[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[F. Effect of Consideration or Adoption; Changes After Adoption]
[Â§ 33. Amendments Pertaining to Monetary Figures]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 7289-7308]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
     F. EFFECT OF CONSIDERATION OR ADOPTION; CHANGES AFTER ADOPTION
 
Sec. 33. Amendments Pertaining to Monetary Figures

Amendment Changing Figure Previously Agreed Upon

Sec. 33.1 When a specific amendment to a figure in a bill has been 
    agreed to, further amendment of that sum is not in order.

    On July 25, 1967,(4) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 113 Cong. Rec. 19985, 19991, 19992, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 11641.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. (Robert N.) Giaimo (of 
        Connecticut):
            On page 4, lines 16 and 17, after ``commitment of the 
        Government to 
        construction);'' strike out ``$936,750,000'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``$935,074,000.''. . .

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. [J. William] Stanton [of Ohio]: On 
        page 4, lines 16 and 17, strike out ``$936,750,000'' and insert 
        in lieu thereof ``$936,000,000''. . . .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, it is my 
    understanding that the amount has already been amended, and having 
    been amended, a second amendment for the same purpose would not lie 
    at this time. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair rules that the amendment 
    offered by the

[[Page 7290]]

    gentleman from Ohio which has just been read is out of order and 
    sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Wayne N. Aspinall (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 33.2 Where a sum has been specifically changed by amendment, it is 
    not in order to further change the same figure by a direct 
    amendment.

    On June 28, 1967, the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration H.R. 10340, authorizing appropriations for the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration. Amendments affecting the total 
authorization were offered: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 113 Cong. Rec. 17739, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James G.] Fulton of Pennsylvania:
        On Page 1, line 5, strike the amount ``$4,992,182,000'' and 
    insert in lieu 
    thereof the amount ``$4,742,182,000''. . . .
        Amendment offered by Mr. [Richard L.] Roudebush [of Indiana] to 
    the amendment offered by Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania: On page 1, 
    line 5, strike the amount, $4,992,182,000 and insert in lieu 
    thereof the amount $4,927,182,000.
        On page 2, line 1, strike the amount of $444,700,000 and insert 
    in lieu thereof the amount $379,700,000. . . .

    The Roudebush amendment, and the Fulton amendment as amended 
thereby, were agreed 
to.(7) Subsequently, Mr. 
Roudebush offered a further amendment: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 17748.
 8. Id. at p. 17754.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Roudebush: On page 1, line 5, 
        strike out the amounts ``$4,992,182,000'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof the amount ``$4,982,182,000'' and on page 2, line 
        22, strike out the amount ``$30,000,000'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof the amount ``$20,000,000''.

    After some discussion as to whether the amendment accurately 
reflected changes in the figures made by previous amendments, the 
amendment was resubmitted in the following form:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Roudebush: On page 1, line 5, strike 
    the amount ``$4,992,182,000'' and insert in lieu thereof the amount 
    ``$4,927,182,000.''.
        On page 2, line 22, strike the amount ``$30,000,000'' and 
    insert in lieu thereof the amount ``$20,000,000''.
        The following parliamentary inquiry arose:
        Mr. [Joseph E.] Karth [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, my inquiry 
    is whether or not the figure on line 5, page 1, can be further 
    amended inasmuch as it has already been amended?
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair will state, if a timely 
    point of order is made, the Chair will respond to the gentleman's 
    parliamentary inquiry that line 5 on page 1 cannot be amended. . . 
    .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John J. Flynt (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Karth: Mr. Chairman, if that figure cannot be further 
    amended, and

[[Page 7291]]

    the gentleman chooses to pursue his amendment, and change the 
    figure on page 2, would it then be a proper amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair does not pass on that until an 
    amendment described by the gentleman from Minnesota is offered.
        The gentleman's parliamentary inquiry is premature. It cannot 
    be made until such an amendment is offered.

    Mr. Roudebush then offered his amendment, omitting direct reference 
to the figure for the total authorization:(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 17755, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Roudebush: On page 2, line 22, 
        strike the amount ``$30 million'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        the amount ``$20 million''. . . .

        Mr. Karth: Mr. Chairman, now that the amendment is here, I 
    again renew my request for a ruling as to whether or not the 
    amendment that the gentleman proposes to make on page 2 can be 
    legitimately made without changing his figure on page 1. I raise 
    that point of order, Mr. Chairman. . . . My point of order is, If 
    the gentleman proceeds with his amendment as it has been read by 
    the Clerk, reducing the amount on line 22 by $10 million and he 
    does not change the total on line 5 of page 1, it seems to me that 
    the amendment is not in proper order.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman state his point of order in a 
    form on which the Chair can rule?
        Mr. Karth: The point of order I raise, Mr. Chairman, is against 
    the amendment.
        The Chairman: On what basis?
        Mr. Karth: On the basis that it is not a properly drawn 
    amendment, that it does not affect the bill as it otherwise would 
    if it were proper.
        The Chairman: The Chair overrules the point of order. The Chair 
    does not make rulings on the consistency of language in amendments 
    offered to the bill.
        The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roudebush) is recognized for 5 
    minutes. . . .
        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment offered has the effect of 
    changing the figure on page 1, line 5, by reducing it $10 million, 
    and, therefore, affects line 5, which has already been amended at a 
    previous time.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.
        The Chair will state that the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Texas is substantially the same point of order made 
    by the gentleman from Minnesota. The Chair does not rule on the 
    question of whether an amendment to one point would amend another 
    point in the bill.
        The present amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana 
    relates to line 22 on page 2 and has no effect at this time on line 
    5, page 1.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order of the 
    gentleman from Texas.

Sec. 33.3 It is not in order by further amendment to merely change a 
    figure already amended.

    On Apr. 30, 1975,(11) the House having resolved into the 
Com

[[Page 7292]]

mittee of the Whole, the Chair responded to parliamentary inquiries 
regarding the procedures for consideration of House Concurrent 
Resolution 218 (12) as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 12403, 12404, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. Setting forth the congressional budget on an aggregate basis for 
        fiscal 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, would the 
    Chair state the procedures governing the consideration of this 
    first budget resolution?
        The Chairman: (13) . . . The procedures governing 
    consideration of budget resolutions are set forth in section 305(a) 
    of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. 
    They are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        First, 10 hours are permitted for general debate, which is to 
    be equally divided between the majority and minority parties. . . .
        Second, amendments are to be considered under the 5-minute 
    rule. . . .
        Third, after the Committee of the Whole rises and reports the 
    resolution back to the House, the previous question is considered 
    to be ordered on the resolution and any amendments to the 
    resolution to final passage without intervening motion, except that 
    at any time prior to final passage, it is in order to adopt an 
    amendment or series of amendments changing any figure or figures in 
    the resolution to the extent necessary to achieve mathematical 
    consistency. . . .
        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: . . . Am I correct in 
    assuming that once a figure in the resolution is amended, it is no 
    longer subject to further amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) is correct. A 
    further amendment merely changing that amended figure would not be 
    in order.

Sec. 33.4 Where there was pending in Committee of the Whole a 
    perfecting amendment changing several figures, including the 
    function for national defense, in a concurrent resolution on the 
    budget, the Chair indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry 
    that if such amendment were adopted, a further amendment would not 
    be in order which merely sought to change the amended figures.

    On Apr. 27, 1977,(14) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Concurrent Resolution 195,(15) the 
Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding a pending 
amendment, as described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 123 Cong. Rec. 12483-85, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. The first concurrent resolution on the budget, fiscal 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Otis G.] Pike [of New York]: In the 
    matter relating to the appropriate level of total new budget 
    authority strike out ``$580,757,000,000'' and insert in lieu 
    thereof ``$500,627,000,000'';

[[Page 7293]]

        In the matter relating to the appropriate level of total budget 
    outlays strike out ``$463,857,000,000'' and in
    sert in lieu thereof ``$463,727,000,000''. . .
        In the matter relating to national defense, strike out 
    ``$115,986,000,000'' in budget authority and insert in lieu thereof 
    ``$115,968,000,000''; and strike out ``$109,647,000,000'' in 
    outlays and 
    insert in lieu thereof ``$109,629,000,000''. . . .
        Mr. [Richard H.] Ichord [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        I understand that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Pike) does touch upon the national defense category.
        I am very deeply concerned, Mr. Chairman, because the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Burleson) has an amendment which also touches upon 
    the defense category and would restore the President's budget on 
    national defense to $120.1 billion, as requested by President 
    Carter.
        My question is, Mr. Chairman, if this amendment is adopted, 
    would the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burleson) be 
    in order?
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair would like to advise 
    the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Ichord) that if the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Pike) changes the 
    figure in the category which the gentleman has suggested, then an 
    amendment merely seeking to further change that figure in the same 
    category would not be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the benefit of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Ichord), 
    the Chair would like to cite from page 721 of our new manual which 
    provides as follows:

            Where there is pending in the Committee of the Whole a 
        perfecting amendment to a concurrent resolution on the budget 
        changing several figures therein, the Chair indicated that 
        adoption of that amendment would preclude further amendments 
        merely changing those amended figures.

        That is in answer to the gentleman's inquiry. Therefore, such 
    an amendment as the gentleman has in mind would not be in order at 
    that time.
        However, if the amendment to be proposed and to be offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas should be more inclusive in nature, 
    changing other unamended portions of the resolution, then such an 
    amendment might be in order.

Sec. 33.5 An amendment is not in order if it seeks merely to change the 
    same figure in a bill that has previously been changed by an 
    amendment considered and agreed to with others en bloc.

    On Aug. 7, 1978,(17) during consideration of H.R. 13635 
(18) in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. William L. 
Dickinson, of Alabama, offered amendments and asked unanimous consent 
that they be considered en bloc. Mr. William S. Cohen, of Maine, 
addressed a par

[[Page 7294]]

liamentary inquiry to the Chair as to whether he would be precluded 
from offering an amendment to the same monetary figure as that sought 
to be changed by one of the en bloc amendments. The Chair responded 
that if the amendments offered en bloc were agreed to, an amendment 
would not be in order to further change the figure so changed by the en 
bloc amendment. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 124 Cong. Rec. 24705, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. The Department of Defense appropriation bill, fiscal 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments and ask 
    unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Dickinson: On page 6, line 15, 
        strike ``$11,705,155,000;'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$11,691,754,000;''.
            On page 14, line 24, strike ``$916,708,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$917,401,000''. . . .

        Mr. Cohen: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        . . . I have an amendment at the desk to page 6, line 15, which 
    includes the same amount of money that is on line 15.
        If the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Dickinson) proceeds with 
    consolidated amendments, will I still have the opportunity to offer 
    a substitute to the amendment of the gentleman from Alabama?
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair will state that if the 
    amendments offered en bloc are agreed to, the gentleman would be 
    precluded from offering his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cohen: Then, Mr. Chairman, if I would not be allowed to 
    offer my amendment as a substitute for that of the gentleman from 
    Alabama, I would have to object to the unanimous-consent request.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Cohen amendment could have been offered 
as either a perfecting amendment to or a substitute for the Dickinson 
en bloc amendments.

Sec. 33.6 A point of order that an amendment changed a portion of the 
    text already changed by amendment, and relating to monetary 
    figures, was conceded and sustained.

    On June 26, 1979, the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration H.R. 3930, the Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979. 
The Clerk read the bill, which stated in part: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 125 Cong. Rec. 16663, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        ``Sec. 305. (a) The President, utilizing the provisions of this 
    Act and any other applicable provision of law, shall attempt to 
    achieve a national production goal of at least 500,000 barrels per 
    day crude oil equivalent of synthetic fuels and synthetic chemical 
    feedstocks not later than five years after the effective date of 
    this section. The President is authorized and directed to re

[[Page 7295]]

    quire fuel and chemical feedstock suppliers to provide synthetic 
    fuels and synthetic chemical feedstocks in any case in which the 
    President deems it practicable and necessary to meet the national 
    defense needs of the United States.

    Mr. James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas, offered amendments which 
affected this and other provisions of the bill. The amendment, and some 
discussion of it by Mr. Wright, follow: (21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Id. at p. 16668.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wright: Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Wright: Page 5, line 2, strike 
        out the period after ``section'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``and at least 2,000,000 barrels per day crude oil equivalent 
        of synthetic fuels and synthetic chemical feedstocks not later 
        than ten years after the effective date of this section.''
            Page 5, line 24, strike out ``goal'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``goals''.
            Page 8, line 16, strike out ``goal'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``goals''.
            Page 10, line 23, strike ``appropriated $2,000,000,000'' 
        and insert in lieu thereof ``appropriated from general funds of 
        the Treasury not otherwise appropriated or from any fund 
        hereafter established by Congress after the date of enactment 
        of this sentence not to exceed $3,000,000,000''.

        Mr. Wright: Mr. Chairman, the amendments that I offer would 
    increase the goal from the 500,000 barrels a day that we authorize 
    and direct the President to achieve by 1985 or by 5 years from the 
    enactment date to encompass an additional goal of 2 million barrels 
    a day by 1990. We believe that is an achievable goal. The 
    administration says that it is an achievable goal. The Department 
    of Energy says that this goal can be achieved.
        Why should we go to 2 million barrels a day instead of just 
    stopping at 500,000? Quite obviously because the great problem that 
    confronts this Nation, the problem that is getting worse and not 
    better, is our growing vulnerability to and reliability upon 
    foreign nations, particularly OPEC nations, for our supply. That is 
    why we have shortages now, because we are importing almost 9 
    million barrels daily. Almost 9 million barrels a day. That is our 
    deficiency. It certainly is not too much to commit ourselves in 10 
    years to produce at least 2 million barrels to reduce our Nation's 
    vulnerability.
        The Wright amendments were agreed to. (22) 
    Subsequently, Mr. Richard Kelly, of Florida, offered amendments 
    which in part affected the provisions amended by the Wright 
    amendment. (23)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Id. at p. 16674.
23. Id. at pp. 16678, 16679.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Kelly: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Kelly: Page 3, line 7, after 
        ``thereof'' strike $38,000,000' and insert in lieu thereof--
        ``$100,000,000''.

        Page 4, line 5, strike ``$48,000,000'' and insert in lieu 
    thereof ``$125,000,000''.
        Mr. Kelly (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent

[[Page 7296]]

    that the amendment be limited to that which has been read and that 
    the two portions of the amendment be considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: (1) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Florida?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, 
    reserving the right to object, can the gentleman give me an idea 
    what he seeks to do?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Florida will restate his 
    unanimous consent request.
        Mr. Kelly: The unanimous-consent request is that the amendment 
    be limited to the portion that has been read and that since there 
    are two parts to it, they be considered en bloc.
        Mr. Ottinger: What is the effect of it? I just do not 
    understand.
        Mr. Kelly: The effect of the amendment is to increase the 
    guaranty authority and the loan authority.
        Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Chairman, I think that is a very bad idea, 
    and I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        The Clerk will continue to read the amendment.
        The Clerk continued to read the amendment as follows:

            Page 4, line 25, strike ``500,000'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``400,000''.
            Page 5, line 2, after ``section.'' insert the following: 
        ``Thereafter production of synthetic fuels and synthetic 
        chemical feedstocks shall proceed according to the following 
        schedule: at least 800,000 barrels per day crude oil equivalent 
        not later than ten years after the effective date of this 
        section, at least 1,200,000 barrels per day not later than 
        fifteen years after the effective date of this section, at 
        least 1,600,000 barrels per day not later than twenty years 
        after the effective date of this section, and at least 
        2,000,000 barrels per day not later than twenty-five years 
        after the effective date of this section. Said production goals 
        shall be subject to review by Congress every two years.''
            Page 5, line 24, strike out ``goal'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``goals''.
            Page 8, line 16, strike out ``goal'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``goals''. . . .

        Mr. [Albert A.] Gore [Jr., of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gore: If I am not mistaken, Mr. Chairman, the Wright 
    amendment, which has already been acted upon, amended page 4, line 
    25, and changed the 500,000 figure already. The gentleman seeks to 
    return to that line and change the figure once again, which has 
    already been changed.
        I would think that a point of order would lie against the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Florida wish to be heard?
        Mr. Kelly: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Kelly: Mr. Chairman, is it not within my authority to limit 
    my amendment to the first four lines of the amendment as it is 
    printed?
        The Chairman: The gentleman may offer a new amendment if he 
    wishes.
        Mr. Kelly: I do offer a new amendment, Mr. Chairman, which is 
    limited to the first four lines.

[[Page 7297]]

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman concede the point of order on 
    the original amendment?
        Mr. Kelly: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded and therefore 
    sustained.

Sec. 33.7 Where an amendment changing a figure in an appropriation bill 
    has been agreed to, a subsequent amendment merely making a further 
    change in that figure is not in order.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on July 17, 
1985,(2) during consideration of H.R. 2965. When a paragraph 
funding the Legal Services Corporation was read, the proceedings in the 
Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 131 Cong. Rec. 19444, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For payment to the Legal Services Corporation to carry out the 
    purposes of the Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974, as amended, 
    $305,000,000; . . .
        Mr. [Manuel] Lujan [Jr., of New Mexico]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lujan: On page 40, line 12, delete 
        ``305,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``305,500,000''. . . 
        .

        The Chairman: (3) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Tom] DeLay [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. DeLay: On page 40, strike line 12 
        and insert in lieu thereof: ``1974, as amended, $274,500,000: 
        Provided That none of''.

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    that we have already passed an amendment to that action. . . .
        Mr. DeLay: Mr. Chairman, my amendment was prepared, I believe 
    if I am not correct, in advance of the amendment of the gentleman 
    from New Mexico. I just hoped to be able to offer my amendment at 
    this point in the Record.
        The Chairman: The Chair is constrained to support the point of 
    order of the chairman of the subcommittee in that this figure has 
    already been amended once, and that precludes a further amendment 
    to the figure.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although it is not in order to offer an 
amendment merely changing an amendment already adopted, it is in order 
to offer a subsequent amendment more comprehensive than the amendment 
adopted, changing unamended portions of the bill as well.(4) 
were, the DeLay

[[Page 7298]]

amendment merely reiterated unamended text, thus was not ``broader'' 
than the Lujan amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See, for example, 131 Cong. Rec. 19648, 19649, 19652, 99th Cong. 
        1st Sess., July 18, 1985 (amendments offered by Mr. Hank Brown, 
        of Colorado, to H.R. 2942, Legislative Branch Appropriations 
        for fiscal 1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 33.8 Until adoption of an amendment to strike out and insert 
    changing a figure in a bill, further amendments to change the 
    figure are in order.

    On Nov. 18, 1981,(5) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 4995,(6) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 127 Cong. Rec. 28048, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. Department of Defense appropriation bill for fiscal year 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: If the amendment of the 
    gentleman from New York is not agreed to, would it then be in order 
    for a further amendment to the same figures to be offered relating 
    solely to the basing mode?
        The Chairman: (7) If the amendment is not agreed to 
    and the figures are not changed, further amendments to those 
    figures and to this paragraph would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Changing Total Figure

Sec. 33.9 Where the Committee of the Whole has adopted an amendment 
    changing the total figure in a paragraph of an appropriation bill, 
    it is not in order to further amend such figure.

    On July 30, 1969,(8) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 115 Cong. Rec. 21456, 21458, 21459, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 13111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [David H.] Pryor of Arkansas: . . 
        .
            On page 30, line 3, strike out ``$126,209,000,'' and insert 
        in lieu thereof ``135,394,000''. . . .

        So the amendment was agreed to.

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Torbert H.] Macdonald of 
    Massachusetts: On page 30, line 3, strike out ``$126,209,000'' and 
    insert in lieu thereof ``$130,834,000''. . . .
        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: . . . I submit, Mr. 
    Chairman, in support of my point of order that this has already 
    been amended, and the gentleman's amendment is, therefore, not in 
    order. . . .
        The Chairman: (9) . . . The Pryor amendment modified 
    the sum of $126,209,000, to $136,394,000. Therefore, it is not 
    subject to further amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subsequent Amendment Making Percentage Reduction of Figures in Bill

Sec. 33.10 After adoption of an amendment or amendments changing 
    monetary figures

[[Page 7299]]

    in a bill, further amendments merely changing those figures are not 
    in order, but an amendment making a general percentage reduction in 
    all figures contained in the bill and indirectly affecting those 
    figures, would still be in order.

    On Aug. 7, 1978, (10) during consideration of H.R. 13635 
(the Defense Department appropriations) in the Committee of the Whole, 
the situation described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 124 Cong. Rec. 24686, 24689, 24690, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dickinson: On page 2, line 11, 
        strike ``$9, 123,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$9,125,299,000''. . . .

        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to make a parliamentary inquiry. In the event the amendments 
    offered by the gentleman from Alabama, which probably go to titles 
    I, III, and IV--perhaps not IV, but III at least--anyway, to more 
    than one title, if they were adopted, would that preclude 
    thereafter a general 2-percent across-the-board amendment to the 
    same title?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The amendments of the gentleman from 
    Alabama go to at least four titles of the bill, and to the extent 
    that they change figures by amendment, they are not subject to 
    further amendment if adopted.
        Mr. Volkmer: Would a general 2-percent across-the-board cut, 
    which does not actually change the figure, be in order?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: That would still be in order.

Amendment Imposing Dollar Limits as Modifying Amendment Already Adopted

Sec. 33.11 Where an amendment inserting a new paragraph in an 
    appropriation bill has been agreed to, it is too late to offer a 
    further amendment to the page and lines of the bill encompassed by 
    the adopted amendment, where the proffered amendment is in effect a 
    proviso within the adopted language and seeks to impose dollar 
    limits on programs covered by the bill.

    On July 23, 1970,(11) during consideration of H.R. 
18515, a portion of the bill was stricken on a point of order, 
whereupon Mr. Robert H. Michel, of Illinois, offered an amendment, 
subsequently agreed to, which restored some of the stricken language. 
Thereafter, Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, offered an amendment which 
was in

[[Page 7300]]

effect a proviso to the Michel amendment (and, on that basis, offered 
too late) but which Mr. Mahon sought to offer as an amendment to the 
bill. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 25634-36, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (12) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                         Office of Economic Opportunity

                          economic opportunity program

            For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
        Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-452, approved 
        August 20, 1964), as amended, $2,046,200,000, plus 
        reimbursements: Provided That this appropriation shall be 
        available for transfers to the economic opportunity loan fund 
        for loans under title III, and amounts so transferred shall 
        remain available until expended: Provided further, That this 
        appropriation shall be available for the purchase and hire of 
        passenger motor vehicles, and for construction, alteration, and 
        repair of buildings and other facilities, as authorized by 
        section 602 of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, and for 
        purchase of real property for training centers: Provided 
        further, That this appropriation shall not be available for 
        contracts under titles I, II, V, VI, and VIII extending for 
        more than twenty-four months: Provided further, That no part of 
        the funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be available for 
        any grant until the Director has determined that the grantee is 
        qualified to administer the funds and programs involved in the 
        proposed grant: Provided further, That all grant agreements 
        shall provide that the General Accounting Office shall have 
        access to the records of the grantee which bear exclusively 
        upon the Federal grant: Provided further, That those provisions 
        of the Economic Opportunity Amendments of 1967 and 1969 that 
        set mandatory funding levels shall not be effective during the 
        fiscal year ending June 30, 1971. . . .

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language beginning on page 38, line 25, 
    and on page 39 through line 3. The language reads:

            Provided further, That those provisions of the Economic 
        Opportunity Amendments of 1967 and 1969 that set mandatory 
        funding levels shall not be effective during the fiscal year 
        ending June 30, 1971.

        Mr. Chairman, this is legislation in an appropriation bill and 
    sets aside all the earmarking that we provided for in the Economic 
    Opportunity Authorization Act.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, we 
    concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded and the Chair 
    therefore sustains the point of order. . . .
        Mr. [Durwood G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    further point of order under this title and under the heading 
    ``Office of Economic Opportunity,'' on page 38, lines 1 through 25, 
    including the colon after the word ``grant'', predicated upon the 
    fact that this is further legislation in an appropriation bill and 
    that it involves specifically, Mr. Chairman, the phrase on line 14 
    ``and for purchase of

[[Page 7301]]

    real property for training centers:'' and other legislation 
    language which is foreign to an appropriation bill.
        Mr. Chairman, I will say further that the point of order is not 
    waived by House Resolution 1151 which, of course, was changed by 
    unanimous consent on the House floor to include all points of order 
    against appropriations carried in the bill which are not yet 
    authorized by law are hereby waived.
        Mr. Chairman, this is in specific violation of section 601 of 
    the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, which is contained in the 
    bill, page 38, line 13, which act, according to 42 United States 
    Code, referring specifically to section 602, section 2914 in no 
    place allows for acquisition of land, although it does provide for 
    construction repairs and capital improvements.
        For all of these considerations, it is my firm belief that the 
    remainder of this section of the bill under consideration should be 
    stricken, and that the point of order should stand. . . .
        The Chairman: As the Chair understands it, the gentleman from 
    Missouri (Mr. Hall), has made his point of order against all 
    language from and including lines 1 to 25 on page 38. Unless the 
    chairman of the committee can cite authorization language, 
    particularly for the language ``and for the purchase of real 
    property for training centers'' which the gentleman from Missouri 
    has specified, the Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        Mr. Perkins: Mr. Chairman, if I understand the point of order 
    raised by the gentleman from Missouri, the gentleman moved to 
    strike the language on page 38 from what line through what line?
        Mr. Hall: The Chair has just repeated it. Line 1, including the 
    title and the heading, down through the colon following the word 
    ``grant.''
        Mr. Perkins: Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard further, lines 1 
    through 5 including the amount authorized and appropriated, 
    $2,046,200,000, follows the language in the authorization bill. We 
    do have some new language commencing on lines 14 through 15 that is 
    not in the authorization bill presently, but this is the language 
    that has been carried on previous appropriation bills. The language 
    that I specifically refer to that is not in the authorization bill 
    is on line 14 after ``1964,'' commencing with ``and for purchase of 
    real property for training centers.''
        Now, this language is not in the authorization bill.
        The language commencing on line 18 and the rest of the 
    paragraph down to line 21 is language on an appropriation bill, in 
    my judgment, because there is nothing in the authorization bill. 
    But we certainly do not want the amount that is appropriated for 
    the economic opportunity act stricken from this bill. It is in 
    strict compliance with the authorization amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        There are ample precedents for ruling a complete paragraph out 
    of order, if any part of that paragraph is out of order. The 
    gentleman from Kentucky has conceded that part of it is not in 
    order, and therefore the Chair sustains the point of order made by 
    the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hall). . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Michel: on page 38, line 1, insert 
        the following:

[[Page 7302]]

                         Office of Economic Opportunity

                          economic opportunity program

            For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
        Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-452, approved 
        August 20, 1964), as amended, $2,046,200,000, plus 
        reimbursements: Provided That this appropriation shall be 
        available for transfers to the economic opportunity loan fund 
        for loans under title III, and amounts so transferred shall 
        remain available until expended: . . . Provided further, That 
        this appropriation shall not be available for contracts under 
        titles I, II, V, VI, and VIII extending for more than twenty-
        four months: Provided further, That no part of the funds 
        appropriated in this paragraph shall be available for any grant 
        until the Director has determined that the grantee is qualified 
        to administer the funds and programs involved in the proposed 
        grant: Provided further, That all grant agreements shall 
        provide that the General Accounting Office shall have access to 
        the records of the grantee which bear exclusively upon the 
        Federal grant.

        Mr. Michel (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment be considered as read.
        Mr. Perkins: Well, let us see what you have in there first.
        Mr. Michel: If the gentleman will withhold for a moment, I can 
    explain it very simply.
        All that I have done in my amendment is to strike out the words 
    beginning on page 38, line 14, ``and for purchase of real property 
    for training centers:'' and left the balance of the page precisely 
    as it is, except down on line 25, after the word ``grant'' there 
    will be a period, and the last part of that sentence will be 
    stricken. . . .
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the point of order.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, the point of order against the 
    amendment is that all of the language to which the amendment 
    addresses itself on page 38 of the bill, H.R. 18515, has been 
    stricken.
        Mr. Chairman, there is no way that we can amend something that 
    is not before the House.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) has 
    offered a separate amendment to insert a new paragraph, and the 
    amendment is in order.
        The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) is recognized for 5 
    minutes in support of his amendment.
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, as I understood the colloquy of the 
    gentleman from Missouri when he was making his point of order, he 
    had specific reference to lines 14 and 15, which I deleted in my 
    amendment.
        Now over and above that, the last sentence on line 25, page 38, 
    ``Provided further, That those provisions,'' inasmuch as that was 
    the language which he cited as being subject to a point of order, I 
    of course, offered the amendment deleting that objectionable phrase 
    and I submit that the balance of the page is what has traditionally 
    been carried in the OEO appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: Does any Member wish to be heard in opposition to 
    the amendment? If not, the Chair will put the question.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Michel).

[[Page 7303]]

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Hall) there were--ayes 99, noes 31.
        So the amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas 
    rise?
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. . . .
        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. O'Hara: As I understand the situation, all the language on 
    page 38 and the first three lines on page 39 were stricken under a 
    point of order.

        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. O'Hara: At that point, following that ruling of the Chair, 
    the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) offered an amendment to 
    the bill which restored a good part of that language.
        Is it not correct, Mr. Chairman, that if anyone wanted to amend 
    the language of the Michel amendment, he should have offered his 
    amendment while the Michel amendment was pending?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: 
        After the colon on page 38, line 25, insert the following:
            ``Provided further, That of the sums appropriated under 
        this Act not more than $33 million shall be spent for the 
        purpose of carrying out programs under section 222(a)(5), not 
        more than $4,000,000 shall be spent for the purpose of carrying 
        out programs under section 222(a)(8), not more than $3,000,000 
        shall be spent for the purpose of carrying out programs under 
        Sec. 222(a)(9), and not more than $5,000,000 shall be spent for 
        the purpose of carrying out programs under part A of title 
        III.''

        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment comes too late. It should properly have been an amendment 
    to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 
    Michel. It now comes too late. . . .
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point 
    of order. It would seem to me, if I understand the language of the 
    gentleman from Texas, it is a new paragraph. It would not come 
    under but would follow the text of my amendment which I offered.
        The Chairman: The Chair does not understand it in that light. 
    The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas is a continuation 
    of and is an addition to the amendment just agreed to and is in the 
    form of a proviso and is not in the form of a paragraph or new 
    section to the bill.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
    modify the amendment. I ask that it be an amendment which shall be 
    inserted at the beginning of page 39, as a separate paragraph.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Texas?
        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        The Chair must rule the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Texas is out of order.

Amendment of Line-Item Amounts Where Total Authorization Has Been 
    Amended

Sec. 33.12 Where a bill carries a total authorization, com

[[Page 7304]]

    prised of individual projects with line-item amounts, such line-
    items are subject to amendment notwithstanding the fact that a 
    perfecting amendment to the total authorization precludes further 
    amendment of the total sum.

    The proceedings of June 28, 1967, during consideration of H.R. 
10340 authorizing appropriations for the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, are discussed in Sec. 33.2, supra.

Amendment Providing Funds ``in Addition to'' Amount Which Has Been 
    Agreed To

Sec. 33.13 When an amendment changing an amount of money in a bill has 
    been agreed to, an amendment proposing a further change in the 
    amount is not in order. But where a figure in an appropriation bill 
    has been agreed to, an amendment inserted following the figure 
    agreed upon and providing funds ``in addition thereto'' is in 
    order.

    On June 5, 1959,(13) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 105 Cong. Rec. 10055, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7509.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Fred] Wampler [of Indiana]: On 
        page 4, line 7, after the word ``expended'' strike out 
        ``$658,300,100'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$658,352,100.''. 
        . .

        Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Has not this figure which the 
    gentleman seeks to amend already been amended?
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman is correct. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jensen: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order, then, that 
    the amendment is out of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

    Subsequent proceedings were as follows: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 105 Cong. Rec. 10057, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wampler: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wampler: On page 21, line 7, after 
        the amount shown add the following: ``And in addition $52,000 
        for the following projects: Sugar Creek, West Terre Haute, 
        Clinton, and Conover Levee.''

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    language has been once amended.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York must have 
    misunderstood the reading of the amendment, because it follows the 
    amount and does not alter the amount.

[[Page 7305]]

        The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes in 
    support of his amendment.

Rejection of Amendment To Strike Figure in Appropriation Bill

Sec. 33.14 If an amendment seeking to strike out a figure in an 
    appropriation bill has been rejected, it remains in order to offer 
    an amendment to change such figure. (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 35.20, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Changing Figures: Similarity to Amendment Previously Rejected

Sec. 33.15 The change of two figures in an amendment already considered 
    and rejected was held sufficient to permit the consideration of 
    that amendment.

    On Sept. 23, 1975,(17) during consideration of a bill 
(18) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a 
point of order against an amendment as described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 29839, 29841, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. H.R. 7014, Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Dodd: Page 230, after line 12, insert 
    the following:
        (f) (1) The Secretary shall, by rule, prohibit the granting of 
    any right to develop crude oil, natural gas, coal, or oil shale on 
    Federal lands to any person if more than one major oil company, 
    more than one affiliate of a major oil company, or a major oil 
    company and any affiliate of a major oil company, has or have a 
    significant ownership interest in such person. The rules required 
    to be promulgated pursuant to this paragraph shall apply to the 
    granting of any such right which occurs after the 60-day period 
    which begins on the date of enactment of this Act.
        (2) For purposes of this subsection--
        (A) The term ``major oil company'' means any person who, 
    together with any affiliate of such person, produces 1.6 million 
    barrels of crude oil, natural gas liquids, and natural gas 
    equivalents per day. . . .
        (C) The term ``significant ownership interest'' means--
        (i) with respect to any corporation, 10 percent or more in 
    value of the outstanding stock or the capital assets of such 
    corporation.
        (ii) with respect to a partnership, 10 percent or more interest 
    in the profits or capital of such partnership. . . .
        Sec. 1201. (a) The Secretary of Interior shall, by rule, 
    prohibit the granting of any right to develop crude oil, natural 
    gas, coal, or oil shale on Federal lands to any person if more than 
    one major oil company, more than one affiliate of a major oil 
    company, or a major oil company and any affiliate of a major oil 
    company, has or have a significant ownership interest in such 
    person. The rules required to be promulgated pursuant to this 
    subsection

[[Page 7306]]

    shall apply to the granting of any such right which occurs after 
    the 60-day period which begins on the date of enactment of this 
    act.
        (b) For purposes of this subsection--
        (1) The term ``major oil company'' means any person who, 
    together with any affiliate of such person, produces 1.65 million 
    barrels of crude oil, natural gas liquids, and natural gas 
    equivalents per day. . . .
        (3) The term ``significant ownership interest'' means--
        (A) with respect to any corporation, 20 percent or more in 
    value of the outstanding stock or the capital assets of such 
    corporation,

        (B) with respect to a partnership, 20 percent or more interest 
    in the profits or capital of such partnership. . . .
        Mr. [Louis] Frey [Jr., of Florida]: . . . I would like to speak 
    on my point of order. On page 9 of Cannon's procedures it states as 
    follows:

            Previously rejected.
            Mere change of figures not sufficient to admit.

        It is my understanding that this amendment was rejected by the 
    House on July 31 and the only change in this amendment, if I am 
    correct, between that date and today is the figure of 1.65 million 
    barrels of crude oil and 1.6 million barrels of crude oil. I think 
    that is not a substantial change. I think that comes within the 
    rules stated on page 9 of Cannon's procedures. . . .
        Mr. [Christopher J.] Dodd [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, in 
    addition to the change in the production figures there is also a 
    change in the definition of a significant ownership in this, the 
    change from 10 percent to 20 percent. I would submit, Mr. Chairman, 
    that these are significant changes in that the actual production 
    that would be involved means that we are talking about 500,000 
    barrels of oil a day, and that is significant.
        Also, I would point to similar cases which have raised this 
    point. I am referring to Deschler's procedure, section 33, 
    referring to amendments previously considered and rejected, and 
    there are numerous cases that are referred to which involve the 
    very point of order raised by the gentleman from Florida, and I 
    would quote from one particular one:

            Mere similarity of an amendment to one previously 
        considered and rejected is not sufficient to warrant the Chair 
        ruling it out of order; if different in form it is admitted.

        I repeat that this is a substantial change in the figures; it 
    is different in form, and therefore is in order.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There are numerous precedents that affect this matter, and the 
    Chair will cite them, section 2840, volume 8 of Cannon's 
    precedents, and other precedents following section 2840, that the 
    Chair might state but will not do so in order not to prolong the 
    matter.
        The Chair feels that the changes are sufficient to be 
    completely in line with section 2840, page 438, volume 8 of 
    Cannon's precedents:

            Similarity of an amendment to one previously rejected will 
        not render it inadmissible if sufficiently different in form to 
        present another proposition.

        The Chair feels the various changes make this another 
    proposition and therefore overrules the point of order.

[[Page 7307]]

Rejection of Amendment Considered En Bloc With Other Amendments

Sec. 33.16 Where an amendment to a figure in a bill considered en bloc 
    with other amendments has been rejected, no point of order lies 
    against a subsequent amendment to that figure containing a 
    different amount and offered as a separate amendment.

    On Aug. 7, 1978,(20) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 13635 (the Defense Department appropriation), 
the above-stated proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 124 Cong. Rec. 24701, 24702, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dickinson: On page 6, line 4, 
        strike ``$9,097,422,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$9,115,421,000''.

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Alabama (Mr. Dickinson).
        First, Mr. Chairman, I would ask whether this is the same 
    amendment that has been offered before or if this is a part of that 
    amendment?
        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I 
    would respond by saying that this is similar to the one that was 
    offered before but it is in fact different. I am offering it for 
    the purpose of obtaining a recorded vote. I am going to attempt to 
    obtain a recorded vote until I get one. But this amendment is 
    different to that offered before.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Florida (Mr. Sikes) on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert L. F.] Sikes [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, as I 
    understand it, there is a $1,000 change in the amount in the 
    amendment which is offered now.
        This is dilatory. It is consuming the time of the House while 
    we have many important things still to be considered.
        Mr. Chairman, I would trust that the amendment would be 
    considered out of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will make the observation that this 
    particular amendment has not been offered before. The figure is a 
    substantial change from a previously considered amendment, and the 
    Chair does not consider the amendment to be dilatory.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Dickinson) 
    for 5 minutes in support of his amendment. . . .
        Mr. Sikes: Mr. Chairman, if I may make a further parliamentary 
    inquiry, do I not understand that this amendment is essentially the 
    same as the ones offered en bloc and previously disposed of on the 
    floor?

[[Page 7308]]

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that this amendment is 
    offered separately and contains a different figure.
        Mr. Sikes: A $1,000 difference, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: It is a different figure. The Chair has already 
    made that observation.
        Mr. Sikes: Mr. Chairman, it is a dilatory amendment which, I 
    think, is taking the time of the House unnecessarily.
        The Chairman: The Chair has already ruled.