California (Mr. Moss) is sustained. . . .
        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, if 
    the Moss amendment were to be adopted, would a motion to strike 
    then be in order?
        The Chairman: The answer is ``no.'' The motion to strike would 
    fall.
        Mr. Broyhill: I am talking about a new motion to strike.
        The Chairman: No, it would not. The section would have been 
    amended in its entirety.

[[Page 7235]]

Sec. 30.3 While the adoption of an amendment changing all the text of a 
    section precludes a vote on a pending motion to strike out that 
    section, the motion to strike will still be voted on where the 
    perfecting amendment to the section changes some but not all of 
    that text.

    On Sept. 29, 1975,(21) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 8630,(1) several parliamentary 
inquiries were directed to the Chair, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 121 Cong. Rec. 30770, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
            For further discussion of circumstances in which a vote may 
        or may not be taken on a pending motion to strike, after 
        perfecting amendments to the text have been agreed to, see Sec. 
        17, supra.
 1. Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Derwinski: If the Alexander substitute is agreed to, what 
    is the effect of the substitute on my original amendment to section 
    2 of the bill?
        The Chairman: In answer to the gentleman's parliamentary 
    inquiry, the gentleman will state that if the Alexander perfecting 
    amendment is agreed to, it appears that the gentleman's motion to 
    strike might not be voted on.
        Mr. Derwinski: Section 2 would then remain in the bill?
        The Chairman: Section 2 would remain in the bill as amended by 
    the gentleman's perfecting amendment. . . .
        The Chair would like to make a clarification on the ruling it 
    made earlier. It now appears to the Chair that the perfecting 
    amendment of the gentleman from Arkansas does not perfect or 
    replace the entire section 2 of the bill; that even if the 
    gentleman's amendment is agreed to there would still be a vote on 
    the motion of the gentleman from Illinois to strike the entire 
    section; so with that clarification of the Chair, are there further 
    amendments?
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, may we 
    have a reclarification of the Chairman's ruling, because that is 
    different than what the Chair said a minute ago?
        The Chairman: That is what the Chair was stating, if the 
    gentleman will allow the Chair to restate it. After the amendment 
    of the gentleman from Arkansas is voted upon, should it be agreed 
    to by the Committee, then the question before the Committee would 
    be the motion to strike offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Derwinski). That would then be voted upon. If the gentleman's 
    amendment is voted down, we would likewise have a vote on the 
    motion of the gentleman from Illinois.

--Vote on Pending Motion To Strike Text After Portion of Text Has Been 
    Amended

Sec. 30.4 The adoption of a perfecting amendment to a por

[[Page 7236]]

    tion of the text of a bill does not preclude a vote on a pending 
    motion to strike out that entire text as amended.

    The ruling of the Chair on Oct. 5, 1972,(3) was that the 
vote on a pending motion to strike out a section of a bill is not 
precluded by the adoption of a perfecting amendment which does not 
change the entire text of that section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 118 Cong. Rec. 34130, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 16656.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ordinarily, of course, if a motion to strike out a section or 
    paragraph and insert new language is agreed to, a pending amendment 
    proposing to strike out the entire section or paragraph falls and 
    is not voted upon.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. 31.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Striking Out Larger Portion of Text Including Adopted Amendment

Sec. 30.5 While it is not in order to strike out an amendment already 
    agreed to, it is in order to strike out a larger portion of the 
    paragraph which includes the amendment and insert a new paragraph 
    of different meaning.

    On May 2, 1940,(5) the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 86 Cong. Rec. 5451, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 5435, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. See 
        also Sec. 30.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Ramspeck [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the gentleman is undertaking to strike out of 
    the bill language which the gentleman from Virginia has just 
    written into it.
        Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: I strike out 
    additional language, too. I have not offered any amendment at all 
    to the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman makes the point of 
    order that the proposed amendment of the gentleman from Mississippi 
    seeks to strike out the amendment that was just adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Claude V. Parsons (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whittington: Mr. Chairman, I answered that by saying that I 
    propose to strike out the language of the bill, and that point of 
    order is not well taken. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . (T)he Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 30.6 It is not in order to strike out an amendment previously 
    agreed to, but other words of the title, including the amendment, 
    may be stricken to insert language of a different meaning.

    On June 22, 1960,(7) the following amendment was offered 
to a bill (8) to amend the Agricultural Acts of 1938 and 
1949:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 106 Cong. Rec. 13874, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. 30.5, 
        supra.
 8. H.R. 12261.

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

[[Page 7237]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. (Albert H.) Quie [of Minnesota]: 
        On page 15, line 15, after the words ``Title II'', strike out 
        the rest of line 15, lines 16 through 26, all of pages 16, 17, 
        18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and lines 1 through 15 on page 23, and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:

                                 ``Feed Grains

            ``Sec. 201. This Act may be cited as the `Payment-in-Kind 
        Act of 1960'.
            ``Sec. 202. Effective beginning with the 1961 crops, the 
        Secretary is directed to formulate and carry out a payment-in-
        kind program with respect to wheat. . . .''
A substitute amendment was offered: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 106 Cong. Rec. 13875, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. (H. Carl) Andersen of Minnesota as 
        a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Quie: On page 15, 
        after line 16, insert:
            ``Sec. 201. (a) As soon as practicable after the enactment 
        of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct a referendum of 
        producers. . . .''
The Andersen substitute (as amended) was adopted; then the Quie 
amendment as amended by the substitute was agreed to.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 13880.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the next day,(11) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 106 Cong. Rec. 14061, 14062, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., June 23, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Gerald T.] Flynn [of Wisconsin]: 
        On page 15, line 15, strike out all of title II commencing with 
        the word ``Title'' on line 15 and continuing through the word 
        ``1965'' on line 15 of page 23, and insert the following:

                         ``Title II--General Provisions

            ``Sec. 201. This Act may be cited as the `Agricultural 
        Production Stabilization Through Conservation Act.'
            ``202. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the 
        Congress to eliminate the recurrence in the future of 
        burdensome surpluses of agricultural production. . . .''

        Mr. Andersen of Minnesota: Is the gentleman's amendment in 
    order at this point after the substitute for the Quie amendment has 
    been adopted?
        The Chairman: (12) It is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Frank N. Ikard (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Andersen of Minnesota: And its effect would be to undo 
    everything that we did yesterday?
        The Chairman: The Chair does not pass on the effect of 
    amendments.

Sec. 30.7 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.

    On May 11, 1972,(13) during consideration of a bill 
(14) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 118 Cong. Rec. 16848, 16852, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
14. H.R. 7130.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois to the 
    amendment

[[Page 7238]]

    in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Erlenborn: Page 2, 
    line 13. Strike out ``$2 an hour'' and insert in lieu thereof the 
    following: ``$1.80 an hour. . . .''
        So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    was agreed to. . . .
        Amendment offered by Mr. [Watkins M.] Abbitt [of Virginia] to 
    the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
    Erlenborn of Illinois: Page 2, strike out lines 5 through 22 and 
    insert in lieu thereof the following:

            Sec. 101. (a) Section 6(a) (29 U.S.C. 206(a)) is amended by 
        striking out ``(a) Every employer'' and all that follows 
        through paragraph (1) and inserting in lieu thereof the 
        following: . . .

        Mr. [John N.) Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, I now have a copy of the 
    amendment. It apparently does amend the same language that the 
    Anderson language has just amended. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair would like to read from 
    page 13 of the Cannon's Procedure, 1957 edition. . . . It is not in 
    order to--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        strike out an amendment already agreed to, but other words of 
        the paragraph, including the amendment, may be stricken out to 
        insert a new paragraph of different meaning.

        The amendment strikes out the entire section and inserts new 
    language.
        The Chair rules that the amendment is in order and overrules 
    the point of order.

Sec. 30.8 While an amendment which has been agreed to may not be 
    modified by further amendment, a motion to strike that amendment 
    together with other language in the original bill is in order.

    On Jan. 21, 1976,(16) where a sentence in a section of a 
bill had been amended, a further amendment to that section striking the 
language inserted by the previous amendment and striking additional 
language of the section was held in order. An amendment was first 
offered by Mrs. Patsy T. Mink, of Hawaii:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 122 Cong. Rec. 502, 507, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 6721, to amend the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. Mink: Mr. Chairman, I offer a technical amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Mink: On page 23, delete lines 8 
        through 11, and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``coal 
        within the tract. Public hearings in the area shall be held by 
        the Secretary prior to the lease sale.
            ``(D). No lease sale shall be held until after the notice 
        of the proposed offering for''.

        Mrs. Mink: Mr. Chairman, this is a simple technical amendment 
    deleting words that would require some interpretation and 
    evaluation, and change of the term ``approval of a lease'' to 
    ``lease sale'' since that has a technical definition. I believe 
    there is no objection from the other side.
        The Chairman: (17) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Charles H. Wilson [Calif.].

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

[[Page 7239]]

        The amendment was agreed to. . . .
        Mr: [Philip E.] Ruppe [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ruppe: Delete the sentences which 
        begin and end on: Page 21, line 19 to Page 22, line 5; page 23, 
        line 8 through line 9; page 26, line 9 through 11; and page 19, 
        line 23 to page 20, line 4.
            Adding the following new section 8 and renumber subsequent 
        sections accordingly:
            ``Sec. 8(a). In preparing land-use plans, the Secretary of 
        the Interior or, in the case of lands within the National 
        Forest System, the Secretary of Agriculture shall consult with 
        appropriate State and local officials, and shall provide an 
        opportunity for public hearing on proposed land-use plans prior 
        to their adoption, if requested by any person having an 
        interest which is, or may be, adversely affected by the 
        adoption of such plans.
            (b) Prior to a lease sale, the Secretary of the Interior 
        shall consult with appropriate State and local officials. . . .

        Mrs. Mink: Mr. Chairman, I make the same point of order on this 
    amendment that I made before, since it includes page 23, line 8 
    through line 9, which has already been amended by the committee.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ruppe) 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Ruppe: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering is much broader, 
    I believe, than simply the language that was offered initially by 
    the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) in her amendment, because 
    my amendment would strike out all of the named sections. It, 
    therefore, constitutes a substantial change, one far beyond that of 
    the perfecting amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii 
    (Mrs. Mink).
        I would refer to Deschler's Procedure, page 350, item 27.12, 
    and I will read as follows:

            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.

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        In addition to Deschler's Procedure, Cannon's Precedents 
    (volume 8, section 2855) provides that while an amendment which has 
    been agreed to may not be modified, a motion to strike it from the 
    bill with other language in the original section is in order.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order. The amendment 
    is in order.

Committee Amendments Adding New Sections at End of Bill

Sec. 30.9 Where committee amendments adding new sections at the end of 
    a bill have been adopted, an amendment proposing to strike out a 
    section of the original bill and the new sections is not in order.

[[Page 7240]]

    On Mar. 10, 1971,(18) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 117 Cong. Rec. 5856-58, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 4246.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 2, after line 5, add the 
        following:
            ``Sec. 3. The Economic Stabilization Act of 1970 (title II 
        of the Act of August 15, 1970 (Public Law 91-379)) is amended 
        by inserting at the end thereof the following new section:
            ``Sec. 207. Authorization for appropriations. . . .''

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

            Committee amendment: Page 2, following section 3 add the 
        following:
            ``Sec. 4. . . .''

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Garry E.] Brown of Michigan: Page 
        1, strike out line 8 and all that follows thereafter down 
        through page 2, line 18, and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following:
            ``Sec. 2. The Economic Stabilization Act of 1970 (title II 
        of the Act of August 15, 1970 (Public Law 91-379)), is amended 
        to read as follows: . . .''

        Mr. [Wright) Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, my point of order 
    is this: That we have passed, in the consideration of this bill, 
    the part of the bill to which an attempt is being made to offer an 
    amendment to the bill; therefore, it is not in order. It has been 
    passed--rather, I mean the whole bill has been read. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Michigan: . . . Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that 
    the amendment I am offering on this occasion is to the very part 
    that goes to sections 2, 3, and 4, in effect, because it replaces 
    it with a totally different section 2.
        Now, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that should the point of 
    order raised by the gentleman from Texas be sustained, I will then 
    merely offer a further amendment which will strike sections 3 and 
    4, which then clearly goes to the very section we are dealing with.
        The Chairman: (19) . . . The amendment of the 
    gentleman from Michigan is offered to section 2, which had been 
    read, and to which amendments have been adopted. Two additional 
    committee amendments, sections 3 and 4, have also been agreed to. 
    The amendment of the gentleman from Michigan comes too late and the 
    Chair sustains the point of order made by the gentleman from Texas. 
    . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. George W. Andrews (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Brown of Michigan: Page 1, strike 
        out line 8 and all that follows thereafter.

                               Point of Order

        Mr. Patman: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment comes too late. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, to 
    the extent that my amendment strikes out all of section 2 including 
    sections 3 and 4 and all the rest of the bill, it had to relate to 
    what is before the House at the present time.

[[Page 7241]]

        The Chairman: . . . The amendment comes too late since it is an 
    amendment to a section of the bill that has been passed.

Committee Amendment Adding New Paragraph to Subsection

Sec. 30.10 Where a committee amendment has added a new paragraph to a 
    subsection, it is not in order to subsequently offer an amendment 
    that merely strikes out that new paragraph.

    On Oct. 9, 1985,(20) it was demonstrated that it is not 
in order to offer an amendment merely striking out an amendment 
previously agreed to. The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 131 Cong. Rec. 26952, 26956, 26957, 99th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 3008, the Federal Pay Equity Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the remaining committee amendment to section 7 is 
    as follows:

            Committee amendment: page 13, after line 9, add the 
        following:
            (4) Also included under subsection (a)(2) shall be the 
        Commission's determination as to whether any portion of any 
        differential identified under subsection (b)(1) which cannot be 
        accounted for by the application of job-content and economic 
        analyses may be inconsistent with the general policy expressed 
        in section 2(a) that sex, race, and ethnicity should not be 
        among the factors considered in determining any rate of pay. . 
        . .

        Mr. [Charles W.] Stenholm [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offered 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Stenholm: In section 7(c), strike 
        out paragraph (4). . . .

        Ms. [Mary Rose] Oakar [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point 
    of order at this time. I appreciate the work that the gentleman and 
    I have done together on this issue, and we were happy to meet some 
    of his concerns, but the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Texas [Mr. Stenholm] proposed to amend the committee amendment to 
    section 7 previously agreed to.
        Accordingly, it is not in order. I call to the Chair's 
    attention section 27.1 of chapter 27 of Deschler's Procedure which 
    provides, quote:

            ``It is fundamental that it is not in order to amend an 
        amendment already agreed to.''

        Mr. Chairman, at this time, although I do look forward to 
    working with the gentleman before we have final passage, I insist 
    on my point of order. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair then would be prepared to 
    rule.
        According to precedents, chapter 27, section 28.1 it is not in 
    order to offer an amendment merely striking out an amendment 
    previously agreed to.
        Therefore the Chair would rule that the amendment of the 
    gentleman is out of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The same purpose, that of striking the 
inserted committee amendment, could be achieved by rejecting

[[Page 7242]]

that committee amendment on a separate vote in the House, thereby 
deleting the inserted language.

New Section as Including and Omitting Amendments Previously Agreed To

Sec. 30.11 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.

    On Sept. 2, 1964, during consideration of a bill (21) 
extending and amending the law regarding the ``Food and Peace'' 
program, an amendment (1) offered by Mr. Paul Findley, of 
Illinois, was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. H.R. 12298.
 1. See 110 Cong. Rec. 21424, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the amendment was to require congressional 
appropriation for grants of United States-owned foreign currencies. In 
explaining the amendment, Mr. Findley quoted from a Senate report 
relating to the same provision as found in a Senate bill:

        The purpose of this amendment is to provide the same degree of 
    control over grants of U.S.-owned foreign currencies as is provided 
    in the regular foreign assistance legislation over dollar grants; 
    also to coordinate all foreign assistance grants and to assure that 
    grants of foreign currencies are used in place of dollar grants 
    rather than being supplementary thereto. Further the making of such 
    grants subject to congressional appropriation control. . . 
    .(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 21425.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other amendments to section 1 of the bill were adopted. On the next 
day,(3) the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 110 Cong. Rec. 21587, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 3, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rooney of New York: Strike out all 
        of section (1) and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``That 
        the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, 
        as amended, is further amended as follows: . . .''

        The Chairman: (4) he Chair feels that the author of 
    the amendment should explain the amendment and the Chair recognizes 
    the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rooney] on his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rooney of New York: . . . This pending substitute for 
    section 1 substantially contains the bill as it has been approved 
    up to this point, including the amendments of the gentleman from 
    Ohio [Mr. Oliver P. Bolton], and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Roosevelt], with one exception, and

[[Page 7243]]

    that is exclusion of the so-called Findley amendment adopted 
    yesterday.
        I must be frank and say that I supported the Findley amendment 
    on yesterday. Today I find that I cannot support it for the reason 
    that in South Vietnam 90 percent of the local currency funds 
    generated under title I sales, Public Law 480, is used to support 
    the military effort there. In view of this situation in Vietnam, 
    Mr. Chairman, if we adopt the pending substitute for section 1 of 
    the bill we will not only approve all the amendments adopted up to 
    now, except the so-called Findley amendment, but also strike out at 
    page 2 of the bill the controversial matter in lines 13 to 25 
    inclusive and at page 3 of the bill lines 1 to 14 inclusive.
        The Rooney amendment was agreed to.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 110 Cong. Rec. 21591, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 3, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perfecting Amendment Affecting Part of Section as Not Precluding Other 
    Amendments, Including Amendment Striking Whole .

Sec. 30.12 The Chair has indicated that the adoption of a perfecting 
    amendment affecting part of a section would not preclude an 
    amendment proposing to strike out the entire section, nor would it 
    preclude further perfecting amendments to other portions of the 
    section or a motion to strike out the section and insert new text.

    On Dec. 12, 1973,(6) he following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 119 Cong. Rec. 41166, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11450.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, as I 
    understand it this is a perfecting amendment to section 120. I have 
    previously indicated, and have filed it with the Clerk, that I will 
    offer a motion to strike section 120, the so-called antitrust 
    section. My question is this: If a vote occurs upon the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Texas and the section is perfected or 
    not perfected by his amendment, am I precluded from moving to 
    strike section 120 at a later time in the proceedings?
        The Chairman: (7) Regardless of the outcome on the 
    amendment now pending, the gentleman will not be precluded from 
    making a motion to strike at another time because this is a 
    perfecting amendment that does not deal with the whole of the 
    section. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, if the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington should not 
    succeed and someone else should offer another amendment to section 
    120, will that amendment be precluded by this perfecting amendment?
        The Chairman: Not necessarily. The Chair will answer the 
    gentleman by saying that section 120 is a long section. Other 
    amendments to the section might still be offered. But in the event

[[Page 7244]]

    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas is adopted a 
    further amendment to that particular portion of the language might 
    be precluded. But other parts of the language in that particular 
    section would still be open to amendment.
        Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, suppose the amendment were a 
    complete substitute for section 120.
        The Chairman: It would still be in order.

    Similarly, it has been held that, while an amendment which has been 
agreed to may not be modified, a proposition to strike it from the bill 
with other language of the original text is in order.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See, for example, Sec. 30.6, infra; see also 107 Cong. Rec. 16059, 
        87th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 16, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 30.13 The adoption of a committee amendment perfecting a section 
    of a bill does not preclude the offering of a motion to strike the 
    entire section.

    On Dec. 8, 1975,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering committee amendments to H.R. 8631 (10)) when a 
parliamentary inquiry was directed to the Chair. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 39067, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. A bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) The Clerk will report the next 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 8, line 7, after the word 
        ``greater:'' insert ``Provided That in the event of a nuclear 
        incident involving damages in excess of that amount of 
        aggregate liability, the Congress will thoroughly review the 
        particular incident and will take whatever action is deemed 
        necessary and appropriate to protect the public from the 
        consequences of a disaster of such magnitude: And provided 
        further,''. . . .

        Mr. [Jonathan B.] Bingham [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, if this 
    committee amendment is agreed to, will the gentleman from New 
    York--this gentleman--still be in a position to offer an amendment 
    to strike the entire section?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York will be advised that 
    his right to offer an amendment will be protected, and he can offer 
    it if the committee amendment is agreed to. . . .
        The committee amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. Bingham: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bingham: Page 7, beginning with 
        line 21, strike out all down through line 19 on page 8, and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:
            Sec. 6. Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
        amended, is amended by striking out subsection e.

--Perfecting Amendment Affecting Part of Section as Not Precluding 
    Amendment To Strike Unamended Portion

Sec. 30.14 A perfecting amendment to a portion of a section

[[Page 7245]]

    having been adopted while a motion to strike out the section was 
    pending, another perfecting amendment (to strike out the remainder 
    of the section not yet perfected) could be offered and voted on 
    prior to the motion to strike the section.

    On Sept. 29, 1975,(12) during consideration of a bill 
(13) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to 
parliamentary inquiries as described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 121 Cong. Rec. 30772, 30773, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H.R. 8630, Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I will 
    try to propound a proper parliamentary inquiry. . . . My original 
    amendment was to strike section 2 in its entirety. We have just 
    accepted striking from line 20, section 2, through line 6 on page 
    13. Is an amendment in order at this point to strike the remainder 
    of that section?
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair will respond to the 
    gentleman by saying that an amendment would be in order to strike 
    so much of the section that was not amended by the gentleman from 
    Arkansas' amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Hanley [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, just a point 
    of information to clarify this vote for the benefit of all Members, 
    the understanding is that the adoption of the Derwinski amendment 
    would have the effect of nullifying the Alexander amendment, and in 
    so doing reverting back to present law; am I correct?
        The Chairman: The motion of the gentleman from Illinois would 
    strike the entire section, including that section as amended by the 
    gentleman from Arkansas.

    Parliamentarian's Note: If the perfecting amendments that were the 
subject of Mr. Derwinski's inquiries were both adopted, the section 
would have been amended in its entirety, and the motion to strike would 
then fall.

Adoption of Amendment Inserting Language at End of Paragraph

Sec. 30.15 The Chair has indicated that the adoption of a perfecting 
    amendment inserting language at the end of a paragraph would not 
    preclude further perfecting amendments to the original paragraph or 
    an amendment striking the entire perfected paragraph and inserting 
    new language.

    On June 15, 1972,(15) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 118 Cong. Rec. 21105, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 15417.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank E.] Evans of Colorado: . . . In the event the 
    amendment of

[[Page 7246]]

    the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) passes, 
    thereby limiting the expenditures under title I to that which was 
    spent the last fiscal year, thereafter, after the adoption of the 
    gentleman's amendment, would it be in order to offer an amendment 
    to increase the sum of money contained in the bill for title I.
        The Chairman: (16) If the amendment were agreed to, 
    the Chair would inform the gentleman from Colorado that further 
    amendments to the paragraph would still be in order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will say that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) is an amendment to the paragraph, a 
    perfecting amendment, and if that amendment is agreed to an 
    amendment striking and inserting a whole new paragraph would still 
    be in order.

Adoption of Conforming Amendments

Sec. 30.16 Where the Committee had agreed to an amendment striking out 
    certain words and had made conforming amendments to succeeding 
    sections of the bill, the Chair held that a subsequent motion, 
    altering the conforming changes already adopted, was not in order.

    On Sept. 23, 1969,(17) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 115 Cong. Rec. 26586-89, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 12549.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. [Wayne N.] Aspinall [of 
        Colorado]:
            On page 1, lines 3 to 6, strike out ``Fish and Wildlife 
        Coordination Act is amended by redesignating section 5A as 
        section 5B and by inserting immediately after section 5 the 
        following new section:
            ``Sec. 5A. (a). . . .
            On page 2, line 13, strike out `` `(b)'' and insert ``Sec. 
        2.''
            On page 3, line 1, strike out `` `(c)(1)'' and insert 
        ``Sec. 3.''
            On page 3, line 5, strike out ``by and with the advice and 
        consent of the Senate.''. . .
            On Page 4, line 1, strike out `` `(B)'' and insert ``(b)''.
            On page 4, line 10, strike out `` `(C)'' and insert 
        ``(c)''.
            On page 4, line 17, strike out `` `(D)'' and insert 
        ``(d)''.
            On page 4, line 21, strike out `` `(E)'' and insert 
        ``(e)''.
            On page 4, line 24, strike out `` `(4)'' and insert ``Sec. 
        6.''
            On page 5, line 1, strike out `` `(5)'' and insert ``Sec. 
        7.''
            On page 5, line 3, strike out `` `(A)'' and insert ``(a)''.
            On page 5, line 7, strike out `` `(B)'' and insert ``(b)''.
            On page 5, line 11, strike out ``avoided.' '' and insert 
        ``avoided.''

        Mr. Aspinall: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that these 
    amendments are satisfactory to the committee having jurisdiction 
    over this legislation. Most of them are technical. However, there 
    are three or four amendments which are substantial in their effect.
        The first amendment has reference to the Fish and Wildlife 
    Coordination Act. This language is deleted in order that this new 
    legislation can stand on its own and will not be tied to an exist

[[Page 7247]]

    ing program. The subject matter of the bill relates to all 
    environmental classes, and therefore its enactment as an amendment 
    to this act is not appropriate and should be changed.
        The second important amendment has to do with the question of 
    Senate confirmation. Requirements for Senate confirmation of 
    members of the Council is deleted by my amendment. I see no reason 
    for Senate confirmation of a Presidential council of this nature. 
    In fact, I think it dilutes the importance of the council. I think 
    it means, if you take it as I read it, that this House is giving 
    the Senate in the membership of the proposed council a great deal 
    of its own prerogative in the establishment of the Council itself.
        The amendments were agreed to. . . .

            Amendment offered by Mr. (Emilio Q.) Daddario (of 
        Connecticut): On page 1, strike lines 3 through 6 and insert 
        the following:
            ``That (a) This Act may be cited as The Environmental 
        Quality and Productivity Act of 1969.
            Sec. (b)(1). The Congress, recognizing that man depends on 
        his biological and physical surroundings for food, shelter, and 
        other needs . . . and recognizing further the profound 
        influences of population growth, high-density urbanization, 
        industrial expansion, resource exploitation, and new and 
        expanding technological advances . . . on the quality of life 
        available to the American people; hereby declares that it is 
        the continuing policy . . . of the Federal Government to use 
        all practicable means, consistent with other essential 
        considerations of national policy, to improve and coordinate 
        Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end 
        that the Nation may--
            ``(A) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as 
        trustee of the environment for succeeding generations;
            ``(B) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, 
        and estheti cally and culturally pleasing surroundings; . . .
            ``(E) achieve a balance between population and resource use 
        which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing 
        of life's amenities; and
            ``(F) enhance the quality of renewable resources and 
        approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable 
        resources. . . .
            ``Sec. (c) The Congress authorizes and directs that the 
        policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States, to 
        the fullest extent possible, be interpreted and administered in 
        accordance with the policies set forth in this Act, and that 
        all agencies of the Federal Government--
            ``(1) utilize to the fullest extent possible a systematic, 
        interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use 
        of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design 
        arts in planning and in decision-making. . . .
            ``(3) include in every recommendation or report on 
        proposals for legislation and other Federal actions 
        significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a 
        finding by the responsible official that--
            ``(A) the environmental impact of the proposed action has 
        been studied and considered. . . .

                             conforming amendments

            On page 2, line 13, strike out `` `(b)'' and insert ``2''.
            On page 3, line 1, strike out `` `(c)(1)'' and insert 
        ``3A''. . . .
            On page 4, line 1, strike out `` `(B)'' and insert 
        ``(ii)''.
            On page 4, line 10, strike out `` `(C)'' and insert 
        ``(iii)''.

[[Page 7248]]

            On page 4, line 17, strike out `` `(D)'' and insert 
        ``(iv)''.
            On page 4, line 21, strike out `` `(E)' and insert ``(v)''.
            On page 4, line 24, strike out `` `(4)'' and insert 
        ``(D)''. . . .
            On page 5, after line 19, insert new sections f, g, and h, 
        as follows:
            ``Sec. f. The annual reports submitted to the Congress 
        pursuant to section 2 of this Act shall be referred by the 
        Speaker to each standing committee of the House of 
        Representatives that has jurisdiction over any part of the 
        subject matter of the reports. . . .
            ``Sec. h. There are authorized to be appropriated to carry 
        out the provisions of this Act not to exceed $300,000 for 
        fiscal year 1970, $500,000 for fiscal year 1971, and $1,000,000 
        for each fiscal year thereafter.''

        Mr. Aspinall: After the bill has been perfected by the so-
    called Aspinall amendment, the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Connecticut is offered as an amendment to that amendment as 
    such, after it has been adopted by the House.
        If the amendment were offered as a substitute, then I could not 
    object to it, so far as that is concerned. But I object to it as 
    purely an amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) . . . The Chair upholds the point 
    of order of the gentleman from Colorado that the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Connecticut attempts to amend an amendment already 
    agreed to and is not in order. The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Richard D. McCarthy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Had it not been for the conflict between 
the conforming amendments, the Chair might have permitted the Daddario 
motion to strike out and insert, since it struck out more than the 
words previously stricken by the Aspinall amendment.