[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[F. Effect of Consideration or Adoption; Changes After Adoption]
[Â§ 35. Effect of Consideration or Rejection]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 7313-7332]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
     F. EFFECT OF CONSIDERATION OR ADOPTION; CHANGES AFTER ADOPTION
 
Sec. 35. Effect of Consideration or Rejection

    It is not in order to offer an amendment identical to one 
previously rejected.(18) On the other hand, while it is not 
in order to submit for consideration, by way of amendment, a 
proposition previously passed upon, an amendment that raises the same 
question by the use of different language may be 
admissible.(19) The general rule is that mere similarity of 
an amendment to one previously considered is not sufficient to preclude 
the amendment; if different in form, the amendment is 
permitted.(20) For example, a substitute amendment having 
been rejected, a proposition contained therein may nevertheless be 
offered as an amendment to an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 35.1, infra.
19. See, for example, 92 Cong. Rec. 1003, 1004, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Feb. 6, 1946.
20. See Sec. 35.11, infra, and see 101 Cong. Rec. 10021, 84th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., July 6, 1955.
 1. See Sec. 18.23, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To a motion to strike certain words and insert others, a simple 
motion to strike out the words may not be offered as a substitute; but 
if the motion to strike out and insert is rejected, the simple motion 
to strike out is in order.(2) Thus, a motion to strike out a 
title contained in a bill has been held to be in order notwithstanding 
the fact that the Committee of the Whole had previously considered two 
motions to strike out such title and insert other 
language.(3) On the other hand, while a perfecting amendment 
has precedence over an amendment to strike out, the rejection of the 
motion to strike does not preclude perfecting amendments.(4) 
Thus, defeat of a motion to strike out a paragraph does not preclude 
amendments nor motions to strike out and insert.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 17.16, supra.
 3. See Sec. 35.24, infra.
 4. See Sec. 15.27, supra.
 5. See Sec. 16.12, supra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Identical Amendment

Sec. 35.1 It is not in order to offer an amendment identical to one 
    previously rejected.

    On Feb. 10, 1964,(6) the Committee of the Whole had 
under

[[Page 7314]]

consideration H.R. 7152, the Civil Rights Act of 1963. Mr. Richard H. 
Poff, of Virginia, offered an amendment to a particular line, seeking 
to strike certain words. The amendment was rejected. Subsequently, Mr. 
John V. Dowdy, of Texas, offered an amendment to the same line, seeking 
to strike the same words. Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, made a point 
of order against the Dowdy amendment, on the basis that the same 
amendment had been offered by Mr. Poff and had been rejected. The 
Chairman(7) sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. The proceedings described here are found at 110 Cong. Rec. 2727, 
        88th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Floor Amendment Identical to Rejected Committee Amendment

Sec. 35.2 An amendment once rejected cannot be re-offered in identical 
    form; thus, where there was pending a committee amendment adding a 
    new section at the end of a bill, the Chair indicated that 
    rejection of the amendment would preclude the reoffering of the 
    identical amendment from the floor.

    On Feb. 12, 1980,(8) during consideration of H.R. 3995 
(9) in the Committee of the Whole, the situation described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 126 Cong. Rec. 2662, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. The Noise Control Act Authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, in the 
    event that the committee amendment is not agreed to, would it then 
    be in order for the gentleman from Georgia or any other Member to 
    offer the same amendment at some other point in these proceedings?

        The Chairman: (10) The identical amendment could not 
    again be offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Joseph L. Fisher (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Levitas: The only opportunity we would then have to vote, 
    if this legislative veto amendment is in the bill, is at this 
    point?
        The Chairman: On the Public Works Committee amendment, that is 
    correct.

Amendment Not Identical to Rejected Amendment

Sec. 35.3 Mere similarity of an amendment to one previously considered 
    and rejected is not sufficient to prevent its consideration if a 
    substantive change has been made.

    On Feb. 23, 1978,(11) the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole overruled a point of order against an amendment that was 
offered during the consideration of H.R. 9179, the Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation Amend

[[Page 7315]]

ments of 1977. The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 4470, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Philip M.] Crane [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Crane: On page 8, add the 
        following new subsection:
            (m) Section 237 of such Act, as amended by subsection (h) 
        of this section, is further amended by adding at the end 
        thereof the following new subsection:
            ``(n) The Corporation shall not make any loan to, or 
        guarantee or insure the obligations of, the National Finance 
        Corporation of Panama unless the House of Representatives 
        adopts a resolution approving such loan, guaranty, or 
        insurance.''.

        Mr. [Jonathan B.] Bingham [of New York: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bingham: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that this 
    amendment is virtually the same as the amendment that was dealt 
    with when this bill, H.R. 7179, was previously before the House and 
    was defeated by a rollcall vote. Accordingly, the gentleman does 
    not have the right to re-offer it.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Illinois care to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. Crane: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment that was offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Crane) on November 2, 1977, and which was narrowly defeated by a 
    14-vote margin in the House provided that these loan guarantees not 
    take place to the National Finance Corporation of Panama unless 
    both Houses of the Congress approved.
        This is a substantial change in that amendment that requires 
    only a one-House approval, that of the House of Representatives. It 
    is not the same amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The amendment which was previously offered and defeated 
    provided, as the gentleman from Maryland has stated, ``unless the 
    Congress'' adopts a concurrent resolution.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois provides:
        unless the House of Representatives adopts a resolution.

        This is a significant difference in the amendment and, 
    therefore, the point of order is overruled.

Sec. 35.4 An amendment previously rejected may not be offered a second 
    time, but an amendment similar but not identical thereto may be 
    considered.

    On July 19, 1967 (13) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 113 Cong. Rec. 19417, 19418, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 421. See also 119 Cong. Rec. 41688, 93d 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 14, 1973. And see 94 Cong. Rec. 181, 80th 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 14, 1948.

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

[[Page 7316]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Charles S.] Joelson [of New 
        Jersey] as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. 
        Holifield: On page 4, after line 19, insert the following:
            ``(d) nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed 
        as making illegal any travel in interstate commerce or the use 
        of any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, including 
        the mail, for the purpose of orderly dissent or protest, or for 
        the objectives of organized labor, including the organizing of 
        workers or the urging of or conduct of a strike in a bona fide 
        labor dispute.''

        [The substitute was rejected. The amendment was rejected.]
        The Clerk read as follows: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 19423, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. Joelson: On page 4, after line 19, 
        insert: ``Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed 
        as making illegal any travel in interstate commerce or the use 
        of any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, including 
        the mail, for the purpose of orderly and peaceful dissent or 
        protest or for pursuing the objectives of organized labor, 
        provided they are pursued through orderly and legal means.''

        Mr. [William M.] McCulloch [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. . . . I make the point of order that this amendment in 
    substance was offered in Committee of the Whole and was rejected. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: (15) the Chair will state to the 
    gentleman that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    Jersey is not identical to the amendment referred to by the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. McCulloch).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Joseph L. Evins (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 35.5 Similarity of an amendment to one previously rejected will 
    not render it inadmissible if, in addition, it treats of matters 
    not made the subject of the prior amendment.

    On Apr. 24, 1952,(16) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 98 Cong. Rec. 4413, 82d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 
        5678, a revision of the laws relating to immigration, 
        naturalization, and nationality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Franklin D.] Roosevelt [Jr., of New 
    York]: . . . [I]nsert new section 204, reading as follows:

            All quota immigration visas available during any fiscal 
        year which are not actually issued during such fiscal year, and 
        all quota immigration visas which were issued in a previous 
        year and expired during such fiscal year without being 
        utilized, shall be assigned to a general immigration visa pool 
        and shall be available, without reference to national origins, 
        for issuance at any time during the fiscal year following such 
        assignment as follows:
            (a) Family reunion preferences: twenty-five percent of such 
        pooled visas . . . shall be available exclusively, in such 
        order as may be determined by the Secretary of State, to adult 
        children, brothers, and sisters, and other relatives of 
        citizens, and to spouses, children (both infant and adult), 
        parents, brothers, and sisters, and other relatives of alien 
        residents of the United States who

[[Page 7317]]

        have been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent 
        residence. . . .

        Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from New York on the ground that it is similar to an amendment 
    rejected on yesterday. . . .
        The Chairman: (17) Does the gentleman from New York 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Roosevelt: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
        While this does deal with unused quotas, as did the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Celler) yesterday--and 
    I should like to read the Celler amendment:

            Section 201 (a), change period at the end of subsection to 
        colon and add the following: ``Provided further, That the 
        unused portion of the sum total of all quotas for each fiscal 
        year shall be made available in the following fiscal year in 
        direct proportion to the quotas for each quota area affected, 
        to immigrants specified in paragraph (4) of section 203(a) of 
        this title if such immigrants are determined to be chargeable 
        to quotas not exceeding 7,000 annually.''

        My amendment is entirely different. It does deal with the 
    unused quotas in each fiscal year, but it sets up an entirely 
    different method of allocating those unused quotas as distinguished 
    from the Celler amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair has examined the two amendments 
    with some degree of care and finds that the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New York [Mr. Roosevelt] has language similar to 
    the other amendment, but in addition it treats of other matters, 
    and for that reason the Chair will rule that the amendment is in 
    order.

Sec. 35.6 While it is not in order to offer an amendment identical with 
    one previously rejected, an amendment which specifies conditions 
    under which particular acts should be undertaken and contains 
    substantially different propositions from an amendment previously 
    rejected is in order.

    On Mar. 31, 1948,(18) the following amendment was 
offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 94 Cong. Rec. 3828, 3832, 3833, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was S. 2202, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. (Lawrence H.) Smith of Wisconsin: 
        On page 82, line 6, strike out ``1952'' and insert ``1949''; 
        and in line 15, strike out the sentence after the period and 
        substitute therefor the following: ``Nothing in this act shall 
        be construed as placing either a legal or a moral obligation 
        upon any succeeding Congress to continue the present aid 
        program beyond the 12 months herein provided for.'' . . .

    After the rejection of this amendment, another was offered as 
follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. (John) Phillips of California: ``. 
        . . No au

[[Page 7318]]

        thorization in this bill shall be construed to imply any 
        commitment, legal or moral, to advance further aid after June 
        30, 1949. Although the bill recites later dates, it is the 
        sense of this Congress that such aid will be extended only if 
        the recipient countries are doing all they can to aid 
        themselves, and if such further aid is justified by the then 
        economic and financial condition in the United States.'' . . .

        Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: As I understand, the amendment 
    is substantially the amendment that has just been passed upon.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule. 
    The amendment submitted goes much further and suggests other 
    conditions, is stated differently, and involves substantially 
    different propositions than the amendment heretofore voted upon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19.  Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 35.7 The Chair will not rule out as dilatory an amendment similar 
    but not identical to one previously rejected.

    On Aug. 7, 1978,(20) during consideration of H.R. 13635, 
defense appropriations for fiscal 1979, the Chair ruled that, where an 
amendment to a figure in a bill considered en bloc with other 
amendments had been rejected, no point of order would lie against a 
subsequent amendment to that figure containing a different amount and 
offered as a separate amendment, even though it was contended that the 
change in the amount was not substantial. The amendment, objected to as 
dilatory, was offered by Mr. William L. Dickinson, of Alabama:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.).

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

[[Page 7319]]

        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?
        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.

--Different in Form

Sec. 35.8 A motion offered as a substitute for an amendment and 
    rejected may be offered again as a separate amendment.

    On July 19, 1967,(2) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 113 Cong. Rec. 19417, 19418, 19423, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 421. The proceedings are discussed more 
        fully in Sec. 35.4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (3) The question is on the substitute 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Joelson] to 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Holifield].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Joseph L. Evins (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The substitute amendment to the amendment was rejected.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from California [Mr. Holifield]. . . .
        So the amendment was rejected. . . .
        Amendment offered by Mr. [Charles S.] Joelson [of New Jersey]: 
    On page 4, after line 19, insert: ``Nothing contained in this 
    chapter. . . . ''
        Mr. [William M.] McCulloch [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this amendment in substance was offered in 
    Committee of the Whole and was rejected. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey is not identical 
    to the amendment referred to by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
    McCulloch].

Sec. 35.9 A proposition offered as an amendment to an amend

[[Page 7320]]

    ment and rejected may be offered again, in identical form, as an 
    amendment to the bill.

    On Oct. 31, 1963, (4) a question was raised concerning 
the propriety of an amendment that was identical to one that had 
previously been defeated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 109 Cong. Rec. 20729, 20730, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 8195 (Committee on Agriculture).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order that the amendment is not germane. It is 
    identical to the amendment which was offered earlier and which was 
    just defeated.
        The Chairman: (5) Does the gentleman from Tennessee 
    desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ross] Bass [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
    say to the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman 
    from North Carolina [Mr. Cooley] that it is an amendment which is 
    offered to the main bill. The other amendment was offered to the 
    substitute. Now it is offered to the main bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to inform the gentleman from 
    North Carolina that this is an amendment now offered to the bill. . 
    . .
        Under the rules of the House the gentleman from Tennessee may 
    now offer his amendment.

Sec. 35.10 A perfecting amendment offered to an amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute may be offered again as an amendment to the 
    original bill if the amendment is first rejected or if the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute as perfected is rejected.

    On Sept. 28, 1976,(6) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 15,(7) the Chair responded to 
several parliamentary inquiries as described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 122 Cong. Rec. 33075, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Chairman, as I 
    understand it, we are at the present time considering amendments to 
    the amendment in the nature of a substitute which was offered by 
    the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
        The Chairman: (8) That is correct. We are 
    considering perfecting amendments to the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute offered by the gentleman from Florida on behalf of the 
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Danielson: . . . Mr. Chairman, in the event the substitute 
    should be defeated, would it be proper to offer the same amendments 
    to the committee bill?
        The Chairman: In substance, they would be in order. They might 
    have to be redrafted, but essentially the same kind of amendments 
    could be offered.

[[Page 7321]]

        Mr. Danielson: But the defeat of an amendment to the substitute 
    which we are now considering would not bar this same amendment, in 
    substance?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

Sec. 35.11 Mere similarity to a prior amendment is not sufficient to 
    warrant rejection of an amendment, and if different in form the 
    proposition is not subject to the point of order that it has been 
    previously passed upon.

    On May 11, 1949,(9) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 95 Cong. Rec. 6069, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 2682, to amend the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter 
        Act and the Strategic Materials Stock Piling Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Stephen M.] Young [of Ohio]: On page 
    2, line 8, after the word ``storage'' insert the following: . . .
        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is substantially the same as that 
    which was decided by the Committee.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair wishes to inquire of 
    the gentleman from Ohio if this is the same text as the amendment 
    which he offered to the Sutton amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Albert Gore (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Young: It is not the same language, Mr. Chairman. This is 
    an amendment to the bill. My amendment to the amendment carried.
        The Chairman: The Chair overrules the point of order.

    Similarly, on Mar. 18, 1960,(11) the following 
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 106 Cong. Rec. 6016, 6017, 6027, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 8601. See also 113 Cong. Rec. 19418, 
        19423, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., July 19, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Hamer H.] Budge [of Idaho] to the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Celler as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. McCulloch: On page 6, line 9, after 
        the word ``office'', insert ``in any election in which any 
        candidate for the office of President, Vice President, 
        presidential elector, Member of the Senate or Member of the 
        House of Representatives, or Resident Commissioner from the 
        Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is voted upon''. . . .

        So the amendment was rejected.

    The proceedings continued on Mar. 21: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 106 Cong. Rec. 6159, 6160, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [August E.] Johansen [of Michigan] 
        to the substitute amendment offered by Mr. Celler: On page 6, 
        line 10, after the word ``election'' insert ``for the office of 
        President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the 
        Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or 
        Commissioners from the territories or possessions, at any 
        general, special, or primary election held solely or in part 
        for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.''. 
        . .

[[Page 7322]]

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this amendment in substance has been voted on 
    by this Committee and voted down last week; therefore, it is not in 
    order. It is like an amendment we have voted on and voted down.

        The Chairman: (13) The Chair has had an opportunity 
    to examine the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. 
    Budge], which was to page 6, line 9. This is on page 6, line 10. It 
    is couched in entirely different language. The point of order is 
    overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 35.12 Similarity of an amendment to one previously rejected will 
    not render it inadmissible if sufficiently different in form to 
    present another proposition; an amendment striking a portion of 
    text having been defeated, a subsequent amendment striking a lesser 
    portion of the same text is in order.

    On June 1, 1961,(14) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 107 Cong. Rec. 9349, 9350, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. (H. R.) Gross of Iowa: ``On page 
        7, strike out all of lines 21 through 25 and on page 8, strike 
        all of lines 1 through 3.''. . .

        The amendment was rejected. . . .

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: 
        ``On page 8, lines 2 and 3, strike all after the semicolon.''

        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, being a realist I 
    understand----
        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment now offered by the gentleman from 
    Michigan is the same in effect as that which was offered by the 
    gentleman from Iowa and just defeated.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    point of order comes too late. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) While the point of order does 
    come too late, the amendment does strike out language different 
    from that stricken out by the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Iowa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. W. Homer Thornberry (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 35.13 An amendment previously rejected may not be offered a second 
    time, but an amendment of different form although of similar effect 
    is admissible.

    On May 26, 1969,(16) an amendment proscribing the use of 
funds in an agriculture appropriations bill for purchase of ``chemical 
pesticides'' having been considered and rejected, a second amendment 
prohibiting funds for purchase of certain enumerated pesticides was 
held admissible as not repetitive

[[Page 7323]]

of the proposition previously considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 115 Cong. Rec. 13754, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 35.14 Rejection of a substitute does not preclude further ad hoc 
    offering of amendments to a pending amendment.

    On Sept. 29, 1965,(17) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 111 Cong. Rec. 25418, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 4644.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [Jr., of Ohio]: As I understand it, the 
    Committee may now proceed to amend both the Multer amendment and 
    the Sisk substitute to the amendment; is that correct?
        The Chairman: (18) That is correct. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Harsha: Then when the vote comes upon the Sisk substitute 
    or amendment to the Multer amendment, assuming the Sisk substitute 
    is voted down, may this Committee then continue to amend the Multer 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: The Multer amendment, in the nature of a 
    substitute, would at that time be open to further amendment.

Sec. 35.15 Rejection of several amendments considered en bloc by 
    unanimous consent does not preclude their being offered separately 
    at a subsequent time.

    On June 7, 1973,(19) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 18518, 18521, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 7446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. [Lawrence G.] Williams [of 
        Pennsylvania]: . . .
            In page 11, line 19, following, ``The Administrator is 
        authorized to use'' add: appropriated and
            On page 12, line 13 following, ``otherwise available'' add: 
        appropriated or

        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    three amendments I am offering be considered en bloc. . . .
        [The amendments, considered en bloc, were rejected.]

            Amendment offered by Mr. [James R.] Mann [of South 
        Carolina]: Page 11, line 19, after ``use'', insert appropriated 
        and.''
            And on page 12, line 13, after ``available'', insert 
        ``appropriated or''. . .

        Mr. [M. Caldwell] Butler [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I believe 
    this amendment was disposed of in the last amendment considered, 
    addressed to the same point.
        The Chairman: (20) The amendments presented by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania were presented, three in number, en 
    bloc. This amendment is one which may be presented separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Henry B. Gonzalez (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 35.16 Mere similarity of an amendment to one pre

[[Page 7324]]

    viously considered and rejected is not sufficient to warrant the 
    Chair ruling it out of order; if different in form it is admitted.

    On Sept. 23, 1975,(1) during consideration of a bill 
(2) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a 
point of order against an amendment as described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 29839, 29841, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. 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 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:

[[Page 7325]]

            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: (3) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 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.

--Portion of Rejected Amendment Offered

Sec. 35.17 Rejection of an amendment consisting of two sections does 
    not preclude one of those sections being subsequently offered as a 
    separate amendment, since a portion of a rejected amendment may be 
    subsequently offered as a separate amendment if presenting a 
    different proposition.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on July 15, 
1981,(4) during consideration

[[Page 7326]]

of H.R. 3519, the Department of Defense authorization bill for fiscal 
year 1982. The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 127 Cong. Rec. 15874, 15875, 15898, 15899, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (5) The Clerk will report the next 
    Government Operations Committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Government Operations Committee amendment: Page 45, 
        beginning on line 9, strike out all of section 909 through line 
        14 on page 51 and insert in lieu thereof the following new 
        sections (and redesignate the succeeding sections accordingly). 
        . . .
            Sec. 908. (a) Chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, 
        relating to procurement generally, is amended by adding at the 
        end thereof the following new section. . . .
            ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, 
        procurement of any automatic data processing equipment or 
        services by or for the use of the Department of Defense shall 
        be conducted in accordance with section 111 of the Federal 
        Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. . . .

        So the Government Operations Committee amendment was rejected. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brooks: Page 59, insert before 
        line 6 the following new section (and redesignate the 
        succeeding sections accordingly):
            Sec. 910. (a) Chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, 
        relating to procurement generally, is amended by adding at the 
        end thereof the following new section. . . .
            ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, 
        procurement of any automatic data processing equipment or 
        services by or for the use of the Department of Defense shall 
        be conducted in accordance with section 111 of the Federal 
        Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. . . .

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment which the gentleman has offered and which has just been 
    read is part of the amendment which has just been voted down 
    overwhelmingly by the House. I make the point of order that since 
    the amendment has been rejected, it is out of order. . . .
        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the 
    amendment is designed to save the ADP law that the Congress has 
    passed, and would endorse the current situation in the ADP law and 
    would maintain it. It is offered as an amendment appropriately, 
    because it was a part of the previous amendment just voted on. It 
    is a part of that amendment, and the precedents of the House allow 
    the consideration as amendments of portions of an amendment 
    previously considered. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will rule under the principle contained 
    in Deschler's Procedures, chapter 27, section 33.8, where it says:

            Rejection of several amendments considered en bloc by 
        unanimous consent does not preclude their being offered 
        separately at a subsequent time.

        The Chair will rule that the point of order is not well taken, 
    and that the amendment is in order.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 7327]]

        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, the Chair just stated in ruling 
    against the point of order that two amendments offered en bloc can 
    be separated. The parliamentary inquiry is, was the preceding 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas offered as two 
    amendments en bloc?
        My understanding was, it was the committee amendment. It 
    embraces two paragraphs and was not offered as two amendments en 
    bloc.
        The Chairman: The precedent cited--and this is not an exact 
    parallel, the gentleman from New York is correct in that--but it 
    does suggest that the original amendment, once rejected as an 
    entire proposition, may be re-offered in part as a narrower 
    different proposition.

--Amendment Narrower in Scope Than Rejected Amendment

Sec. 35.18 Where an amendment proposing preferential treatment of 
    particular governmental agencies pending under reorganization plans 
    had been rejected, an amendment proposing preference for certain of 
    the agencies enumerated in the rejected amendment was held to be in 
    order.

    On Feb. 7, 1949,(6) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 95 Cong. Rec. 910, 912, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 2361, to provide for the reorganization of government 
        agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: 
        Page 7, line 20, after the word ``commission'' strike out the 
        period and insert the following: ``National Mediation Board, 
        National Railroad Adjustment Board, Railroad Retirement Board, 
        Federal Communications Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board. . . 
        .''

        So the amendment was rejected. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West 
        Virginia]: On page 7, line 20, after the words ``Securities and 
        Exchange Commission'', strike out the period, insert a comma 
        and add ``Railroad Retirement Board, National Mediation Board, 
        and National Railroad Retirement Adjustment Board.''. . .

        Mr. [Herbert C.] Bonner [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, 
    these agencies were included in the amendment that has just been 
    defeated.
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair may say to the gentleman 
    that this is a different amendment in that in the previous 
    amendment there were additional agencies included. The point of 
    order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Limitation on Use of Funds

Sec. 35.19 An amendment containing a limitation on the use of funds in 
    an appropriation bill having been rejected, the Chair held that 
    another amendment--containing a similar limitation

[[Page 7328]]

    and also stating an exception from that limitation--was not an 
    identical amendment and could be offered.

    On June 29, 1972,(8) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 118 Cong. Rec. 23378, 23379, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 15690.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Garry E.] Brown of Michigan: On 
        page 43, line 9, delete the period after the figure 
        ``$2,341,146,000'' and insert the following: ``Provided that no 
        part of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used during 
        the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973 to make food stamps 
        available to a household where the necessity and eligibility of 
        such household for assistance stems solely from the 
        unemployment of a member of such household who is a member of 
        an employee unit which has voluntarily terminated employment 
        due to a labor dispute or controversy, except that such 
        limitation shall not apply to a household eligible for general 
        assistance directly payable by such household's local unit of 
        government.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. It is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and, for all practical purposes, it is a 
    perfecting amendment and identical to the one we have already voted 
    on. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Michigan: . . . [I]t is not the same amendment as 
    the Michel amendment because it is not an absolute prohibition on 
    food stamps to strikers, so called. It says that eligibility for 
    food stamps shall be based upon eligibility for general assistance, 
    not the food stamp program itself. . . .
        The Chairman: (9) . . . [The amendment] is not 
    identical to the amendment previously offered, nor is it subject to 
    the interpretation that it would simply do exactly the same thing 
    as the amendment previously offered and rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rejection of Prior Amendment Striking or Changing Figure in 
    Appropriation Bill

Sec. 35.20 If an amendment seeking to strike out a figure in an 
    appropriation bill has been rejected, it is in order to offer 
    another amendment to change such figure.

    On Mar. 26, 1942,(10) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 88 Cong. Rec. 3023, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6845, Interior Department appropriations for 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Joshua L.] Johns [of Wisconsin]: 
        Page 79, line 18, strike out ``$500,000'' and insert 
        ``$350,000.'' . . .

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this question has already been settled under 
    the previous amendment, which was to strike out the entire amount. 
    [Note: The amendment referred to had been rejected.]
        The Chairman: (11) This amendment seeks to insert a 
    different amount. The Chair overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).

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

[[Page 7329]]

Sec. 35.21 Rejection of an amendment changing a figure in a bill does 
    not preclude the offering of a different amendment to that 
    provision.

    On Nov. 18, 1981,(12) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 4995,(13) the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry as described above. The proceedings were as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 127 Cong. Rec. 28048, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. 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: (14) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rejection of Motion To Strike

Sec. 35.22 A motion to strike out certain language having been 
    previously rejected may not be offered a second time.

    On Aug. 5, 1966,(15) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 112 Cong. Rec. 18418, 18419, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 14765.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: On 
        page 65, line 15, strike all of section 404 down to and through 
        page 66, line 3.

        Mr. [Peter W.] Rodino [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order. . . .
        The amendment has already been voted upon. . . .
        Mr. [Basil L.] Whitener [of North Carolina]: . . . I had an 
    amendment to that effect, which was voted down.
        The Chairman: (16) That is the Chair's recollection, 
    too. The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 35.23 A motion to strike out a paragraph having been rejected, a 
    motion to strike out the paragraph and insert a new provision is in 
    order.

    On Sept. 21 and 22, 1965,(17) the following proceedings 
took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 111 Cong. Rec. 24631, 24632, 24658, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was S. 2300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Joseph S.] Clark [of 
        Pennsylvania]: On page 41, strike out lines 3 through 12, 
        inclusive. . . .

        [The amendment was rejected.] (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 111 Cong. Rec. 24635, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Clark: Substitute the following 
        language for the language on page 41, lines 4 through 12, 
        inclusively:

[[Page 7330]]

            ``The Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized. . . .''

        Mr. [Robert E.] Jones [Jr.] of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        This amendment has been considered and was subject to amendment 
    under the previous amendment offered to strike this project.

        The Chairman: (19) he Chair will inform the 
    gentleman from Alabama that the purpose of this amendment is to 
    insert something other than that which was taken into consideration 
    yesterday. So the point of order against this amendment is 
    overruled. . . .(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
20. 111 Cong. Rec. 24658, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rejection of Motion To Strike Out and Insert

Sec. 35.24 A motion to strike out a title contained in a bill was held 
    to be in order notwithstanding the fact that the Committee of the 
    Whole had previously considered two motions to strike out such 
    title and insert other language.

    On July 25, 1957, (1) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 103 Cong. Rec. 12744, 85th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 1, to authorize federal assistance to the states and local 
        communities in financing an expanded program of school 
        construction so as to eliminate the national shortage of 
        classrooms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Donald E.] Tewes [of Wisconsin]: 
        On page 31, line 19, strike out all of title I through page 46, 
        line 11. . . .

        Mr. [Stewart L.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, we 
    considered earlier today two amendments, one offered by the 
    gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Scrivner] and one by the gentleman from 
    Connecticut [Mr. May]. The purpose of both these amendments was to 
    strike out title I. Both amendments were considered. One was voted 
    down and one was knocked out on a point of order. I make the point 
    of order, Mr. Chairman, that this motion has been made and has been 
    considered and voted down by the Committee of the Whole.
        The Chairman: (2) he Chair calls the attention of 
    the gentleman to the fact that the motions heretofore made were to 
    strike and insert. This is the first time a motion has been made to 
    strike out the entire title. Therefore, the point of order is 
    overruled. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rejection of Substitute as Not Precluding Motion To Strike

Sec. 35.25 Where a substitute amendment had been rejected, the Chair 
    permitted a motion to strike language from a pending amendment, 
    even though the motion was offered to accomplish one of the 
    purposes of the rejected substitute.

[[Page 7331]]

    On Mar. 11, 1958, (3) he following exchange took place 
with respect to an amendment which was alleged to have the same purpose 
as one previously considered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 104 Cong. Rec. 4010, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was S. 
        497, authorizing construction, repair, and preservation of 
        certain public works, etc.
            See the language sought to be stricken at 104 Cong. Rec. 
        3820, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 10, 1958. The motion sought to 
        strike the language; the rejected substitute had similarly 
        sought to omit the language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank E.] Smith of Mississippi: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment has the same purpose and the 
    same, identical result as the Mack substitute, which has been voted 
    down. We are voting twice upon the same language, the same point 
    made by the gentleman from Alabama a moment ago. The same lines and 
    item are in the Blatnik amendment.
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair overrules the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Sec. 35.26 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 
    re-offering, as an amendment to text, the same proposition as 
    initially contained in the substitute.

    The proceedings of Mar. 14 and 15, 1960, are discussed in 
Sec. 32.24, supra.

Inclusion of Rejected Amendment in Motion To Recommit

Sec. 35.27 Rejection of an amendment in the Committee of the Whole does 
    not preclude the offering of the same amendment in the House in a 
    motion to recommit with instructions.

    On July 8, 1940,(5) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 86 Cong. Rec. 9302, 9303, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. Under consideration 
        was S. 326, the Mexican claims bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York] moves to recommit 
        the bill S. 326 to the Committee on Foreign Affairs with 
        instructions to that committee to report the same back 
        forthwith with the following amendment: . . .

        Mr. Luther A. Johnson [of Texas): An identical amendment was 
    voted upon in Committee of the Whole, offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania [Mr. Rich].
        The Speaker: (6) That was an amendment which was 
    offered in Com

[[Page 7332]]

    mittee of the Whole, the Chair will state. The House takes no 
    judicial notice of action in Committee of the Whole or the 
    rejection of an amendment in the Committee. The point of order is 
    overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, on July 26, 1947,(7) the Speaker indicated 
that, since the House has no information as to actions of the Committee 
of the Whole on amendments which are not reported therefrom, a point of 
order against an amendment that is offered in a motion to recommit with 
instructions cannot be based on the ground that the amendment was voted 
down in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 93 Cong. Rec. 10455, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        S. 1498, to provide support for wool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proceedings were as follows:

        The Speaker: (8) The Clerk will report the motion to 
    recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 93 Joseph W. Martin, Jr. [Mass.].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. [Christian A.] Herter [of Massachusetts] moves to 
        recommit the bill to the Committee on Agriculture with 
        instructions to report it back forthwith with the following 
        amendment: Beginning in line 5, page 1, strike out the words 
        ``at the price it supported wool in 1946'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof the words, ``at a price not less than 90 percent of 
        parity.''

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that it is 
    not in order now to offer a motion to recommit with that provision, 
    for the simple reason that the same provision has just been voted 
    down by the House.
        The Speaker: In a parliamentary way the House has no knowledge 
    of what happened in the Committee.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Vacating Proceedings by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 35.28 The Committee of the Whole by unanimous consent vacated the 
    proceedings by which it had rejected an amendment and then agreed 
    to the amendment.

    On May 27, 1948,(9) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 94. Cong. Rec. 6629, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6705, the Interior Department appropriation bill for 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: . . . I ask unanimous consent to 
    reconsider the vote by which action was taken on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from North Carolina. . . .
        The Chairman: (10) Without objection, the Chair will 
    again put the question, so there will be no mistake. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was agreed to.

[[Page 7333]]