[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[F. Effect of Consideration or Adoption; Changes After Adoption]
[Â§ 31. Adoption of Motion To Strike Out; To Strike Out and Insert]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 7248-7265]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
     F. EFFECT OF CONSIDERATION OR ADOPTION; CHANGES AFTER ADOPTION
 
Sec. 31. Adoption of Motion To Strike Out; To Strike Out and Insert

Adoption of Amendment Striking Out Section as Vitiating Prior Adoption 
    of Perfecting Amendments to Section

Sec. 31.1 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,(19) during consideration of a bill 
(20) in the Committee of the Whole, a perfecting amendment 
had been adopted. Pending was a motion to strike the section carrying 
the perfected text. The Chair responded to parliamentary inquiries, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 30772, 30773, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. H.R. 8630, Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

[[Page 7249]]

        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 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.

--Perfecting Amendments Not Reported to House

Sec. 31.2 Adoption by the Committee of the Whole of an amendment 
    striking out a section of a bill vitiates the Committee's prior 
    adoption of perfecting amendments to that section, and only the 
    motion to strike out is reported to the House.

    On Feb. 5, 1974,(2) during consideration in the House of 
a bill (3) reported back from the Committee of the Whole, 
the Speaker responded to a parliamentary inquiry as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 120 Cong. Rec. 2078, 2079, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. H.R. 11221, amending the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Matsunaga, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, 
    having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 11221) to provide 
    full deposit insurance for public units and to increase deposit 
    insurance from $20,000 to $50,000, pursuant to House Resolution 
    794, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment 
    adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker: (4) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Robert G.] Stephens [Jr., of Georgia]: Which amendment are 
    we voting on, Mr. Speaker? The amendment adopted in the Committee 
    of the Whole?

[[Page 7250]]

        The Speaker: The amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
    Whole.
        Without objection, the Clerk will read the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment: Strike out section 1 of the bill. . . .

        Mr. [Lawrence G.] Williams [of Pennsylvania]: While the bill 
    was under consideration, under section 1 an amendment was adopted 
    which was offered by Mr. Stephens of Georgia. At a later time an 
    amendment was offered by Mr. Wylie to section 1 to strike section 
    1. If the amendment offered by Mr. Wylie in the Committee of the 
    Whole is now defeated in the Whole House, does not that continue 
    Mr. Stephens' amendment in the bill.

        The Speaker: The answer is ``no.'' If the Wylie amendment is 
    defeated, the House will have before it the bill as reported by the 
    committee, without any amendment to section 1. . . .
        The Chair wishes to make clear the parliamentary situation. 
    Several amendments were adopted to section 1. Subsequently an 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wylie) striking 
    section 1 was adopted. That is the only amendment reported to the 
    House, the amendment striking section 1.

Sec. 31.3 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 
reported 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?

[[Page 7251]]

        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 before 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 privi

[[Page 7252]]

leged 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.

Inserting Language Similar or Identical to Stricken Language

Sec. 31.4 It is not in order to insert by amendment language identical 
    to that previously stricken out by amendment.

    On Mar. 14, 1940,(8) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 86 Cong. Rec. 2904, 2905, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 7079, relating to appointment of additional district 
        and circuit judges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: 
    Page 2, line 3, after ``New York'', insert ``and one who shall be a 
    district judge for the northern and southern districts of 
    Florida.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that that particular language has already been stricken 
    out of the bill by action of the committee. . . .
        The Chairman: (9) . . . The Committee of the Whole 
    acted on a committee amendment striking out this identical 
    language; therefore, the point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Richard M. Duncan (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.5 It is in order to insert by amendment language similar, but 
    not identical, to that previously stricken out by amendment.

    On Mar. 14, 1940,(10) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 86 Cong. Rec. 2907, 2908, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 7079, relating to appointment of additional district 
        and circuit judges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: 
    Page 1, line 10, before the word ``one'' insert ``one for the 
    northern and southern districts of Florida.''. . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: That has already been voted 
    upon by the Committee and has been stricken from the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair believes that while 
    there is some similarity, there is sufficient difference to justify 
    submission of the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Richard M. Duncan (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.6 While it is not in order to reinsert precise language

[[Page 7253]]

    stricken by amendment, an amendment similar but not identical to 
    the stricken language may be offered if germane to the pending 
    portion of the bill, and the Chair will not rule on the propriety 
    of such an amendment prior to its being offered.

    On July 23, 1975,(12) during consideration of a bill 
(13) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair 
(14) responded to a parliamentary inquiry as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 121 Cong. Rec. 24386, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H.R. 7014, Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975.
14. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, if the Wilson amendment is adopted 
    and the section is stricken from the bill and we rise, can we come 
    back tomorrow and put a similar section back in the bill with 
    different numbers, or under the rules could we not replace that 
    section at all?
        The Chairman: The Chair will have to tell the gentleman that 
    the Chair can only determine germaneness after examination of the 
    proposal. Therefore, the Chair cannot say whether or not any 
    proposals that were offered would be in order, but an amendment 
    different from the text stricken could be in order if germane. The 
    Chair simply cannot state what proposal.
        Mr. McCormack: So a proposal could be in order that would put 
    in a new price formula tomorrow, even if the Wilson amendment were 
    passed today?
        The Chairman: The Chair finds it extraordinarily difficult to 
    anticipate anything, but the Chair can conceive of a circumstance 
    in which that would be true.

Sec. 31.7 While it is not in order to perfect language which has been 
    stricken, an amendment may be offered to insert new language which 
    is germane to the bill and not identical to the language stricken.

    On Sept. 2, 1976,(15) during consideration of H.R. 13636 
(extension of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration Act), and 
following the adoption of an amendment striking certain language in the 
bill, an amendment was offered by Mrs. Millicent Fenwick, of New 
Jersey, to strike certain words from the portion of the bill that had 
been deleted. She stated her intention to be to restore the language of 
the bill with only certain words, as indicated, stricken. A 
parliamentary inquiry was made by Mr. Robert McClory, of Illinois:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 122 Cong. Rec. 28941, 28942, 28958, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McClory: . . . I made my parliamentary inquiry as to 
    whether or

[[Page 7254]]

    not it was appropriate to reinsert language which had already been 
    deleted.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair will state that 
    language which has been stricken cannot be inserted; but other 
    language can be inserted that is germane to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Benjamin S. Rosenthal (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.8 While it is not in order to offer an amendment to a pending 
    amendment to insert language identical to language which has been 
    stricken from the amendment, any change in substance in the words 
    sought to be inserted allows the amendment to be offered, such as 
    the change of the word ``shall'' to the word ``may.''

    On Apr. 9, 1979,(17) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 3324,(18) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 125 Cong. Rec. 7761, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. The International Development Cooperation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
amendment to the amendment, as amended.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rousselot to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Bauman, as amended: Immediately after the last sentence 
        of subsection (a) of section 533 of the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Bauman, as amended, add the following:
            (b) In furtherance of the purposes of this section and the 
        foreign policy objectives of the United States the President 
        may appoint a team of impartial observers to observe elections 
        in southern Africa. . . .
            (c) of the amounts authorized to be appropriated to carry 
        out the purposes of this section, $20,000,000 may be made 
        available to the government of Zimbabwe/Rhodesia which is 
        installed in that nation as a result of the election held in 
        April 1979, which election may be evaluated and reported upon 
        by observers as provided for in this section. . . .

        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment just offered by the gentleman 
    from California is out of order on the ground that it is virtually 
    identical to the amendment which was just overwhelmingly rejected 
    by the House, in that it does provide for $20 million in foreign 
    aid to Rhodesia for these observers. It is essentially identical to 
    the amendment we just rejected and, therefore, it should be ruled 
    out of order.

        The Chairman: (19) Does the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Rousselot) desire to be heard on the point of 
    order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rousselot: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have made some changes and 
    substituted the word ``may'' for ``shall.'' It is a substantive 
    change, and I believe it is in order on the basis of the way I have 
    submitted it.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?

[[Page 7255]]

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Only to point out that 
    the previous language was mandatory. The previous language in the 
    amendment voted down was mandatory insofar as the allocation of 
    funds, and in this case it is totally discretionary, a fundamental 
    change in the character of the amendment. Therefore, I do not think 
    the point of order is well taken. . . .
        The Chairman: Is there any further discussion on the point of 
    order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair has compared the language in the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot) to the language just 
    stricken from the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland 
    (Mr. Bauman) as a result of the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from New York. The rule is that identical or substantially 
    identical language cannot be inserted after an amendment striking 
    substantially identical language has been adopted.
        In reading the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California, the Chair notes certain changes in language which the 
    Chair does not believe to be substantial in nature; however, in 
    section (c) which is added by the amendment, the change of the word 
    ``shall'' to the word ``may'' appears to the Chair to be a change 
    of substance, a material change in the substance of the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from California, different from that which 
    appeared in the original text of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Maryland.
        Consequently, it is the opinion of the Chair that it is in 
    order for the amendment to be offered and the point of order is 
    overruled.

Amendment Inserting Language in Stricken Paragraph

Sec. 31.9 Where an amendment has been adopted striking out language in 
    a bill, a perfecting amendment to the language already stricken out 
    comes too late and is not in order.

    The Chair in this instance held that, where the Committee of the 
Whole has adopted an amendment striking out several consecutive 
paragraphs in a bill, an amendment proposing to insert language in a 
paragraph which has been stricken comes too late and is not in the 
proper form.
    On July 16, 1973, during consideration of a bill 20 to 
amend and extend the Agricultural Act of 1970, the following amendment 
(1) as agreed to.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 8860.
 1. See 119 Cong. Rec. 23970, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. Id. at p. 23972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. (Bob) Bergland [of Minnesota]: Page 
    27, line 4, strike out on page 27 all of line 4 and the remainder 
    through page 36 line 15. . . .

    Subsequently, an amendment was offered, as follows: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 23983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Page 32, 
    imme

[[Page 7256]]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    diately after line 22, insert the following new paragraph: . . .

The following exchange then took place: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 23984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles M.] Teague [of California]: Mr. Chairman, am I not 
    correct that this amendment comes within the section which was 
    stricken from the bill? . . .
        The Chairman: (5) . . . [T]he amendment does go to 
    the portion of text which has been stricken and is not in order in 
    the form offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Offered To Perfect Language That Had Been Stricken; No Point 
    of Order Made

Sec. 31.10 It is not in order to propose an amendment to perfect 
    language in a bill which has been previously stricken by amendment, 
    but where no point of order was made the Chair put the question on 
    the amendment even though its adoption would have no effect.

    On Sept. 2, 1976,(6) during consideration of a bill 
(7) in the Committee of the Whole, an amendment to 
previously stricken language was pending, which resulted in several 
parliamentary inquiries being directed to the Chair. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 122 Cong. Rec. 28939, 28941, 28942, 28957, 28958, 94th Cong. 2d 
        Sess.
 7. H.R. 13636, Extension of the Law Enforcement Assistance 
        Administration Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wiggins: On page 16, line 2, 
        strike ``(a)'' and on lines 10 through 24, and on page 17, 
        lines 1 through 5, strike the whole of section 108 (b) and (c).

        The Chairman: (8) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Wiggins). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Benjamin S. Rosenthal (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [T]he amendment was agreed to.  . . .
        Mrs. [Millicent] Fenwick [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick: On page 16, line 16, 
        strike ``and'' following ``physical'' and on page 16, line 17, 
        strike out ``services'' and on page 17, line 3, following 
        ``physical'' strike out ``and services''. . . .

        Mr. [Charles E.] Wiggins [of California]: . . . [T]he 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey is offering to amend a section of the 
    bill which has been deleted by an earlier amendment.
        If, in fact, that is the amendment, it is rather late for me to 
    make a point of order with respect to it, but we are amending 
    something which is not in the bill to be amended.
        The Chairman: The Chair has examined the Wiggins amendment,

[[Page 7257]]

    which struck out, on page 16, lines 10 to 24, down through line 5 
    on page 17. For that reason, in response to the gentleman's 
    parliamentary inquiry, the gentlewoman's amendment would have no 
    effect.
        Mrs. Fenwick: Mr. Chairman, I should have included in my 
    amendment the restoration of the original phraseology, omitting 
    only those three or four words.
        The Chairman: Would the gentlewoman perhaps seek unanimous 
    consent to withdraw her amendment, and at her leisure and 
    prerogative redraft the amendment consistent with the situation the 
    bill is in as of now?
        Mrs. Fenwick: Mr. Chairman, I do so.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey? . . .
        Mr. [Robert] McClory [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I object. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick). . . .
        Mr. Wiggins: Mr. Chairman, if I understood the Chairman's 
    ruling on the previous parliamentary inquiry, there is nothing to 
    be amended and we are voting on nothing.
        The Chairman: In respect to the gentleman's very thoughtful 
    parliamentary inquiry, the Chair has previously stated that the 
    amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey would in fact 
    be null and void. But under the parliamentary situation and the 
    objection of the gentleman from Illinois, the Chair has no choice 
    but to put the question on the amendment, and the members of the 
    Committee will make such decision as they deem appropriate under 
    these circumstances. . . .
        Mr. McClory: Mr. Chairman, did I understand accurately the 
    request of the gentlewoman, that she wanted to reinsert the 
    language except for these words?
        The Chairman: The gentlewoman's request was to withdraw the 
    amendment and she would offer another amendment, which is her total 
    prerogative.
        Mr. McClory: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the 
    gentlewoman withdrawing the amendment.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey?
        Mr. [James R.] Mann [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I object 
    to the unanimous consent request.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
    from New Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick).
        The question was taken; and the Chairman being in doubt, the 
    Committee divided, and there were--ayes 23, noes 20.
        So the amendment was agreed to.

Adoption of Motion To Strike and Insert as Precluding Vote on Pending 
    Motion To Strike

Sec. 31.11 If an amendment to strike out a section or paragraph and 
    insert new language is agreed to, and is coextensive with a pending 
    amendment proposing to

[[Page 7258]]

    strike out the section or paragraph, such motion to strike falls 
    and is not voted on.

    On Sept. 15, 1970,(9) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 116 Cong. Rec. 31840, 31845, 31846, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 17654.
            For further discussion of circumstances in which a vote may 
        or may not be taken on a pending motion to strike following 
        adoption of a perfecting amendment, see Sec. Sec. 16 and 30, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Sam M.] Gibbons [of Florida]: On page 
    41 strike all of section 120, lines 1 through 23, inclusive. . . .

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: On 
    page 41, strike out line 1 through line 23 and insert the 
    following:

            Motions in the House to Dispose of Nongermane Amendments 
        Between the Two Houses to House or Senate Bills or Resolutions. 
        . . .

        [The O'Hara amendment was agreed to.]
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. Have we voted on the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons)?
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair would like to inform 
    the gentleman from Missouri that since the amendment to strike and 
    insert of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara) was adopted, 
    that means that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
    (Mr. Gibbons) the motion to strike, that is, falls as a result of 
    the adoption of the first amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, on July 12, 1951, the Chair indicated that, if a motion 
to strike out a paragraph and insert new language is agreed to, a 
pending amendment proposing to strike out the paragraph falls and is 
not voted upon. On that date, a bill (11) was under 
consideration to amend the Defense Production Act of 1950. An amendment 
was offered as follows: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 3871.
12. 97 Cong Rec. 8073, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Howard H.] Buffett [of Nebraska]: 
    Page 8, line 25, strike out all of subsection (e). . . .

A further amendment was offered: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 8077.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan] as a 
    substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Buffett: Page 8, line 
    25, strike out subsection (e) and insert in lieu thereof the 
    following:  . . .

The following proceedings then took place:

        Mr. [Jacob K.] Javits [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment perfecting the language sought to be stricken by the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Buffett) . . 
    .
        Amendment offered by Mr. Javits: On page 9, line 1, after the 
    word ``de

[[Page 7259]]

    fense'', insert ``and upon the certification of the Director of 
    Defense Mobilization that it is required for the national defense 
    and is not otherwise obtainable.''14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 8084.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (15) . . . Under the rules the 
    perfecting amendment will be voted upon first; the motion to strike 
    out and insert will be voted upon next; and, should the amendment 
    by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Wolcott) be adopted, the motion 
    made by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Buffett) would 
    fall.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
16. 97 Cong. Rec. 8090, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adoption of Amendment To Strike Out and Insert as Precluding Motion To 
    Strike Same Text

Sec. 31.12 The adoption of an amendment to strike out a subsection of a 
    bill and insert new provisions would preclude the offering of an 
    amendment to strike out that subsection.

    On Dec. 17, 1970,(17) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 42228, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 19446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: May I inquire of the 
    Chair as to whether or not, if the Mink amendment presently before 
    the committee is adopted an amendment would be in order to strike 
    that section?
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman that the Mink amendment proposes to strike subsection (c) 
    and insert new language. If that amendment is adopted it would not 
    then be in order to strike subsection (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. James C. Corman (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.13 Adoption of an amendment striking out certain words and 
    inserting new text precludes the offering of a subsequent motion to 
    strike out that text.

    On July 25, 1974,(19) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill,(20) the Chair advised that a 
motion to strike out a title, as described above, was not in order. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 120 Cong. Rec. 25240, 25241, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
20. H.R. 11500, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Udall to the committee amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute: Strike page 268, line 19, 
        through page 271, line 24, and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following:
            Sec. 601. (a) With respect to Federal lands within any 
        State, the Secretary of Interior may, and if so requested by 
        the Governor of such State, shall review any area within

[[Page 7260]]

        such lands to assess whether it may be unsuitable for mining 
        operations. . . .

        The Chairman: (21) . . . The question is on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall) to the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute was agreed to.
        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I now offer 
    my amendment to delete title VI.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from 
    California that the entire title has been amended by the Udall 
    amendment and at this point an amendment to strike the title would 
    not be in order.

Adoption of Amendment To Strike Out and Insert as Precluding Further 
    Amendment

Sec. 31.14 When an amendment striking out certain language and 
    inserting other provisions has been adopted, it is not in order to 
    further amend the provisions so inserted.

    On Mar. 16, 1960,(1) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 106 Cong. Rec. 5755, 5762, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 8601.
            See also 107 Cong. Rec. 11093-98, 11100-03, 87th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., June 22, 1961; and 107 Cong. Rec. 8117, 8120, 87th Cong. 
        1st Sess., May 16, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George] Meader [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, as I 
    understand the situation, we are now considering the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara), which strikes 
    out certain language on pages 5 and 6 which relates to provisional 
    voting. If the O'Hara amendment is adopted, would it be in order to 
    strike out the language just approved by the committee or would 
    that be the end of any consideration of the provisions relating to 
    provisional voting.
        The Chairman: (2) In reply to the parliamentary 
    inquiry of the gentleman, the Chair will state that the so-called 
    O'Hara amendment to the substitute amendment, as the Chair 
    understands it, does strike out the language which the gentleman 
    has just mentioned and inserts other language, therefore, if the 
    amendment is agreed to the amendment cannot be further amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Similarly, on Feb. 7, 1964,(3) the 
    Chairman,(4) responding to inquiries by Mr. James 
    Roosevelt, of California, indicated that, if a motion to strike out 
    all after the first word of text and insert a new provision is 
    agreed to, the language thus inserted cannot thereafter be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 110 Cong. Rec. 2489, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7152.
 4. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Even Where Title Is Open to Amendment at Any Point

Sec. 31.15 Where an amendment striking out a section and in

[[Page 7261]]

    serting new language has been adopted, it is not in order to 
    propose a further amendment to that section; thus, it is not in 
    order to further amend a section which has been amended in its 
    entirety, even where the title containing that section is open to 
    amendment at any point pursuant to a special rule providing for 
    reading for amendment by titles.

    On July 18, 1974,(5) during consideration of a bill in 
the Committee of the Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 120 Cong. Rec. 24108, 24109, 24113, 24114, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 11500, Surface Mining Control and 
        Reclamation Act of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hosmer to the committee amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute: Page 142, line 3. Strike out 
        ``Sec. 101.; and insert a ``Sec. 101.'' to read as follows:
            Sec. 101. The Congress finds that--
            (a) the extraction of coal by underground and surface 
        mining from the earth is a significant and essential activity 
        which contributes to the economic, social, and material well-
        being of the Nation. . . .

        The Chairman: (6) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hosmer) to the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Are there further amendments to title I?
        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Symms: On page 143, following line 
        11, add a new subsection (f), as follows:
            Every resident of the United States of America has a right 
        to the benefit of full production. . . .

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that this is an amendment to 
    section 101 in title I, which has already been amended in its 
    entirety, and therefore the amendment is not in order. . . .
        Mr. [William M.] Ketchum [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        . . . I do not recall, but I believe I have been here the whole 
    time, and I do not recall when the bill was originally read that it 
    was going to be read section by section. I had understood it was to 
    be read title by title, and we could amend it at any point at that 
    time.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the bill is being read 
    title by title.
        Mr. Ketchum: Then why, Mr. Chairman, may I ask, is the 
    gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Symms) not able to offer his amendment to 
    section 101.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that that is because section 
    101 of title I has been amended in its entirety, and therefore a 
    further amendment to that section would not be in order.

[[Page 7262]]

--Where Proposed Amendments Have Been Printed in Record

Sec. 31.16 Adoption of an amendment, as amended, which changes an 
    entire section precludes further amendments to that section, even 
    where such amendments have been printed in the Record pursuant to 
    the rule (7) which guarantees 10 minutes of debate on 
    amendments printed one calendar day in advance of floor 
    consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Rule XXIII clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 874 (101st Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 22, 1974,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill (9) the Chair responded to 
several parliamentary inquiries as to the effect of the adoption of an 
amendment, as described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 120 Cong. Rec. 24459, 24460, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. H.R. 11500, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on the pending Hosmer amendment and the Mink substitute 
    for that amendment and all perfecting amendments to either close at 
    40 minutes past 4 o'clock. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object for 
    the purpose of making a parliamentary inquiry, as I understand 
    there are a number of us who do have amendments to the bill itself 
    or which are appropriate to the substitute amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from Hawaii or the gentleman from California.

        Now, what is the ruling of the Chair with regard to the 
    limitation of time on section 201? Are those amendments published 
    in the Record foreclosed from the 5-minute rule by reason of the 
    debate here, or foreclosed by expiration of the time under the 
    clock, if the time does expire from even offering an amendment?
        The Chairman: If section 201 of the bill is later open to 
    amendment due to adverse disposition of the Mink substitute and the 
    Hosmer amendment, then those rights would obtain; but those rights 
    would be foreclosed if no further amendments to section 201 were in 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: The provisions of the rule relating to 5 minutes 
    of time for a Member where he has published his amendment in the 
    Record in appropriate fashion will not be protected if either the 
    Mink amendment or the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Hosmer is 
    adopted; am I correct?
        The Chairman: If the substitute is adopted to the Hosmer 
    amendment and then the Hosmer amendment as amended by the 
    substitute is adopted, further amendments to section 201 could not 
    be offered. Therefore, there would be no further amendments 
    appropriate. . . .

[[Page 7263]]

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, is it not true 
    that if, under the gentleman's motion, an amendment--I am now 
    giving a hypothetical situation--the Mink substitute for that 
    portion of the Hosmer amendment were to prevail, and the Hosmer 
    amendment would be defeated, is it not true that the rest of that 
    section which the Mink substitute does not pertain to would be 
    proper to amend at any point?
        The Chairman: If the entire section has been amended, further 
    amendments to that section would not be in order.
        Mr. Hays: Not if the Hosmer substitute were defeated, it would 
    not be true, would it? Just to section 201?
        The Chairman: If the Mink substitute is adopted, the vote would 
    then recur on the Hosmer amendment since it is a substitute for the 
    entire amendment. If the Hosmer amendment were then adopted, 
    section 201 would not be open to amendment.

--Amendment to Substitute as Precluding Further Amendment to Substitute 
    .

Sec. 31.17 A substitute amendment having been amended by striking out 
    certain language therein and inserting a new provision, the portion 
    of the substitute which is so altered cannot be further amended.

    On Mar. 15, 1960,(11) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 106 Cong. Rec. 5644, 5645, 5655, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 8601.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert W.] Kastenmeier [of 
        Wisconsin]: On page 1, line 8 of the McCulloch substitute, 
        before the word ``In'', insert ``(e)(1)(A)'' and on page 1 of 
        the McCulloch substitute strike out ``that any person has been 
        deprived'' on line 9 and all that follows down through the last 
        page of such substitute, and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following: . . .

        Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]: If the Kastenmeier 
    amendment prevails, would it then become subject to amendment?
        The Chairman: (12) No; the Kastenmeier amendment is 
    an amendment to the pending substitute for the amendment provided 
    under the rule and it would not be subject to amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subsequent Amendment Enlarging Scope of Changes Made by First Amendment

Sec. 31.18 Although it is not in order to propose an amendment changing 
    the precise language of an amendment already agreed to, the 
    adoption of a ``perfecting'' amendment to strike out and insert 
    does not preclude the offering of another amendment to strike out 
    and insert which goes beyond the changes made by the first 
    amendment.

[[Page 7264]]

    On June 29, 1972,(13) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 118 Cong. Rec. 23406-08, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 15692.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 3, at the beginning of lines 12, 
        16, and 23, and on page 4, at the beginning of lines 5 and 9, 
        insert quotation marks; and on page 4, at the end of line 10, 
        strike out the quotation marks.

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

            Committee amendment: Page 4, line 3, insert ``a bona fide'' 
        immediately after ``and''.

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

            Committee amendment: Page 4, line 13, strike out ``, if 
        any,''.

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. (William A.) Barrett (of 
        Pennsylvania): Page 4, line 6, strike out ``, at the option of 
        the loan applicant.''
            Page 4, strike out lines 9 through 16 and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following: ``rehabilitation, or replacement cancel 
        the principal of the loan, except that the total amount so 
        canceled shall not exceed $2,500, and make the balance of such 
        loan, if any, at an interest rate of 1 per centum per annum''. 
        . . .

        Mr. [Thomas M.] Rees [of California]: The gentleman is offering 
    an amendment to an area that has already been approved. The 
    committee has already approved the language on page 4.
        The Chairman: (14) The amendment that is now being 
    offered goes beyond the committee amendment which has been 
    considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. B.F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.19 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair indicated 
    that adoption of an amendment striking out a paragraph and 
    inserting new language would eliminate a perfecting amendment 
    already adopted to that paragraph.

    On Mar. 21, 1975,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill,(16) the proceedings, 
described above, occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 7950, 7952, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. H.R. 4485, the Emergency Middle-Income Housing Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Millicent] Fenwick [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I am 
    not sure but that I have let the time go by, but I offer an 
    amendment.
        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

[[Page 7265]]

        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: (17) The Chair will treat this 
    amendment as a perfecting amendment to the paragraph of the bill 
    and it will be voted on first. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 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 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.