[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[G. House Consideration of Amendments Reported From Committee of the Whole]
[Â§ 36. In General; Demands for Separate Vote]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 7333-7357]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
  G. HOUSE CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE OF THE 
                                 WHOLE
 
Sec. 36. In General; Demands for Separate Vote


    In the absence of a special rule providing therefor, a separate 
vote may not be had in the House on an amendment to an amendment that 
has been adopted by the Committee of the Whole. Thus, an amendment in 
the form of a motion to strike and insert, reported from the Committee 
of the Whole as an entire and distinct amendment, may not be divided, 
but must be voted on as a whole in the House.(11) Since the 
Committee of the Whole in reporting a bill with an amendment to the 
House reports such amendment in its perfected form, it is not in order 
in the House to have a separate vote upon each perfecting amendment to 
the amendment that has been agreed to in the Committee of the Whole 
absent a special rule providing to the contrary.(12) 
Amendments considered en bloc in committee may, however, be divided for 
votes in the House.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See, for example, 104 Cong. Rec. 16264, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 
        5, 1958. And see Sec. Sec. 36.6, 36.13, infra.
12. See Sec. 36.6, infra.
13. See Sec. 36.28, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A special rule may, of course, provide for separate votes on second 
degree amendments.
    Thus, a separate vote may be had in the House on amendments to a 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted in the 
Committee of the Whole where the rule under which the bill was 
considered provides that a separate vote may be demanded in the House 
on any amendment to the bill or committee substitute.(14) 
But where separate votes are permitted, only those amendments reported 
to the House from the Committee of the Whole are voted on; it is not in 
order to demand a separate vote in the House on amendments rejected in 
the Committee. As the House theoretically has no information as to 
actions of the Committee of the Whole on amendments not reported 
therefrom, a

[[Page 7334]]

point of order does not lie against an amendment to a bill offered in a 
motion to recommit with instructions, if based on the grounds that the 
amendment was voted down in the Committee of the Whole.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See, for example, 87 Cong. Rec. 5933, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., July 
        10, 1941; 101 Cong. Rec. 12459, 12460, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        July 30, 1955.
            On one occasion, separate votes were demanded on all 18 
        amendments to a bill adopted in the Committee of the Whole, and 
        on those amendments there were 14 roll calls in one day. See 
        103 Cong. Rec. 5162-71, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 4, 1957. 
        Under consideration was H.R. 6287, making appropriations for 
        the Departments of Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare, etc.
15. See Sec. 35.27, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The previous question may be moved on a number of amendments 
reported from the Committee of the Whole, leaving certain other 
amendments reported from the Committee for further consideration in the 
House. Where the previous question is ordered on some amendments 
reported from the Committee of the Whole, such amendments must be 
disposed of prior to further consideration of any remaining 
amendments.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See 82 Cong. Rec. 1285-88, 75th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 10, 1937. For 
        discussion of the previous question and motions therefor 
        generally, see Ch. 23, supra. See also Sec. 14, 
        supra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perfecting Amendments to Section Later Stricken in Committee of the 
    Whole Not Reported

Sec. 36.1 When the Committee of the Whole amends a section of a bill, 
    but subsequently strikes out a portion of the bill which includes 
    the amended section, the first amendment is not reported to the 
    House.

    On July 5, 1956,(17) the following inquiry was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 102 Cong. Rec. 11867, 84th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7535, to authorize federal assistance to states and local 
        communities in financing an expanded program of school 
        construction so as to eliminate the national shortage of 
        classrooms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]: In order that we may 
    understand what has already transpired, am I correct in assuming 
    that the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York has stricken all previous amendments, including the Powell 
    amendment, adopted by the committee?

After an affirmative response by the Chair, the following exchange took 
place:

        Mr. [Albert P.] Morano [of Connecticut]: Does that mean then 
    that when we go back into the House there will be no opportunity to 
    vote for or against the Powell amendment on a rollcall?
        The Chairman: (18) Well, under the present 
    circumstances, that is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).

The Chair indicated the Powell amendment would not be reported to the 
House.

Sec. 36.2 Where the Committee of the Whole had adopted a per

[[Page 7335]]

    fecting amendment to a section of a bill and subsequently adopted 
    an amendment striking out the section as so amended, the Chair 
    indicated that, in the House, a separate vote could not be had on 
    the perfecting amendment to the section since it was not reported 
    back to the House.

    On Dec. 8, 1937,(19) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 82 Cong. Rec. 1114, 1115, 75th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 8505, a farm bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    this parliamentary inquiry for the purpose of clarifying the 
    situation which will arise when we get back into the House in the 
    matter of a separate vote on various amendments. The gentleman from 
    Illinois [Mr. Lucas] earlier this afternoon, proposed an amendment 
    to this section 201, which was agreed to. The amendment changed the 
    language with reference to making loans on corn. That amendment was 
    approved by the Committee. Later on the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Jones] offered an amendment. . . . His amendment struck out all of 
    the language beginning on line 14, page 14, and moved to strike out 
    all of the language put into the bill by the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lucas]. When we get back into the 
    House and a separate vote is asked on the Jones amendment, assuming 
    that the Jones amendment fails on a separate vote, does that then 
    restore the bill before the House in its original form, or in the 
    form as amended by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lucas]? . . .
        The Chairman: (20) In the first place, the question 
    presented by the gentleman from Wisconsin is a question for the 
    Speaker and not for the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the state of the Union. However, the Chair states that in 
    his opinion the question presented to the House for consideration 
    would be a separate vote upon the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas [Mr. Jones] and adopted in the Committee of 
    the Whole, which struck out the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Illinois [Mr. Lucas], previously adopted, together with other 
    language of the section. In the event the House should vote down 
    the Jones amendment, then the original section 201 of the bill 
    would be before the House for consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of Rejection in House of Motion To Strike Section, Generally

Sec. 36.3 Where the Committee of the Whole had adopted perfecting 
    amendments to a section of a bill and had then agreed to an 
    amendment striking out the entire section, the Speaker indicated 
    that only the amendment striking out the section had been reported 
    to the House and, therefore, if such

[[Page 7336]]

    amendment was rejected in the House, only the original language of 
    that section (without amendments) would be before the House; and, 
    furthermore, that such section could only be further amended in the 
    House by a motion to recommit with instructions, the previous 
    question having been ordered on the bill to final passage.

    On Feb. 5, 1974,(1) during consideration in the House of 
a bill (2) reported back from the Committee of the Whole, 
the Speaker (3) responded to several parliamentary 
inquiries, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 120 Cong. Rec. 2078, 2079, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. H.R. 11221, amending the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Matsunaga, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, 
    having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 11221) to provide 
    full deposit insurance for public units and to increase deposit 
    insurance from $20,000 to $50,000, pursuant to House Resolution 
    794, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment 
    adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker: Under the rule, the previous question is ordered. 
    . . .
        The question is on the amendment adopted in the Committee of 
    the Whole. . . .
        Without objection, the Clerk will read the amendment.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment: Strike out section 1 of the bill.

        Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Wylie: If this amendment is not adopted now, then the bill 
    will revert back to the bill as reported by the Committee on 
    Banking and Currency, is that not correct?
        The Speaker: The Chair's understanding is that it will revert 
    back to the original bill without the committee amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Lawrence G.] Williams [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        While the bill was under consideration, under section 1 an 
    amendment was adopted which was offered by Mr. Stephens of Georgia. 
    At a later time an amendment was offered by Mr. Wylie to section 1 
    to strike section 1. If the amendment offered by Mr. Wylie in the 
    Committee of the Whole is now defeated in the Whole House, does not 
    that continue Mr. Stephens' amendment in the bill. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair wishes to make clear the parliamentary 
    situation. Several amendments were adopted to section 1. 
    Subsequently an amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Wylie) striking section 1 was adopted. That is the only

[[Page 7337]]

    amendment reported to the House, the amendment striking section 1.
        The vote now is, at the request of the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island (Mr. St Germain), on the Wylie amendment striking section 1. 
    If that amendment is adopted, then section 1 is eliminated. If that 
    amendment is defeated, section 1 is back in the bill without any 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Robert G.] Stephens [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    further parliamentary inquiry. If this is voted down, then should 
    we not have an opportunity to consider my amendment?
        The Speaker: The only way the amendment could be voted on would 
    be a motion to recommit.
        The question is on the amendment.

Effect of Rejection in House of Motion To Strike Section, Where Member 
    Did Not Demand Separate Vote on Perfecting Amendments to Section

Sec. 36.4 Where the Committee of the Whole reports a bill back to the 
    House with an adopted committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute pursuant to a special rule allowing separate votes in 
    the House on any amendment adopted in Committee of the Whole to the 
    bill or to that committee substitute, and a separate vote is 
    demanded in the House only on an amendment striking out a section 
    of the committee substitute, but not on perfecting amendments which 
    have previously been adopted in Committee of the Whole to that 
    section, rejection in the House of the motion to strike the section 
    results in a vote on the committee substitute with that section in 
    its original form and not as perfected (the perfecting amendments 
    having been displaced in Committee of the Whole by the motion to 
    strike and not having been revived on a separate vote in the 
    House).

    On Oct. 13, 1977,(4) the Committee of the Whole having 
reported H.R. 3816 back to the House with an amendment, the proceedings 
described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 123 Cong. Rec. 33622, 33623, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (5) Are there further amendments? If 
    not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
    amended, was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the Committee rises.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Kazen, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the

[[Page 7338]]

    State of the Union, reported that that Committee having had under 
    consideration the bill (H.R. 3816) to amend the Federal Trade 
    Commission Act to expedite the enforcement of Federal Trade 
    Commission cease and desist orders and compulsory process orders; 
    to increase the independence of the Federal Trade Commission in 
    legislative, budgetary, and personnel matters; and for other 
    purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 718, he reported the bill 
    back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the 
    Whole.
        The Speaker: (6) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of 
    the Whole?
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate 
    vote on the so-called Krueger amendment. . . .
        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, is it 
    not correct that we would be acting on section 7 as written in the 
    bill and not on the amendments as adopted by the Committee of the 
    Whole if the Krueger amendment is adopted?
        The Speaker: The amendment is to strike section 7 of the bill. 
    The vote will be on that.
        Mr. Broyhill: Mr. Speaker, if the Krueger amendment is 
    defeated, then what is in the bill is the section as written in the 
    bill and not the amendments that were adopted?
        The Speaker: We are back to the original committee bill.
        Mr. Broyhill: The original committee bill only, and not the 
    amendments that were adopted?
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.

    Parliamentarian's Note: House Resolution 718, under which the House 
was operating, provided that the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute be read as an original bill for amendment and that separate 
votes could be demanded in the House on any amendment adopted in 
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. In the above proceeedings, the House could have 
retained the section as perfected in Committee of the Whole by first 
adopting, on separate votes, the perfecting amendments to section 7, 
and then rejecting on a separate vote the motion to strike that 
section. A Member who fails to demand a separate vote on a perfecting 
amendment to a portion of an amendment being read as original text, 
where a separate vote is demanded on a motion to strike which has 
deleted that perfecting language, allows the perfecting language to 
lapse whether or not the motion to strike is adopted on a separate 
vote.

Adopted Language Deleted by Amendment Striking Out and Inserting New 
    Text

Sec. 36.5 When the Committee of the Whole adopts language

[[Page 7339]]

    that is subsequently deleted by an amendment striking out and 
    inserting new text, only the latter amendment is reported to the 
    House.

    The ruling on June 20, 1967, was to the effect that, where the 
Committee of the Whole amends a line of a bill and then strikes out a 
portion of the bill including the line as amended, and inserts new 
language, the first amendment is not reported to the House. 
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 16498, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. (See the proceedings, 
        generally, at pp. 16487 et seq.) Under consideration was H.R. 
        10480.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special Rule Permitting Separate Vote

Sec. 36.6 In the absence of a special rule providing therefor, a 
    separate vote may not be had in the House on an amendment to an 
    amendment which has been adopted by the Committee of the Whole.

    On Oct. 18, 1967,(8) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 113 Cong. Rec. 29317, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
            See also 79 Cong. Rec. 9998, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., June 24, 
        1935; 82 Cong. Rec. 1285, 75th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 10, 1937; 
        82 Cong. Rec. 1834, 75th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 17, 1937; 84 
        Cong. Rec. 9451-53, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., July 18, 1939; 98 
        Cong. Rec. 7421, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1952; and 113 
        Cong. Rec. 25228, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 12, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) under the rule, the committee 
    rises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Charles A. Vanik (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Vanik, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee having had 
    under consideration the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 888) making 
    continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1968, and for other 
    purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 949, he reported the joint 
    resolution back to the House with an amendment adopted by the 
    Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker: (10) under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary 
    inquiry is--is it possible to get a separate vote on any of the 
    amendments to the Whitten amendment, including the amendments 
    reducing the OEO program and the foreign aid program?
        The Speaker: Not in the House at this time. There is one 
    amendment that has been reported by the Committee of the Whole.

    Similarly, on July 16, 1968, (11) the following exchange 
took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 114 Cong. Rec. 21546, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: In the event that either 
    one of

[[Page 7340]]

    those amendments referred to by the distinguished gentleman from 
    the Committee on Rules on pages 2 and 3 of the bill are amended in 
    the normal amendatory process and are passed, would they be 
    subject, on request of any individual Member, to a separate vote 
    after the Committee rises and we go back into the Whole House?

        The Speaker: (12) The Chair understands the 
    parliamentary inquiry, but the Chair seeks to obtain the facts. The 
    Chair has examined the bill and notes (a) section 211(d), for 
    example, is a committee amendment to the bill. That would require a 
    separate vote in the Committee of the Whole and would be entitled 
    to a separate vote in the House if it were adopted in the Committee 
    of the Whole, but an amendment to the committee amendment adopted 
    in the Committee of the Whole would not be subject to a separate 
    vote in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: On one occasion, in the absence of a point 
of order, amendments to amendments adopted in the Committee of the 
Whole were voted on in the House and rejected prior to the vote being 
taken on the amendments as reported from the Committee of the Whole. 
The proceedings took place on Jan. 28, 1937,(13) during 
consideration of a bill (14) to extend the classified Civil 
Service to include postmasters of the first, second, and third classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 81 Cong. Rec. 534, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. H.R. 1531.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Committee of the Whole, various amendments offered by Mr. 
Ross A. Collins, of Mississippi, to committee amendments had been 
adopted, and the committee amendments agreed to. When these amendments 
were reported from the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Robert Ramspeck, of 
Georgia, asked for a separate vote on all of the Collins amendments 
agreed to in the Committee of the Whole. No point of order was raised 
against the request, and the Chair directed the Clerk to report the 
amendments upon which a separate vote had been demanded. The House 
then, on a rollcall vote, rejected the Collins amendments and the Chair 
(15) immediately put the question on agreeing to the 
remaining amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Speaker William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 36.7 Separate votes are sometimes had in the House on amendments 
    to an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to 
    provisions of a resolution permitting such procedure.

    On Mar. 31, 1948, (16) the following exchange took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 94 Cong. Rec. 3874, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 95 Cong. Rec. 
        2542, 2543, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 15, 1949.

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

[[Page 7341]]

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order. I make the point of order, that the House has not been given 
    an opportunity to request a separate vote on any amendment that was 
    adopted. The rule under which the bill was considered, as I 
    understand it, provided that it should be read for amendment, and 
    any amendment agreed to by the Committee of the Whole would be 
    subject to a request for a separate vote. . . .
        The Speaker: (17) The Chair will state that he did 
    not ask if a separate vote on any amendment was demanded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is a separate vote on any amendment demanded?

Separate Vote on Amendment to Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 36.8 Where the Committee of the Whole reports a bill back to the 
    House with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, a separate 
    vote may not be demanded on an amendment adopted to that substitute 
    in the Committee of the Whole unless the special order governing 
    consideration of the bill expressly allows such separate votes 
    (normally only where a committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute has been read as an original bill for amendment), since 
    only one amendment in its perfected form has been reported from 
    Committee of the Whole.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on Nov. 17, 
1983,(18) during consideration of H.R. 2350.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 129 Cong. Rec. 33463, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. See also the proceedings 
        at 113 Cong. Rec. 29317, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 18, 1967 
        (responding to parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker indicated 
        separate vote would not be allowed); and 110 Cong. Rec. 2804, 
        2805, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 10, 1964 (where a Member was 
        allowed to demand a separate vote pursuant to the terms of a 
        special rule). And see 117 Cong. Rec. 34337, 92d Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Sept. 30, 1971; and 106 Cong. Rec. 11282, 11292, 11296-
        98, 11301, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 26, 1960 (discussed further 
        in Sec. 25.3, supra).
19. The Health Research Extension Act of 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: Under the rule, the Committee rises.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore 
    (Mr. Gonzalez) having assumed the chair, Mr. (John B.) Breaux [of 
    Louisiana], Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
    consideration the bill (H.R. 2350) to amend the Public Health 
    Service Act to revise and extend the authorities under that act 
    relating to

[[Page 7342]]

    the National Institutes of Health and the National Research 
    Institutes, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 
    208, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment 
    adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) Under the rule, the 
    previous question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Henry B. Gonzalez (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the engrossment and 
    third reading of the bill.
        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    demand a separate vote on the Chandler amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman's motion at this time 
    comes too late and is not in order under the rule providing for 
    consideration of this bill.
        At this point the question is on the engrossment and third 
    reading of the bill.

Sec. 36.9 A unanimous-consent request has been made in the House that 
    the Committee of the Whole consider a committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute as an original bill for purposes of 
    amendment and that a separate vote in the House be allowed on any 
    amendment to the original bill or to the committee substitute.

    The unanimous-consent request described above may be made in the 
following form: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See 84 Cong. Rec. 9183, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., July 14, 1939 
        (request by Mr. Robert Ramspeck [Ga.]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the 
    consideration of the bill [number and description of bill] and 
    pending that, I ask unanimous consent that it shall be in order to 
    consider the substitute amendment recommended by the Committee . . 
    . now in the bill, that such substitute for the purpose of 
    amendment shall be considered under the 5-minute rule as an 
    original bill, and that any Member may demand a separate vote in 
    the House on any of the amendments adopted in Committee of the 
    Whole to the bill or committee substitute.

Separate Vote on Portion of Amendment

Sec. 36.10 A separate vote may not be had in the House on a portion of 
    an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole and reported 
    therefrom; the amendment must be voted on in its entirety as 
    reported.

    On July 20, 1951,(2) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 97 Cong. Rec. 8608, 82d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 3871, amendments to the Defense Production Act of 1950.

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

[[Page 7343]]

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, may a 
    separate vote be taken on a portion of a committee amendment, 
    namely section 206 (a) and (b) on page 83?
        The Speaker: (3) separate vote cannot be had on a 
    portion of the amendment reported by the Committee of the Whole. 
    The amendment must be voted on in its entirety as reported by the 
    Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Amendment Amended by Substitute

Sec. 36.11 It is usually not possible to have a separate vote in the 
    House on a committee amendment that has been amended by a 
    substitute in the Committee of the Whole.

    Thus, on July 8, 1937, where a committee amendment proposing to 
strike out all after the enacting clause and insert new matter was 
amended by a substitute, and the committee amendment as amended agreed 
to, it was subsequently held not in order in the House to demand a 
separate vote on the original committee amendment.(4) The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See the proceedings at 81 Cong. Rec. 6944, 6951, 75th Cong. 1st 
        Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 3408, to amend the Civil 
        Service Act approved Jan. 16, 1883.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: May I ask the Chair 
    whether or not it is possible to have a separate vote on the 
    committee amendment? There was a committee amendment that was 
    amended by the Cochran amendment. Can we have a separate vote on 
    the committee amendment so that the issue may be drawn as between 
    the committee amendment as amended and the original bill?
        The Speaker: (5) The Chair may say in reply to the 
    parliamentary inquiry that there is only one vote possible under 
    the report of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House, and 
    that vote will be upon the committee amendment as amended by the 
    Cochran substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments Rejected in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 36.12 Where separate votes are permitted, only those amendments 
    reported to the House from the Committee of the Whole are voted on; 
    it is not in order to demand a separate vote in the House on 
    amendments rejected in the Committee.

    On Mar. 31, 1948,(6) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 94 Cong. Rec. 3874, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    separate vote on title III and title IV.
        The Speaker: (7) Those amendments were not agreed to 
    in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).

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

[[Page 7344]]

        Similarly, on July 20, 1951,(8) the following 
    proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 97 Cong. Rec. 8608, 82d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 3871, amendments to the Defense Production Act of 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, is it in 
    order to ask for a separate vote on the Sabath amendment at page 
    83, section 206?
        The Speaker: (9) The Sabath amendment was not 
    adopted in Committee of the Whole. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Separate votes may be had only on amendments that have been 
    reported by the Committee of the Whole.

Inconsistent Amendments Considered Under Special Rule

Separate Votes on Perfecting Amendments Taken Before Vote on Substitute

Sec. 36.13 Parliamentarian's Note: Normally, if the Committee of the 
    Whole perfects a bill by adopting certain amendments and then 
    adopts an amendment striking out all after section one of the bill 
    and inserting a new text, only the bill, as amended by the motion 
    to strike out and insert, is reported to the House; but when the 
    bill is being considered under a special rule permitting a separate 
    vote in the House on any of the amendments adopted in the Committee 
    of the Whole to the bill or the committee substitute, all 
    amendments adopted in the Committee are reported to the House, 
    regardless of their inconsistency.

    For an illustration of the above, the reader is referred to the 
proceedings of May 26, 1960,(10) especially the exchange 
included below, between the Chair and Mr. Barden relating to 
consideration of inconsistent amendments. On that day, while a 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was pending, the 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 106 Cong. Rec. 11282, 11292, 11296-98, 11301-04, 86th Cong. 2d 
        Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 10128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Carl A.] Elliott of Alabama: Page 
        13, strike out lines 5 through 12, and insert the following: . 
        . .

        So the amendment was agreed to. . . .(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at pp. 11282, 11292.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [Jr., of New 
        York]: Page 18, line 4, after section 6(a) insert: . . .

        So the amendment was agreed to. . . .(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at pp. 11296, 11297.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Frank T.] Bow of Ohio: On page 
        11, line 20,

[[Page 7345]]

        after ``Sec. 1.'' strike out all after section 1 and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following: . . .

        So the amendment was agreed to. . . .
        The committee amendment as amended was agreed to. . . 
    .(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at pp. 11298, 11301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the rule permitted separate votes in the House on amendments 
to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, separate 
votes were demanded on the three amendments. Inquiries were then 
directed to the Chair: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 11302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, does not 
    the first vote occur upon a substitute or the Bow amendment?
        The Speaker: (15) It does not. It was an amendment 
    to an amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Graham A.] Barden [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    believe it would be of great interest to the Members of the House 
    to clarify the first amendment, the second amendment, and the third 
    amendment in the order in which they will be taken up.
        The Speaker: Each amendment will be reported when the proper 
    time comes. The first on the list is the Elliott amendment.
        Mr. Barden: Mr. Speaker, what effect will the Bow amendment 
    have on the other amendments that will be voted on?
        The Speaker: If the Bow amendment is agreed to it will strike 
    out the other two amendments.
        Mr. Barden: It strikes out the Elliott amendment and the Powell 
    amendment?
        The Speaker: That is correct.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The proceedings of May 26, 1960, described 
in part above (see 106 Cong. Rec. 11282, 11292, 11296-98, 11301-04, 
86th Cong. 2d Sess.), illustrate the principle that perfecting 
amendments to an amendment in the nature of a substitute are voted on 
before a substitute amendment, and the effect of the adoption of a 
substitute amendment (here an amendment striking out all after the 
title of the amendment in the nature of a substitute) is to eliminate 
the language inserted by the amendments to the amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.

Procedures for Consideration, Where Demand for Separate Vote Permitted

Sec. 36.14 Under a special procedure permitting a demand in the House 
    for a separate vote on an amendment adopted to an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute for a bill reported from the Committee of 
    the Whole, the Speaker inquires whether a separate vote is demanded 
    before putting the question on the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.

[[Page 7346]]

    On Mar. 8, 1973,(16) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 119 Cong. Rec. 7138, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (17) Under the rule, the Committee 
    rises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. G. V. Montgomery (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Montgomery, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee 
    having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 17) to amend the 
    Vocational Rehabilitation Act to extend and revise authorization of 
    grants to States for vocational rehabilitation services, to 
    authorize grants for rehabilitation services to those with severe 
    disabilities, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 
    274, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment 
    adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker: (18) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the Committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted in the Committee of 
    the Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.

Sec. 36.15 Where a Member demands a separate vote in the House on an 
    amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole, the Speaker has 
    asked that the Member identify the amendment in terms that are 
    meaningful to the House--such as by specifying the page and line in 
    the bill where the amendment is found.

    On Oct. 6, 1966,(1) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 112 Cong. Rec. 25585, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 13161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul A.] Fino [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    separate vote on the O'Hara amendment, the antibusing amendment. . 
    . .
        The Speaker: (2) . . . What amendment does the 
    gentleman from New York have in mind? The gentleman's 
    characterization does not give sufficient information to the Chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 112. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Order of Voting

Sec. 36.16 Votes in the House on amendments reported from the Committee 
    of the Whole, on which separate votes have been demanded, are taken 
    in the order in which the amendments appear in the bill, and not in 
    the order in which separate votes were demanded.

    On May 31, 1984,(3) during consideration of H.R. 5167 
(4) in the

[[Page 7347]]

House, the proposition described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 130 Cong. Rec. 14677, 14678, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. Defense Department authorization bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The Clerk will report 
    the first amendment on which a separate vote has been demanded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment: Page 131, after line 2, insert the following new 
        title (and redesignate the succeeding titles and sections 
        accordingly):

                         TITLE IX--NUCLEAR WINTER STUDY

                 government-sponsored studies of nuclear winter

            Sec 901. (a) If any Government agency undertakes a study of 
        the phenomenon referred to as ``nuclear winter'' pursuant to 
        proper authorization, the Secretary of Defense may participate 
        in such study to the extent (and only to the extent) that the 
        participation of the Secretary in the study is directly 
        relevant to defense related aspects of the nuclear-winter 
        phenomenon. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . The question is on the 
    amendment.
        The amendment was rejected.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the next 
    amendment on which a separate vote has been demanded.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment: At the end of the bill, insert the following new 
        section:
            Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, amounts 
        authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1985 for the MX 
        missile program shall be as provided under section 103(a). . . 
        .

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, there was 
    a demand for a separate vote on the Leach amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman 
    that the amendments are voted on in the order in which they appear 
    in the bill. The Leach amendment will be called after this one.

Sec. 36.17 Where separate votes are demanded in the House on several 
    amendments reported from Committee of the Whole, the Speaker puts 
    the question on the amendments in the order in which they appear in 
    the bill.

    On June 24, 1976, (6) the Committee of the Whole 
reported a bill back to the House with several amendments and the 
Speaker put the question on the amendments as indicated above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 122 Cong. Rec. 20424, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
            For further discussion of the order of consideration of 
        amendments following demands for separate votes, see Sec. 37, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas], Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
    that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill [H.R. 
    14232] making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, and 
    Health, Education, and Welfare, and related agencies, for the 
    fiscal year

[[Page 7348]]

    ending September 30, 1977, and for other purposes, had directed him 
    to report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with 
    the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the 
    bill, as amended, do pass.
        The Speaker: (7) Without objection, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment?
        Ms. [Bella S.] Abzug [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    separate vote on the so-called Hyde amendment.
        The Speaker: Is a separate vote demanded on any other 
    amendment?
        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    separate vote on the so-called Mitchell of Maryland amendment 
    relating to summer employment.
        The Speaker: Is a separate vote demanded on any other 
    amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gross.
        The amendments were agreed to.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the first amendment, the so-
    called Mitchell of Maryland amendment, on which a separate vote has 
    been demanded.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment: On page 2, line 19 under Title I--Department of 
        Labor, Employment, and Training Administration, Employment and 
        Training Assistance, strike out ``$3,245,-250,000'' and insert 
        in lieu thereof ``$3,311,831,000''.

        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment.

--When Demand Must Be Made

Sec. 36.18 Where a special rule permits a separate vote in the House on 
    an amendment to a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    adopted in Committee of the Whole, a Member must demand the 
    separate vote before the question is taken on the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.

    On Sept. 20, 1972,(8) the principle was applied that the 
demand for a separate vote on an amendment to a committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute comes too late after the House has agreed to 
the committee substitute. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 118 Cong. Rec. 31409, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 15003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (9) . . . Is a separate vote demanded 
    on any amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute adopted in the Committee of the Whole? If not, the 
    question is on the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. [John E.] Moss [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    separate vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Indiana [Mr. Dennis]. . . .
        Mr. [David W.] Dennis: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
    object, my understanding is that the amendment was agreed to and 
    that the gentleman's request comes too late.
        The Speaker: The Chair was under the impression that no 
    separate vote

[[Page 7349]]

    was demanded and put the question on adoption of the amendment.
        The Chair put as a unanimous consent request, that the action 
    by which amendment was agreed be rescinded.
        Mr. Dennis: I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Dennis: I object because the amendment has been adopted.
        The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third 
    reading of the bill.

Sec. 36.19 A demand in the House for a separate vote on an amendment to 
    an amendment (when such a vote is permitted by the resolution 
    providing for consideration of the bill) comes too late after the 
    amendment, as amended, has been agreed to.

    On Nov. 1, 1967, (10) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 30827, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        S. 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) under the rule, the 
    previous question is ordered. Is a separate vote demanded on any 
    amendment to the committee amendment? If not, the question is on 
    the committee amendment, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The committee amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the third reading 
    of the bill.
        The bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the 
    third time.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the passage of the 
    bill. . . .
        Mr. [Leslie C.] Arends [of Illinois]: Is it possible to have a 
    record vote at this stage on the Brown of Michigan amendments, as 
    adopted?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state to the 
    distinguished gentleman from Illinois in response to his 
    parliamentary inquiry that the committee amendment as amended, has 
    been agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Gary E.] Brown of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet 
    seeking recognition at the time the House, by voice vote, adopted 
    the committee amendment, as amended. I wanted an opportunity to 
    request a separate vote on my amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman 
    from Michigan that the so-called Brown of Michigan amendments were 
    reported back to the House incorporated in an amendment adopted in 
    the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and at 
    the time the Chair put the question no separate vote was demanded. 
    Therefore, the gentleman's request is out of order.

Sec. 36.20 The proper time to demand separate votes in the House on 
    amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole is following the 
    Speaker's announcement that the previous question has been ordered.

    On July 9, 1965,(12) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 111 Cong. Rec. 16280, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6400.

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

[[Page 7350]]

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: At what point in this process 
    will we have an opportunity to ask for separate votes on the Cramer 
    vote-fraud amendment and on the Boggs amendment?
        The Chairman: (13) In the House, after the previous 
    question has been announced by the Speaker. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [The Committee rose.]
        The Speaker: (14) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
    amendment?
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on 
    the Cramer vote-fraud amendment and on the Boggs amendment.

--Bill Reported With One Amendment

Sec. 36.21 Where a bill is reported from the Committee of the Whole 
    with one amendment, the Speaker immediately puts the question on 
    the amendment and does not inquire whether a separate vote is 
    demanded thereon.

    On Dec. 17, 1974,(15) the Committee of the Whole having 
reported a bill (16) back to the House with an amendment, 
the Speaker immediately put the question and proceedings occurred as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 120 Cong. Rec. 40509, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
16. H.R. 15263, the Rice Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, 
    Mr. [Otis G.] Pike [of New York], Chairman of the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
    Committee, having had under consideration the bill [H.R. 15263] to 
    establish improved programs for the benefit of producers and 
    consumers of rice, pursuant to House Resolution 1381, he reported 
    the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the 
    Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker: (17) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third 
    reading of the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. I was on my feet, and I would ask at what 
    point is a demand for a separate vote on the amendment in order.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the question was put on 
    that, and the action has been taken and has been announced. . . .
        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I sought a record vote on the 
    amendment that was adopted in the committee, and the Speaker did 
    not announce a separate vote procedure on the committee amendment.

[[Page 7351]]

        The Speaker: The Speaker followed the proper procedure. He 
    definitely remembers saying:

            The question is on the adoption of the amendment. As many 
        as are in favor, vote aye; those opposed, vote no. The ayes 
        have it. The amendment is agreed to.

        That was announced by the Chair, and the Chair then proceeded 
    to put the questions on engrossment and third reading and on final 
    passage, before the gentleman sought recognition.

--Reading Amendments

Sec. 36.22 When demand is made for a separate vote in the House on 
    certain amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole, such 
    amendments are read in full before the vote is taken.

    On June 18, 1943,(18) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 89 Cong. Rec. 6140-44, 78th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 2968, the war agencies appropriation bill for 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that when we come to the amendments on which a 
    separate vote is asked, each one of them may be read immediately 
    preceding the vote.
        The Speaker: (19) That will be done under the rule. 
    The Clerk will report the first amendment on which a separate vote 
    is demanded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 36.23 Amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole on which 
    a separate vote is demanded are read and voted on after other 
    amendments have been agreed to en bloc.

    On May 10, 1939,(20) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 84 Cong. Rec. 5402, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6260, the War Department appropriation bill for civil 
        functions, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore 
    (Mr. (Sam) Rayburn (of Texas)) having resumed the chair, Mr. 
    Delaney, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
    of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
    consideration the bill H.R. 6260, directed him to report the same 
    back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation 
    that the amendments be agreed to and the bill do pass.
        Mr. [J. Buell] Snyder [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    the previous question on the bill and all amendments to final 
    passage.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is a separate vote demanded on any 
    amendment?
        Mr. [Joe] Starnes of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a separate 
    vote on the two Collins amendments as they were adopted in 
    Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is a separate vote demanded on any 
    other amendment? . . .
        Mr. Starnes of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
    that

[[Page 7352]]

    we have a second roll call on the two amendments relating to flood 
    control; that we have one vote on those two amendments.
        The Speaker: (1) That is one amendment now, because 
    they were voted on together in the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is a separate vote demanded on any other amendment? If not, the 
    Chair will put them en gross.
        The other amendments were agreed to.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, the 
    agreement was there would be a separate vote on all amendments. Is 
    that the understanding?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: There are two amendments upon which 
    separate votes have been demanded.
        The other amendments have been agreed to.
        The Clerk will report the first amendment upon which a separate 
    vote has been demanded.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of 
        Mississippi]: On page 8, line 4, strike out ``$71,000,000'' and 
        insert ``$96,000,000.''

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on agreeing to the 
    amendment.

--Reliance on Journal

Sec. 36.24 In determining which amendments have been the subject of 
    demands for separate votes in the House, the Speaker has relied on 
    the Journal rather than the Record.

    On June 18, 1943, a question arose as to whether an amendment to 
the war agencies appropriation bill of 1944 (2) had been the 
subject of a demand for a separate vote, or whether it had in fact been 
adopted with other amendments voted on en gross. Mr. Clarence Cannon, 
of Missouri, stated: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 2968.
 3. 89 Cong. Rec. 6143, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, when separate votes were requested on amendments, 
    I asked for a separate vote on five amendments. . . . Subsequently, 
    a vote was taken on the remainder of the amendments en gross. Later 
    the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Rabaut] rose to a parliamentary 
    inquiry and asked if the Dirksen amendment, page 13, line 3 . . . 
    had been voted on. The fact that two amendments were agreed to on 
    page 13, line 3, confused me, and I informed the Speaker a separate 
    vote on it had not been requested when, as a matter of fact, it had 
    been requested.

    After some discussion of the Chair's view that the Record indicated 
the amendment had been voted on, the following exchange took place: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 6144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request a 
    reading of the reporter's notes on my request for a separate vote.

[[Page 7353]]

        The Speaker: (5) The gentleman may have that 
    privilege, but the Chair, regardless of his personal feelings about 
    this, must state that the Journal shows that the amendment was 
    adopted en gross with other amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
    for the reading of the reporter's notes reporting my request for a 
    separate vote.
        [After further discussion:]
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Was my request for a reading of my 
    request for a separate vote refused?
        The Speaker: No. We do not have that part of the Record here.
        The Chair holds that the amendment has been agreed to.

Amendments Voted On En Bloc

Sec. 36.25 By unanimous consent, two amendments upon which a separate 
    vote has been demanded may be considered and voted on en bloc.

    On Oct. 6, 1966,(6) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 112 Cong. Rec. 25586, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 13161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the two amendments on which the gentleman from New 
    York has asked for a separate vote be voted en bloc.
        The Speaker: (7) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Sec. 36.26 Where a demand has been made for a separate vote on two 
    amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole, it is too late 
    to ask unanimous consent that the two amendments be voted on en 
    bloc after the House has ordered the yeas and nays on the first 
    one.

    On May 10, 1939,(8) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 84 Cong. Rec. 5402, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6260, the War Department appropriation bill for civil 
        functions, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joe] Starnes of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a separate 
    vote on the two Collins amendments as they were adopted in 
    Committee of the Whole. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) . . . The Clerk will 
    report the first amendment upon which a separate vote has been 
    demanded. . . . The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered. . . .
        Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: Would it be in 
    order to ask unanimous consent to consider both amendments on this 
    roll call?

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Not at this time. A roll-call vote has 
    been ordered.

[[Page 7354]]

Sec. 36.27 Where the Committee of the Whole reports a bill back to the 
    House with amendments, some of which were considered en bloc 
    pursuant to a special rule, the en bloc amendments may be voted on 
    again en bloc on a demand for a separate vote, but another 
    amendment separately considered in Committee of the Whole may not 
    be voted on en bloc in the House without unanimous consent.

    On Sept. 7, 1978,(10) during consideration of H.R. 
7308,(11) the situation described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 124 Cong. Rec. 28423, 28425, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Under the rule, the Committee rises.
        Accordingly the Committee rose, and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Murtha, Chairman pro tempore of the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee 
    having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 7308) to amend title 
    18, United States Code, to authorize applications for a court order 
    approving the use of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign 
    intelligence information, pursuant to House Resolution 1266, he 
    reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by 
    the Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker: (12) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of 
    the Whole?
        Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    demand a separate vote en bloc on the McClory amendments agreed to 
    on September 6, and I demand a separate vote on the conforming 
    McClory amendments agreed to on today.
        The Speaker: Is a separate vote demanded on any other amendment 
    to the Committee amendment? The Clerk will report the amendments en 
    bloc on which a separate vote has been demanded.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, is it proper for the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Boland) to demand a separate vote en bloc on the 
    amendments, or must he ask for a vote on each one of these 
    amendments?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the rule provides that 
    it shall be in order to consider the amendments en bloc, so under 
    the rule the vote on the amendments would be considered as on the 
    amendments en bloc. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, am I correct that the original McClory 
    amendment was considered separately and that the several others 
    were adopted subsequently?

[[Page 7355]]

        Mr. [Robert] McClory [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, if the 
    gentleman will yield, I might inform the gentleman that the 
    conforming amendments were considered separately, and the other 
    amendments were considered en bloc.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire on which amendment is it 
    that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Boland) demands a 
    separate vote? . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the amendments offered 
    by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. McClory) that were agreed to 
    yesterday will be voted on en bloc today. That is in conformance 
    with the demand made by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Boland).
        Mr. Bauman: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The gentleman mentioned the McClory amendment and all 
    amendments agreed to en bloc. So do we now face three or four 
    separate votes?
        The Speaker: The McClory amendment agreed to today is a 
    separate amendment.

Sec. 36.28 Where a separate vote is demanded in the House on amendments 
    reported from the Committee of the Whole and considered en bloc in 
    Committee of the Whole (by unanimous consent), the Chair puts the 
    question on the amendments en bloc in the House, where no Member 
    demands a division of the question in the House.

    On Mar. 29, 1979,(13) in the Committee of the Whole, 
amendments to H.R. 3173, the International Security Assistance Program 
authorization for fiscal 1980 and 1981 were considered en bloc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 6910, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerry E.] Studds [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a series of amendments, and I ask unanimous consent that they may 
    be considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: (14) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Studds:
            Page 3, beginning in line 8, strike out ``and $37,800,000 
        for the fiscal year 1981''; in line 19, strike out ``or the 
        fiscal year 1981''; and in line 21, strike out ``during either 
        such year''.
            Page 4, beginning in line 23, strike out ``and $110,200,000 
        for the fiscal year 1981''; on page 5, insert a closing 
        quotation mark and a period at the end of line 8; and strike 
        out lines 9 through 16.
            Page 7, line 14, strike out ``and $95,000,000 for the 
        fiscal year 1981''.
            Page 8, beginning in line 12, strike out ``and the fiscal 
        year 1981''.
            Page 8, beginning in line 23, strike out ``and $32,900,000 
        for the fiscal year 1981''; and on page 9, beginning in line 2, 
        strike out ``in any fiscal year''.
            Page 9, beginning in line 13, strike out ``and $28,100,000 
        for the fiscal year 1981''.

[[Page 7356]]

            Page 16, beginning in line 11, strike out ``and 
        $656,300,000 for the fiscal year 1981''; in line 15, 
        immediately before the closing quotation mark insert ``, of 
        which amount for each such year''; in line 17, strike out ``and 
        $2,063,000,000 for the fiscal year 1981'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``, of which''; and strike out lines 18 through 23 and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:
            (3) in subsection (c), by striking out ``fiscal year 1979'' 
        and inserting in lieu thereof ``fiscal year 1980''.
            Page 20, line 3, strike out ``years 1980 and 1981'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``year 1980''.

    Subsequently, in the House, a separate vote was demanded: 
(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 125 Cong. Rec. 6819, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) Under the rule, the 
    previous question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment?
        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    a separate vote on the amendments offered en bloc by the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts (Mr. Studds).
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is a separate vote demanded on any 
    other amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gross.
        The amendments were agreed to.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the amendments 
    on which a separate vote has been demanded.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. Zablocki (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendments that were offered en bloc be considered 
    as read and printed in the Record. These amendments offered en bloc 
    provide for a 1-year authorization instead of the 2-year 
    authorization which the Committee on Foreign Affairs has 
    recommended.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Wisconsin?
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the amendments.
        The amendments were rejected.

Withdrawal of Demand for Separate Vote

Sec. 36.29 Where all amendments reported from the Committee of the 
    Whole have been agreed to but one on which a separate vote was 
    demanded, the Chair must put the question on the remaining 
    amendment even though the Member making the demand for the separate 
    vote asks to withdraw the demand.

    On Feb. 1, 1968,(17) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 114 Cong. Rec. 1850-52, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11601.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    demand a separate vote on the Committee amendment on page 40, line 
    13, as amended in section 202.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) Is a separate vote 
    demanded on any other

[[Page 7357]]

    amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en bloc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendments were agreed to.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the first 
    amendment on which a separate vote has been demanded. . . .
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
    the request for a separate vote.
        The Speaker: (19) The Record will note the request, 
    but the vote still will be on the committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the amendment.

Unanimous Consent for Consideration of Substitute After Previous 
    Question Ordered

Sec. 36.30 On one occasion, where a separate vote had been demanded in 
    the House on an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole, 
    unanimous consent was granted for the consideration of a substitute 
    for such amendment even though the previous question had been 
    ordered; and the amendment as amended by such substitute was agreed 
    to.

    On Aug. 22, 1944,(20) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 90 Cong. Rec. 7215, 7216, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 5125, relating to disposal of surplus government 
        property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The committee substitute was agreed to.
        The Chairman: (1) Under the rule, the Committee will 
    rise. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. R. Ewing Thomason (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (2) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the rule, also, the substitute being considered as an 
    original bill, any Member may ask for a separate vote on any 
    amendment to the substitute. . . .
        Mr. [Carter] Manasco [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a 
    separate vote on the so-called Mott amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Warren G.] Magnuson [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to submit at this time a substitute for the Mott 
    amendment. . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        [The substitute was offered.]
        The substitute was agreed to. . . .
        The amendment as amended by the substitute was agreed to. . . .
        The committee [amendment in the nature of a] substitute was 
    agreed to.