[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[F. Effect of Consideration or Adoption; Changes After Adoption]
[Â§ 34. Effecting Changes by Unanimous Consent]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 7308-7313]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
     F. EFFECT OF CONSIDERATION OR ADOPTION; CHANGES AFTER ADOPTION
 
Sec. 34. Effecting Changes by Unanimous Consent

    By unanimous consent, an amendment which has been agreed to may be 
subsequently amended. Moreover, where an amendment has been adopted in 
Committee of the Whole and, by unanimous consent, a Member is then 
permitted to offer an amendment thereto which is adopted, the Chair 
does not put the question on the amendment as amended, since 
proceedings where the original amendment has been agreed to have not 
been vacated and the original amendment has become part of the text of 
the bill.(2) In some situations, on the other hand, the 
proceedings whereby an amendment has been adopted have been vacated, 
and in such cases the amendment has been amended and then adopted as 
amended.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 34.1, infra.
 3. See Sec. 34.2, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Generally

Sec. 34.1 By unanimous consent, it is in order to amend an amendment 
    which has already been agreed to.

    An illustration of a unanimous-consent request as described above 
can be found in the proceedings of Sept. 17, 1970,(4) during 
consideration of H.R. 17654, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1970:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 116 Cong. Rec. 32303, 32304, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. Allen] Smith of California: . . . I ask unanimous 
    consent to return to page 39 of H.R. 17654, immediately below line 
    4, for the purpose of offering a perfecting amendment to the 
    amendment offered by Mr. White which was adopted in this committee. 
    . . .
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Smith of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. White).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of California to the 
        amendment offered by Mr. White: In paragraph (b) of clause 2 of 
        rule XV of the rules of the House as contained in the

[[Page 7309]]

        amendment offered by Mr. White to page 39, immediately below 
        line 4, insert ``which is privileged and shall be decided 
        without debate,'' immediately after the words `` motion''.

        Mr. Smith of California: Mr. Chairman, I request that the 
    matter come to a vote.
        The Chairman: (5) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Smith) to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. White).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will read.

Vacating Proceedings

Sec. 34.2 The Committee of the Whole, by unanimous consent, vacated the 
    proceedings whereby it had agreed to an amendment, and then agreed 
    to an amendment to the amendment and adopted the original amendment 
    as amended.

    On Nov. 30, 1970,(6) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 39086, 39087, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 16443.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the amendment placed in the bill by the 
    gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hicks) in section (j)(1) be 
    permitted to be open for amendment at this time. . . .
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: (7) The action by which the amendment 
    of the gentleman from Washington was agreed to is vacated and the 
    amendment is open for amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. James A. Burke (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Eckhardt to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Hicks: . . .

        The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. . . .
        The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

Sec. 34.3 The Committee of the Whole, by unanimous consent, vacated the 
    proceedings whereby it had agreed to an amendment and then adopted 
    the amendment in a revised form.

    On Aug. 8, 1966,(8) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 112 Cong. Rec. 18482, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 14765.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard H.] Poff [of Virginia]: . . . Earlier in the 
    debate today the Committee of the Whole adopted an amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from North Carolina which added to title V 
    a new section, section 504. Apparently by some inadvertence the 
    language of the amendment was not as intended. . . .
        [The] unanimous-consent request, Mr. Chairman, is that the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union vacate the 
    proceedings whereby

[[Page 7310]]

    the Committee earlier adopted the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Whitener), and in lieu thereof 
    adopt in place of that amendment the following amendment:

            Sec. 504. Nothing contained in this title shall be 
        construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress. . . 
        .

        The Chairman: (9) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Virginia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment as now restated 
    by the gentleman from Virginia.
        The amendment was agreed to.

Sec. 34.4 Where the Member in charge of a bill in the Committee of the 
    Whole had inadvertently stated he had no objection to a pending 
    amendment, as a result of which the amendment was adopted, 
    proceedings whereby such amendment was adopted were by unanimous 
    consent vacated on request of the sponsor of the amendment.

    On Mar. 12, 1945,(10) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 91 Cong. Rec. 2042, 2043, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 2023, to continue the Commodity Credit Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: On 
    page 1, lines 5 and 6, after the word ``thereof '' in line 5, 
    strike out the sign and figure ``$5,000,000,000'' and insert in 
    lieu thereof the sign and figure ``$4,000,000,000.''
        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: . . . I think [the amendment] 
    should be adopted. I am sure there will be no objection to it. . . 
    .
        The amendment was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I misunderstood the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Michigan. I had no right to agree to that 
    amendment. . . .
        . . . I ask the committee, under the circumstances, to 
    reconsider its action.
        Mr. Wolcott: There will be no objection on my part.

    Objection was made, however; after further proceedings, Mr. Wolcott 
made the following statement:

        Mr. Chairman, I now renew my unanimous-consent request that the 
    proceedings by which the amount in this bill was reduced from 
    $5,000,000,000 to $4,000,000,000 be vacated. . . .
        There was no objection.

Sec. 34.5 Pursuant to a unanimous-consent request, the House vacated 
    its action in agreeing to a concurrent resolution with an 
    amendment, and agreed to the resolution without amendment.

    On June 22, 1965,(11) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 14425, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        S. Con. Res. 36.

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

[[Page 7311]]

        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, before the 
    House passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 36, it was amended to 
    correct a typographical error that appeared in the reported version 
    of the resolution.
        Upon further investigation, I find that the engrossed copy of 
    the Senate concurrent resolution is correct and that no amendment 
    was necessary.
        Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    proceedings whereby Senate Concurrent Resolution 36 was amended and 
    agreed to be vacated and that it be considered as agreed to without 
    amendment.
        The Speaker: (12) Without objection, it is so 
    ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection. . . .
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

--Vacating Proceedings by Which Bill Passed as Amended

Sec. 34.6 On one occasion, after the Committee of the Whole and the 
    House by separate vote had agreed to an amendment, a portion of 
    which had been inadvertently omitted therefrom and had not been 
    read by the Clerk or agreed to, and the House passed the bill as 
    amended, the House subsequently by unanimous consent agreed to 
    vacate the proceedings by which the bill in question had been 
    passed, then agreed to the entire amendment as intended to be 
    offered and passed the bill as thus amended.

    On Feb. 12, 1951, in the circumstances described above, the 
following unanimous-consent request was made: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 97 Cong. Rec. 1233, 1234, 82d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 1612, to extend the authority of the President to 
        enter into trade agreements under section 350 of the Tariff Act 
        of 1930.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: . . . I feel that in all 
    fairness to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Bailey) a 
    correction should be made in the proceedings of the House, and I 
    now ask unanimous consent that the proceedings whereby the bill 
    H.R. 1612 was passed be vacated and that the language of the 
    amendment I have just read be agreed to in toto as an amendment to 
    the bill at the point it was intended, section 7 of the bill. . . .
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: (14) Without objection the proceedings 
    whereby the House on February 7, 1951, ordered the bill H.R. 1612 
    engrossed, read a third time, and passed will be vacated. The 
    amendment as read by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Mills) is 
    agreed to and the bill will be considered as engrossed, read a 
    third time and passed,

[[Page 7312]]

    and a motion to reconsider laid on the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unanimous Consent That Subsequent Amendment Not Be Precluded by 
    Adoption of Amendments Changing Figures

Sec. 34.7 By unanimous consent, the Committee of the Whole permitted 
    two Members to offer amendments to change a figure in an 
    appropriation bill which, if adopted would not preclude the 
    offering of subsequent amendments to that amended text.

    On July 22, 1981,(15) during consideration of H.R. 4035 
(16) in the Committee of the Whole, the situation described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 127 Cong. Rec. 16777, 16782, 16783, 16788, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. Department of Interior appropriations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph M.] McDade [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike the last word, and I will make a unanimous-consent 
    request.
        I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that an amendment which 
    I will offer to the bill at page 37, line 8, if successful in 
    changing the numbers thereto, will not preclude a further amendment 
    to further change those numbers. . . .
        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, 
    reserving the right to object, I would just like assurance from the 
    Chair that the gentleman's unanimous-consent request will in fact 
    achieve the result that he seeks, and that is to say that further 
    amendments and amendments to those amendments would then be in 
    order.
        The Chairman: (17) If the McDade amendment is 
    adopted, another amendment would be in order, but only relating to 
    those particular figures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. George E. Danielson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ottinger: And amendments to that amendment or substitutes 
    for that amendment?
        The Chairman: To that amendment, yes. . . .
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade)?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. McDade: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The portion of the bill to which the amendment relates is as 
    follows:

            For necessary expenses in carrying out energy conservation 
        activities, $272,890,000 and $99,608,000 to be derived from 
        ``Fossil Energy Construction''. . . .
            Amendment offered by Mr. McDade: On page 37, line 8, strike 
        ``$272,890,000 and $99,608,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        '``203,890,000 and $168,608,000''. . . .

        The amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. [Vin] Weber [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Weber of Minnesota: Page 37, line 
        8, strike out ``$203,890,000 and $168,608,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``68,890,000 and $303,608,000''. . . .

[[Page 7313]]

        Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Chairman, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would at 
    this point ask unanimous consent that should the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Weber) succeed, I would still 
    be allowed to offer my amendment as a separate amendment.