[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[F. Effect of Consideration or Adoption; Changes After Adoption]
[Â§ 32. Amendments in Nature of Substitute; Substitute Amendments]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 7265-7289]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
     F. EFFECT OF CONSIDERATION OR ADOPTION; CHANGES AFTER ADOPTION
 
Sec. 32. Amendments in Nature of Substitute; Substitute Amendments

Adoption of Amendment in Nature of Substitute, Generally

Sec. 32.1 Where an amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed 
    to, further amendment is not in order.

    The principle stated above was the basis of the following 
proceeding which occurred on Mar. 26, 1985,(18) during 
consideration of House Resolution 100 (19) in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 131 Cong. Rec. 6274, 6275, 99th Cong. 1st Sess. The principle has 
        often been relied upon. As a further example, see, in addition 
        to the precedents that follow, the proceedings of Aug. 7, 1964, 
        at 110 Cong. Rec. 18608, 18609, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Providing investigative funds for House committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph M.] Gaydos [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of

[[Page 7266]]

    the Committee on House Administration, I call up a privileged 
    resolution (H. Res. 100) providing amounts from the contingent fund 
    of the House for expenses of investigations and studies by standing 
    and select committees of the House in the 1st session of the 99th 
    Congress, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 100

            Resolved, That there shall be paid out of the contingent 
        fund of the House in accordance with this primary expense 
        resolution not more than the amount specified in section 2 for 
        investigations and studies by each committee named in such 
        section, including expenses--
            (1) in the case of a committee named in section 3, for 
        procurement of consultant services under section 202(i) of the 
        Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. . . .

        The Speaker: (20) The Clerk will report the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute: Strike 
        out all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu thereof:

        That there shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the 
    House in accordance with the primary expense resolution not more 
    than the amount specified in section 2 for investigations and 
    studies. . . .
        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, if 
    the procedure that is being talked about here now is adopted, does 
    that have the effect of precluding the offering of an amendment to 
    the resolution so as to establish a freeze of this funding?
        The Speaker: The Chair would answer in the affirmative, that if 
    the amendment offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    prevails, no further amendment is in order.

Sec. 32.2 Where an amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill 
    has been agreed to, further amendments are not in order.

    On Nov. 7, 1975,(1) during consideration of a bill 
(2) in the Committee of the Whole, objection was raised to 
the offering of an amendment and the Chair ruled as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 35528, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. H.R. 6346, Rural Development Act Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken: and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Sebelius) there were--ayes 38, noes 33.
        So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. [Charles] Rose [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an additional brief amendment.
        Mr. [Keith G.] Sebelius [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair will state that no 
    further amendments are in order. The amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute has been adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Tom Bevill (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the rule, the Committee rises.

[[Page 7267]]

Effect on Amendments Printed in Record

Sec. 32.3 Where debate has been closed on a pending amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute and all amendments thereto, adoption of that 
    amendment would cause the stage of amendment to be passed and 
    amendments, even though printed in the Record, could not thereafter 
    be offered to the bill.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(4) during consideration of a bill 
(5) in the Committee of the Whole, an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute was offered and the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 11491, 11499, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. H.R. 6096, Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Edgar: Strike out everything after the enacting clause and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:
            That this Act may be cited as the ``Vietnam Humanitarian 
        Assistance and Evacuation Act of 1975.''
            Sec. 2. The President is directed to evacuate from South 
        Vietnam within ten days of the enactment of this Act the 
        following categories of persons:
            (1) United States citizens;
            (2) dependents of United States citizens and of permanent 
        residents of the United States; and
            (3) Vietnamese nationals eligible for immigration to the 
        United States by reason of their relationships to United States 
        citizens. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on this substitute amendment and all amendments 
    thereto close at 4 p.m.
        The Chairman: (6) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania would 
    preclude many of us from offering amendments which had heretofore 
    been dropped into the hopper and printed in today's Record in 
    compliance with the rules, will we be granted the set-aside 5 
    minutes to present our amendments inasmuch as the substitute 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Edgar) 
    would extinguish our right to offer an amendment at that point?
        The Chairman: If the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Edgar) is agreed 
    to, the stage of amendment would have been passed and no further 
    amendments would be in order to the bill.

Effect on Amendment Made in Order by Special Rule

Sec. 32.4 A resolution reported from the Committee on Rules

[[Page 7268]]

    which merely makes in order the consideration of a particular 
    amendment (in the nature of a substitute) but does not waive points 
    of order or otherwise confer a privileged status upon the amendment 
    does not, in the absence of legislative history establishing a 
    contrary intent by that committee, alter the principles that 
    recognition to offer an amendment under the five-minute rule is 
    within the discretion of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    and that adoption of one amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    precludes the offering of another.

    On May 23, 1978,(7) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Resolution 1188,(8) the above-
stated proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 124 Cong. Rec. 15094-96, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. Providing for consideration of H.R. 10929, Department of Defense 
        Authorization for Fiscal Year 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 1188

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 39). . . . It shall be in order to consider the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
    Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill as an original 
    bill for the purposes of amendment, said substitute shall be read 
    for amendment by titles instead of by sections and all points of 
    order against said substitute for failure to comply with the 
    provisions of clause 5, rule XXI and clause 7, rule XVI, are hereby 
    waived, except that it shall be in order when consideration of said 
    substitute begins to make a point of order that section 805 of said 
    substitute would be in violation of clause 7, rule XVI if offered 
    as a separate amendment to H.R. 10929 as introduced. If such point 
    of order is sustained, it shall be in order to consider said 
    substitute without section 805 included therein as an original bill 
    for the purpose of amendment, said substitute shall be read for 
    amendment by titles instead of by sections and all points of order 
    against said substitute for failure to comply with the provisions 
    of clause 7, rule XVI and clause 5, rule XXI are hereby waived. It 
    shall be in order to consider the amendment printed in the 
    Congressional Record of May 17, 1978, by Representative Carr if 
    offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
    Committee on Armed Services. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) . . . The . . . rule 
    requested makes in order the substitute of Representative Carr 
    printed in the Congressional Record of May 17, 1978. Under the open 
    rule,

[[Page 7269]]

    Mr. Carr would already be entitled to offer his amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute. Although this provision in the rule does 
    not give Mr. Carr special or preferred status under the rule, it 
    does indicate the Rules Committee's desire to have all the diverse 
    viewpoints on the DOD legislation available for consideration by 
    the House. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I would like 
    to put a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair regarding the language 
    on page 2 of the rule, line 24, through line 4 on page 3. It 
    appears to me that the making in order of the offering of a 
    substitute to the committee amendment by the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Carr) is nothing more than an expression of the right 
    of any Member of the House to offer such amendment at any time in 
    the Committee of the Whole. My question to the Chair is whether or 
    not the appearance of this language in the rule in any way changes 
    the right of the Chair to recognize members of the committee in 
    order of seniority at the Chair's discretion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The recognition will be a matter for 
    the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House to determine. . . 
    .
        Mr. Bauman: My specific question, Mr. Speaker, was whether or 
    not this varies the precedents regarding recognition and confers 
    upon the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Carr) some special status as 
    opposed to the Chair's recognizing other members of the Committee 
    on Armed Services handling the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It would still be up to the Chairman 
    of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union to 
    determine the priorities of recognition. . . .
        Let the Chair respond by stating that the rules of the House 
    will apply and will not be abridged by reason of the adoption of 
    this rule. If another amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    should have been adopted, it would not perforce thereafter be in 
    order to offer an additional amendment, whether it be the Carr 
    amendment or any other.
        As the Chair interprets the inclusion of the language referred 
    to in the rule, it confers no special privilege upon the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute referred to as the Carr substitute. 
    It presumes and makes in order such language as an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute. Beyond that, it does not foreclose 
    consideration of any other germane language that otherwise would be 
    in order. . . .
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: . . . (I)f along the way 
    a substitute is adopted other than that offered by the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Carr) then at the end of our consideration the 
    substitute of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Carr) would not be 
    in order; is that correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair believes the gentleman from 
    Missouri (Mr. Volkmer) has correctly stated the parliamentary 
    situation, if any amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    adopted, then additional amendments would not be in order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Section 805 of the committee substitute 
related to troop withdrawals from Korea, a matter unrelated to the bill 
and beyond the jurisdiction of

[[Page 7270]]

the Armed Services Committee; the Committee on International Relations 
successfully urged the Rules Committee to render that section alone 
subject to a point of order, while protecting the consideration of the 
remainder of the substitute as original text. (Since a point of order 
against any portion of an amendment renders the entire amendment 
subject to a point of order, language was necessary in the rule to 
allow the consideration of a new amendment without the offending 
section.)

Amendment by Motion To Recommit Not Allowed

Sec. 32.5 Where the House has adopted an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, such amendment cannot be further amended by way of a 
    motion to recommit; and, in the absence of a special rule, only a 
    simple motion to recommit would be in order.

    On May 4, 1960,(10) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 106 Cong. Rec. 9416, 9417, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
            See also 108 Cong. Rec. 826, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 24, 
        1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, earlier in 
    the day I addressed a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair to which 
    response was made. The parliamentary inquiry went to the question 
    as to whether or not, as the Senate bill has been reported by the 
    committee, a motion to recommit with instructions would be in 
    order. Mr. Speaker, to further clarify the matter, the committee 
    struck out all after the enacting clause of the Senate bill and 
    substituted a complete amendment, which I take it would be offered 
    if and when the bill were to be read for consideration. Under those 
    circumstances, Mr. Speaker, and in view of the fact that what some 
    of us refer to as the administration bill, introduced by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Kilburn] is now on the calendar, the 
    parliamentary inquiry is whether or not under the rules of the 
    House a motion to recommit with instructions would be in order in 
    order that a record vote could be had on such amendment as a 
    substitute.
        The Speaker: (11) . . . On further examining the 
    rules and precedents of the House, under the situation as it 
    exists, when we go into the Committee of the Whole and the 
    amendment is adopted, and then agreed to in the House, the rules 
    are that a motion to recommit with instructions will not be in 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proceedings Vacated by Unanimous Consent To Permit Pro Forma Amendment

Sec. 32.6 Where an amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill 
    has been adopted in Committee of the Whole, the

[[Page 7271]]

    stage of amendment is passed and further amendments, including pro 
    forma amendments for debate, are not in order; but on occasion, 
    where the Committee of the Whole has adopted an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute, the Chair, by unanimous consent, has 
    vacated that section to allow a Member to offer a pro forma 
    amendment.

    On May 13, 1977,(12) the Committee of the Whole having 
agreed to an amendment in the nature of a substitute to a 
bill,(13) the Chair, by unanimous consent, vacated the 
proceedings to permit a Member to offer a pro forma amendment. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 123 Cong. Rec. 14622, 14625, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H.R. 6810, Intergovernmental Antirecession Assistance Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) Are there further amendments?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Elizabeth Holtzman (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Hearing none, the question is on the committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute, as amended.
        The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
    amended, was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the committee rises.
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Madam Chairman, I 
    was seeking recognition by the Chair.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the 
    Chair had put the question on the committee amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute. There were no further amendments and, under the 
    rule, the committee rises.
        Mr. [L. H.] Fountain [of North Carolina]): Madam Chairman, I 
    would like to say that I was standing and was prepared to make a 
    statement about an amendment which I was going to offer but can no 
    longer offer because I was not recognized.
        The Chairman: Without objection, the Chair will vacate the 
    proceedings so as to permit the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
    Fountain) to make a statement.
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Fountain) 
    is recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
        Are there further amendments? If not, the question is on the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
        The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
    amended, was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the Committee rises.

Amendment to Original Text Precluded

Sec. 32.7 An amendment to the text of a resolution comes too late when 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute for such text has 
    already been agreed to.

[[Page 7272]]

    On Mar. 22, 1967,(15) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 113 Cong. Rec. 7679-82, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.J. Res. 428.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Committee Amendment

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert the 
        following:
            ``That the Congress supports the concept of a Latin 
        American Common Market. . . .''

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. (Durward G.) Hall (of Missouri): 
        On page 6, line 18, after the period insert, ``No significant 
        additional resources contained or referred to herein shall be 
        made available to carry out the provisions of this resolution 
        until such time as the war in South Vietnam has ended.''. . .

        Mr. [Armistead I.] Selden [of Alabama]: The Committee has 
    already acted on the resolving clauses. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    Chair will point out that the Committee has already adopted the 
    resolving clause amendment to the body of the resolution and 
    consequently the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri 
    comes too late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.8 Adoption of a committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, as amended by a substitute, precludes further amendment 
    to the committee amendment and to the bill.

    On June 17, 1970,(17) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 20206, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 17070.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, it has 
    been said here on the floor by the chairman of the committee that 
    if the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright) 
    or an amendment thereto should pass, then there will be further 
    amendments introduced by the managers to the other provisions of 
    the bill that have been stricken by the Wright amendment. I 
    disagree.
        . . . I do not see how there can be any amendment to any other 
    provision of the present bill once those provisions are stricken 
    and action is taken by this House inserting the Wright amendment 
    for all the provisions after the enacting clause of the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair will state that if the 
    Wright amendment [a substitute] is adopted, then the vote would 
    recur on the committee amendment as amended by the Wright 
    amendment. If that were adopted, under the rule the Committee would 
    rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.9 Where a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
    being read for amendment as an original bill and there was pending 
    thereto an amendment in the nature of a substitute, the Chair 
    indicated that the committee amendment would

[[Page 7273]]

    not be open to further amendment upon the adoption of the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute therefor, and in that event and upon 
    adoption of the committee amendment as amended, the stage of 
    amendment would be passed.

    On May 11, 1972,(19) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 118 Cong. Rec. 16862, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7130.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: If the Erlenborn 
    amendment prevails, will the original bill then be open for 
    amendment at any point?
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair will answer the 
    gentleman. If the Erlenborn substitute as amended is adopted, the 
    vote will then occur on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, the Dent bill, so-called, as amended by the Erlenborn 
    substitute, and at the conclusion of that vote, if it is agreed to, 
    the Committee will rise and report to the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.10 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and a substitute therefor, the Chairman indicated that 
    adoption of the substitute would preclude further amendment to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.

    On July 18, 1973,(1) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 119 Cong. Rec. 24668, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.J. Res. 542.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Madam Chairman, my 
    parliamentary inquiry is this: As I understand it, there is an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute pending as offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Dennis) and there is pending the 
    substitute of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett) and that 
    there are several amendments to the Dennis substitute.
        In order to bring the others in order, the disposition of the 
    Bennett version would have to be acted upon first?
        Is that not correct?
        The Chairman: (2) Any amendments which are offered 
    to the Dennis amendment in the nature of a substitute will have to 
    be voted upon before the substitute for the Dennis amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute is voted upon. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Martha W. Griffiths (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would like to point out that if the committee votes 
    on the Bennett amendment and the Bennett amendment prevails, there 
    will be no further opportunity to amend the Dennis amendment.

Sec. 32.11 A substitute for a committee amendment having been agreed 
    to, it is too late to offer an amendment to the committee amendment 
    or to the substitute.

[[Page 7274]]

    On Nov. 28, 1941,(3) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 87 Cong. Rec. 9201, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 5990, the price control bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The substitute amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: (4) The question now is on the 
    committee amendment as amended by the substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] McIntyre [of Wyoming]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: As I understand the 
    situation, Mr. Chairman, the substitute for the committee amendment 
    has been adopted. The only amendment which would have been in order 
    was an amendment to the substitute. Inasmuch as the substitute has 
    been adopted, it is now too late to offer an amendment to the 
    committee amendment.
        The Chairman: That is correct.

Amendments to Remainder of Original Bill

Sec. 32.12 Where the Committee of the Whole adopts an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute for an entire bill, the remaining paragraphs 
    of such bill are not subject to amendment.

    On Apr. 29, 1949,(5) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 95 Cong. Rec. 5335, 5336, 5355, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 2032, the National Labor Relations Act 
        of 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, if this 
    amendment which is offered as a substitute for the Wood bill should 
    carry, is it not true that since it strikes out all after the 
    enacting clause of the Wood bill, that then there would be no 
    further amendments in order to the Wood bill?
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman is correct, if this 
    amendment should be adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point of Order Against Amendment in Nature of Substitute Containing 
    Appropriation Is in Order Following Adoption of Substitute Therefor

Sec. 32.13 Under Rule XXI clause 5, a point of order against an 
    amendment containing an appropriation can be raised ``at any time'' 
    during its pendency, even in its amended form, though the point of 
    order is against the amendment as amended by a substitute and no 
    point of order was directed against the substitute prior to its 
    adoption.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(7) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 6096,(8) a point of order was 
raised against an

[[Page 7275]]

amendment and the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 11512, 11513, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) . . . (T)he question is on the 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) to 
    the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Edgar).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it. . . .
        So the substitute amendment for the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that my substitute is not in order at this time 
    because of the Eckhardt substitute, and I reserve a point of order 
    according to rule XXI (clause 5) (10) of our rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 846a (101st Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania will have to 
    state his point of order at this time. The point of order, as the 
    Chair understands, was against the Edgar amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute, as amended by the Eckhardt substitute?
        Mr. Edgar: That is correct. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair will read clause 5 of rule XXI of 
    the 94th Congress. The Chair will state that the Chair does not 
    believe it is that which was cited by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Edgar):

            No bill or joint resolution carrying appropriations shall 
        be reported by any committee not having jurisdiction to report 
        appropriations, nor shall an amendment proposing an 
        appropriation be in order during the consideration of a bill or 
        joint resolution reported by a committee not having that 
        jurisdiction. . . .

        Is the gentleman now referring to the same language which the 
    Chair has just read?
        Mr. Edgar: We are referring to the same language which the 
    Chair has read. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I only want to 
    make it clear that I am raising the point of order that this point 
    of order is made too late. I wish to reiterate the statement that I 
    made before. The point of order is too late and, therefore, it is 
    itself not in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.

        The Chair did not read the entirety of that section. The 
    section ends

            A question of order on an appropriation in any such bill, 
        joint resolution, or amendment thereto, may be raised at any 
        time.

        Accordingly, the rule under which this legislation was 
    considered waived points of order against the original bill. It did 
    not waive points of order against the amendment. The rule does 
    provide that the point of order may be raised at any time (Deschler 
    chapter 25, section 3.2).
        The point of order is sustained. The Edgar amendment, as 
    amended, is now ruled out of order.
        The Clerk will read.

Amendment in Nature of Substitute Affecting Amendments Previously 
    Adopted

Sec. 32.14 It is in order to propose an amendment in the nature

[[Page 7276]]

    of a substitute for a bill and thereby omit amendments to the bill 
    previously agreed to by the Committee of the Whole.

    On Aug. 25, 1949,(11) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 95 Cong. Rec. 12258, 12259, 12262, 12263, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. 
        Under consideration was H.R. 6070, to amend the National 
        Housing Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment offered by Mr. [Brent] Spence [of 
        Kentucky] as [an amendment in the nature of] a substitute for 
        the bill: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert 
        the following: ``The act may be cited as the `housing 
        amendments of 1949,'. . .''

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. The amendment offered by the 
    committee for all purposes and effects reconsiders everything that 
    was passed by the Committee of the Whole on yesterday. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair will state that it can 
    be offered at any time because the entire bill is open to 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Mike Mansfield (Mont.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As to the point of order raised by the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Marcantonio], the Chair will state that he has studied the 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Kentucky, and there are 
    substantive changes in it relative to changes of dates and other 
    clerical matters.
        The Chair would like to call attention to volume VIII of 
    Cannon's Precedents, section 2905, which reads as follows:

            A substitute for an entire bill may be offered only after 
        the first paragraph has been read or after the reading of the 
        bill for amendment has been concluded.
            It is in order to propose a substitute for a section of the 
        amendment with the same section with modification, and omitting 
        amendments to the section previously agreed to by the Committee 
        of the Whole.

        On the basis of this decision, the Chair is constrained to 
    overrule the point of order.

Sec. 32.15 Where the Committee of the Whole had adopted several 
    committee amendments to a Senate bill, a substitute for the entire 
    bill similar to the Senate bill but containing corrective changes 
    was held in order.

    On Apr. 21, 1948,(13) a Senate bill relating to the 
status of women in the armed forces was under consideration. The House 
Committee on Armed Services had reported the bill with a large number 
of committee amendments, changing the bill from one providing both 
regular and reserve status for women in the service to one which 
provided only reserve status. The committee

[[Page 7277]]

amendments were agreed to. Mrs. Margaret Chase Smith, of Maine, then 
offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the entire bill, 
in effect proposing that the House adopt the Senate version. Certain 
corrective changes were included to make the bill conform with 
legislation enacted since the Senate acted on the original bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 94 Cong. Rec. 4711, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was S. 
        1641, the Women's Armed Services Reserve Bill of 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Overton Brooks, of Louisiana, made a point of order against the 
Smith amendment, stating that, since the Committee of the Whole had 
adopted the committee amendments, it had already, in effect, rejected 
the Smith proposal to adopt the Senate version. The Chairman 
(14) overruled the point of order, noting that the Smith 
amendment was different from either the Senate or House version of the 
bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Gordon Canfield (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perfecting Sections That Are Proposed To Be Stricken Under Terms of 
    Substitute

Sec. 32.16 While it is not in order to further amend an amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute for several paragraphs which has been 
    agreed to, a perfecting amendment to a paragraph of the bill 
    proposed to be stricken out (in conformity with the purpose of the 
    adopted substitute) may be offered while the motion to strike out 
    is pending, and the perfecting amendment is first voted upon.

    On June 15, 1972,(15) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See, generally, 118 Cong. Rec. 21106, 21118-22, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. 
        Under consideration was H.R. 15417.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William D.] Hathaway [of Maine]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment to the paragraph of the bill just read which is a single 
    substitute for several paragraphs of the bill dealing with the 
    Office of Education, and I hereby give notice that if the amendment 
    is agreed to I will make motions to strike out the remaining 
    paragraphs beginning with line 14 on page 19. . . .(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 21106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the amendment was agreed to. . . .(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 21118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hathaway: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the paragraph 
    beginning on line 16, page 20. . . .(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 21119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (19) Without objection, the motion is 
    agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, I would like to make a parliamentary inquiry. 
    . . .
        . . . I have an amendment at the desk which would, on page 21, 
    line 1, strike out the words after ``1974'' down

[[Page 7278]]

    through the word ``Act'' on line 3. Is it possible to offer that 
    amendment now that the Hathaway amendment has been adopted?
        The Chairman: It is possible.

                       amendment offered by mr. quie

        Mr. Quie: Mr. Chairman, I offer that amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Quie:
            On page 21, line 1, strike out all that follows after 
        ``1974'' through the word ``Act'' on line 3. . . .

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the first amendment 
    offered by Mr. Hathaway on page 19, was to the paragraph beginning 
    on line 7 and that amendment was a substitute amendment, and was 
    agreed to.
        Now we still have to read each one of the paragraphs of the 
    bill duplicated or modified by the Hathaway amendment, and a 
    perfecting amendment to those paragraphs is in order even though a 
    motion to strike out is first offered.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 118 Cong. Rec. 21119, 21120, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, my point of 
    order is if a motion to strike has been made, is it not then out of 
    order to try to amend the paragraph that the motion to strike 
    applies to?
        The Chairman: The Chair would have to rule that a perfecting 
    amendment is in order although a motion to strike is pending.

    The Chair took the view that the Quie amendment was a perfecting 
amendment:(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Id. at p. 21120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Quie: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Quie: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that my 
    amendment does nothing to the Hathaway amendment with the exception 
    that it strikes out the language on line 1, page 21, after 1974 
    down through the word ``act.''
        The Chairman: The gentleman is partly right and partly wrong.
        The motion to strike now pending applies to line 16 on page 20 
    to line 8 on page 21. The original Hathaway amendment has been 
    disposed of. This is a subsequent amendment, which is a motion to 
    strike. The gentleman from Minnesota can perfect the paragraph by 
    striking out the lines which have been read in his amendment. He is 
    entitled to a vote on it as a perfecting amendment, and the Chair 
    is ready to put the question on the perfecting amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Quie).
        The amendment was rejected.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion to strike the 
    language on page 20, line 16.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 21122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adoption of Substitute: Vote Recurs on Adoption of Amendment as Amended

Sec. 32.17 The adoption of a substitute amendment is not conclusive and 
    a vote on the adoption of the amendment

[[Page 7279]]

    as amended by the substitute is necessary.

    On Mar. 28, 1940,(2) the following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 86 Cong. Rec. 3611, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 9007, labor-security appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Fitzpatrick [of New York]: If the substitute is 
    adopted, then will we vote on the Collins amendment?
        The Chairman: (3) After that the committee will vote 
    on the Collins amendment as amended by the substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.18 If a substitute amendment is adopted, the question recurs on 
    the amendment as amended by the substitute; but if the substitute 
    is rejected, the amendment is open to further amendment.

    On Dec. 3, 1941,(4) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 87 Cong. Rec. 9395, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 4139, to further expedite national defense programs with 
        respect to naval construction, etc., by providing for the 
        investigation and mediation of labor disputes in connection 
        therewith.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: I desire to know if the 
    first vote is on the Smith substitute as amended, to the Ramspeck 
    amendment to the Vinson bill?
        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William P. Cole, Jr. (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cochran: Now I want to know if the Smith substitute is 
    adopted, if the vote then comes on the Ramspeck amendment as 
    amended by the Smith substitute?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct again. . . .
        Mr. Cochran: I would like to make one further parliamentary 
    inquiry. If the Smith substitute is voted down, we then remain in 
    Committee of the Whole and consider the Ramspeck bill, open to 
    amendment under the 5-minute rule?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri is correct 
    throughout.

Sec. 32.19 Where there is pending an amendment and a substitute 
    therefor, amendments to the substitute may be offered prior to the 
    vote on the substitute, but the vote recurs immediately upon the 
    amendment as amended, upon adoption of the substitute.

    On July 22, 1974 (6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill, the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 120 Cong. Rec. 24453, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11500, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. [Ken] Hechler of West Virginia: A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
Chairman.

[[Page 7280]]

        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hechler of West Virginia: If the substitute is adopted, 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii, would it be out of order to 
    have amendments to that section? I would like to make that 
    parliamentary inquiry prior to the ruling of the Chair.
        The Chairman: Once the substitute is adopted, then a vote would 
    be on the Hosmer amendment as amended by the substitute. Prior to 
    the vote on the substitute, however, there could be amendments to 
    the substitute.

Sec. 32.20 Where a substitute for an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute has been agreed to, the question recurs immediately upon 
    the amendment as amended by the substitute, and further perfecting 
    amendments to the amendment are not then in order.

    On Feb. 5, 1976, (8) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 9464, (9) the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry as described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 122 Cong. Rec. 2648, 2649, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (10) The question is on the amendment, 
    as amended, offered as a substitute by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
    Smith) for the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.  Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the substitute amendment, as amended, for the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute to the committee amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute, was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger) as 
    amended to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        . . . [I]t is my understanding that at this stage, since the 
    Smith substitute amendment has been agreed to narrowly, that there 
    are no further amendments to the Krueger amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute since it was a complete substitute, is that correct?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

Sec. 32.21 Following the adoption of a substitute for an amendment, the 
    vote recurs immediately on the amendment as amended, and no further 
    amendments to the amendment are in order.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on Feb. 25, 
1980,(11) during consideration of H.R. 6081, Special Central 
American Assistance Act of 1979.

[[Page 7281]]

The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 126 Cong. Rec. 3628, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was 
    agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The substitute has been adopted 
    and is no longer amendable. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: The gentleman was under the impression that a 
    perfecting amendment could still be offered.
        The Chairman: . . . Is the gentleman's amendment a perfecting 
    amendment to the original amendment?
        Mr. Bauman: Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The substitute has been agreed to and, 
    consequently, perfecting amendments to the original amendment are 
    not now in order.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Lagomarsino), as amended.

--No Intervening Debate

Sec. 32.22 Under the five-minute rule, no debate may intervene after a 
    substitute for an amendment has been adopted and before the vote on 
    the amendment, as amended, except by unanimous consent, since the 
    amendment has been amended in its entirety and no further 
    amendments including pro forma amendments are in order.

    On Oct. 18, 1983, (13) during consideration of H.R. 3231 
(14) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings 
described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 129 Cong. Rec. 28185, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. Export Administration Act Amendments of 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (15) The question is on 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
    Bonker), as amended, as a substitute for the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Roth), as amended. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. George E. Brown, Jr. (California).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Toby] Roth [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    240, noes 173, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 19, as follows: . 
    . .
        So the amendment, as amended, offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. [Edwin V.W.] Zschau [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike the last word.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Without objection, the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Zschau) is recognized for 5 minutes.
        There was no objection.

[[Page 7282]]

Adoption of Amendment as Amended by Substitute Precludes Further 
    Amendment Thereto

Sec. 32.23 When an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    entire bill, offered immediately after the reading of title I, was 
    pending, the Chair advised that (1) if the amendment were rejected 
    title I would still be pending, and (2) if the amendment were 
    agreed to it would not be subject to further amendment.

    On Sept. 29, 1965,(16) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 111 Cong. Rec. 25437, 25438, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 4644.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (17) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Multer). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer: Mr. Chairman, is it not a fact that 
    the parliamentary situation is that if the Multer amendment, as 
    amended by the Sisk amendment, is rejected, we will then have 
    before us the bill, H.R. 4644, as reported by the discharge 
    petition?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from New York 
    in the event what he has described happens, then title I of the 
    bill H.R. 4644, will be before the Committee for further action. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, in the event 
    that the matter now before the Committee carries and the Multer 
    amendment, as amended by the Sisk substitute, is adopted, would it 
    be in order to offer amendments to that substitute?
        The Chairman: It would not be in order.

Substitute Agreed To as Amended, Then Rejected in Vote on Original 
    Amendment

Sec. 32.24 Where a proposed substitute for an amendment is itself 
    amended and then agreed to as amended, the rejection of the 
    original amendment as amended by the substitute does not preclude 
    reoffering, as an amendment to text, the same proposition as 
    initially contained in the substitute.

    In the 86th Congress, during the consideration of H.R. 8601, a bill 
to enforce voting rights, Mr. William M. McCulloch, of Ohio, offered 
the provisions of H.R. 11160 as a substitute for the amendment of Mr. 
John V. Lindsay, of New York, which contained the provisions of H.R. 
10035, made in order under a special rule (H. Res. 359). Mr. 
McCulloch's substitute, which provided for the court appointment of 
voting referees, was amended by the amendment of Mr. Robert W. 
Kastenmeier, of

[[Page 7283]]

Wisconsin, to provide for Presidential appointment of enrollment 
officers. The substitute, as amended, was then agreed to; the 
amendment, as amended by the substitute, was rejected. Mr. McCulloch 
then offered, as a new title to the bill, the language of H.R. 11160.

        The proceedings were as follows: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 106 Cong. Rec. 5482, 5483, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 14, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John V.] Lindsay [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

            The Clerk read as follows:
            Amendment offered by Mr. Lindsay: On page 12, immediately 
        following line 7, insert the following:

                                   ``TITLE VI

            ``Sec. 601. That section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 
        U.S.C. 1971), as amended by section 131 of the Civil Rights Act 
        of 1957 (71 Stat. 637), is amended as follows:

            ``(a) Add the following as subsection (e) and designate the 
        present subsection (e) subsection ``(f)'':
            ``In any proceeding instituted pursuant to subsection (c) 
        of this section, in the event the court finds that under color 
        of law or by State action any person or persons have been 
        deprived on account of race or color of any right or privilege 
        secured by subsection (a) or (b) of this section, and that such 
        deprivation was or is pursuant to a pattern or practice, the 
        court may appoint one or more persons (to be known as voting 
        referees) to receive applications from any person claiming such 
        deprivation as the right to register or otherwise to qualify to 
        vote at any election and to take evidence and report to the 
        court findings as to whether such applicants or any of them (1) 
        are qualified to vote at any election, and (2) have been (a) 
        deprived of the opportunity to register to vote or otherwise to 
        qualify to vote at any election, or (b) found by State election 
        officials not qualified to register to vote or to vote at any 
        election.
            ``Any report of any person or persons appointed pursuant to 
        this subsection shall be reviewed by the court and the court 
        shall accept the findings contained in such report unless 
        clearly erroneous. . . .

        Mr. Lindsay: This is H.R. 10035 verbatim, as originally 
    introduced, the voting referee bill.
        Mr. Chairman, may I say that the parliamentary situation is 
    such under the rule that the only voting referee measure at this 
    point that may be offered is the text of H.R. 10035. This is the 
    bill which provides for voting referees under the auspices and 
    supervision of the Federal courts. . . .
        If the court should find a pattern or practice of voting 
    denials, referees may then be appointed by the court in order to 
    receive applications from persons of like color who claim that they 
    also have been denied the right to vote. The point to bear in mind 
    about this amendment, and also about the substitute amendment that 
    will be offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch], for the 
    purpose of clarifying the amendment that I now offer, is this: that 
    in any area where there has been found by the court to exist a 
    pattern or practice of denials of the right to vote on 
    constitutional grounds, the matter from then on is resolved by the 
    court. A referee may be appointed by the Federal judge in order to 
    perform the normal functions that he

[[Page 7284]]

    would perform but obviously cannot perform because of the burdens 
    that would be placed upon him. It is designed to keep the matter in 
    local hands, a local Federal judge, and local Federal referees 
    appointed by the Court. . . .
        I shall say a word about the differences between this amendment 
    and the proposed substitute. They are of procedure only. The 
    substitute will ensure, by specific language, that any local, State 
    registrar who takes exception to the action of a voting referee 
    will have an opportunity to have a full judicial hearing by the 
    court if he presents a genuine issue of fact. He is given plenty of 
    notice. The Deputy Attorney General testified that even under the 
    original bill, which I have introduced by way of amendment, due 
    process would require an opportunity for a hearing. The substitute 
    will spell this out in specific language. . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Clerk will report the 
    substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
    McCulloch].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McCulloch as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Lindsay: On page 12, immediately below 
        line 7, in lieu of the text proposed to be added by the Lindsay 
        amendment insert the following:

                                   ``title vi

                                ``Voting rights

            ``Sec. 601. Section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 
        1971), as amended by section 131 of the Civil Rights Act of 
        1957 (71 Stat. 637), is amended as follows:
            ``(a) Add the following as subsection (e) and designate the 
        present subsection (e) as subsection ``(f)'':
            ``In any proceeding instituted pursuant to subsection (c), 
        in the event the court finds that any person has been deprived 
        on account of race or color of any right or privilege secured 
        by subsection (a), the court shall upon request of the Attorney 
        General, and after each party has been given notice and the 
        opportunity to be heard, make a finding whether such 
        deprivation was or is pursuant to a pattern or practice. If the 
        court finds such pattern or practice, any person of such race 
        or color resident within the affected area shall, for one year 
        and thereafter until the court subsequently finds that such 
        pattern or practice has ceased, be entitled, upon his 
        application therefor, to an order declaring him qualified to 
        vote. . . .
            `` ` The court may appoint one or more persons who are 
        qualified voters in the judicial district, to be known as 
        voting referees, to serve for such period as the court shall 
        determine, to receive such applications and to take evidence 
        and report to the court findings as to whether or not at any 
        election or elections (1) any such applicant is qualified under 
        State law to vote, and (2) he has since the finding by the 
        court heretofore specified been (a) deprived of or denied under 
        color of law the opportunity to register to vote or otherwise 
        to qualify to vote, or (b) found not qualified to vote by any 
        person acting under color of law.''. . .

    On the following day, (20) an amendment was offered to 
the substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 20. 106 Cong. Rec. 5644, 5645, 5655-58, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 15, 
        1960.

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

[[Page 7285]]

        Mr. [Robert W.] Kastenmeier [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment to the substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Kastenmeier: 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: ``that, under color of 
        law or by State action, a voting registrar or other State or 
        local official has deprived persons in any locality or area of 
        registration, of the opportunity of registration, for elections 
        because of their race or color, the Attorney General shall 
        notify the President of the United States of such finding.
            ``(B) Whenever the Commission on Civil Rights . . . finds 
        that, under color of law or by State action, a voting registrar 
        or other State or local official has deprived persons in any 
        locality or area of registration of the opportunity of 
        registration, for election because of their race or color, the 
        Commission shall notify the President of the United States of 
        such finding.
            ``(2) Upon any notification of a finding pursuant to 
        paragraph (1) of this subsection, the President is authorized 
        to establish a Federal Enrollment Office in each registration 
        district that includes the locality or area for which such 
        finding has been made and to appoint one or more Federal 
        Enrollment Officers for such district from among officers or 
        employees of the United States who are qualified voters within 
        such district. . . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kastenmeier]. . . .
        So the amendment to the substitute amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the substitute amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch], as amended. . . 
    .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, if I understand 
    the situation correctly, and I wish the Chair would explain what 
    the situation is, the Committee is now voting on the substitute 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch] to the 
    bill H.R. 10035.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, as the gentleman well knows, it 
    was made in order to consider the text of the bill H.R. 10035, as 
    an amendment to the bill H.R. 8601. The amendment was offered by 
    the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lindsay] and a substitute for that 
    amendment was offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch]. 
    The substitute amendment has been amended and the Committee is 
    about to vote upon the substitute amendment, as amended.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: In other words, we are voting on the 
    substitute amendment, and if that should be defeated, then the so-
    called Lindsay amendment will still be in order.
        The Chairman: If the substitute amendment is defeated, then the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lindsay] is 
    still before the Committee for further consideration.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: I thank the Chairman.
        The Chairman: The question is on the substitute amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch], as amended.

[[Page 7286]]

        The Committee divided, and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 179, noes 116.
        So the substitute amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question recurs on the Lindsay amendment as 
    amended by the McCulloch substitute.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Celler) there were--ayes 195, noes 155.
        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Celler and Mr. McCulloch.
        The Committee again divided and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 143, noes 170.
        So the amendment was rejected.
        Mr. [William M.] McCulloch [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McCulloch: On page 12, immediately 
        below line 7, insert the following:

                                   ``title vi

            Sec. 601. That section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 
        U.S.C. 1971), as amended by section 131 of the Civil Rights Act 
        of 1957 (71 Stat. 637), is amended as follows:
            ``(a) Add the following as subsection (e) and designate the 
        present subsection (e) as subsection ``(f)'':
            ``In any proceeding instituted pursuant to subsection (c) 
        in the event the court finds that any person has been deprived 
        on account of race or color of any right or privilege secured 
        by subsection (a), the court shall upon request of the Attorney 
        General and after each party has been given notice and the 
        opportunity to be heard make a finding whether such deprivation 
        was or is pursuant to a pattern or practice. If the court finds 
        such pattern or practice, any person of such race or color 
        resident within the affected area shall, for one year and 
        thereafter until the court subsequently finds that such pattern 
        or practice has ceased, be entitled, upon his application 
        therefor, to an order declaring him qualified to vote. . . .
            ``The court may appoint one or more persons who are 
        qualified voters in the judicial district, to be known as 
        voting referees, to serve for such period as the court shall 
        determine, to receive such applications and to take evidence 
        and report to the court findings as to whether or not at any 
        election or elections (1) any such applicant is qualified under 
        State law to vote, and (2) he has since the finding by the 
        court heretofore specified been (a) deprived of or denied under 
        color of law the opportunity to register to vote or otherwise 
        to qualify to vote, or (b) found not qualified to vote by any 
        person acting under color of law. . . .

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against this amendment for several reasons. One is that 
    the rule under which we are operating gives protection only to H.R. 
    10035 and to no other substitute proposal. In other words, the 
    original bill, the Lindsay amendment, which has already been 
    defeated, was a bill that the rule makes in order. We have already 
    voted upon this bill within the last 30 minutes. The only 
    difference between this bill and the bill we just voted down is two 
    or three very minor corrections; very minor; so minor that many of 
    us are greatly disappointed.
        Mr. Chairman, the matter has been passed upon. The House has 
    voted upon it within the last 30 minutes. I

[[Page 7287]]

    make the point of order that it cannot be reintroduced. . . .
        Mr. [Edwin E.] Willis [of Louisiana]: I want to understand very 
    clearly the bill or the proposal that the gentleman has offered. 
    This is a very simple question. Am I correct that the proposal now 
    on the desk is identical to the bill H.R. 11160 except for the 
    deletion of the language appearing on page 5, lines 9 through 13?
        Mr. McCulloch: The answer is ``Yes.''. . .
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: . . . I make the . . . point of order 
    that this amendment has been once defeated. . . .
        The Chairman: May the Chair call the gentleman's attention to 
    the fact that this has never been voted on. The language contained 
    in this amendment was a substitute for another amendment.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: It was a substitute for that and it was 
    offered yesterday afternoon by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
    McCulloch] and printed in the Record.

        The Chairman: But, I should like to remind the gentleman, as a 
    substitute for the bill made in order under the rule.

    After some further discussion of this and other points of order, 
the Chairman allowed the amendment.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Whether a proposition contained in a 
substitute may be reoffered in a different form after it has failed of 
approval depends on the circumstances. Clearly, where the actual 
proposition was never voted on because of changes made through the 
amendment process (as where a substitute for an amendment is itself 
amended, then rejected in a vote on the amendment), the proposition may 
be offered again as, for example, an amendment to text. But even actual 
rejection of the proposition contained in the substitute should not 
necessarily preclude its being offered as an amendment to text. For 
example, where an amendment is offered, and then a substitute for that 
amendment, the consideration of that substitute necessarily proceeds 
with reference only to the particular amendment to which offered. This 
may present a different question from that which would arise if the 
language of the substitute were considered with reference to the text 
of the bill. For further discussion of when a proposition that has been 
rejected may be reoffered in different form, see 8 Cannon's Precedents 
Sec. 2843.
    On the other hand, it may happen that reoffering the language of 
the substitute presents precisely the same question that has already 
been voted on. Thus, if a substitute for an amendment is agreed to (in 
effect becoming an amendment to text by supplanting the original 
amendment), and

[[Page 7288]]

then the amendment as amended by the substitute is rejected, the 
proposition contained in the substitute may not be reoffered to that 
text. In this case, the question presented by reoffering the language 
as an amendment to text would be exactly the same as that already 
disposed of.

Reoffering Amendment That Had Been Adopted as Amended by Substitute

Sec. 32.25 While it is not in order to offer an amendment merely 
    changing the text of a proposition perfected by amendment or to 
    offer an amendment identical to one which has been defeated, a 
    Member may reoffer an amendment which he has previously offered and 
    which has been adopted as amended by a substitute, where the 
    amendment is more extensive than the substitute which was adopted 
    in its place.

    On Apr. 27, 1977, the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration the first concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
1978, House Concurrent Resolution 195. Mr. Otis G. Pike, of New York, 
offered a perfecting amendment (21) which struck out certain 
figures and inserted others in their place, with respect to provisions 
relating to such items as total new budget authority; appropriate level 
of total budget outlays; appropriate level of the public debt; increase 
in the statutory limit on public debt; budget authority and outlays for 
national defense; and a category, ``allowances,'' a portion of which 
related to pay increases for certain executive employees and federal 
judges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 123 Cong. Rec. 12483, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Omar Burleson, of Texas, offered an amendment 
    (1) as a substitute for the Pike amendment, which 
    affected most, but not all, of the figures in the Pike amendment. 
    The Burleson amendment, and the Pike amendment as so amended, were 
    agreed to.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 12485.
 2. Id. at pp. 12503, 12504.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently, Mr. Pike offered an amendment (3) that was 
in its scope and effect substantially the same as the amendment he had 
previously offered. (It should be noted that technical changes had been 
made in the figures of the amendments so that they were in conformity 
with amendments adopted after the Pike amendment as amended by the 
Burleson substitute.) He explained the effect of his proposed amendment 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 12521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Pike: Mr. Chairman, when we entered the Chamber yesterday, 
    the

[[Page 7289]]

    Budget Committee had a budget resolution which called for a deficit 
    of $64.3 billion. At the moment we have a resolution which calls 
    for a deficit of $68.6 billion. In 2 days we have added $4.3 
    billion to the deficit. Mr. Chairman, everybody talks about 
    national priorities, and obviously we have different views of what 
    our national priorities are. It is obvious that things for defense 
    and for veterans are high on our list of national priorities, and 
    things for the benefit of social welfare programs are low on our 
    list of national priorities, because that is the way we voted here. 
    Frankly, I have voted against all of the amendments which increased 
    the budget and increased the budget deficit, and I am a little 
    embarrassed that I am again offering an amendment which reduces the 
    budget and reduces the budget deficit. This is the same amendment 
    which I offered earlier. It reduces spending in two categories--
    allowances and defense--a total of $130 million, which is the 
    amount of the 29 percent or 28 percent pay raise which people in 
    those categories outside of the Congress got. We have discussed it 
    already. The committee accepted it once. It got wiped out by the 
    Burleson amendment.

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