[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[G. House Consideration of Amendments Reported From Committee of the Whole]
[Â§ 38. Effect of Rejection of Amendment]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 7365-7380]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
  G. HOUSE CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE OF THE 
                                 WHOLE
 
Sec. 38. Effect of Rejection of Amendment

Original Text Before House .

Sec. 38.1 When the House rejects an amendment adopted in the Committee 
    of the Whole, only the original text of the bill is before the 
    House.

    On June 20, 1967,(10) a bill (11) was under 
consideration which stated in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 16487 et seq., 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. H.R. 10480.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That chapter 33 of 
    title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting immediately 
    preceding section 701 thereof, a new section as follows:
        ``Sec. 700. Desecration of the flag of the United States; 
    penalties
        (a) Whoever casts contempt upon any flag of the United States 
    by publicly mutilating, defacing, defiling, or trampling upon it 
    shall be fined.

A committee amendment was agreed to that provided:

        On page 1, line 9, after ``defiling,'' insert ``burning,''.

    Subsequently, Mr. James C. Corman, of California, offered an 
amendment: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 16488, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., June 20, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Corman: Strike all the language on 
    page 1, lines

[[Page 7366]]

    8 and 9, and on page 2, lines 1 and 2, and insert in lieu thereof 
    the following: ``(a) Whoever with intent to cast contempt upon the 
    flag of the United States publicly mutilates, defaces, defiles, 
    burns, or tramples upon it shall be fined not more than $1,000 or 
    imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.''

    A substitute was then offered for the Corman 
amendment:(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 16491.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Edward G.] Biester [of Pennsylvania] 
    as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Corman: On page 1, 
    line 8, after the word ``Whoever'' insert the word ``knowingly''.

    The Biester substitute for the Corman amendment was agreed to, and 
the Corman amendment, as so amended, was agreed to.(14) The 
first three lines of text of 700(a) then read as following as 
perfected:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 16493.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Whoever knowingly casts contempt upon any flag of the 
    United States by publicly mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning, 
    or trampling upon it shall be find.

    An amendment thereafter offered by Mr. Louis C. Wyman, of New 
Hampshire, stated:(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 16495.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Wyman: Strike out the first three 
    lines of section 700(a) and insert in place thereof the following:
        ``(a) Whoever, not acting under color of law, shall willfully 
    and publicly mutilate, defile, burn or trample upon any flag of the 
    United States shall be fined. . . .''

    The Wyman amendment was then agreed to. But, on a separate vote in 
the House, the Wyman amendment was rejected.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 16497.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to inquiries as to what was provided in the final 
version of the bill, the Speaker (17) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The only amendment . . . reported to the House by the 
    Committee of the Whole was the so-called Wyman amendment.
        The House, on a separate vote, then rejected the Wyman 
    amendment. The net result was that the language of the original 
    bill was then before the House. The language of the original bill 
    was thus what the House passed.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Only amendments reported to the House from 
the Committee of the Whole are voted on, and where the House rejects an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute for the entire bill, or an 
amendment striking out a portion of text inserting new language, the 
original text without amendment is before the House for 
passage.(18) The re

[[Page 7367]]

sult of the action taken by the House was to eliminate knowingly and 
burning from the text perfected in Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See 95 Cong. Rec. 12269, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 25, 1949 
        (response of Speaker Sam Rayburn [Tex.] to parliamentary 
        inquiries by Mr. Andrew J. Biemiller [Wis.] and Mr. Vito 
        Marcantonio [N.Y.]). The bill under consideration was H.R. 
        6070, to amend the National Housing Act. For further discussion 
        of proceedings related to the bill and to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute, see Sec. 12.14 and Sec. 32.14, supra. 
        The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to in 
        the House and the bill was passed (see 95 Cong. Rec. 12269).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 38.2 Parliamentarian's Note: Where a committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute is amended in Committee of the Whole by the 
    adoption of a substitute and is reported to the House under a 
    procedure permitting a separate vote on any amendment to the 
    committee amendment, the House is faced with three possible 
    versions of the bill (the substitute, the committee amendment, or 
    the text of the bill as introduced) since, if the substitute and 
    the committee amendment are both rejected, the House then votes on 
    the original bill.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See the proceedings at 116 Cong. Rec. 19842, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., 
        June 16, 1970, discussed further in Sec. 38.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 38.3 Where a perfecting amendment adopted in Committee of the 
    Whole is superseded by adoption of an amendment in Committee 
    striking out the section comprehending the perfecting amendment, 
    the perfecting amendment is not reported to the House, and the bill 
    returns to the form as originally introduced upon rejection by the 
    House of the amendment reported from Committee of the Whole.

    On Aug. 4, 1976,(20) the Committee of the Whole having 
reported a bill (21) back to the House with amendments, the 
proceedings described above occurred as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 122 Cong. Rec. 25425-27, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
21. H.R. 8401, the Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker:(22) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment?
        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    separate vote on the so-called Bingham amendment. . . .
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the amendment on which a 
    separate vote is demanded.

[[Page 7368]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment: Starting on page 1, line 5, delete sections 2 
        and 3 of the bill, and renumber section 4 as section 2. . . .

        [The amendment was rejected.]
        Mr. [John B.] Anderson [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Anderson [of Illinois]: I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present 
    form.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Anderson of Illinois moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
        8401 to the House Members of the Joint Committee on Atomic 
        Energy with instructions to report back to the House forthwith 
        with the following amendments: . . .
            On page 2, line 20 strike all after ``public;'' and insert 
        the following: ``Provided however, That the guarantees under 
        any such cooperative arrangement which would subject the 
        Government to any future contingent liabilities for which the 
        Government would not be fully reimbursed shall be limited to 
        the assurance that the Government-furnished technology and 
        equipment will work as promised by the Government over a 
        mutually-agreed-to and reasonable period of initial commercial 
        operation.''. . .

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: . . . I support private 
    business getting into the nuclear fuel enrichment business but I 
    oppose the guarantees provided in subsections 4 and 5 of section 
    45(a). . . .
        In listening to the motion to recommit, am I right that the 
    gentleman's motion to recommit in effect negates subsections 4 and 
    5 on page 3 of the bill?
        Mr. Anderson of Illinois: The gentleman is correct. . . .
        The Bingham amendment struck sections 2 and 3. Even with the 
    defeat of that amendment, we are now back to the original committee 
    bill in its unamended form. We must put back in the bill with this 
    motion to recommit any sections that provide for prior 
    congressional approval of any contract that provides that there can 
    be no contingent liability on the part of the Government, save that 
    provided for in an appropriation bill, plus the additional language 
    which I just read to the Members which will assure that we are 
    limiting this to a warranty of technology. . . .
        Mr. Price: . . . What the gentleman from Illinois is saying is 
    that unless we do recommit the bill with instructions, we will go 
    back to the original bill before it was worked on in the Joint 
    Committee and amended in a way that was palatable to the House and 
    which caused the House eventually to support it. Is that correct?

        Mr. Anderson of Illinois: The gentleman has stated the 
    parliamentary situation correctly. We will be back to the committee 
    bill before we had amended it with those committee amendments which 
    were accepted without dissent in the Committee of the Whole. 
    Because those sections as amended were stricken, even though we 
    defeated the Bingham amendment, we must now go back and assure this 
    House that we report this bill to this House in a form that 
    contains the provisions for a 60-day congressional review. . . .

[[Page 7369]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: House Resolution 1242 had specifically 
waived points of order under Rule XVI clause 7, to permit the 
consideration of the amendment recommended by the Joint Committee on 
Atomic Energy printed in the bill. (The amendment was not germane, 
because it provided for a rules change to permit privileged 
consideration of resolutions of disapproval, whereas the original bill 
provided no such mechanism.) While the precedents indicate that a 
motion to recommit a bill with instructions may not direct the 
committee to report back forthwith with a nongermane amendment, it is 
nevertheless true that an amendment incorporated in such a motion is in 
order if it would have been in order to consider that recommended 
amendment as an amendment to the bill. Since the text of the motion to 
recommit was identical to the committee amendment protected by the 
waiver, the motion to recommit was in order in the form indicated 
above.

--Rejection of Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 38.4 If the Committee of the Whole perfects a bill by amendment 
    and then adopts an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    entire bill, only the substitute is reported to the House; if the 
    House then rejects the substitute, the original bill without 
    amendment is before the House.

    On Mar. 4, 1952,(23) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. 98 Cong. Rec. 1864, 1865, 82d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 5904, the National Security Training Corps Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Do I understand the 
    rules properly that since this amendment which was adopted in the 
    committee, and which was a complete substitute for the bill which 
    was before us, has now been defeated in the House and the next 
    question is on the bill as originally introduced by the gentleman 
    from Georgia (Mr. Vinson) without either the committee amendments 
    as recommended, or the so-called Vinson amendments as adopted in 
    the Committee of the Whole today?
        The Speaker: (24) The bill, as presented to the 
    House, is before the House at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 38.5 If an amendment in the nature of a substitute is reported 
    from the Committee of the Whole and rejected by the House, the 
    original bill (as referred to the committee having jurisdiction) is 
    before the House.

[[Page 7370]]

    On Sept. 29, 1965,(25) the following exchange took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. 111 Cong. Rec. 25438, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 4644.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: I am about to ask for 
    the yeas and nays on the Multer amendment, as amended by the Sisk 
    amendment. If that amendment is rejected on the roll-call vote, 
    which I will ask for, will the pending business before the House 
    then be H.R. 4644?
        The Speaker: (1) As introduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 38.6 An amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill was 
    adopted in the Committee of the Whole and thereafter disagreed to 
    in the House, and the original bill as introduced passed unamended.

    On Apr. 21, 1937,(2) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 2711, to create a division of water pollution 
control in the United States Public Health Service. Mr. John J. 
Cochran, of Missouri, offered an amendment, with notice that if the 
amendment were adopted, he would move to strike out the rest of the 
bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 81 Cong. Rec. 3694, 3698, 3699, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cochran: Strike out all of section 
        1 and insert the following:
            ``That the Chief of Engineers of the War Department and the 
        Surgeon General of the Public Health Service . . . are 
        authorized and directed to make jointly a comprehensive study 
        of water pollution and the means of eliminating or reducing 
        water pollution. . . .
            ``Sec. 2. In evolving such plan for prevention of water 
        pollution as provided in section 1, the Chief of Engineers of 
        the War Department and the Surgeon General of the Public Health 
        Service shall make appropriate investigation of State plans 
        directed at the abatement and control of water pollution. . . .
            ``Sec. 3. The aforesaid study shall be embodied in a report 
        which shall be submitted to Congress during the first week in 
        January 1939.''

        Mr. Fred M. Vinson [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair asks the gentleman from 
    Missouri whether his amendment is in the nature of a substitute for 
    the bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Wall Doxey (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cochran: Mr. Chairman, my amendment is offered as a 
    substitute for section 1 of the bill. If the amendment is adopted, 
    I shall move to strike out the rest of the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . The question is on the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cochran].
        [The amendment was agreed to.]
        Mr. Cochran: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    remainder of the bill be stricken out.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Missouri?

[[Page 7371]]

        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. Cochran: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
    rise.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Mansfield] will be 
    recognized, if he seeks recognition.
        Mr. [Joseph J.] Mansfield [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I do not 
    fully understand the effect of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Missouri. Does it strike out the remainder of the 
    bill?
        The Chairman: That was done by unanimous consent after the 
    adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri.
        Mr. Fred M. Vinson: The test vote was on the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Missouri, and he made the statement if that 
    was successful he would move to strike out the remainder of the 
    bill.
        Mr. Cochran: And I did ask unanimous consent to strike out the 
    remainder of the bill, and it was granted.
        Mr. Mansfield: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
    rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, 
    with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and the 
    bill as amended do pass.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Doxey, 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. 2711) to create a Division of 
    Water Pollution Control in the United States Public Health Service, 
    and for other purposes, directed him to report the same back to the 
    House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the 
    amendments be agreed to and that the bill as amended do pass.
        Mr. Cochran: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    bill and all amendments to final passage.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: (4) Is a separate vote demanded on any 
    amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fred M. Vinson: I demand a separate vote, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Mansfield: I demand a separate vote on the Cochran 
    amendment.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state, as a mere suggestion, that 
    if the amendments are voted upon en bloc it will accomplish the 
    same purpose.
        Mr. Fred M. Vinson: It is the Cochran amendment which was 
    offered at one time on which I am seeking a record vote.
        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cochran).
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McCormack: I would like to ascertain whether or not if the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cochran) is 
    voted down, the bill as reported by the committee will then be 
    before the House?
        The Speaker: In answer to the inquiry of the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts the Chair will state that there is also another 
    amendment that was reported from the Committee of the Whole.

[[Page 7372]]

        Mr. McCormack: Pursuing my parliamentary inquiry further, will 
    the Chair inform me whether or not there are two amendments?
        The Speaker: The Chair is advised that there are two 
    amendments.
        Mr. McCormack: The gentleman from Massachusetts understands 
    that the Cochran amendment was with reference to a part of the 
    bill, and then the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cochran) asked 
    unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be stricken out.
        The Speaker: In answer to the parliamentary inquiry of the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts, the Chair will state that the 
    gentleman from Missouri offered an amendment to strike out section 
    1 of the bill and insert in lieu thereof a substitute for the 
    entire bill, with notice that if that amendment were agreed to he 
    would move to strike out the remaining sections of the bill. That 
    amendment was agreed to. By unanimous consent, the request being 
    submitted by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cochran), the 
    remainder of the bill was stricken out.
        Mr. McCormack: Further pursuing my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Speaker, in order to have the entire bill as reported by the 
    committee acted upon by the House, it is necessary that the 
    gentleman from Kentucky or someone demand a separate vote on both 
    of the Cochran amendments.
        The Speaker: If the gentleman from Kentucky desires to pursue 
    that course, he is entitled to; but the Chair submits that if the 
    amendments are voted on en bloc and voted down, then the bill as 
    originally introduced will be before the House.
        Does the gentleman from Kentucky insist on a separate vote?
        Mr. Fred M. Vinson: Let them be considered en bloc, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: The question is on the amendments.
        The amendments are as follows: Strike out section 1 and insert 
    the following:

            That the Chief of Engineers of the War Department and the 
        Surgeon General of the Public Health Service . . . are 
        authorized and directed to make jointly a comprehensive study 
        of water pollution and the means of eliminating or reducing 
        water pollution. . . .
            Sec. 2. In evolving such plan for prevention of water 
        pollution as provided in section 1, the Chief of Engineers of 
        the War Department and the Surgeon General of the Public Health 
        Service shall make appropriate investigation of state plans 
        directed at the abatement and control of water pollution. . . .
            Sec. 3. The aforesaid study shall be embodied in a report 
        which shall be submitted to Congress during the first week in 
        January 1939.

        Strike out the remainder of the bill.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    seemed to have it.
        Mr. Fred M. Vinson: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        [The amendments were rejected.]
        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and 
    was read the third time.
        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
        [The bill was passed].

[[Page 7373]]

Committee Amendment in Nature of Substitute Considered as Original 
    Bill: Rejection of Substitute Therefor

Sec. 38.7 Where a resolution proposed to make in order a committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for 
    amendment, to make in order the text of another bill as a 
    substitute therefor, and to permit a separate vote on any amendment 
    adopted to the committee amendment, the Speaker pro tempore 
    indicated that, should the substitute for the committee amendment 
    be adopted in Committee of the Whole, the committee amendment as so 
    amended be then reported to the House, and the substitute rejected 
    on a separate vote in the House, the question would recur on the 
    committee amendment, which would not be open to further amendment.

    On June 16, 1970,(5) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 111  Cong. Rec. 19842, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H. Res. 1077, providing for consideration of H.R. 17070, the 
        Postal Reform Act of 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Arnold] Olsen [of Montana]: The parliamentary inquiry is: 
    If the Udall (substitute) bill is passed by the Committee of the 
    Whole and we go into the House and then the Udall bill is voted 
    down in the House, is it correct that the only thing left we would 
    have would be the original Blount bill, the original H.R. 17070?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) in response to the 
    inquiry, the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    would immediately be under consideration. Of course, it would not 
    be subject to amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Olsen: That is something I wanted to get straight, that the 
    committee bill as amended would not be subject to amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The previous question having been 
    ordered, it would not be subject to amendment.
        Mr. Olsen: So, Mr. Speaker, Members who have amendments to the 
    committee bill, who want to amend H.R. 17070, should give attention 
    to the fact that they will not have an opportunity to amend it if 
    the Udall substitute is defeated in the House.

Rejection of Amendment Striking Out Title or Section That Had Been 
    Perfected

Sec. 38.8 Where the Committee of the Whole adopts several perfecting 
    amendments to a title of a bill and then agrees to an amendment 
    striking out that title, only the latter amendment is reported to 
    the House, and in the event of its rejection in the House

[[Page 7374]]

    the original title, and not the perfected text, is before the 
    House.

    On Aug. 3, 1972,(7) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 118 Cong. Rec. 26626, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 15989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, the committee 
    bill in title I was amended in several instances during 
    consideration of the bill in Committee of the Whole. Subsequent to 
    that the Wylie amendment was approved which struck title I from the 
    bill.
        If the Wylie amendment at this point is defeated, will we 
    return to title I, as it was in the committee bill, or as it was at 
    the time it was voted on?
        The Speaker: (8) As it was in the original committee 
    bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Motion To Recommit With Instructions Used To Reinstate Amendments

Sec. 38.9 The House, having defeated an amendment reported from 
    Committee of the Whole striking out a section, rejected the 
    previous question on a straight motion to recommit, and then 
    amended the motion to include instructions to reinsert in the bill 
    earlier amendments which had tentatively been adopted in Committee 
    of the Whole but then deleted by the amendment striking out that 
    section as so amended.

    On Feb. 5, 1974,(9) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 120 Cong. Rec. 2079-82, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ben B.] Blackburn [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, as I 
    understand the procedure, with the defeat of the Wylie amendment in 
    the Whole House, we have now before us the original bill, and the 
    original bill did not contain the provision which would have 
    permitted credit unions to share in such deposits. . . .
        The Speaker: (10) The Chair will state that the 
    committee amendment on page 7 is no longer in the bill, as it was 
    not reported from Committee of the Whole. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Blackburn moves to recommit the bill H.R. 11221 to the 
        Committee on Banking and Currency. . . .

        Mr. [Robert G.] Stephens [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, is a 
    straight motion to recommit amendable?
        The Speaker: Not when the previous question is ordered. If the 
    previous question is ordered, it is not amendable. . . .
        The question is on ordering the previous question.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
    appeared to have it.

[[Page 7375]]

        Mr. Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    122, noes 259. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment to the motion to recommit. . . .
        The Speaker: . . . The Clerk will report the amendment to the 
    motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashley to the motion to recommit 
        offered by Mr. Blackburn: At the end of the motion, add the 
        following instructions: With instructions to report back 
        forthwith with the following amendment: On page 7, immediately 
        after line 2, insert the following new subsection:
            (d) Section 107(7) of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 
        U.S.C. 1757(7)) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following: ``; and to receive from an officer, employee, or 
        agent of those nonmember units of Federal, State, or local 
        governments and political subdivisions thereof enumerated in 
        section 207 of this Act (12 U.S.C. 1787) and in the manner so 
        prescribed payments on shares, share certificates, and share 
        deposits''. . . .

        Mr. Ashley: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    amendment and on the motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is 
    ordered on the amendment and on the motion to recommit.
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment to the motion to 
    recommit.
        The amendment to the motion to recommit was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit, as 
    amended.
        The motion to recommit, as amended, was agreed to.

Sec. 38.10 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 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,(11) after the Committee of the Whole 
had reported back to the House a bill (12) with an 
amendment, a parliamen

[[Page 7376]]

tary inquiry arose as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 120 Cong. Rec. 2078, 2079, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
12. H.R. 11221, amending the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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: (13) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 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.

Rejection of Motion To Strike Section Where No Demand Made for Separate 
    Votes on Perfecting Amendments to Section

Sec. 38.11 Where the Committee of the Whole reports a bill

[[Page 7377]]

    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,(14) the Committee of the Whole having 
reported H.R. 3816 back to the House with an amendment, the proceedings 
described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 123 Cong. Rec. 33622, 33623, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (15) Are there further amendments? If 
    not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 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 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: (16) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 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

[[Page 7378]]

    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 proceedings, 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.

Rejection of Amendment Striking Out and Inserting

Sec. 38.12 If an amendment striking out and inserting is reported from 
    the Committee of the Whole and rejected by the House, the language 
    of the original bill is before the House.

    On Jan. 30, 1968,(17) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 114 Cong. Rec. 1421, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was H. 
        Res. 1043.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, the rule 
    provides for amendments in the Committee of the Whole. On page 40 
    of the bill that has been reported, you will note, in section 2 
    thereof, that it deals with the question of restrictions of 
    garnishment of wages. You will also notice that on lines 13 to 19 
    the language has been stricken out and beginning at line 20 . . . 
    there is an amendment to be offered by the Committee.
        Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this: If the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union

[[Page 7379]]

    should adopt the amendment and thereafter when we come back into 
    the House this amendment is rejected by the whole House, does that 
    automatically reinstate lines 13 to 19, page 40, of the bill as 
    reported by the committee?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) The Chair is prepared 
    to respond to the gentleman's parliamentary inquiry. If the House 
    rejects the amendment striking out the language in the bill and 
    inserting substitute language, the effect of the House rejection 
    would mean that the language which the Committee of the Whole had 
    intended to be stricken would remain in the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rejection of Amendment Where Previous Question Ordered

Sec. 38.13 If the Committee of the Whole reports a bill back to the 
    House with an amendment, and the amendment is rejected, the bill is 
    not open to further amendment in the House if the previous question 
    has been ordered.

    On Sept. 29, 1965,(19) the following exchange took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 111 Cong. Rec. 25418, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 4644.
            See also Sec. 38.10, supra, for discussion of possible 
        amendment by a motion to recommit with instructions in the 
        event of rejection of an amendment striking a section of a bill 
        in a case in which the Committee of the Whole had adopted 
        perfecting amendments to the section, but only the subsequent 
        amendment striking the section was reported to the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Assuming the Committee 
    sustains the Sisk amendment then the Committee returns to the House 
    and the House votes down the Sisk amendment, upon what bill do we 
    then proceed?
        The Chairman: (20) The question then will be put to 
    the House on the bill, H.R. 4644.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Harsha: And, there will be no further opportunity to amend 
    that or any other legislation; is that correct?
        The Chairman: Not at that point, because prior to that the 
    previous question will have been ordered.

--Rejection of Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 38.14 Where the House rejects an amendment adopted in the 
    Committee of the Whole striking out all after the enacting clause 
    and inserting new language, and the previous question has been 
    ordered, the question recurs on engrossment and third reading of 
    the original bill without amendment.

    On May 3, 1949,(1) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 95 Cong. Rec. 5543, 5544, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 2032, the National Labor Relations Act of 1949. For 
        other proceedings in which the question was similarly treated, 
        see 116 Cong. Rec. 42032-35, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 16, 
        1970.


[[Page 7380]]


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

        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: The vote is now on the Wood 
    amendment that was adopted in the Committee of the Whole. If the 
    Wood amendment is defeated, then the vote would come on the 
    committee bill, the Lesinski bill, without amendment?
        The Speaker: (2) The next vote would be on the 
    engrossment and third reading of the Lesinski bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 
