[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6509-6534]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments


[[Page 6509]]




A. Generally

    Sec. 1. Introductory; Definitions; Form
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Commentary and editing by Evan Hoorneman, J.D. Manuscript editing 
by Joan Deschler Bamel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sec. 2. Pro Forma Amendments
    Sec. 3. Effect of Special Rule; Amending Special Rule
    Sec. 4. Recognition To Offer Amendments; Priority
    Sec. 5. Permissible Pending Amendments
    Sec. 6. Amendments in the Third Degree

B. When To Offer Amendment; Reading For Amendment

    Sec. 7. In General; Reading by the Clerk
    Sec. 8. Amendments to Text Passed in the Reading
    Sec. 9. Amendments to Text Not Yet Read; En Bloc Amendments
   Sec. 10. Amendments to Bills Being Read by Title
   Sec. 11. Amendments to Bills Considered as Read and Open to 
            Amendment
   Sec. 12. Amendments in Nature of Substitute for Several Paragraphs 
            or Entire Bill
   Sec. 13. Time Yielded for Amendment or Other Purposes
   Sec. 14. Effect of Previous Question; Expiration of Time for Debate

C. Offering Particular Kinds of Amendments; Precedence and Priorities

   Sec. 15. Introductory; Perfecting Amendments, Generally
   Sec. 16. Motions To Strike Out and Insert

[[Page 6510]]

   Sec. 17. Motions To Strike
   Sec. 18. Substitute Amendments
   Sec. 19. Amendments to Titles and Preambles

D. Withdrawal or Modification of Amendment

   Sec. 20. Withdrawal
   Sec. 21. Modification of Amendment by Proponent or Others

E. Consideration and Voting

   Sec. 22. In General; Reading of Amendment
   Sec. 23. Order of Consideration Generally
   Sec. 24. Perfecting Amendments; Motions To Strike
   Sec. 25. Substitute Amendments; Amendments in Nature of Substitute
   Sec. 26. Committee Amendments
   Sec. 27. Considering Amendments En Bloc
   Sec. 28. Debating Amendments

F. Effect of Consideration or Adoption; Changes After Adoption

   Sec. 29. Introduction; Adoption of Perfecting Amendment, Generally
   Sec. 30. Adoption of Amendment as Affecting Motions To Strike or To 
            Strike and Insert
   Sec. 31. Adoption of Motion To Strike Out; To Strike Out and Insert
   Sec. 32. Amendments in Nature of Substitute; Substitute Amendments
   Sec. 33. Amendments Pertaining to Monetary Figures
   Sec. 34. Effecting Changes by Unanimous Consent
   Sec. 35. Effect of Consideration or Rejection

G. House Consideration of Amendments Reported From Committee of the 
Whole

   Sec. 36. In General; Demands for Separate Vote

[[Page 6511]]

   Sec. 37. Order of Consideration
   Sec. 38. Effect of Rejection of Amendment

  
                         DESCHLER'S PRECEDENTS



                          INDEX TO PRECEDENTS
                                     

Adoption, effect of
    adding language at end of paragraph, adoption of amendment, 
        Sec. 30.15
    adding language following previously adopted amendment, amendment, 
        Sec. Sec. 29.38, 29.39
    additional language, striking out adopted amendment plus, 
        Sec. Sec. 29.44-29.46
    amendment to amendment previously agreed to, Sec. 29.2-29.6
    anticipatory ruling as to effect of adoption, Sec. 29.27
    appropriation bill, unanimous consent that subsequent amendment not 
        be precluded by adoption of amendments changing figures in, 
        Sec. 34.7
    bill, amendment to part of, previously amended, Sec. Sec. 29.8-
        29.13
    broader in scope, second amendment as, Sec. 29.11
    coextensive, adoption of perfecting amendment that is, with motion 
        to strike, Sec. 15.25
    conforming amendments, adoption of, Sec. 30.16
    consistency of amendment with one previously agreed to, 
        Sec. Sec. 29.21-29.26
    divisible amendment, agreement to one portion of, Sec. 29.37
    en bloc amendments, see En bloc amendments
    end of paragraph, adoption of amendment inserting language at, 
        Sec. 30.15
    enlarging scope of changes made by prior amendment, 
        Sec. Sec. 31.18, 31.19
    House, effect on underlying perfecting amendments of rejection by, 
        of amendment reported from Committee of Whole, Sec. 29.53
    identical language, amendment as containing, Sec. 29.1
    monetary figures, unanimous consent that subsequent amendment not 
        be precluded by adoption of amendments changing, Sec. 34.7
    motion to strike out and insert, effect of adoption of, on pending 
        motion to strike, see Strike out and insert, motion to
    negating amendment previously agreed to, amendment having effect 
        of, Sec. 29.20
    new paragraph to subsection, committee amendment adding, Sec. 30.10
    new section, adoption of amendment adding, Sec. 29.29
    new section, adoption of amendment adding, as precluding further 
        amendment to pending section, Sec. 7.34
    new section, adoption of committee amendment adding, as precluding 
        motion to strike, Sec. 30.9
    new section as including and omitting amendments previously agreed 
        to, Sec. 30.11
    new title, amendment adding, effect of adoption of, Sec. 10.13
    omission, one, striking perfected text and reinserting with, 
        Sec. 29.19
    part of bill previously amended, amendment to, Sec. Sec. 29.8, 29.9

[[Page 6512]]

    part of section, perfecting amendment affecting, as not precluding 
        other amendments including amendment striking whole, 
        Sec. Sec. 30.12, 30.13
    perfected portions of bill, amendment in nature of substitute as 
        changing, Sec. Sec. 29.14-29.16
    perfecting amendments previously agreed to, amendment in nature of 
        substitute as omitting, Sec. Sec. 32.14, 32.15
    point of order, effect of failure to make, where improperly offered 
        amendment is adopted, Sec. 29.30
    recommit, motion to, with instructions to modify amendment, 
        Sec. 29.54
    Record, adoption of amendment not printed in, Sec. 29.36
    Record, amendments printed in, as precluded by adoption of 
        amendment to strike and insert, Sec. 31.16
    reoffering amendment previously offered and adopted as amended by 
        substitute, Sec. 29.47
    rewritten, entire section as, Sec. 29.10
    scope, broader in, second amendment as, Sec. 29.11
    Senate bill, amendment in nature of substitute for, in order where 
        Committee of Whole had adopted amendments to bill, Sec. 29.52
    seriatim, one of several amendments offered, ruled out of order as 
        changing provisions previously amended, Sec. 29.13
    special rule making two amendments in order but not waiving points 
        of order against second following adoption of first, Sec. 29.49
    special rule permitting amendments which change portions of 
        amendments previously agreed to, Sec. 29.48
    special rule prohibiting further amendment in event amendment is 
        adopted, effect of rejection of amendment made in order by, 
        Sec. 29.50
    stricken language, inserting language similar or identical to, 
        Sec. Sec. 31.4-31.8
    stricken, language that has been, no point of order made against 
        amendment offered to perfect, Sec. 31.10
    strike, adoption or rejection of motion to, as affecting perfected 
        text, Sec. Sec. 29.17-29.19
    strike, motion to, adoption of perfecting amendment as affecting 
        vote on, Sec. 30.1-30.4
    strike out and insert, adoption of amendment to, as precluding 
        further amendment, Sec. Sec. 31.14-31.17
    strike out and insert, adoption of amendment to, as precluding 
        motion to strike same text, Sec. Sec. 31.12, 31.13
    striking out language of adopted amendment plus additional 
        language, Sec. Sec. 29.44-29.46
    striking out larger portion of text including previously adopted 
        amendment, Sec. Sec. 30.5-30.8
    striking out section, adoption of amendment, as vitiating prior 
        adoption of perfecting amendments to section, Sec. Sec. 31.1-
        31.3
    striking out section, perfecting amendment affecting part of 
        section as not precluding amendment, Sec. Sec. 30.12, 30.13
    striking unamended portion of section, perfecting amendment 
        affecting part of section as not precluding amendment, 
        Sec. 30.14
    substitute, adoption of amendment in nature of, see Substitute, 
        amendment in nature of
    substitute, adoption of amendment to amendment in nature of 
        substitute, Sec. 29.33
    substitute, amendment in nature of, as changing perfected portions 
        of bill, Sec. Sec. 29.14-29.16

[[Page 6513]]

    substitute amendments, see Substitute amendments
    title, entire, changed, Sec. 29.12
    unamended and amended portions of text or amendment, amendment 
        changing both, Sec. Sec. 29.42, 29.43
    unanimous consent that subsequent amendment not be precluded by 
        adoption of amendments changing monetary figures, Sec. 34.7
    unanimous consent to amend amendment already agreed to, Sec. 34.1
Ambiguity not resolved by Chair, Sec. 1.31
Anticipatory ruling, Chair does not make, Sec. 1.37
Appropriation bills
    amendment to several paragraphs of bill, Sec. 5.30
    changing figures in, see Figures in bill, amendments changing or 
        affecting
    paragraph, considered by, for amendment, Sec. Sec. 7.6-7.8
    reading, paragraph passed in, amendment offered to, Sec. Sec. 8.4, 
        8.5
Chair, advice by, as to where amendment may be offered, Sec. 7.28
Chair, recognition by, see Recognition to offer amendments
Chapters, occasion when bill read for amendment by, Sec. 7.11
Clerk, distribution of copies of amendment by, see Distribution of 
    copies of amendment, requirement of
Clerk's desk, placing amendment on, as insufficient to offer amendment, 
    Sec. Sec. 7.27, 8.20
Committee amendments
    ``acceptance'' of amendment by committee members as not obviating 
        requirement of vote, Sec. Sec. 26.10, 28.1
    bill considered as read and open to amendment, consideration of 
        committee amendments where, Sec. Sec. 11.13-11.17
    chairman, committee, as offering, Sec. 1.13
    consideration of, before amendment from floor, Sec. Sec. 4.33, 4.34
    consideration of, before amendment from floor, where bill 
        considered as read and open to amendment, Sec. 11.16
    consideration of, prior to debate on resolution, Sec. 4.28
    en bloc, committee amendments considered, Sec. Sec. 26.6, 26.7
    en bloc, special rule providing for consideration of committee 
        amendments, Sec. Sec. 27.13, 27.14
    first section, amendment to, voted on before amendment in nature of 
        substitute, Sec. 26.1
    first section, amendment to, voted on before amendment to strike 
        out all after enacting clause and insert new matter, Sec. 23.23
    open to amendment at any point, where bill is, Sec. Sec. 26.3-26.5
    original text, amendment read as, number of amendments that may be 
        offered to, Sec. 5.32
    pending, amendment not, offering amendment to, Sec. 7.37
    read, necessity that committee amendment be, before being amended, 
        Sec. Sec. 9.4, 9.5
    section, amendment adding, Sec. 26.2
    special rules, provisions of, see Special rules
    title, amending committee amendments to, Sec. 19.6
    voting, order of, on amendments to, Sec. Sec. 26.8, 26.9
Committee, jurisdiction of, enlarged by amendment to resolution, 
    Sec. 29.55

[[Page 6514]]

Committee on House Administration, resolution reported from, Member 
    yielding for amendment during consideration of, Sec. 13.3
Committee on Rules, authorization by, for Member to yield for amendment 
    to resolution, Sec. 13.5
Consistency of, with another part of bill, Sec. 29.25
Consistency of, with one previously agreed to, Sec. Sec. 29.21, 29.22
Consistency or effect of amendment, Chair does not make determination 
    as to, Sec. Sec. 1.31-1.38
Copies of amendment, see Distribution of copies of amendment, 
    requirement of
Debate
    ``acceptance'' of amendment as not obviating requirement of debate 
        and vote, Sec. 28.1
    adoption of motion closing debate, effect of, on proffered 
        amendments, Sec. 14.12
    allocation of time or recognition following limitation on debate, 
        discretion of Chair as to, Sec. Sec. 28.11-28.21
    adoption of substitute to amendment, debate after, Sec. 28.51
    amendment in nature of substitute, limitation on, as not affecting 
        debate on original text, Sec. 28.47
    close or limit, motion to, as including amendments not yet offered, 
        Sec. 28.6
    close or limit, motion to, may not include reservation of time, 
        Sec. 28.8
    close or limit, motion to--when in order, Sec. Sec. 28.4, 28.5, 
        28.7
    concluded, debate on amendment must be, before substitute offered 
        under special rule so providing, Sec. 7.41
    control of debate by proponent of amendment, Sec. 28.22
    debate, intervening, as precluding 5-minute vote on subsequent 
        amendments as provided for by special rule, Sec. 28.56
    discretion of Chair in allocation of time or recognition following 
        limitation on debate, Sec. Sec. 28.11-28.21
    divisible amendment, debate on remaining portions of, 
        Sec. Sec. 28.52, 29.37
    enacting clause, amendments offered after rejection of motion to 
        strike, Sec. 14.13
    enacting clause, rejection of motion to strike, effect of, 
        Sec. 7.45
    en bloc amendments, time allowed for debate on, Sec. 27.12
    expiration of time, amendments offered after, Sec. Sec. 14.9-14.13, 
        14.18
    expiration of time for debate, amendments offered after, where 
        motion to strike enacting clause rejected, Sec. 7.45
    expiration of time, pro forma amendments after, Sec. 28.42
    limitation applicable to substitute and amendments to but not on 
        original amendment or amendments thereto, effect of, Sec. 25.8
    limitation on debate on amendment in nature of substitute but not 
        on original text, Sec. 28.47
    limitation on debate to a time certain as affecting debate on 
        related matters including unanimous-consent requests, 
        Sec. 28.55
    motion to limit, as privileged, Sec. 28.5
    not debatable, amendments, Sec. Sec. 28.2, 28.3
    offering amendment in time yielded for debate not allowed, 
        Sec. 28.57
    open to amendment, where bill considered as read and, effect of 
        limitation on debate on titles, Sec. 11.27
    perfecting amendment, offering of, debate on motion to strike may 
        precede, Sec. 15.11
    points of order, separate debate time on, Sec. 28.54

[[Page 6515]]

    previous question, amendment debatable only upon rejection of, 
        where moved on amendment and resolution, Sec. Sec. 14.6, 14.7
    pro forma amendment offered by proponent of pending amendment, 
        Sec. Sec. 28.23, 28.24
    pro forma amendment, scope of debate on, Sec. Sec. 28.37-28.39
    pro forma amendment, scope of debate on, as affected by special 
        rule, Sec. Sec. 28.40, 28.41
    pro forma amendment, scope of debate on, where substantive 
        amendment to amendment is pending, Sec. 28.39
    pro forma amendments after expiration of time, Sec. 28.42
    pro forma amendments, effect of limitation on debate by unanimous 
        consent on, Sec. 14.17
    pro forma amendments, rule prohibiting, debate allowed by unanimous 
        consent of House under, Sec. 3.33
    proponent of amendment, pro forma amendment offered by, 
        Sec. Sec. 28.23, 28.24
    question, putting, before time expires, Sec. 28.25
    read, motion to limit debate where bill has not been, Sec. 7.23
    recognition or allocation of time following limitation on debate, 
        discretion of Chair as to, Sec. Sec. 28.11-28.21
    Record, amendments printed in, debate on, Sec. Sec. 28.12, 28.26-
        28.35
    Record, amendments printed in, special rule as governing debate on, 
        Sec. 28.36
    Record, amendments printed in, when debate allowed on, 
        Sec. Sec. 1.23-1.27
    Record, offering of amendments printed in, precluded where debate 
        has been closed and stage of amendment passed, Sec. 14.14
    Record, offering of amendments printed in, precluded where time 
        specified in special rule for consideration of amendments has 
        expired, Sec. 14.15
    reintroduction of amendment, debate following, Sec. 28.50
    reservation of objection, debate under, Sec. 28.53
    reservation of objection, debating amendment under, Sec. 1.43
    scope of debate on pro forma amendment, Sec. Sec. 2.4, 2.5
    special rule as affecting scope of debate on pro forma amendment, 
        Sec. Sec. 28.40, 28.41
    special rule, debate on amendments under, Sec. Sec. 3.76-3.79
    special rule governing ``further consideration'' of bill and 
        limiting debate, Sec. 28.9
    special rule precluding pro forma amendments, Sec. 28.10
    special rule providing for five-minute vote on amendments after 
        recorded vote ordered, intervening debate as affecting terms 
        of, Sec. 28.56
    strike, debate on motion to, as preceding motion to strike out and 
        insert, Sec. Sec. 15.11, 28.48, 28.49
    strike out, Member entitled to speak on motion to, before another 
        recognized to offer motion to strike out and insert, Sec. 15.11
    substitute, debate after adoption of, Sec. 28.51
    substitute, debate on amendment in nature of, and amendments 
        thereto, Sec. Sec. 28.44-28.46
    substitute for amendment, debate after adoption of, not allowed 
        before vote on amendment, Sec. 2.22
    substitute, limiting debate on, Sec. 28.43
    time yielded for debate, amendment may not be offered in, 
        Sec. 28.57

[[Page 6516]]

    unanimous consent, additional debate permitted by, Sec. 3.33
    unanimous consent, effect of limitation by, on pro forma 
        amendments, Sec. 14.17
Degree of amendment, see Third degree, amendments in
Dispense with further reading, motion to, as not in order, Sec. 7.13
Distribution of copies of amendment, requirement of, Sec. Sec. 1.15-
    1.22, 7.25, 7.26
Effect or consistency of amendment, Chair does not make determination 
    as to, Sec. 1.31-1.38
En bloc amendments
    adoption, effect of, where subsequent amendments offered to change 
        amendments previously agreed to en bloc, Sec. 29.7
    agreed to, further amendment after en bloc amendments have been, 
        Sec. 9.22
    amendment, subject to, Sec. 27.7
    changing amendments previously agreed to en bloc, amendments as, 
        Sec. 29.7
    committee amendments, amendments to, Sec. Sec. 27.9, 27.10
    committee amendments considered en bloc by unanimous consent, 
        Sec. 26.7
    committee amendments considered en bloc under special rule, 
        Sec. Sec. 3.57, 26.6
    committee amendments, special rule providing for consideration of, 
        en bloc, Sec. Sec. 27.13, 27.14
    committee amendments, unanimous consent required for en bloc 
        consideration of, Sec. 27.2
    debate on, time allowed for, Sec. 27.12
    division of question where amendment proposes to strike out two 
        sections, Sec. 27.17
    figures, amendment as changing, that were agreed to with others en 
        bloc, Sec. 33.5
    House, consideration in, upon demand for separate vote, Sec. 27.15
    inserting new section, amendment, as separate from motion to strike 
        out and insert, Sec. 9.18
    modification of one amendment by proponent, Sec. 21.5
    one amendment, amendments considered as, Sec. 27.5
    perfecting amendment to text proposed to be stricken by, Sec. 15.12
    point of order against part, effect of, Sec. Sec. 27.4-27.6
    points of order against amendments while request for en bloc 
        consideration is pending, Sec. 27.4
    read, portions of bill not yet, en bloc amendments affecting, 
        Sec. Sec. 9.13-9.16
    rejection of amendment to figure in bill when considered en bloc, 
        Sec. 33.16
    rejection of, as not precluding separate introduction, Sec. 35.15
    rejection of, bill as open to amendment following, Sec. 9.19
    separate consideration where opposition arises, Sec. 27.16
    separate introduction, rejection of amendments as not precluding, 
        Sec. 35.15
    separate votes, see Separate votes special rule, amendments made in 
        order by, need not be offered from floor, Sec. 9.21
    special rule providing for disposition of, prior to floor 
        amendment, Sec. 9.20
    strike, en bloc amendments where motion to, is pending, Sec. 27.3
    striking text, en bloc amendment, Sec. 15.12
    subsequent title or section of bill, amendment to, Sec. Sec. 9.13-
        9.16
    unanimous consent not required where amendments to several portions 
        of bill relate to same subject matter, Sec. 9.17

[[Page 6517]]

    unanimous consent requirement, Sec. Sec. 27.1, 27.2
    voting upon, Sec. Sec. 27.11, 27.16
Entire bill read prior to amendment, occasion when, Sec. 7.10
Figures in bill, amendments changing or affecting
    en bloc, changing figures previously agreed to with others that 
        were considered, Sec. 33.5
    ``in addition to,'' amendment providing funds, amount already 
        agreed to, Sec. 33.13
    limits, amendment imposing dollar, as modifying amendment already 
        adopted, Sec. 33.11
    line-item amounts, amendment of, where total authorization has been 
        amended, Sec. 33.12
    percentage reduction of figures, subsequent amendment making, 
        Sec. 33.10
    rejection of amendment considered en bloc with other amendments, 
        Sec. 33.16
    similarity of amendment changing figures to amendment previously 
        rejected, Sec. 33.15
    total figure, effect of adopting amendment changing, Sec. 33.9
First section, amendment inserting new section to precede, Sec. 7.14
First title of bill, reading of sections preceding, Sec. Sec. 10.5-10.8
Funds covered in bill, effect of changes in, Sec. Sec. 33.1 et seq.
House as in Committee of the Whole, bill considered as read and open 
    for amendment in, Sec. 11.22
House as in Committee of the Whole, withdrawal of amendment in, 
    Sec. 20.12
House consideration of amendments reported from Committee of the Whole
    committee amendment in nature of substitute, amendments to, 
        Sec. 37.6
    order of consideration generally, Sec. Sec. 37.1-37.4
    rejection of amendments, see Rejection, effect of
    separate votes, see Separate votes
    stricken, perfecting amendments to section that was, not reported, 
        Sec. Sec. 36.1, 36.2
    striking out previously adopted language and inserting new text, 
        amendment in Committee of the Whole, reported to House without 
        stricken language, Sec. 36.5
    substitute for amendment in nature of substitute, consideration of, 
        Sec. Sec. 37.7, 37.8
House, resolutions considered in, time yielded for amendments to, 
    Sec. Sec. 13.3-13.6
Indivisible, motion to strike out and insert as, Sec. 16.11
Insert, motion to, language similar or identical to that previously 
    stricken out, Sec. Sec. 31.4-31.8
Instructions as to portion of bill to be amended, Sec. 1.28
Majority or minority member of committee reporting the bill, 
    recognition of, Sec. 4.18
Modification of amendment by proponent
    en bloc amendments, Sec. 21.5
    objection, amendment offered by another following, Sec. 21.10
    point of order pending against amendment, while, Sec. 21.6
    printed in Record, modification of amendment as, Sec. Sec. 21.12-
        21.18
    printed in Record, modification of amendment, by unanimous consent, 
        Sec. 2.9

[[Page 6518]]

    reading, request to dispense with, unanimous-consent request to 
        modify amendment pending, Sec. 21.9
    recorded vote, unanimous-consent request following demand for, 
        Sec. 21.7
    special rule, modification of amendment offered pursuant to, 
        Sec. Sec. 21.12-21.18
    substitute for own amendment, offering amendment to, Sec. 21.4
    substitute offered for amendment, Sec. 21.3
    third degree, modification of amendment considered as amendment in, 
        Sec. 21.11
    unanimous consent requirement, Sec. Sec. 21.1, 21.2
    unanimous consent to modify, request for, reduced to writing, 
        Sec. 21.8
    writing, unanimous-consent request to modify reduced to, Sec. 21.8
Monetary figures, amendments changing, see Figures in bill, amendments 
    changing or affecting
Motion to close debate, see Debate
Motion to strike and insert, see Strike out and insert, motion to
Motion to strike out, see Strike out, motion to
Name, another's, amendment offered in, Sec. 1.11
New section, amendments to pending section of bill disposed of prior to 
    offering of amendment inserting, Sec. Sec. 7.32, 7.33
New section, amendment to insert, to precede first section of bill, 
    Sec. 7.14
New section, amendment to insert, where bill considered as read and 
    open to amendment at any point, Sec. Sec. 11.20, 11.21
New section as including and omitting amendments previously agreed to, 
    Sec. 30.11
New section at end of bill, when amendment adding, is in order, 
    Sec. 7.35
New section, committee amendment adding, to bill consisting of one 
    section was disposed of before amendment in nature of substitute 
    offered, Sec. 15.40
New section, effect of insertion of, following section under 
    consideration, Sec. Sec. 8.12-8.16
Number of permissible pending amendments, Sec. Sec. 5.1-5.35
Open to amendment, bill considered as read and, see Reading for 
    amendment
Order of consideration
    generally, Sec. Sec. 4.33, 4.34, 23.1-23.9
    committee amendments and amendments offered from floor, Sec. 23.19
    original amendment, amendments to, disposed of first, Sec. 23.10
    original amendment, disposition of amendment to substitute as not 
        precluding amendments to, Sec. 23.11
    original text, perfecting amendment to, voted on before amendment 
        to amendment in nature of substitute, Sec. Sec. 23.17, 23.18
    original text, precedence of perfecting amendments to, Sec. 23.16
    original text, proposition read as, and amendments thereto, 
        Sec. 23.12
    perfecting amendments and motions to strike, Sec. Sec. 23.20-23.22
    perfecting amendments to same text pending simultaneously, instance 
        where, Sec. 23.29
    preamble, amendments to, Sec. Sec. 23.26, 23.27
    substitute, amendment in nature of, and amendments thereto, 
        Sec. Sec. 23.14-23.18

[[Page 6519]]

    substitute, disposition of amendment to, as not precluding 
        amendments to original amendment, Sec. 23.11
    table of contents, amendment of, Sec. 23.28
    time limitation on one branch of amendment tree, Sec. 23.15
    unanimous consent to change order of consideration as specified in 
        special rule, Sec. 23.25
    voted on, all amendments, Sec. 23.13
Original bill read for amendment if amendment in nature of substitute 
    voted down, Sec. Sec. 7.43-7.44
Page and line number, amendment as indicating, Sec. 22.10
Part of bill to be amended, instructions contained in amendment as to, 
    Sec. 1.28
Part of section, amendment striking out, offered before motion to 
    strike entire section, Sec. 17.26
Part of section, defeat of motion to strike, as not precluded by defeat 
    of motion to strike out entire section, Sec. 17.36
Part of text, motion to strike out, after rejection of motion to strike 
    out and insert, Sec. 17.10
Perfecting amendment
    coextensive, adoption of perfecting amendment that is, with motion 
        to strike, Sec. 15.25
    debate on motion to strike may precede offering of, Sec. 15.11
    identical to original amendment, point of order not lie against 
        amendment to substitute that is, Sec. 15.31
    insert new section, amendment to, perfecting amendments considered 
        before, Sec. 24.2
    lesser portion of text, amendment striking, Sec. Sec. 15.17, 15.18
    new sections, committee amendment adding, considered perfecting 
        amendment where bill consists of one section, Sec. 15.40
    number permitted, Sec. Sec. 5.1, 5.22
    offering, Member who has offered motion to strike is precluded 
        from, Sec. 15.19
    one section, bill consisting of committee amendments adding 
        sections considered perfecting amendments to, Sec. 15.40
    order of voting on amendments to amendment and to substitute, 
        Sec. Sec. 15.28-15.30
    original text, amendments offered to, where amendment in nature of 
        substitute is pending, Sec. Sec. 15.32-15.39
    part of text, lesser, amendment striking, Sec. Sec. 15.17, 15.18
    precedence of, over motion to strike out, Sec. Sec. 15.1-15.10, 
        16.3, 16.4
    preference as between perfecting amendments, Sec. 24.1
    separate votes, see Separate votes
    seriatim, amendments disposed of, Sec. 15.15
    stricken, amendment to matter proposed to be, following adoption of 
        amendment in nature of substitute, Sec. 32.16
    strike, amendment imprecisely offered to motion to, construed as 
        perfecting amendment to bill, Sec. 15.14
    strike, Member offering motion to, precluded from offering 
        perfecting amendment, Sec. 15.19
    strike, motion to, precluded, Sec. 15.21
    strike out and insert, amendment to, as, Sec. Sec. 16.1-16.4
    strike, perfecting amendment not offered to motion to, 
        Sec. Sec. 15.13, 15.14

[[Page 6520]]

    substitute, amendment to, as identical to original amendment, 
        Sec. 15.31
    text perfected before vote on striking it out, Sec. 24.12
    title, amendment striking out, Sec. 15.20
    unanimous consent to consider motion to strike portion of bill not 
        yet read does not permit perfecting amendments to that portion, 
        Sec. 15.16
    voting on amendments to original text where amendment in natureof 
        substitute is pending, Sec. Sec. 15.35-15.38
    vote on motion to strike after disposition of perfecting 
        amendments, Sec. 15.24
    vote on motion to strike, amendments after, Sec. Sec. 15.26, 15.27
    voting, order of, on amendments to amendment and to substitute, 
        Sec. Sec. 15.28-15.30
Permissible pending amendments
    committee amendment read as original text, Sec. 5.32
    debate limited only on certain amendments among several amendments 
        pending, Sec. 5.33
    five amendments pending at one time, Sec. Sec. 5.28, 5.29
    number of amendments permitted, Sec. Sec. 5.13-5.29
    one perfecting amendment, Sec. Sec. 5.1, 5.2
    original text, amendment to, while amendment in nature of 
        substitute pending, Sec. Sec. 5.34, 5.35
    original text, committee amendment read as, Sec. 5.32
    paragraphs of appropriation bill, several, amendment to, Sec. 5.30
    perfecting amendment, improperly drafted substitute treated as, 
        Sec. 5.9
    perfecting amendments pending motion to strike, Sec. Sec. 5.10-5.12
    seriatim, disposition of amendments, Sec. Sec. 5.5-5.8
    substitute, amendments to, Sec. Sec. 5.3, 5.4
    substitute, improperly drafted, treated as perfecting amendment, 
        Sec. 5.9
    text of another bill made in order as amendment, Sec. 5.31
Points of order
    Chair's determination as to propriety of form in absence of point 
        of order, Sec. Sec. 1.39, 1.40
    committee amendment, against text of title of, Sec. 7.30
    disposition of, before amendments in order, Sec. 7.31
    failure to make, effect of, Sec. Sec. 1.39, 1.40, 7.42, 9.11, 9.12, 
        29.30
    modification of amendment against which point of order is pending, 
        Sec. 21.6
    reservation of, Sec. Sec. 1.44-1.46
    time for making, Sec. Sec. 7.29, 7.30
    time to make or reserve, Sec. Sec. 1.44-1.46, 7.29, 7.30
    withdrawal of amendment against which point of order is pending, 
        Sec. Sec. 20.6, 20.77
Preamble, amendments to, consideration of, Sec. Sec. 19.7-19.14
Preamble, amendments to, considered following adoption of committee 
    amendment in nature of substitute, Sec. 19.14
Preamble, motion to strike out, Sec. 19.15
Preamble of concurrent resolution, amendments to, Sec. Sec. 19.11, 
    19.12
Preamble of simple resolution, amendments to, Sec. 19.13
Preamble, resolving clauses read before, Sec. 7.5
Presidential message, amendment to motion to refer, to committee, 
    Sec. 7.12

[[Page 6521]]

Presidential message, motion to refer, amendment to, Sec. 14.8
Previous question, effect of
    amendments cut off by, Sec. Sec. 14.1-14.3
    debate allowed on amendment on rejection of, where moved on 
        amendment and resolution, Sec. Sec. 14.6, 14.7
    Presidential message, amendment to motion to refer, allowed if 
        previous question is rejected, Sec. 14.8
    recommit, motion to, not amendable unless previous question voted 
        down, Sec. 14.4
    reconsideration of vote whereby previous question was ordered, 
        Sec. 14.5
    rejection of amendment where previous question has been ordered, 
        proceedings after, Sec. Sec. 38.13, 38.14
    unanimous consent granted for consideration of substitute for 
        amendment after previous question ordered, Sec. 36.30
Private bills, pro forma amendments offered to, Sec. 2.6
Private omnibus bill
    strike out enacting clause, motion to, as taking precedence over 
        amendment to strike title of bill, Sec. 23.24
Pro forma amendments
    closed rule, amendments to bill considered under, Sec. 2.10
    closed rule as prohibiting, Sec. 3.34
    debate, effect of limitation on, on pro forma amendment, Sec. 14.17
    debate, expiration of time for, not allowed after, Sec. Sec. 2.17-
        2.19
    debate, scope of, Sec. Sec. 2.4, 2.5
    debate, scope of, as affected by special rule restricting pro forma 
        amendments, Sec. 2.14
    modified closed rule as prohibiting, Sec. Sec. 3.33, 3.38
    preferential motion not barred by prohibition against, Sec. 2.13
    proponent of pending amendment, pro forma amendment may be offered 
        by, only by unanimous consent, Sec. Sec. 2.20, 2.21
    recognition under rule permitting pro forma amendments, 
        Sec. Sec. 2.11, 2.15
    Record, pro forma amendment printed in, where special rule permits 
        only printed amendments not subject to amendment, 
        Sec. Sec. 2.7, 2.8
    scope of debate as affected by special rule restricting pro forma 
        amendments, Sec. 2.14
    special rule permitting only designated amendments, pro forma 
        amendments not allowed under, Sec. 2.16
    special rule permitting only printed amendments not subject to 
        amendment, effect of, on pro forma amendments, Sec. Sec. 2.7, 
        2.8
    special rule prohibiting all amendments except committee 
        amendments, pro forma amendments not in order under, Sec. 2.12
    special rule restricting pro forma amendments, effect of, on scope 
        of debate, Sec. 2.14
    substitute for amendment, debate after adoption of, not allowed 
        before vote on amendment, Sec. 2.22
    third degree, in, Sec. 6.22
    vacating adoption of amendment in nature of substitute to permit 
        pro forma amendment, Sec. 32.6
    when in order, generally, Sec. Sec. 2.1, 2.18, 2.19
Proponent, modification of amendment by, see Modification of amendment 
    by proponent
Reading amendments
    committee amendment must be pending before amendment in order, 
        Sec. 22.4

[[Page 6522]]

    committee amendment must be read even where bill considered as 
        read, Sec. 22.1
    committee amendments to be read where bill open to amendment at any 
        point, Sec. 11.17
    dispense with reading of amendment, motion to, Sec. Sec. 11.5, 11.6
    separate vote, amendments read following demand for, 
        Sec. Sec. 36.22, 36.23
    substitute, amendment in nature of, reading, Sec. Sec. 22.5-22.8
    substitute for amendment offered after amendment read, Sec. 7.4
Reading for amendment
    affecting or limiting earlier section, amendment as, Sec. 8.18
    committee amendment, amendments to, not in order until committee 
        amendment read, Sec. Sec. 9.4, 9.5
    committee amendments considered first, Sec. 10.1
    debate begun on next title, amendment offered after, Sec. 8.2
    debate, motion to limit, where bill has not been read, Sec. 7.23
    dispense with reading of amendment, motion to, Sec. Sec. 11.5, 11.6
    dispensing with first reading, Sec. 7.1
    earlier section, amendment as affecting or limiting, Sec. 8.18
    enacting clause, rejection of motion to strike, effect of, 
        Sec. 7.45
    en bloc amendments, see En bloc amendments
    first section, reading of, amendment in nature of substitute 
        offered after, Sec. 10.9
    first title, sections preceding, Sec. Sec. 10.5-10.8
    House as in Committee of the Whole, bill considered in, Sec. 7.2
    improperly drafted amendment unrelated to amendment to which 
        offered, effect of, where no point of order raised, Sec. 7.42
    new section, amendment inserting, where first section of bill 
        considered as read and open to amendment, Sec. 9.6
    new section, amendments to pending section of bill disposed of 
        prior to offering of amendment inserting, Sec. Sec. 7.32, 7.33
    new section at end of bill, when amendment adding, is in order, 
        Sec. 7.35
    new section, Member not recognized to offer amendment adding, where 
        debate has been limited on amendments to pending section, 
        Sec. 7.24
    new section, when amendment in form of, may be offered, Sec. 8.17
    new title, amendment adding, Sec. Sec. 10.11-10.13
    new title, amendment adding, effect of adoption of, Sec. 10.13
    new title, title of bill considered as having been passed in 
        reading after adoption of amendment inserting, Sec. Sec. 8.9-
        8.11
    next portion, amendments in order to pending portion of bill until 
        reading of, Sec. 7.3
    not yet read, amendment to portion of bill, by unanimous consent, 
        Sec. Sec. 9.1-9.3
    offered, amendment not yet, amendment not in order to, Sec. 7.38
    one section, bill consisting of, as open to amendment at any point, 
        Sec. 12.13
    open to amendment, amendment in nature of substitute considered as 
        read and, Sec. Sec. 11.24, 11.25
    open to amendment, amendment inserting new section where first 
        section of bill considered as read and, Sec. 9.6

[[Page 6523]]

    open to amendment at any point, bill consisting of one section is, 
        Sec. 12.13
    open to amendment, where bill considered as read and, consideration 
        of committee amendments, Sec. Sec. 11.13-11.17
    open to amendment, where bill considered as read and, consideration 
        of en bloc amendments, Sec. 11.26
    open to amendment, where bill considered as read and, effect of 
        adding new section at end of bill, Sec. 11.21
    open to amendment, where bill considered as read and, effect of 
        limitation on debate on titles, Sec. 11.27
    open to amendment, where bill considered as read and, in House as 
        in Committee of the Whole, Sec. Sec. 11.22, 11.23
    open to amendment, where bill considered as read and, inserting new 
        section, Sec. Sec. 11.20, 11.21
    open to amendment, where bill considered as read and, order of 
        amendments, Sec. 11.18
    open to amendment, where bill considered as read and, priority in 
        recognition, Sec. 11.19
    open to amendment, where parts of bill considered as read and, 
        Clerk designates page and line number, Sec. 11.7
    open to amendment, where remainder of bill considered as read and, 
        amendments not allowed to portions already passed in reading, 
        Sec. Sec. 11.8, 11.9
    open to amendment, where remainder of bill considered as read and, 
        amendments not allowed to provisions previously amended, 
        Sec. 11.10
    open to amendment, where remainder of bill considered as read and, 
        points of order against bill entertained prior to amendment, 
        Sec. 11.12
    open to amendment, where remainder of bill considered as read and, 
        portion pending at time of request is still open, Sec. 11.11
    original bill considered after amendment in nature of substitute 
        voted down, Sec. Sec. 7.43, 7.44
    original bill, procedure where special rule provides for 
        consideration of amendment in nature of substitute as, without 
        requiring that it be offered, Sec. 7.22
    original committee amendment not open to amendment after amendment 
        in nature of substitute offered thereto, Sec. 7.21
    original text, amendment to, where amendment in nature of 
        substitute is pending, Sec. 7.20
    page and line number, Clerk designates, where parts of bill 
        considered as read and open to amendment, Sec. 11.7
    ``parts,'' bill being considered by, sections preceding part I of, 
        Sec. 7.15
    passed in reading, amendments to text that has been, Sec. Sec. 8.1 
        et seq.
    passed in reading, text considered as having been, after amendment 
        inserting new title agreed to, Sec. Sec. 8.9-8.11
    pending, amendment may not be offered to amendment not yet, 
        Sec. Sec. 7.37, 7.38
    pending portion of bill, amendments in order to, until next portion 
        read, Sec. 7.3
    previous question, see Previous question, effect of
    sections preceding first title, Sec. 10.6
    short title and table of contents considered as one title, 
        Sec. 7.17
    substitute, amendment in nature of, see Substitute, amendment in 
        nature of

[[Page 6524]]

    substitute, improperly drafted amendment in nature of, proposing to 
        strike out portions of bill not yet read, Sec. 9.9
    table of contents of bill, Sec. Sec. 7.16, 7.17
    title, entire, read before amendment, Sec. 10.10
    title, first, sections preceding, Sec. Sec. 10.5-10.8
    title not yet read, amendment offered to, Sec. 10.2
    title passed in reading, amendment to, where bill being read by 
        titles, Sec. Sec. 10.3, 10.4
    unamended portions passed in reading, amending, Sec. Sec. 8.3, 9.22
    unanimous consent required to amend text passed in reading, 
        Sec. 10.4
    unanimous consent to amend portion of bill not yet read, 
        Sec. Sec. 9.1-9.3
    unanimous consent to offer amendments to text passed in reading, 
        Sec. Sec. 8.6, 8.7
Recognition to offer amendments
    alternation of recognition not mandated, Sec. 4.32
    Chair, discretion of, generally, Sec. Sec. 4.2 et seq.
    Chair, discretion of, where debate time limited, Sec. Sec. 4.20-
        4.26
    Chair, inquiry by, as to whether amendment in order under rule, 
        Sec. 4.36
    committee amendments, consideration of, Sec. Sec. 4.28, 4.29, 4.33, 
        4.34
    committee amendments, priority of, over amendments from floor, 
        Sec. Sec. 4.33, 4.34
    committee chairman opposed to bill, recognition of, to control time 
        in opposition, Sec. 4.16
    committee reporting the bill, recognition of members of, 
        Sec. Sec. 4.8-4.20, 4.30-4.32
    copy of amendment submitted to Clerk, Sec. 1.29
    debate, limitation on, recognition to offer amendment that is not 
        covered by, Sec. 4.26
    debate, limitation on, recognition under, Sec. Sec. 4.20-4.26
    discretion of Chair, generally, Sec. Sec. 4.2 et seq.
    discretion of Chair where debate time limited, Sec. Sec. 4.20-4.26
    enacting clause, priority of motion to strike, Sec. 4.40
    expiration of debate time, recognition for amendments before and 
        after, Sec. 14.16
    inaudible request for recognition, Sec. 8.22
    majority or minority member of committee, Sec. Sec. 4.18, 4.19
    necessity of recognition, Sec. Sec. 4.1, 4.27
    new title, amendment adding, not offered until amendments to 
        pending title disposed of, Sec. 4.42
    open for amendment at any point, where bill or amendment in nature 
        of substitute is, Sec. Sec. 4.31, 4.34, 4.35
    perfecting amendment may not be offered by proponent of pending 
        motion to strike, Sec. 4.41
    printing of amendments in Record, special rule requiring, 
        recognition under, Sec. Sec. 4.37-4.39
    priority of committee amendments over amendments from floor, 
        Sec. Sec. 4.33, 4.34
    priority of recognition to committee members, Sec. Sec. 4.10-4.17
    pro forma amendments, recognition under rule permitting, 
        Sec. Sec. 2.11, 2.15
    Record, amendments printed in, recognition still required to offer, 
        Sec. 1.29
    Record, offering of amendments printed in, precluded where debate 
        has been closed and stage of amendment passed, Sec. 14.14

[[Page 6525]]

    Record, offering of amendments printed in, precluded where time 
        specified in special rule for consideration of amendments has 
        expired, Sec. 14.15
    Record, special rule requiring printing of amendments in, 
        recognition under, Sec. Sec. 4.37-4.39
    seeking recognition, effect of, where paragraph passed for 
        amendment, Sec. Sec. 8.21, 8.22
    seniority, not order of lines in paragraph, as basis for 
        recognition for amendment, Sec. Sec. 4.30, 4.31
    special rule, bill considered under, Sec. 4.35
    special rule not specifying priorities in recognition, 
        consideration under, Sec. 4.35
    special rule permitting only pro forma amendments, recognition 
        under, Sec. 4.17
    standing but not seeking recognition, Sec. 8.23
    yielding time to offer amendment under five-minute rule, 
        Sec. Sec. 13.7, 13.8
Recommit, motion to
    amending amendment adopted by House, Sec. 32.5
    amendment previously rejected permitted to be included, Sec. 35.27
    previous question must be voted down before straight motion to 
        recommit is amendable, Sec. 14.4
Record, amendment printed in, page designation left blank in, Sec. 1.30
Record, amendment printed in, when debate allowed on, see Debate
Reintroduction of amendment that had been withdrawn, debate on, 
    Sec. 28.50
Rejection, effect of
    generally, Sec. Sec. 18.24, 18.25
    appropriation bill, prior amendment striking or changing figure in, 
        Sec. Sec. 35.20, 35.21
    committee amendment in nature of substitute considered as original 
        bill, rejection of substitute for, in House, Sec. 38.7
    en bloc amendment, rejection of amendment when considered as, 
        Sec. 33.16
    form, amendment different in, from rejected amendment, 
        Sec. Sec. 35.8-35.16
    House, rejection in, of amendment in nature of substitute, 
        Sec. 25.9
    House, rejection in, of motion to strike section, 
        Sec. Sec. 36.3,36.4
    identical to rejected amendment, amendment as not, Sec. Sec. 35.3-
        35.19
    identical to rejected amendment, offering amendment that is, 
        Sec. Sec. 35.1, 35.2
    limitation on use of funds, amendment containing, amendment 
        containing similar limitation with exception as not identical 
        to, Sec. 35.19
    monetary figure in appropriation bill, rejection of prior amendment 
        striking or changing, Sec. Sec. 35.20, 35.21
    narrower in scope than rejected amendment, amendment as, Sec. 35.18
    original amendment, vote on, substitute agreed to as amended and 
        then rejected in, Sec. 35.26
    original text before House, Sec. Sec. 38.1-38.7
    part of amendment, rejection of, Sec. 22.14
    portion of rejected amendment offered, Sec. 35.17
    previous question ordered, rejection of amendment where, 
        Sec. Sec. 38.13, 38.14
    recommit with instructions, motion to, used to reinstate 
        amendments, Sec. Sec. 38.9, 38.10

[[Page 6526]]

    separate votes on rejected amendments, see Separate votes
    strike, rejection of motion to, in House results in vote on section 
        in original form and not as perfected, Sec. 3.82
    strike section, rejection of motion to, where no demand made for 
        separate votes on perfecting amendments to section, Sec. 38.11
    striking out and inserting, rejection of amendment, in House, 
        Sec. 38.12
    striking out title or section that had been perfected, rejection of 
        amendment, in House, Sec. 38.8
    substitute agreed to as amended, then rejected in vote on original 
        amendment, Sec. 35.26
    substitute, amendment in nature of, rejection of, Sec. Sec. 12.30, 
        12.31
    substitute, effect of rejection of, on amendment to substitute, 
        Sec. 29.51
    substitute, rejection of amendment in nature of, in House, 
        Sec. Sec. 38.4-38.6
Repeal, motion to, perfecting amendment offered during consideration 
    of, Sec. 15.32
Repealing law, amendment, reference to language of law not necessary to 
    be included in, Sec. 1.12
Repeating several paragraphs without change, amendment as, Sec. 9.10
Reporting amendments
    rereporting, Sec. Sec. 21.5, 22.2, 22.3
Rereading paragraph of bill where question arises as to how far Clerk 
    has read, Sec. 8.24
Resolution previously adopted, amendment to, Sec. 29.55
Resolving clauses read for amendment before preamble, Sec. 7.5
Return to section of bill to offer amendment, motion to, not in order, 
    Sec. 8.19
Revenue bills, considered by paragraph, Sec. 7.6
Rising of Committee of the Whole as affecting amendments to section 
    under consideration, Sec. 8.8
Rivers and harbors, bills read by sections, Sec. 7.9
Rules, Committee on, amendment of resolution reported from, 
    Sec. Sec. 1.4-1.8
Senate bill, substitute for, Sec. 29.52
Separate amendments, multiple changes in section not considered as, 
    Sec. 27.8
Separate votes
    committee amendment amended by substitute, Sec. 36.11
    demand, time for making, Sec. Sec. 36.18-36.20
    en bloc, amendments agreed to, amendments on which separate vote 
        demanded are read after, Sec. 36.23
    en bloc, amendments on which separate vote demanded may be voted 
        on, by unanimous consent, Sec. Sec. 36.25-36.28
    en bloc, amendments on which separate vote demanded may not be 
        voted on, after yeas and nays ordered on first, Sec. 36.26
    en bloc, where amendments were considered, in Committee of the 
        Whole, Sec. 3.83, 36.27, 36.28
    inconsistent amendments considered under special rule, Sec. 36.13
    Journal, Speaker relies on, in determining which amendments have 
        been subject of demands, Sec. 36.24
    one amendment, bill reported with, Sec. 36.21
    order of voting, Sec. Sec. 36.16, 36.17
    page and line, specifying, where amendment is found, Sec. 36.15
    perfecting amendments, separate votes on, taken before vote on 
        substitute, Sec. 36.13

[[Page 6527]]

    portion of amendment, separate vote on, Sec. 36.10
    procedures for consideration where demand for separate vote 
        permitted, Sec. Sec. 36.14 et seq.
    reading amendments, Sec. Sec. 36.22, 36.23
    rejected amendments, demand for separate votes on, as not in order, 
        Sec. 36.12
    rejection of motion to strike section, effect of, where Member did 
        not demand separate vote on perfecting amendments to section, 
        Sec. 36.4
    rejection of motion to strike section where no demand made for 
        separate votes on perfecting amendments to section, Sec. 38.11
    remainder of amendment, recurrence of question on, after, 
        Sec. 22.14
    special rule, inconsistent amendments considered under, Sec. 36.13
    special rule permitting, generally, Sec. Sec. 3.82, 3.83, 36.6, 
        36.7
    stricken, perfecting amendments to section that was, not reported, 
        Sec. Sec. 36.1, 36.2
    strike, rejection of motion to, in House results in vote on section 
        in original form and not as perfected, Sec. 3.82
    substitute, amendment in nature of, perfected before vote on 
        substitute in House, Sec. 25.10
    substitute, amendments to amendment in nature of, Sec. Sec. 37.5-
        37.8
    substitute, separate vote on amendments to amendment in nature of, 
        Sec. Sec. 36.8, 36.9, 37.5-37.8
    voting on remainder of amendment after, Sec. 22.14
    voting, order of, Sec. Sec. 36.16, 36.17
    when demand must be made, Sec. Sec. 36.18-36.20
    withdrawal of demand for separate vote, effect of, Sec. 36.29
Similarity of amendment to bill already passed, Sec. Sec. 29.56, 29.57
Speaker, amendment offered by, Sec. 1.14
Special rules
    adoption or rejection of amendments being considered under, effect 
        of, Sec. Sec. 3.80, 3.81
    ``affecting'' designated subject, amendments, prohibition against, 
        Sec. 3.54
    amendments to, Sec. Sec. 3.1-3.5
    Chair's interpretation or reiteration of terms, Sec. 3.73
    closed rule, amendments to, Sec. Sec. 3.3, 3.4
    closed or modified closed rule as precluding pro forma amendments, 
        Sec. Sec. 3.34, 28.10
    committee amendments, en bloc, Sec. Sec. 3.57, 3.58
    committee amendments only, rule permitting, Sec. Sec. 3.8, 3.56
    committee amendments, priority of, Sec. Sec. 3.59-3.61
    conforming amendments not permitted to part of bill closed to 
        amendment, Sec. 3.55
    consideration of all amendments, limiting, Sec. 3.75
    dates, amendment changing, Sec. 3.45
    debate on amendments, Sec. Sec. 3.76-3.79
    debate, special rules as affecting generally, see Debate
    debate, special rules limiting, discretion of Chair as to 
        recognition under, Sec. 28.20
    debate when pro forma amendments prohibited, Sec. 3.33
    designated, amendments as, where reading waived, Sec. Sec. 3.65, 
        3.66
    effective date of bill, amendment proposing to change, as barred by 
        special rule, Sec. 3.43

[[Page 6528]]

    en bloc, separate votes on amendments considered, Sec. 3.83
    interpretation or reiteration of terms by Chair, Sec. 3.73
    limiting consideration of all amendments, Sec. 3.75
    majority and minority leaders, only, permitted to offer amendments 
        not printed in Record, Sec. 15.39
    modified closed rule, Sec. Sec. 3.8, 3.38-43, 3.56
    modified closed rule as not precluding preferential motion, 
        Sec. 3.42
    modified closed rule as prohibiting pro forma amendments, 
        Sec. Sec. 3.38-3.41
    modified closed rule, effect of, on motions to strike, Sec. 3.9
    modified closed rule, effect of, on pro forma amendments, 
        Sec. Sec. 2.7, 2.8, 2.16
    modified closed rule, modification of pending amendments under, 
        Sec. Sec. 3.22-3.27
    modified closed rule permitting only pre-printed amendments, 
        Sec. Sec. 3.11-3.21
    money amounts, rule permitting only amendments that change, 
        Sec. Sec. 3.43, 3.44
    open rule, Sec. 3.7
    order of amendments, specified, Sec. 3.74
    original text, amendment in nature of substitute as, 
        Sec. Sec. 3.49-3.53
    preferential motion not barred by prohibition against pro forma 
        amendments, Sec. 2.13
    preferential motion not precluded by modified closed rule, 
        Sec. 3.42
    preferential motion offered after stage of amendment passed, 
        Sec. 3.56
    preliminary sections, reading, where bill being read by titles or 
        parts, Sec. Sec. 3.62, 3.63
    printed amendments not subject to amendment, special rule 
        permitting only, Sec. Sec. 2.7-2.9
    printed in Record, modification of amendment as, Sec. Sec. 21.12-
        21.18
    pro forma amendments, Sec. Sec. 3.34-3.41
    pro forma amendments, preferential motion not barred by prohibition 
        against, Sec. 2.13
    pro forma amendments, special rule precluding, Sec. Sec. 3.34, 
        28.10
    pro forma amendments under rule permitting only committee 
        amendments, Sec. 2.12
    pro forma amendments under rule permitting only printed amendments 
        not subject to amendment, Sec. Sec. 2.7, 2.8
    reading preliminary sections where bill being read by titles or 
        parts, Sec. Sec. 3.62, 3.63
    reading, waiving first, Sec. 3.64
    recognition, order of, where bill considered pursuant to, 
        Sec. Sec. 4.9, 4.17, 4.35
    recognition to offer amendments, Sec. Sec. 3.67-3.70
    Record, amendments printed in, may not be offered where time 
        specified in rule for consideration of amendments has expired, 
        Sec. 14.15
    Record, only majority and minority leaders permitted to offer 
        amendments not printed in, Sec. 15.39
    rejection or adoption of amendments being considered under, effect 
        of, Sec. Sec. 3.80, 3.81
    restricting amendments at end of bill, Sec. 3.10
    scope of debate as affected by rule restricting pro forma 
        amendments, Sec. 2.14
    separate vote, demands for, under special rule, see Separate votes

[[Page 6529]]

    substitute made in order by, effect on, of ruling out primary 
        amendment, Sec. 18.27
    text of another bill made in order as amendment, Sec. Sec. 3.46, 
        5.31
    text of bill in order as amendment, Sec. Sec. 3.46-3.48
    unanimous consent, additional debate permitted by, Sec. 3.33
    unanimous consent, modification of amendment process by, 
        Sec. Sec. 3.28-3.32
    waiving points of order against amendments, Sec. Sec. 3.71, 3.72
    when amendments to bill are in order following adoption of rule, 
        Sec. 3.6
Stricken, amendment inserting language in paragraph that has been, 
    Sec. 31.9
Strike out and insert, motion to
    adoption, effect of, on pending motion to strike, Sec. 31.11
    agreeing to, effect of, on pending motion to strike, 
        Sec. Sec. 16.4-16.8, 31.11
    committee amendment to first section of bill voted on before 
        amendment to strike all after enacting clause and insert new 
        matter, Sec. 26.1
    indivisible, motion as, Sec. 16.11
    perfected text, motion to strike out, and insert new text, 
        Sec. 16.14
    perfecting amendment, motion as, Sec. Sec. 16.1-16.4, 16.9, 16.10
    precedence of, over motion to strike, Sec. Sec. 16.3-16.8
    precedence of, over motion to strike, as not foreclosing vote on 
        motion to strike in some instances, Sec. 16.7
    rejection of, as not precluding motion to strike, Sec. 35.24
    strike out, defeat of motion to, as not precluding motion to strike 
        out and insert, Sec. Sec. 16.12, 16.13
    substitute, amendment striking all after enacting clause and 
        inserting new language held not to be, Sec. 18.20
    substitute, held not to be, for motion to strike out, 
        Sec. Sec. 16.9, 16.10
    substitute, perfecting a, by motion to strike all after first 
        clause and insert new text, Sec. 16.2
    substitute amendment, when motion not in order as, because in 
        violation of germaneness rule, Sec. 16.15
    text perfected by amendments, motion offered after, Sec. 16.14
Strike out, motion to
    additional words, amendment to strike, Sec. Sec. 17.27, 17.28
    adopting motion, effect of, where matter stricken has been 
        perfected by amendment, Sec. Sec. 17.29-17.33
    agreeing to perfecting amendment to text, effect of, on pending 
        motion to strike out, Sec. Sec. 16.4-16.8, 31.11
    debate on, prior to recognition to offer motion to strike out and 
        insert, Sec. Sec. 28.48, 28.49
    defeat of, as not precluding further amendment, Sec. Sec. 16.12, 
        16.13
    defeat of, as not precluding motion to strike out and insert, 
        Sec. Sec. 16.12, 16.13
    defeat of motion to strike out entire section as not precluding 
        motion to strike part, Sec. 17.36
    entire title and lesser portion of title, motions pending to 
        strike, Sec. 24.13
    insertion, striking more than, Sec. 17.34
    lesser portion of text, amendment striking, Sec. Sec. 15.17, 15.18
    out of order, language already ruled to be, Sec. 17.37
    part of section, amendment striking, offered before motion to 
        strike out entire section, Sec. 17.26

[[Page 6530]]

    part of title and whole title, motions pending to strike, 
        Sec. 24.13
    perfecting amendment as not offered to, Sec. Sec. 15.13, 15.14
    perfecting amendment, not in order as amendment to, Sec. 17.23
    perfecting amendment voted on before, Sec. Sec. 24.3-24.11
    perfecting amendments considered first, Sec. Sec. 17.3-17.8
    perfecting amendments not allowed where motion to strike unread 
        portion of bill is being considered by unanimous consent, 
        Sec. 15.16
    perfecting amendments, successive, take precedence, Sec. 17.8
    rejected motion as not precluding motion to strike and insert, 
        Sec. 35.23
    rejected motion as precluding subsequent motion to strike same 
        language, Sec. 35.22
    rejection of, as not precluding motion to strike out and insert, 
        Sec. Sec. 16.12, 16.13
    rejection of motion to strike out and insert, Sec. Sec. 17.10, 
        17.11
    sections not yet read, Sec. Sec. 9.7, 9.8
    substitute, amendment in nature of, perfecting amendments to text 
        proposed to be stricken by, Sec. 17.35
    substitute for perfecting amendments, not in order as, 
        Sec. Sec. 15.22, 15.23, 17.15-17.21, 18.11-18.14
    text proposed to be stricken, amending, Sec. Sec. 17.24, 17.25
    title, amendment striking out, Sec. 15.20
    title, amendment striking, perfecting amendment inserting new 
        section within such title offered during consideration of, 
        Sec. 15.20
    title, offering motion to strike, after consideration of motions to 
        strike and insert, Sec. 17.14
    unanimous consent to consider motion to strike portion of bill not 
        yet read does not permit perfecting amendments to that portion, 
        Sec. 15.16
    unanimous consent to consider specific motion to strike, Sec. 17.9
    vote on, as required after disposition of perfecting amendments, 
        Sec. Sec. 15.24, 17.12, 17.13, 24.14, 24.15
    when to offer, Sec. Sec. 17.1-17.8
Substitute, amendment in nature of
    adding language following previously adopted amendment in nature of 
        substitute, Sec. Sec. 29.40, 29.41
    adoption, effect of, generally, Sec. Sec. 29.28, 32.1, 32.2
    adoption, effect of, on amendment made in order by special rule, 
        Sec. 32.4
    adoption, effect of, on amendments printed in Record, Sec. 32.3
    adoption, effect of, where language subsequently sought to be 
        added, Sec. Sec. 29.40, 29.41
    adoption of, amendments to remainder of original bill not in order 
        after, Sec. 32.12
    adoption of, perfecting amendment to paragraphs proposed to be 
        stricken not precluded by, Sec. 32.16
    adoption of, vacated by unanimous consent to permit pro forma 
        amendment, Sec. 32.6
    amended by substitute, Sec. Sec. 18.18, 18.19
    amendments to, voted on before substitute amendment, Sec. 25.3
    appropriation, point of order against amendment as containing, in 
        order following adoption of substitute therefor, Sec. 32.13
    bill, perfecting amendments to, while amendment in nature of 
        substitute pending, Sec. 24.16

[[Page 6531]]

    debate, conclusion of, amendment in nature of substitute offered 
        after, Sec. 12.14
    House, rejection of amendment in, Sec. 25.9
    improperly drafted amendment proposing to strike out portions of 
        bill not yet read, Sec. 9.9
    new title, effect of amendment inserting, on subsequent offer of 
        amendment in nature of substitute, Sec. Sec. 12.17, 12.18
    notice of intention to strike subsequent paragraphs, 
        Sec. Sec. 12.22-12.26
    notice of intention to strike subsequent paragraphs, requirement 
        of, as depending on whether amendment is substitute or in 
        nature of substitute, Sec. 12.24
    one section, bill consisting of, committee amendments adding 
        sections considered perfecting amendments to, Sec. 15.40
    open to amendment at any point after being read, Sec. 7.18
    open to amendment at any point, amendment in nature of substitute 
        as, Sec. 12.22
    open to amendment, considered as read and, Sec. Sec. 11.24, 11.25
    original bill, consideration of amendment in nature of substitute 
        being read as, Sec. Sec. 12.27-12.29
    original bill, procedure where special rule provides for 
        consideration of amendment in nature of substitute as, without 
        requiring that it be offered, Sec. 7.22
    original bill, remainder of, not subject to amendment, Sec. 32.12
    original committee amendment not open to amendment after amendment 
        in nature of substitute offered thereto, Sec. 7.21
    original text, amendment to, while amendment in nature of 
        substitute pending, Sec. Sec. 5.34, 5.35
    original text, perfecting amendment to, while pending, Sec. 7.20
    perfected, original text as, before amendment in nature of 
        substitute voted on, Sec. Sec. 25.5-25.7
    perfected text, amendment in nature of substitute as changing, 
        Sec. Sec. 29.14-29.16
    perfecting amendment as not precluded by, Sec. Sec. 15.33, 15.34
    perfecting amendments to first section take precedence, Sec. 12.13
    prior amendments, amendment in nature of substitute as deleting or 
        retaining, Sec. Sec. 12.15, 12.32
    prior amendments, incorporating, in substitute text, Sec. 12.32
    prior amendments to bill, amendment in nature of substitute in 
        order after adoption of, Sec. 12.16
    pro forma amendments offered to, Sec. Sec. 2.2, 2.3
    read and open to amendment, considered as, Sec. Sec. 22.6, 22.8, 
        22.9
    read in full unless reading dispensed with by unanimous consent, 
        Sec. Sec. 12.19, 12.20
    reading for amendment of, procedure upon conclusion of, Sec. 12.30
    reading of, Sec. Sec. 22.5-22.8
    read, requirement that amendment be, Sec. 7.18
    Record, majority leader allowed to offer amendment not printed in, 
        under special rule, Sec. 15.39
    rejection in House, effect of, Sec. Sec. 38.4-38.7, 38.14
    rejection of, effect of, Sec. Sec. 12.30, 12.31

[[Page 6532]]

    second section of bill, amendment in nature of substitute not in 
        order after reading of, Sec. 12.10
    sections, ordinarily not read by, for amendment, Sec. 12.21
    sections preceding first title of bill, amendment in nature of 
        substitute may be offered after reading of first section of, 
        Sec. 12.11
    sections, read for amendment by, where special rule provides for 
        consideration as original bill, Sec. Sec. 12.27, 12.28
    Senate bill, amendment in nature of substitute for, in order where 
        Committee of Whole had adopted amendments to bill, Sec. 29.52
    separate votes on amendments to, Sec. Sec. 36.8, 36.9, 37.5-37.8
    special rule, amendment made in order under, when to offer, 
        Sec. Sec. 12.8, 12.9
    special rule precluding further amendment upon adoption of 
        committee amendment, when to offer amendment in nature of 
        substitute under, Sec. 12.12
    substitute, adoption of, for amendment in nature of substitute, 
        Sec. Sec. 25.2-25.4
    substitute for original amendment may be offered while amendment in 
        nature of substitute pending, Sec. 7.19
    substitute offered after being made coextensive with amendment in 
        nature of, Sec. 12.26
    text, amendment to, as precluded when substitute for text adopted, 
        Sec. Sec. 32.7-32.11
    text of bill, perfecting amendments to, while amendment in nature 
        of substitute is pending, Sec. 24.16
    when in order, Sec. Sec. 12.1-12.17
Substitute amendments
    adding language at end of section, substitute as, rather than 
        amending section amended by primary amendment, Sec. 7.36
    adoption, effect of, Sec. Sec. 32.10-32.11
    adoption of amendment as amended by substitute precludes further 
        amendment thereto, Sec. 32.23
    adoption of amendment to, effect of, Sec. Sec. 29.31, 29.32
    adoption of, followed by rejection of original amendment as 
        amended, Sec. 32.24
    adoption of perfecting amendment to, effect of, on further 
        amendment, Sec. 31.17
    adoption of substitute for amendment in nature of substitute, 
        Sec. Sec. 25.2-25.4
    adoption of, vote recurs on amendment as amended thereby 
        immediately after, Sec. Sec. 32.17-32.22
    amendment in nature of substitute, amending, Sec. Sec. 18.18, 18.19
    amendments to, disposition of, as not precluding amendments to 
        original amendment, Sec. 23.11
    amendment to substitute having same effect as amendment to original 
        amendment, Sec. 18.26
    bill, making perfecting changes in, rather than amendment to which 
        offered, Sec. 18.7
    broadening scope of amendment to which offered, Sec. 18.6
    debate after adoption of substitute for amendment not allowed 
        before vote on amendment, Sec. 2.22
    debate, intervening, as not allowed after adoption of substitute 
        and before vote on amendment as amended, Sec. 32.22
    defined, Sec. 18.1
    different part of section, amendment addressed to, Sec. Sec. 18.5, 
        18.21
    division of question, substitute not subject to, Sec. 25.11

[[Page 6533]]

    enacting clause, motion to strike all after, and insert other 
        language is not a substitute, Sec. 18.20
    House, rule that amendment in nature of substitute is perfected 
        before vote on substitute amendment is followed in, Sec. 25.10
    identical to original amendment, amendment to substitute that is, 
        Sec. 15.31
    lesser portion of text, amendment perfecting, as substitute, 
        Sec. Sec. 18.16, 18.17
    notice of intention to strike subsequent paragraphs, requirement 
        of, as not applicable to substitute amendments, 
        Sec. Sec. 12.25, 12.26
    notice of intention to strike subsequent paragraphs was given after 
        substitute made coextensive with amendment in nature of 
        substitute, Sec. 12.26
    original amendment, substitute for, may be offered while amendment 
        in nature of substitute pending, Sec. 7.19
    own amendment, Member offering substitute for, Sec. 18.22
    perfecting amendments to amendment, adoption of, as not precluding 
        substitute or amendments to substitute, Sec. Sec. 29.34, 29.35
    perfecting another portion of section, Sec. Sec. 18.5, 18.21
    question on amendment, substitute for amendment in order until 
        Chair puts, Sec. 7.40
    rejection, effect of, Sec. Sec. 18.23-18.25
    rejection of, as not barring subsequent amendment in different 
        form, Sec. 35.8
    rejection of, as not precluding motion to strike having same 
        purpose, Sec. 35.25
    rejection of, effect of, on amendment to substitute, Sec. 29.51
    rejection of, pending amendment open to further amendment upon, 
        Sec. 25.1
    rejection of substitute in vote on original amendment does not 
        preclude reoffering proposition as amendment to text, 
        Sec. 32.24
    reoffering amendment that had been adopted as amended by 
        substitute, Sec. 32.25
    reoffering part of substitute after rejection, Sec. 18.23
    reoffering proposition as amendment to text, Sec. 18.25
    separate votes, see Separate votes
    similar to original text, Sec. 18.15
    special rule, substitute made in order by, effect of ruling out 
        primary amendment on, Sec. 18.27
    strike out, motion to, not a proper substitute, Sec. Sec. 18.11-
        18.14
    strike out, substitute for motion to, Sec. Sec. 18.8-18.10
    striking language, amendment, as substitute for amendment adding 
        language, Sec. 18.11
    substitute, amendment in nature of, adoption of substitute for, 
        Sec. Sec. 25.2-25.4
    text of bill, making perfecting changes in, rather than amendment 
        to which offered, Sec. 18.7
    voting, order of, on amendments to amendment and to substitute, 
        Sec. Sec. 15.28-15.30
    when to offer, Sec. Sec. 18.2-18.4
Substitute, amendment to
    pages and lines of substitute, reference to, amendment containing, 
        Sec. Sec. 1.9, 1.10
Substitute for motion to strike as not in order, Sec. Sec. 18.8-18.10
Substitute, motion to strike out and insert not in order as, for motion 
    to strike out, Sec. Sec. 16.9, 16.10

[[Page 6534]]

Substitute, motion to strike out not in order as, for perfecting 
    amendment, Sec. Sec. 17.15-17.22
Text, when amendment should be offered to, rather than to pending 
    amendment, Sec. Sec. 1.41, 1.42
Third degree, amendments in
    barred, generally, Sec. Sec. 6.1-6.6
    committee amendment pending, Sec. 6.19
    disposition of amendment before another offered, Sec. Sec. 6.12, 
        6.13
    form of amendment, Sec. 6.21
    modification of amendment by proponent as amendment in third 
        degree, Sec. 21.11
    modification of amendment by unanimous consent, Sec. 6.7
    pro forma amendment, Sec. 6.22
    prohibition against, generally, Sec. Sec. 6.1-6.6
    strike, motion to, pending, Sec. 6.20
    substitute, amendment in nature of, amendments allowed during 
        consideration of, Sec. Sec. 6.14-6.18
    substitute, amendment in nature of, considered as original text, 
        Sec. 6.18
    substitute for amendment, Sec. Sec. 6.8-6.11
Time for offering amendments, see Reading for amendment; and see 
    particular amendments, e.g., Substitute amendments
Title amendments, consideration of, Sec. Sec. 19.1-19.5
Title, committee amendments to, amending, Sec. 19.6
Vacating proceedings by unanimous consent, Sec. Sec. 34.2-34.6, 35.28
Voting (see also particular types of amendment, e.g., Perfecting 
    amendment; Substitute amendments)
    committee amendments, amendments to, order of voting on, 
        Sec. Sec. 26.8, 26.9
    offered, amendment to amendment must be, before vote on primary 
        amendment, Sec. 7.39
    order of voting on amendments to amendment and to substitute, 
        Sec. Sec. 15.28-15.30
    perfecting amendment, disposition of, as affecting vote on motion 
        to strike, Sec. Sec. 15.24, 17.12, 17.13, 24.14, 24.15
    separate votes, see Separate votes
    striking out text, text is perfected before vote on, Sec. 24.12
    substitute, amendment in nature of, perfected before vote on 
        substitute in House, Sec. 25.10
    text perfected before vote on striking it out, Sec. 24.12
Withdrawal of amendment
    House as in Committee of the Whole, in Sec. 20.12
    objection to withdrawal, effect of, Sec. 20.8
    point of order against amendment, unanimous-consent request to 
        withdraw considered before, Sec. Sec. 20.6, 20.7
    reoffering substitute after withdrawal, Sec. 20.10
    Senate bill, amendment to, in House, Sec. 20.11
    substitute, effect of withdrawal of, on amendment to substitute, 
        Sec. 20.9
    unanimous consent requirement, Sec. Sec. 20.1-20.7
Writing, requirement as to, Sec. Sec. 1.1-1.3
Yielding for purposes of amendment, effect of, in House, Sec. Sec. 4.7, 
    14.5, 14.8
Yielding time for amendment under five-minute rule, Sec. Sec. 4.6, 
    13.7, 13.8





[[Page 6535]]



 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
                              A. GENERALLY
 
Sec. 1. Introductory; Definitions; Form



    Rule XIX (1) states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 822 (101st Cong.). The ``motion to 
        amend'' is one of the motions permitted by Rule XVI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        When a motion or proposition is under consideration a motion to 
    amend and a motion to amend that amendment shall be in order, and 
    it shall also be in order to offer a further amendment by way of 
    substitute, to which one amendment may be offered, but which shall 
    not be voted on until the original matter is perfected, but either 
    may be withdrawn before amendment or decision is had thereon. 
    Amendments to the title of a bill or resolution shall not be in 
    order until after its passage, and shall be decided without debate.

    In the amending process,(2) the four stages of 
amendments are offered and considered in the order prescribed by the 
rules and practice of the House and Committee of the 
Whole.(3) Strict rules govern the order in which the above 
amendments may be considered, and the forms of amendment that are 
permitted to be pending at any one time.(4) The amendment to 
the original text must, of course, be offered first, and generally only 
one amendment to the text may be pending at any one time. Once that 
amendment is offered, however, the other three forms of amendment 
described above may be offered and all four amendments may be pending 
at one time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. This chapter discusses the amendment process generally, including 
        significant recent rulings through 1986. Related topics treated 
        elsewhere include the requirement of germaneness of amendments 
        (see Ch. 28, infra) and amendments between the Houses (see Ch. 
        32, infra). For earlier coverage of the subject of amendments 
        generally, see 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5753-5800; 8 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2824-2907a.
 3. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 15-18, 23-26, infra.
 4. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 5, 6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Provisions of Section XXXV of Jefferson's Manual (5) 
govern motions to strike and to strike out and insert, with the 
exception that Rule XVI clause 7 of the

[[Page 6536]]

House Rules specifically provides that ``a motion to strike out being 
lost shall neither preclude amendments nor a motion to strike out and 
insert.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 468, 469 (101st Cong.). For 
        further discussion of these motions, see, for example, 
        Sec. Sec. 16, 17, 24, and 31, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment frequently referred to in this chapter is an 
``amendment in the nature of a substitute.'' This type of amendment 
should be distinguished from a substitute amendment. A substitute 
amendment (6) is merely a substitute for another amendment 
that has been offered. An amendment in the nature of a substitute, on 
the other hand, most often describes an amendment which would replace 
the entire text of a bill or resolution, although the term has also 
been used, less accurately, to describe amendments replacing a 
substantial portion--such as an entire section or title--of a pending 
bill.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See, for example, Sec. 18, infra.
 7. See, for example, Sec. 12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment in the nature of a substitute is basically, in form, a 
``motion to strike out and insert.'' But it should be pointed out that, 
in cases where a ``motion to strike out and insert'' affects less than 
the whole of a pending bill or resolution, the motion cannot be 
properly characterized as an amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
As used in this chapter, the term ``motion to strike out and insert'' 
usually has reference to an ordinary perfecting amendment which affects 
only a portion of the text being amended.
    Frequently, as by special rule, an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute may be considered as an original text for purposes of 
amendment and does not fall within the limitation described above with 
respect to the number of amendments that may be pending at one time.
    Many technical rules and procedures affect the manner in which 
amendments may be offered, debated, and voted upon. Points of order may 
lie against amendments that do not conform to established rules and 
practice. Such points of order against amendments may be based on any 
of several grounds. For example, an amendment may be barred if it 
violates the ``germaneness'' rule (8) or if it violates the 
prohibition against inclusion of legislative provisions in 
appropriation bills.(9) or of appropriations in legislative 
bills.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Ch. 28, infra.
 9. See Ch. 26, supra.
10. See Ch. 25, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The procedural aspects of making a point of order against an 
amendment, and the timeliness of points of order, are discussed in 
another chapter.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Ch. 31, infra.

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

[[Page 6537]]

    Generally, a point of order against a proposed amendment comes too 
late after debate on the amendment has begun, unless the Member making 
the point of order was on his feet, seeking recognition to make the 
point of order, prior to commencement of such debate.
    If a point of order is sustained against an amendment, the entire 
amendment is ruled out, although only a portion of such amendment be 
not in order. Similarly, where a portion of a section of a bill is out 
of order, the entire section is rejected if the point of order is 
directed against the entire section. It is, however, in order to offer 
an amendment reinserting that part of the section which would otherwise 
have been in order.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. For a discussion of the effects of sustaining a point of order 
        against an amendment generally, see Ch. 31, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fact that no point of order was made against one amendment does 
not, of course, preclude such points of order against subsequent 
amendments.
    Pursuant to the House rules,(13) the Chair or any Member 
may require that an amendment be reduced to writing before being 
offered. Upon the offering of any amendment in Committee of the Whole, 
the Clerk transmits copies thereof to the majority and the minority in 
accordance with the House rules,(14)) although the failure 
of the Clerk to promptly transmit such copies is not the basis for a 
point of order against the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Rule XVI clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 775 (101st Cong.).
14. See Rule XXIII clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 (101st 
        Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair does not respond to a parliamentary inquiry as to the 
effect of an amendment,(15) and does not rule on the 
constitutionality of an amendment.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See 124 Cong. Rec. 23725, 95th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 1, 1978 
        (parliamentary inquiry was made as to whether a substitute 
        amendment was identical to another amendment, except for a 
        specified addition).
16. See 124 Cong. Rec. 23730, 95th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 1, 
        1978.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requirement as to Writing

Sec. 1.1 Where there was pending an amendment and a substitute 
    therefor, the Chair indicated that amendments to the substitute 
    would be in order if offered in writing or if offered verbally by 
    unanimous consent.

    Under Rule XVI clause 1,(17) he Chair may demand that a 
Mem

[[Page 6538]]

ber's motion be reduced to writing. The operation of clauses 1 and 2 of 
that rule, governing requirements as to reducing motions to writing and 
the reading or stating of motions, was illustrated in the proceedings 
of Oct. 16, 1973.(18) On that date, while there was pending 
an amendment and a substitute for the amendment, the following exchange 
took place (after an amendment to the amendment had been agreed to) 
with respect to a proposed amendment to the substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 775 (101st Cong.).
18. 119 Cong. Rec. 34336, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 9681 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard W.] Mallary [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, at this 
    point it would be important, I believe, since the same deficiency 
    exists in the substitute offered by the gentleman from Indiana, I 
    would move to amend the substitute in the manner in which the 
    amendment just acted on is worded.
        The Chairman: (19) An amendment to the substitute 
    would be in order, but it has to be in writing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Charles H. Wilson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mallary: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Clerk would be 
    willing to use the language in the amendment to the amendment in 
    order to make the correction. In view of the vote on the amendment, 
    I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment of the 
    gentleman from Indiana be amended as we have just amended the 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the Zion amendment as 
    proposed to be amended.

    The Chair at this point responded to a parliamentary inquiry by 
describing the status of the pending amendments and the order of voting 
thereon. He then permitted Mr. Mallary to offer his amendment to the 
language of the substitute by unanimous consent, and such amendment to 
the substitute was agreed to.

Sec. 1.2 Amendments must be reduced to writing on demand.

    On Feb. 10, 1964,(20) the Chair refused to put the 
question on agreeing to a unanimous-consent request to amend a bill at 
several points and advised the Member to send the amendment to the desk 
in writing. During consideration of H.R. 7152, the Civil Rights Act of 
1963, Mrs. Frances P. Bolton, of Ohio, had sought to offer multiple 
amendments by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 110 Cong. Rec. 2718, 2719, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] McCulloch [of Ohio]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Mrs. Frances P. 
    Bolton].
        Mrs. Frances P. Bolton: Mr. Chairman, on Saturday there was 
    considerable confusion, as all will admit.
        When the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] so graciously 
    offered the

[[Page 6539]]

    amendment to include the word ``sex'' there was an omission, by 
    mistake I am sure, in regard to two principal areas of the title.
        On line 18, page 68, after the word ``religion'' there was an 
    omission of adding the word ``sex.'' That is the hiring and firing 
    area which, after all, was the reason we sought the change. The 
    other omission was on page 69, line 5, after the word ``religion.''
        I hope that the House will wish to remedy the omissions by 
    unanimous consent. . . .
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: I just want to say, in the 
    hurry of preparing that amendment, I went through the title pretty 
    thoroughly, and I thought I did have the word ``sex'' inserted 
    wherever the categories occurred. It was a mistake on my part in 
    overlooking that, and I very much hope that the gentlewoman's 
    amendment will be accepted.
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. McCulloch: I yield to the gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Celler: In order to have the amendment considered properly, 
    I think you may have to add the word ``sex'' on line 3, page 69, 
    and also on line 5 of page 69.
        Mrs. Frances P. Bolton: I have it on line 5. I do not have it 
    on line 3. I will be very happy to, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, on page 77 there is a committee 
    amendment that would also require the addition of the word ``sex.''
        Mrs. Frances P. Bolton: Will the gentleman add that, too, then?
        Mr. Celler: Will the gentlewoman repeat the words on page 69 
    where the word ``sex'' is added?
        Mrs. Frances P. Bolton: On page 68, line 18, after ``religion'' 
    and on page 69, as the gentleman suggests, on line 3 after 
    ``religion'' and on line 5 after ``religion'' and then, I believe, 
    as the gentleman suggested, on line 10 on page 77 and on line 17.
        Mr. Celler: And you will add it on page 77 in the committee 
    amendment?
        Mrs. Frances P. Bolton: Yes, that will be added. . . .
        Mr. [Charles E.] Goodell [of New York]: I wonder if the 
    gentlewoman would not intend that the requirement for no 
    discrimination against an individual on the basis of sex would also 
    be subject to a bona fide occupational qualification exception. 
    Would she not accept adding the word ``sex'' on page 70, lines 7 
    and 8, after the words ``national origin'' and on page 71 in two 
    instances on line 7. There are so many instances where the matter 
    of sex is a bona fide occupational qualification. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The time of the gentleman from 
    Ohio [Mr. McCulloch] has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will state that there is no request before the 
    Committee at the moment.
        Mrs. Frances P. Bolton: Mr. Chairman, there is the unanimous-
    consent request that those words be added.
        The Chairman: Will the gentlewoman from Ohio send up the 
    request so that the Clerk may report it?
        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 6540]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, was the unanimous-consent request of 
    the gentlewoman from Ohio agreed to or was there objection?
        The Chairman: The Chair will inform the gentleman from New York 
    that the unanimous-consent request of the gentlewoman from Ohio has 
    not been reduced to writing. The Chair did not have the unanimous-
    consent request put during the course of the colloquy between the 
    gentleman from Ohio and the gentlewoman from Ohio.
        The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Mississippi [Mr. Colmer].

Sec. 1.3 A Member's request for time to put his amendment in writing 
    was objected to.

    On July 27, 1939,(2) he following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 84 Cong. Rec. 10251, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        S. 2697, to facilitate execution of arrangements for exchange 
        of surplus U.S. agricultural commodities for reserve stocks and 
        strategic materials produced abroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (3) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Martin].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John J. Sparkman (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Kerr [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the gentleman's amendment that after the words 
    ``New England'' insert ``and North Carolina,'' and I will not ask 
    to be heard on the amendment to the amendment.
        Mr. August H. Andresen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. August H. Andresen: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order 
    that the amendment is not in proper form, not having been submitted 
    in writing.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.
        Mr. Kerr: I will reduce it to writing.
        The Chairman: The time has come to vote on the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Kerr: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may have 
    time within which to put my amendment in writing.
        Mr. Bolles and Mr. Andrews objected.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Crawford), there were--ayes 148, noes 109.
        So the amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Under the rule the Committee rises.

Amending Resolution From Committee on Rules; Debate

Sec. 1.4 An amendment to the body of a resolution reported by the 
    Committee on Rules is properly offered by the Member handling the 
    rule before the previous question is moved.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sec. 14.2, infra.

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

[[Page 6541]]

Sec. 1.5 A resolution reported by the Committee on Rules may not be 
    amended unless the Member in charge yields for that purpose or the 
    previous question is voted down, nor is an amendment offered by the 
    Member in charge subject to amendment unless he yields for that 
    purpose.

    On Sept. 14, 1951,(5) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 97 Cong. Rec. 11394, 11397, 82d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H. Res. 386, an amendment to the rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I would 
    like to inquire, as a parliamentary inquiry, whether or not this 
    resolution would be subject to amendment if an amendment were 
    offered for and on behalf of the Rules Committee.
        The Speaker: (6) The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Lyle] 
    has control of the time. The gentleman from Texas can offer an 
    amendment before he moves the previous question. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: But unless the gentleman 
    from Texas does offer such an amendment the only way we could have 
    an opportunity would be to vote down the previous question.
        The Speaker: That would be correct. . . .
        Mr. Lyle: Mr. Speaker, I now offer the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Is an amendment to the amendment in 
    order?
        The Speaker: Not unless the gentleman from Texas yields for 
    that purpose.

Sec. 1.6 Resolutions reported by the Committee on Rules providing for 
    investigations are debated under the hour rule, and are subject to 
    amendment if the previous question is rejected.

    On Apr. 8, 1937,(7) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 81 Cong. Rec. 3283-90, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, this resolution 
    and the one to follow it, the Dies resolution, provide for the 
    appointment of investigating committees. . . . My inquiry is, Will 
    there be opportunity to read the resolutions section by section and 
    to offer amendments to them?
        The Speaker: (8) he resolution is being considered 
    in the House under the rules and precedents, and it will be 
    considered in its entirety. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: If the motion for the 
    previous question is defeated, the resolution will then be open for 
    amendment?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) The gentleman is well 
    informed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Fred M. Vinson (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.7 Where a member of the Committee on Rules calling up a 
    resolution reported by that committee offers an amendment after 
    debate on

[[Page 6542]]

    the resolution has concluded, such amendment is not debatable if 
    the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution is 
    moved and agreed to.

    On Mar. 11, 1941,(10) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 87 Cong. Rec. 2182, 2189, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H. Res. 120, relating to an investigation of national 
        defense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward E.] Cox [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I call up House 
    Resolution 120, which I send to the desk and ask to have read. . . 
    .
        Mr. Speaker, I have stated that the language proposed by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth] is an improvement to this 
    bill, and I offer it as an amendment to the bill, and Mr. Speaker, 
    I move the previous question on the amendment and the resolution.
        Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the resolution is not subject to amendment 
    until the previous question has been disposed of. . . .
        The Speaker: (11) It is in order for the gentleman 
    from Georgia [Mr. Cox] to offer the amendment. The Clerk will 
    report the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cox: On page 2, line 20, after 
        section 2, strike out section 3 and insert the following:
            ``Sec. 3. The committee may withhold from publication such 
        information obtained by it as in its judgment should be 
        withheld in the public interest.''

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] moves the 
    previous question on the amendment and the resolution.
        Mr. May: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. May: Mr. Speaker, I desire to inquire whether or not the 
    amendment as offered is debatable before the previous question is 
    voted upon.
        The Speaker: The previous question has been moved. If the 
    previous question is voted down, the amendment would be subject to 
    debate.

Sec. 1.8 When an amendment is offered to a pending resolution and the 
    previous question is immediately moved on the resolution and on the 
    amendment, the 40 minutes of debate under clause 3 of Rule XXVII 
    (12) does not apply if the main question has been 
    debated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. House Rules and Manual Sec. 907 (101st Cong.). The rule provides 
        for 40 minutes of debate when the previous question has been 
        ordered ``on any proposition on which there has been no 
        debate.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See Sec. 1.7, supra, wherein the Chair did not allow debate on an 
amendment on which the previous question had been moved. See also 
Sec. 14, infra, for further discussion of the effect of the previous 
question.

[[Page 6543]]

Pages and Lines

Sec. 1.9 An amendment should specify and identify the text to be 
    amended; and an amendment offered to a substitute amendment is not 
    in correct form where it purports to amend not the substitute but 
    the original amendment; thus, an amendment containing several 
    references to pages and lines of the bill rather than of the 
    substitute was held not in order as an amendment to the substitute.

    On May 8, 1947,(13) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 93 Cong. Rec. 4813, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 2616, relating to assistance to Greece and Turkey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) Let us get this clear. We have a 
    pending amendment and we have a substitute for that amendment. The 
    gentleman from Ohio has offered an amendment to the substitute. The 
    amendment consists of several references to pages and lines. Are 
    those pages and lines a part of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Javits] as a substitute?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Bender [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, they are part 
    of the bill, which has already been read.
        The Chairman: That does not constitute an amendment to the 
    substitute and the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

Sec. 1.10 Where there was pending an amendment to a section and a 
    substitute therefor, the Chair indicated that amendments to the 
    substitute should be drafted to the proper page and line number of 
    the substitute rather than to comparable provisions of the original 
    text.

    On July 22, 1974,(15) during consideration of a bill in 
the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to a parliamentary 
inquiry as described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 120 Cong. Rec. 24453, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11500, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ken] Hechler of West Virginia: A parliamentary inquiry, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hechler of West Virginia: If the substitute is adopted, 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii, would it be out of order to 
    have amendments to that section? I would like to make that 
    parliamentary inquiry prior to the ruling of the Chair.
        The Chairman: Once the substitute is adopted, then a vote would 
    be on the Hosmer amendment as amended by the substitute. Prior to 
    the vote on the

[[Page 6544]]

    substitute, however, there could be amendments to the substitute. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: If that is the case, how 
    would one key in the amendments to the substitute, inasmuch as the 
    substitute is basically a Xerox copy of section 201, with its 
    original line numbers on some pages starting at line 18 and ending 
    on line 13 and at other pages going to other delineations?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the amendments must be 
    drafted as an amendment to the substitute, rather than to a section 
    of the committee amendment.
        Mr. Hosmer: For example, if I may pursue my parliamentary 
    inquiry, I have a substitute in my hand. It has got some numbers on 
    it. I would want to offer a new section 201(a) as an amendment to 
    the substitute. How should I fashion that amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot anticipate every amendment; but 
    the gentleman could draft the amendment to the proper page and line 
    of the substitute.

Amendment Offered in Another's Name

Sec. 1.11 A Member may offer an amendment in his own name at the 
    request of another, but he may not offer it in the other Member's 
    name.

    On June 23, 1945,(17) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 91 Cong. Rec. 6620, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.J. Res. 101, extending the Price Control and Stabilization 
        Acts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan] 
        (at the request of Mr. [James W.] Mott [of Oregon]): On page 1, 
        line 9, after the period, add two new sections as follows: . . 
        .

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: I would like to 
    inquire whether the amendment is offered by the gentleman from 
    Oregon [Mr. Mott] or by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Wolcott] 
    for the gentleman from Oregon.
        The Chairman: (18) The amendment must be offered by 
    the gentleman from Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Repealing Law

Sec. 1.12 In offering an amendment from the floor proposing the repeal 
    of a law, it is not necessary for the sponsor of such amendment to 
    include the language of the law sought to be repealed.

    On Feb. 3, 1948,(19) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 94 Cong. Rec. 990, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 
        4838, relating to admission of alien fiancees or fiances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    . . . point of order that it is out of order to offer an amendment 
    to repeal a section of law without including that section of law to 
    let the House know what it is we are trying to repeal. . . .

[[Page 6545]]

        The Speaker: (20) The Chair holds that the amendment 
    is not subject to the point of order on the grounds that the 
    gentleman from Mississippi has advanced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offering Committee Amendments

Sec. 1.13 Where the chairman of a committee states he is offering an 
    amendment as a committee amendment, the Chair accepts the statement 
    of the committee chairman in that respect.

    On Aug. 25, 1949,(1) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 95 Cong. Rec. 12258, 12259, 12263, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 6070, to amend the National Housing Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Committee amendment offered by Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky] 
    as a substitute for the bill: Strike out all after the enacting 
    clause and insert the following: ``That this act may be cited as 
    the `Housing Amendments of 1949.'. . .''
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: What is the position of 
    the Chair with respect to the substitute being offered by the 
    committee? The chairman of the committee has already stated that it 
    is a substitute being offered by the committee itself.
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair has to accept the word 
    of the chairman of the committee in this respect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Mike Mansfield (Mont.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Offered by Speaker

Sec. 1.14 In rare instances, the Speaker has taken the floor to offer 
    an amendment in the Committee of the Whole.

    As an example, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, in the 86th Congress 
offered an amendment to the second supplemental appropriation bill of 
1959.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 105 Cong. Rec. 5094, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 24, 1959. The bill 
        under consideration was H.R. 5916 (Committee on 
        Appropriations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution of Copies of Amendments

Sec. 1.15 Failure of the Clerk to promptly distribute 12 copies of an 
    amendment offered in Committee of the Whole to the majority and 
    minority committee tables and cloakrooms as required by Rule XXIII 
    clause 5 is not grounds for a point of order against the 
    consideration of the amendment.

    On June 21, 1974,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill, the Chair ruled on

[[Page 6546]]

a point of order as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 120 Cong. Rec. 20609, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 15472, agriculture, environment, and consumer 
        appropriation, fiscal 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Eckhardt: On page 47 strike line 
        13 and all that follows through line 24.

        Mr. [Mark] Andrews of North Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that copies have 
    not been delivered to the minority in accordance with clause 5 of 
    rule XXIII.
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, how many copies 
    does the gentleman want?
        Mr. Andrews of North Dakota: None.
        The Chairman: (5) The rules provide that copies 
    shall be provided the Clerk of the House. The point of order is not 
    in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Sec. 1.16 It is not the immediate responsibility of a Member offering 
    an amendment to insure that copies of the amendment are distributed 
    according to the requirements of Rule XXIII clause 5, and improper 
    distribution will not prevent consideration of that amendment.

    On Feb. 19, 1975,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill,(7) the Chair responded to 
a point of order as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 121 Cong. Rec. 3596, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
            See Rule XXIII clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 
        (101st Cong.), stating in part: ``Upon the offering of any 
        amendment by a Member, when the House is meeting in the 
        Committee of the Whole, the Clerk shall promptly transmit to 
        the majority committee table five copies of the amendment and 
        five copies to the minority committee table. Further, the Clerk 
        shall deliver at least one copy of the amendment to the 
        majority cloak room and at least one copy to the minority cloak 
        room.''
 7. H.R. 2051, to amend the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: On page 7 after line 24 
        insert a new section 5 (and number the succeeding Sections 
        accordingly).
             Sec. 5. (a) Section 208(a) of the Regional Rail 
        Reorganization Act of 1973. The sentence ``The final system 
        plan shall be deemed approved at the end of the first period of 
        60 calendar days of continuous session of Congress after such 
        date of transmittal unless either the House of Representatives 
        or the Senate passes a resolution during such period stating 
        that it does not favor the final system.'' is amended by 
        deleting the language after ``shall'' and inserting in lieu 
        thereof ``be voted by each House of Congress within the period 
        of 60 calendar days of continuous session of Congress after 
        such date of transmittal.''. . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order. . . .

[[Page 6547]]

        The Chairman: (8) Does the gentleman from Michigan 
    desire to be heard on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order on two 
    bases, the first of which is that under the rules of the House the 
    proponent must have made copies of the amendment available to the 
    cloakroom of the majority and the minority. They must have made the 
    necessary number of copies available both to the reading clerk and 
    to the two committee desks. I have checked with both of the 
    committee desks and find that this rule has not properly been 
    complied with.
        The second point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that the amendment 
    goes beyond the scope of the legislation before us. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        On the first point of order as raised by the gentleman from 
    Michigan, it is not the immediate responsibility of the Member 
    under the rule to see that the distribution of the copies is made 
    and consideration of the amendment cannot be prevented for that 
    reason. Therefore the first point of order is overruled.
        As to the second point made by the gentleman from Michigan, the 
    Chair has examined the amendment as well as the ``Ramseyer'' in the 
    report on the bill under consideration, and in the opinion of the 
    Chair, the bill under consideration amends several sections of the 
    act, and is so comprehensive an amendment as to permit germane 
    amendments to any portion of the law. . . . Therefore the Chair 
    overrules the point of order raised by the gentleman from Michigan.

Sec. 1.17 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole indicated that the rule concerning 
    distribution of proposed amendments by the Clerk (Rule XXIII clause 
    5) was a matter of courtesy, not mandate, and the Clerk's inability 
    to distribute copies did not prohibit consideration of the 
    amendment.

    On Mar. 14, 1975,(9) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 25, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, a 
parliamentary inquiry was directed to the Chair and the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 6708, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
            See Rule XXIII clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 
        (101st Cong.) stating in part: ``Upon the offering of any 
        amendment by a Member, when the House is meeting in the 
        Committee of the Whole, the Clerk shall promptly transmit to 
        the majority committee table five copies of the amendment and 
        five copies to the minority committee table. Further, the Clerk 
        shall deliver at least one copy of the amendment to the 
        majority cloak room and at least one copy to the minority cloak 
        room.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sam] Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Neal Smith (Iowa).

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

[[Page 6548]]

        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, without a copy of the 
    amendment, we cannot understand the purpose of the amendment.
        I thought that under the new rules we are under some obligation 
    to provide some sort of amendment in written form so that those 
    Members who wish to go to the extra effort might read and 
    understand what is going on.
        Am I correct or incorrect, Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman: It does not stop the consideration of an 
    amendment, although that is supposed to be the custom.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, the rule is simply a 
    matter of courtesy rather than one of mandate?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Sec. 1.18 While Rule XXIII clause 5 imposes a duty on the Clerk to 
    transmit to the majority and minority committee tables five copies 
    of any amendment offered in Committee of the Whole, a point of 
    order against the amendment does not lie based upon the inability 
    of the Clerk to comply with that requirement.

    On Mar. 25, 1976,(11) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 12566,(12) a point of order was 
raised against an amendment and the Chair ruled as indicated above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 122 Cong. Rec. 7997, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. National Science Foundation authorization, fiscal 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: On page 6, line 3 insert 
        the following new section, and renumber the succeeding 
        sections;
            ``Sec. 9. Notwithstanding any other provision of law the 
        Director of the National Science Foundation shall keep all 
        Members of Congress . . . informed with respect to all the 
        activities of the National Science Foundation. . . .''

        Mr. [James W.] Symington [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order. We do not have five copies of the amendment as far as I 
    can tell.
        The Chairman: (13) That is not a point of order, 
    although the Chair hopes the copies will be provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. George E. Danielson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.19 No point of order lies against an amendment by reason of the 
    fact that exact copies of the amendment as submitted to, and read 
    by, the Clerk have not been distributed, clause 5 of Rule XXIII 
    only requiring distribution and not preventing consideration.

    An example of the proposition stated above occurred on July 2, 
1980,(14) during consideration of

[[Page 6549]]

H.R. 7235, the Rail Act of 1980. The proceedings in the Committee of 
the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 126 Cong. Rec. 18288, 18290-92, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James J.] Florio [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Florio: Page 103, line 14, insert 
        ``or (c)'' immediately after ``subsection (b)''.
            Page 104, line 20, strike out the closing quotation marks 
        and the following period.
            Page 104, after line 20, insert the following new 
        subsection: . . .

        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Madigan as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Florio:
            Page 103, line 14 insert ``or (c)'' immediately after 
        ``subsection (b)''.
            Page 104, line 20, strike out the closing quotation marks 
        and the following period. . . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Eckhardt to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Madigan as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. 
        Florio: page 3, strike out lines 14 through 20.
            Page 3, line 5, strike out ``(1)''.
            Page 3, line 13, strike out ``; or'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof a period.
            Pages 4 and 5, strike out ``20,000'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``5,000''.

        Mr. Florio: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman from New Jersey 
    reserves a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Florio: We have not got a copy of the amendment, and what 
    was just shown does not comply with what was just read.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from New 
    Jersey that the amendment that has been read is the amendment that 
    is pending. The fact that the gentleman does not have a copy of the 
    amendment does not give rise to a point of order.

Sec. 1.20 While an amendment offered in the House must be reduced to 
    writing, there is no rule requiring distribution of copies to 
    Members.

    On June 25, 1981,(16) during consideration of House 
Resolution 169, providing for consideration of H.R. 3982, the Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, the proceedings in the House were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 127 Cong. Rec. 14065, 14079, 14081, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 169 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 169

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order

[[Page 6550]]

        to move, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, 
        that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
        House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
        bill (H.R. 3982) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to 
        section 301 of the first concurrent resolution on the budget 
        for the fiscal year 1982, and the first reading of the bill 
        shall be dispensed with. General debate shall continue not to 
        exceed eight hours. . . .

    After debate, the previous question was moved and rejected. The 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules then offered an 
amendment.

        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Latta: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
            ``That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
        order to move, any rule of the House to the contrary 
        notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into the 
        Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
        consideration of the bill (H.R. 3982), to provide for 
        reconciliation pursuant to section 301 of the first concurrent 
        resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1982, and the first 
        reading of the bill shall be dispensed with, and all points of 
        order against said bill are hereby waived.''. . .

        Mr. [Theodore S.] Weiss [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, none of us 
    in this body except perhaps the gentleman from Ohio and those 
    closest to him have a copy of the proposed rule. None of us know 
    what it is we are going to be asked to vote on. I raise that as a 
    point of order against proceeding further until copies are 
    distributed to us.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) The gentleman actually 
    has not stated a point of order. The gentleman will simply have to 
    inquire, and I am sure that copies of the amendment would be made 
    available. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York will be advised that the contents 
    of the amendment were read in full by the Clerk.
        The gentleman is not in order to make such a point of order at 
    this time.

Sec. 1.21 While Rule XXIII clause 5 directs the Clerk to promptly 
    transmit copies of amendments which have been offered in Committee 
    of the Whole to the majority and minority committee tables, no 
    point of order lies against consideration of an amendment for 
    failure to make copies immediately available.

    On June 26, 1981,(18) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 3982,(19) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 127 Cong. Rec. 14682, 14739, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.

[[Page 6551]]

        The Chairman: (20) Under the rule, the amendment is 
    considered as having been read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by Mr. Broyhill is as follows:

            Strike out title VI and insert in lieu thereof: . . .

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know if under the 
    rules of the House copies of this amendment are available.
        My understanding is that changes have been made as recently as 
    an hour ago and, under the rules of the House, amendments have to 
    be available by the Member who has introduced it once it is 
    introduced.
        Therefore, I would like to inquire as to the availability of 
    this amendment. I am one of the subcommittee chairmen involved in 
    this amendment, and I would like to have a copy of the amendment in 
    order to be able to deal with it.
        The Chairman: The Chair will respond that it is the Clerk's 
    responsibility to distribute the amendments if it is feasible. In 
    any event, it is not subject to a point of order.

Sec. 1.22 A point of order does not lie against an amendment on the 
    grounds that copies have not been delivered to the minority and 
    majority desks and cloakrooms.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on May 4, 
1983,(1) during consideration of House Joint Resolution 13 
(concerning a nuclear weapons freeze). The proceedings in the Committee 
of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 129 Cong. Rec. 11074, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Norman D.] Dicks [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dicks as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Levitas: In view of the matter 
        proposed to be inserted, insert the following: ``with 
        negotiators proceeding immediately to pursuing reductions.''.

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Matthew H. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Levitas: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that copies 
    of the amendment have not been delivered to the minority or 
    majority desks or to the majority and minority cloakrooms.

        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that is not a 
    point of order.

Amendment Printed in Record; Debate; Form Required

Sec. 1.23 While Rule XXIII clause 6 permits any Member who has printed 
    an amendment

[[Page 6552]]

    in the Congressional Record five minutes of debate thereon despite 
    time limitations imposed by the Committee of the Whole, the 
    amendment must be offered in the precise form in which it was 
    printed in the Record to assure time for debate, and an amendment 
    printed in the Record to be offered to original text is not 
    protected by the rule when offered in different form as an 
    amendment to a pending substitute.

    On July 22, 1974, (3) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the bill, H.R. 11500, the Surface Mining Control 
and Reclamation Act of 1974, an inquiry was addressed to the Chair 
regarding debate on amendments which had been printed in the 
Congressional Record. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 120 Cong. Rec. 24453, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ken] Hechler of West Virginia: A parliamentary inquiry, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hechler of West Virginia: If the substitute is adopted, 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii, would it be out of order to 
    have amendments to that section? . . .
        The Chairman: Once the substitute is adopted, then a vote would 
    be on the Hosmer amendment as amended by the substitute. Prior to 
    the vote on the substitute, however, there could be amendments to 
    the substitute. . . .
        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: If that is the case, how 
    would one key in the amendments to the substitute, inasmuch as the 
    substitute is basically a Xerox copy of section 201, with its 
    original line numbers on some pages starting at line 18 and ending 
    on line 13 and at other pages going to other delineations?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the amendments must be 
    drafted as an amendment to the substitute, rather than to a section 
    of the committee amendment. . . .
        Mr. Hechler of West Virginia: What about those Members who have 
    had their amendments printed in the Record; would they then be 
    entitled to transfer the 5 minutes to which they are eligible under 
    the rules to amendments to the substitute?
        The Chairman: Debate on such amendments, assuming a limitation 
    of time, would only be in order if the amendments were properly 
    offered in the precise form in which they had been printed in the 
    Record, and if the amendments had not been printed in the Record as 
    amendments to the substitute, then debate would not be permitted.

Sec. 1.24 While Rule XXIII clause 6 permits any Member who has printed 
    an amendment in the Record five minutes of debate thereon 
    notwithstanding any limitation imposed by the Committee of

[[Page 6553]]

    the Whole, the amendment must be offered in the precise form in 
    which it was printed in the Record to guarantee its proponent time 
    for debate, and an amendment printed in the Record to be offered to 
    original text is not protected by the rule when offered in 
    different form as an amendment to a pending substitute.

    On July 25, 1974, (5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the bill H.R. 11500, the Surface Mining 
Control and Reclamation Act of 1974, an amendment was offered and 
proceedings occurred as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 120 Cong. Rec. 25232, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph M.] McDade [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
    . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McDade to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Ruppe as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. 
        Seiberling to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute: Page 249, strike out lines 15 through 16 and insert 
        in lieu thereof the following:
            (3) appropriations made to the fund, or amounts credited to 
        the fund, under subsection (d). . . .

        The Chairman: (6) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania that the time has been set. The 
    gentleman is not on the list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McDade: Mr. Chairman, may I say that I have this amendment 
    printed in the Record. It has been printed for about 10 days.
        The Chairman: This is an amendment drafted as an amendment to 
    the Ruppe substitute, whereas the amendment which the gentleman 
    caused to be printed in the Record was drafted as an amendment to 
    the committee amendment.

Sec. 1.25 An amendment must be offered in the precise form in which it 
    was printed in the Congressional Record to guarantee its proponent 
    time for debate notwithstanding a limitation imposed in Committee 
    of the Whole.

    On July 25, 1974, (7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill, (8) the following 
proceedings occurred with regard to an amendment that was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 120 Cong. Rec. 25253, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. H.R. 11500, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Philip E.] Ruppe [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ruppe to the committee amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute: Page 282, line 14, after the 
        period insert the fol

[[Page 6554]]

        lowing words: ``The general elevation of the overall mined area 
        may be lower than its original elevation. . . .''

        The Chairman: (9) The Chair will ask the gentleman, 
    Was this printed in the Record?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ruppe: Something was printed in the Record similar to it, 
    but I have changed the language somewhat.
        The Chairman: It must be identical. If the amendment was not 
    printed in the Record there can be a vote on the amendment but 
    there will be no time for debate.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Ruppe) to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.

Sec. 1.26 The rule (10) which guarantees 10 minutes of 
    debate on an amendment printed in the Record at least one calendar 
    day prior to being offered does not permit the offering of an 
    amendment which would not otherwise be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Rule XXIII clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 874 (101st Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 22, 1974, (11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill (12) the Chair responded to 
several parliamentary inquiries regarding the offering of amendments. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 120 Cong. Rec. 24459, 24460, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
12. H.R. 11500, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on the pending Hosmer amendment and the Mink substitute 
    for that amendment and all perfecting amendments to either close at 
    40 minutes past 4 o'clock. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object for 
    the purpose of making a parliamentary inquiry, as I understand 
    there are a number of us who do have amendments to the bill itself 
    or which are appropriate to the substitute amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from Hawaii or the gentleman from California.
        Now, what is the ruling of the Chair with regard to the 
    limitation of time on section 201? Are those amendments published 
    in the Record foreclosed from the 5-minute rule by reason of the 
    debate here, or foreclosed by expiration of the time under the 
    clock, if the time does expire from even offering an amendment?
        The Chairman: If section 201 of the bill is later open to 
    amendment due to adverse disposition of the Mink substitute and the 
    Hosmer amendment, then those rights would obtain; but those rights 
    would be foreclosed if no further amendments to section 201 were in 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: The provisions of the rule relating to 5 minutes 
    of time for a

[[Page 6555]]

    Member where he has published his amendment in the Record in 
    appropriate fashion will not be protected if either the Mink 
    amendment or the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Hosmer is 
    adopted; am I correct?
        The Chairman: If the substitute is adopted to the Hosmer 
    amendment and then the Hosmer amendment as amended by the 
    substitute is adopted, further amendments to section 201 could not 
    be offered. Therefore, there would be no further amendments 
    appropriate. . . .
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, is it not true 
    that if, under the gentleman's motion, an amendment--I am now 
    giving a hypothetical situation--the Mink substitute for that 
    portion of the Hosmer amendment were to prevail, and the Hosmer 
    amendment would be defeated, is it not true that the rest of that 
    section which the Mink substitute does not pertain to would be 
    proper to amend at any point?
        The Chairman: If the entire section has been amended, further 
    amendments to that section would not be in order.
        Mr. Hays: Not if the Hosmer substitute were defeated, it would 
    not be true, would it? Just to section 201?
        The Chairman: If the Mink substitute is adopted, the vote would 
    then recur on the Hosmer amendment since it is a substitute for the 
    entire amendment. If the Hosmer amendment were then adopted, 
    section 201 would not be open to amendment.

Sec. 1.27 Where a special order governing consideration of a bill 
    requires amendments to have been printed in the Record prior to 
    their consideration, the Chair normally relies upon assurances of 
    the proponent of the amendment that it is in the precise form as 
    printed in the Record, but may insist in response to a point of 
    order that the proponent cite the page of the Record.

    On Aug. 3, 1983, (14) the situation described above was 
demonstrated during consideration of H.R. 2957 (15) in the 
Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 129 Cong. Rec. 22653, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. International Recovery and Financial Stability Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ronald E.] Paul [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair will inquire of the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) as to whether the amendment has 
    been printed in the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Paul: Yes, it has been, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    would like to ask one question.
        In calling up my amendment a few moments ago, I gave the date 
    that it was printed in the Record and the page number at which it 
    appeared.
        Would it be possible to require that of other amendments that 
    are sub

[[Page 6556]]

    mitted so that we could save a lot of time?
        The Chairman: The Chair would state that it would be highly 
    desirable if Members offering amendments would be prepared to state 
    at the time of offering the amendments the page number and date of 
    the Congressional Record where the amendment is cited. It has not 
    been treated as an absolute requirement unless a point of order is 
    raised. The Chair will take on the faith of Members the statement 
    that it has been printed in the Record, but it certainly would 
    expedite the consideration of the bill if Members would be prepared 
    to do that.

Instructions as to Portion of Bill To Be Amended

Sec. 1.28 An amendment must contain instructions to the Clerk as to the 
    portion of the bill it seeks to amend, and is subject to a point of 
    order if not proper in form.

    Where the House had adopted a special order permitting only 
amendments printed in the Record, a Member who had incorrectly 
submitted an amendment for printing which was part of another amendment 
and which did not contain separate instructions as to where it would be 
inserted in the bill was precluded on a point of order from offering 
the amendment. The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole on Oct. 3, 
1985, (17) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 131 Cong. Rec. 25970, 25971, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (18) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conte: Page 211, line 12, add the 
        following after the period: ``The term `payments' as used in 
        this section shall include the amount by which any repayment of 
        construction costs pursuant to Federal reclamation law (Act of 
        June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, and Acts amendatory thereof and 
        supplementary thereto) is exceeded by the full cost, as defined 
        by section 202(3) (A)-(C) of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 
        (Public Law 97-293, 96 Stat. 1263), less $5,000.''. . .

    After debate on the amendment, it became apparent that the 
proponent, Mr. Conte, of Massachusetts, was addressing his remarks to 
an amendment other than that read by the Clerk.

        The Chairman: Will the gentleman from Massachusetts give the 
    Chair his attention on this issue?

        The Clerk reported an amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts dealing with reclamation.
        It would be in order for the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Conte) to ask unanimous consent that the amendment as reported be 
    the one that the gentleman printed in the Record and spoke to 
    concerning honey. Does the gentleman make that request at this 
    time?
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the amendment that I offered pertain to this 
    honeybee amendment. The Clerk now has it at the desk.

[[Page 6557]]

        The Chairman: Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conte:
            (1) Section 201 of the Agriculture Act of 1949; 7 U.S.C. 
        1446 is amended by striking in the first sentence the word 
        ``honey.''
            (2) Subsection (b) of such section is hereby repealed.

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas continue to reserve 
    on his point of order?
        Mr. [Kika] de la Garza [of Texas]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is 
    the amendment I was reserving the point of order on. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard on my point of order, I would 
    not object to the gentleman having made his plea for the amendment. 
    But the amendment as printed in the Record, Mr. Chairman, does not 
    designate a proper page or title or section of the bill, and for 
    that reason I would submit that it is out of order. . . .
        Mr. Conte: Mr. Chairman, when we submitted the amendments, 
    unfortunately the printer put them en bloc. That was the 
    unfortunate part, but I feel the amendment is germane, and it is 
    germane to section X of the bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair will rule that the amendment as submitted was not 
    correctly printed as a separate amendment, and the Chair will 
    sustain the point of order of the gentleman from Texas.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Despite the unanimous consent agreement to 
separate the honeybee amendment from the reclamation amendment, it was 
still subject to the point of order that it did not contain proper 
instructions as to where it would be inserted in the bill.

Amendment Printed in Record--Copy Submitted to Clerk

Sec. 1.29 The Chair announced, at the conclusion of general debate on a 
    bill being considered under a special rule permitting only germane 
    amendments printed in the Record, that Members should submit 
    legible copies of their amendments to the Clerk rather than rely 
    upon the Clerk to locate the text printed in the Record.

    On June 9, 1975,(19) the Committee of the Whole having 
concluded general debate on the bill H.R. 6860,(20) the 
Chair made an announcement as described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 17907, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Energy Conservation and Conversion Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (1) The Chair desires to make a 
    statement regarding the procedure tomorrow when this bill is read 
    for amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        A number of amendments have been printed in the Congressional 
    Record

[[Page 6558]]

    and are protected for consideration under the provisions of the 
    rule governing the consideration of the bill. However, Members who 
    have had amendments printed in the Record must still seek 
    recognition to offer their amendments. When a Member seeks 
    recognition at the appropriate time to offer an amendment, he must 
    send a legible copy, in the precise form as submitted for printing 
    in the Record, to the desk to be reported by the Clerk. It would 
    place an inordinate burden on the Clerk to search through the 
    Record to find the amendment offered.

Amendment Printed in Record--Page Designation Left Blank

Sec. 1.30 Where a special rule made in order the text of a bill as an 
    amendment and also permitted the precise text of an amendment--
    printed in the Record with a page designation left blank--to be 
    offered as an amendment thereto, the Chair overruled a point of 
    order that the amendment to the amendment, when offered, contained 
    a page reference to the original amendment which had been left 
    blank in the Record version, since the page insertion did not 
    change the point at which the language was intended to be inserted 
    in the original amendment.

    On Apr. 1, 1976,(2) the Chair, in overruling a point of 
order, stated that, while an amendment must ordinarily be in the 
precise form permitted under a special ``modified closed rule'' under 
which only specified amendments printed in the Record could be offered, 
where that amendment had been inserted in the Record without a page 
reference but with language indicating its point of insertion, the 
amendment was in substantial compliance with the special rule when 
offered in identical form but also including a page designation. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 122 Cong. Rec. 9090, 9091, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 12406, Federal Election Campaign Amendments of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Timothy] Wirth [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wirth to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Phillip Burton: Page 14, immediately after section 9057(c) 
        of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as added by the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Phillip Burton, insert the following:
            ``(d) Limitation.--The Commission shall, not later than 
        April 1 of each election year, determine whether the amount of 
        moneys in the Congressional Election Payment Account will be 
        sufficient to make all payments to which candidates will be 
        entitled under this chapter during such election year. . . .''

[[Page 6559]]

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I have heard the Clerk read the amendment, and that was 
    not the amendment that was printed in the Record of March 29, 1976. 
    . . .
        Mr. Chairman, rule XXIII, clause 6, says, in part:

            Material placed in the Record pursuant to this provision 
        shall indicate the full text of the proposed amendment, the 
        name of the proponent Member, the number of the bill to which 
        it will be offered and the point in the bill or amendment 
        thereto where the amendment is intended to be offered, and 
        shall appear in a portion of the Record designated for that 
        purpose.

        Mr. Chairman, on page H2500, of the March 29 Record, to which 
    the rule specifically makes mention, this particular Wirth 
    amendment appears as the beginning line with the page blank. 
    Immediately after subsection 9057(c) there is no page 14 
    designated, and the Clerk just read page 14.
        Mr. Chairman, it is not the same amendment.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair has examined the 
    situation. To the best of his knowledge, there are no precedents. 
    Under the circumstances, it would have been difficult if not 
    impossible for the gentleman to have had the page number when he 
    printed his amendment in the Record, and the Chair believes that 
    the omission of the page number alone does not keep the amendment 
    from being in substantial compliance with the rule. In all other 
    respects, the amendment printed in the Record does indicate the 
    point at which the amendment is to be inserted into the amendment 
    of the gentleman from California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Draftsmanship of Amendment; Query as to Effect of Amendment

Sec. 1.31 It is for the Committee of the Whole, and not the Chairman, 
    to determine whether an amendment is properly drafted to accomplish 
    its stated purpose; thus, an ambiguity in the wording of an 
    amendment, or a question as to the propriety of draftsmanship of an 
    amendment to accomplish a particular legislative purpose, should 
    not be questioned on a point of order but is an issue to be 
    disposed of on the merits.

    On Feb. 4, 1976,(4) during consideration of H.R. 
9464,(5) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled 
a point of order that was made against an amend

[[Page 6560]]

ment, as described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 122 Cong. Rec. 2371, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. See also the proceedings 
        at 115 Cong. Rec. 31867, 31886, 31888, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Oct. 28, 1969, relating to a point of order raised by Mr. Frank 
        T. Bow, of Ohio, against an amendment to H.J. Res. 966, a bill 
        providing for continuing appropriations for fiscal 1970.
 5. Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Brodhead [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brodhead to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Krueger: Strike out 
        section 105 and designate the succeeding sections of title I 
        accordingly.

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order on the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, my point of order against the amendment mentioned 
    is that while it has a purpose with which I am not totally 
    unsympathetic, it does not make the conforming amendments necessary 
    to accomplish that purpose without leaving a lot of loose ends 
    hanging in the legislation. For example, it strikes section 105, 
    which is entitled, ``Prohibition of the Use of Natural Gas as 
    Boiler Fuel.''
        In section 102, the ``purpose'' section of the amendment, it 
    says:

            . . . to grant the Federal Energy Administration authority 
        to prohibit the use of natural gas as boiler fuel;
    That would be left in the legislation without any language under 
    this section 105 which provides for that.

        I think there are other references in the language that I have 
    not had a chance to dig out.
        I would suggest that if the gentleman from Michigan would like 
    to withdraw his amendment, I think that we can provide the 
    gentleman with an amendment that would have all the necessary 
    conforming language.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair will state that the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is no longer speaking on his point 
    of order. The Chair will state that the question the gentleman from 
    Ohio raises is not a valid point of order, it is rather a question 
    of draftsmanship and the Chair overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If the gentleman from Ohio desires to be heard in opposition to 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Brodhead) 
    then the Chair would be glad to recognize the gentleman for 5 
    minutes.

Sec. 1.32 It is not within the province of the Chair to interpret the 
    consistency or effect of an amendment to an amendment.

    On Sept. 8, 1976,(7) during consideration of H.R. 10498 
(the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976), several parliamentary inquiries 
were directed to the Chair regarding the effect of a pending amendment. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 122 Cong. Rec. 29234-36, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers: Page 216, after line 23, 
        insert:
            (f) The Clean Air Act, as amended by sections 306, 201, 
        304, 312, 313, 108, and 211 of this Act, is further amended by 
        adding the following new section at the end thereof:

[[Page 6561]]

                      ``national commission on air quality

            ``Sec. 325. (a) There is established a National Commission 
        on Air Quality which shall study and report to the Congress 
        on--
            ``(1) the effects of the implementation of requirements on 
        the States or the Federal Government under this Act to identify 
        and protect from significant deterioration of air quality, 
        areas which have existing air quality better than that 
        specified under current national primary and secondary 
        standards. . . .
            ``(1) There are authorized to be appropriated, for use in 
        carrying out this section not to exceed $17,000,000.
            ``(j) In the conduct of the study, the Commission is 
        authorized to contract with nongovernmental entities that are 
        competent to perform research or investigations in areas within 
        the Commission's mandate, and to hold public hearings, forums, 
        and workshops to enable full public participation.''

        Mr. [Andrew] Maguire [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Maguire to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Rogers: In the last sentence of section 160(c)(1) of the 
        text inserted by the Rogers amendment, strike out ``, class II, 
        or class III'' and substitute ``or class II''. . . .

    The Maguire amendment sought to modify portions of the Rogers 
amendment relating to standards of air quality applicable in a type or 
category of area. Mr. Maguire explained the effect of his amendment as 
follows:

        Mr. Maguire: Mr. Chairman, I am introducing an amendment to the 
    portion of the Clean Air Act amendments dealing with significant 
    deterioration of the air in areas of our country which still have 
    to some degree clean air. I am proposing that we eliminate the 
    class III category from the bill. If we do that, we will be 
    composing our bill essentially with the bill approved earlier by 
    the Senate by a vote of 63 to 31.
        As many of the Members know, I originally proposed an amendment 
    to this section which included other changes to the committee bill 
    in addition to this, but I am offering here simply the elimination 
    class III.
        There is a very simple reason for getting rid of the class III 
    designation. Class III virtually entirely subverts the intention of 
    this section of the bill. Supposedly we are trying to prevent 
    significant deterioration of our air. We are trying to prevent it 
    from being unnecessarily degraded. But what does class III do? It 
    allows an increase of 50 percent of the lowest national air quality 
    standard for each pollutant in any clean air area designated as 
    class III. This means, for example, that most areas of the country 
    which limited pollution by sulfur oxides would be permitted to 
    deteriorate to the levels of concentration in cities such as Los 
    Angeles and Detroit--which hardly seems to fit with our objective 
    of retaining our clean air. . . .
        Why should we eliminate class III?
        Because the levels of pollution it would allow are clearly 
    harmful to health.
        And because the massive additional increments in pollution it 
    would encourage clearly involve major economic costs to our 
    society.
        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, my 
    par

[[Page 6562]]

    liamentary inquiry is: How does the amendment that has been offered 
    by the gentleman from New Jersey amend the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida?
        The Chairman: (8) The amendment was offered as an 
    amendment to the amendment and the Chair cannot make an 
    interpretation of the effect of the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Broyhill: My parliamentary inquiry further would be is it 
    the intention to strike out the language offered by the gentleman 
    from Florida and insert this language in lieu of that language? We 
    are unclear on this side and would like to have a clarification 
    from the Chair or from someone.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from North 
    Carolina that this is not really a proper parliamentary inquiry. 
    The Chair cannot comment further on the offering of the amendment 
    to the amendment, since a point of order was not raised at the 
    appropriate time.

Sec. 1.33 It is not within the province of the Chair or of the Clerk to 
    analyze the effect of amendments; thus, although an amendment may 
    be re-read by unanimous consent in Committee of the Whole, it is 
    not in order to ask unanimous consent that the Clerk read or inform 
    the Committee of the ``differences'' between two pending 
    amendments.

    On Apr. 6, 1977,(9) during consideration of a bill 
(10) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair indicated 
that, while it was in order for the Clerk to re-read an amendment, it 
was not in order to request the Clerk to read differences between 
amendments. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 123 Cong. Rec. 10771, 10773, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. H.R. 5262, providing for increased participation by the United 
        States in international financial institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) The Clerk will read the first 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Robert Duncan (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 5, immediately after line 5, 
        insert the following new title:

                       Title V--African Development Fund

            Sec. 501. Section 206(a) of the African Development Fund 
        Act (22 U.S.C. 290g-4(a)) is amended by striking out 
        ``$25,000,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``$175,000,000''. 
        . . .

        Mr. [Paul E.] Tsongas [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Tsongas to the committee 
        amendment: Strike out all after ``section 501'' and insert 
        ``section 206(a) of the African Development Fund Act (22 U.S.C. 
        290-g4(a)) is further amended by adding the following at the 
        end thereof: ``In addition there is hereby authorized to be 
        appropriated such

[[Page 6563]]

        sums as may be necessary, consistent with, and after 
        consultation with, the other nations involved.''. . .

        Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wylie as a substitute for the 
        committee amendment: In lieu of the committee amendment insert 
        the following:
            ``Sec. 501. Section 206(a) of the African Development Fund 
        Act (22 U.S.C. 290g-4(a)) is further amended by adding the 
        following at the end thereof: `In addition there is hereby 
        authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary, 
        consistent with, and after consultation with, the other nations 
        involved.'
            ``The Secretary of the Treasury is directed to begin 
        discussions with other donor nations to the African Development 
        Fund for the purpose of changing the voting structure within 
        the Fund to reflect actual contributions by Fund members.''. . 
        .

        Mr. Tsongas: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    difference between my amendment and the amendment now being 
    considered be read, so that we would understand not what the 
    similarities are, but what the differences are.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman want the substitute read 
    again?
        Mr. Tsongas: No. The difference between the substitute, which 
    was read, and the substitute now being considered, specifically, 
    the language directing the Secretary of the Treasury.
        The Chairman: Both amendments have been read and the clerk 
    cannot be placed in the position of analyzing differences. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tsongas) 
    is not a substitute. It is an amendment to the committee amendment.

Sec. 1.34 Although the Chair may indicate in response to a 
    parliamentary inquiry the form of a pending amendment and the 
    proposition to which it is offered, it is not within the province 
    of the Chair to indicate the substantive effect of the amendment on 
    pending provisions of the bill.

    On Aug. 2, 1977,(12) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 8444, the National Energy Act. An amendment, 
referred to in the proceedings as the ``Mikulski amendment,'' was 
offered as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 123 Cong. Rec. 26158, 26160, 26161, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (13) The Clerk will designate the page 
    and the line number of the ad hoc committee amendment (the 
    ``Mikulski amendment'') to part III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Ad hoc committee amendment: Page 146, insert the matter in 
        italics on lines 2 through 5, and on page 169, insert the 
        matter on page 169, line 3 through page 180, line 7.

        [The ad hoc committee amendment reads as follows:]

[[Page 6564]]

         Part III--Energy Conservation Program for Schools and Health 
             Care Facilities and Buildings Owned by Units of Local 
                                   Government

            . . . It is the purpose of this part to authorize grants to 
        States and units of local government to assist in identifying 
        and implementing energy conservation maintenance and operating 
        procedures to reduce the energy use and anticipated energy 
        costs of buildings owned by units of local government. . . .
            ``Sec. 400B. (a) The Administrator is authorized to make 
        grants to--
            ``(1) States and units of local government to assist in 
        conducting preliminary energy audits for buildings owned by 
        units of local government, and
            ``(2) States and units of local government in payment of 
        technical assistance program costs for technical assistance 
        programs for buildings owned by units of local government.
            ``(b) The Federal share of the costs incurred in connection 
        with any preliminary energy audit or any technical assistance 
        program, shall not exceed 50 percent thereof and the remainder 
        of the costs shall be provided from sources other than Federal 
        funds. . . .

    Mr. William D. Ford, of Michigan, offered an amendment:

        Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
    ad hoc committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ford of Michigan to the ad hoc 
        committee amendment: At the end of the committee amendment on 
        page 180, insert the following new section:
            ``Sec. 5. Application of Davis-Bacon Act.
            ``The Federal employee or officer primarily responsible for 
        administering any program established under any provision of, 
        or amendment made by title I of this Act which provides for 
        Federal funding shall take such steps as are necessary to 
        insure that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors 
        or subcontractors in the performance of work on any 
        construction utilizing such funds will be paid at rates not 
        less than those prevailing on similar construction in the 
        locality. . . .''

        Mr. [William A.] Steiger [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, did we 
    adopt the ad hoc amendment which is known as the Mikulski 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: This is an amendment to the ad hoc amendment, the 
    Chair will advise the gentleman. . . .
        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, it was my 
    understanding under the rule previously adopted that we would 
    proceed to a consideration of all 23 of the amendments adopted in 
    the ad hoc committee and that any other amendments would be 
    subsequent to that.
        Can the Chair enlighten us as to what the procedure will be?
        The Chairman: We are only treating the ad hoc committee 
    amendments to the pending part of the bill under the rule, which 
    makes the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ford) in 
    order to the pending committee amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: [Is the Ford amendment] an 
    amendment to the Mikulski amendment, [or] an amendment to this part 
    of the bill?
        The Chairman: It is an amendment to the ad hoc committee 
    amendment, which in reality is the Mikulski amendment.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: And the ad hoc committee amendment is to 
    what?

[[Page 6565]]

        The Chairman: The ad hoc committee amendment begins on page 169 
    (and continues) to page 180.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Is this amendment then an amendment to all 
    of the part addressed by the ad hoc committee amendment? That is 
    what I am trying to inquire.
        The Chairman: The Ford amendment adds a new section at the end 
    of the ad hoc committee amendment on page 180.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, could the Chair perhaps with 
    specificity indicate to me what the Ford amendment, if adopted, 
    will amend; what language will it amend? Will it amend the language 
    currently in the bill and in the Mikulski amendment or will it 
    amend the Mikulski amendment only and that, if adopted, will amend 
    the bill?
        The Chairman: The Chairman cannot construe the effect of the 
    amendment. The Chair can only indicate where the amendment comes 
    and the amendment comes at the end of the committee amendment, 
    adding a new section to the ad hoc committee amendment.

Sec. 1.35 It is not within the province of the Chair to respond to a 
    parliamentary inquiry on the substance or effect of an amendment, 
    such as its similarity to another amendment.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on June 14, 
1979,(14) during consideration of H.R. 4388 (15) 
in the Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 125 Cong. Rec. 14993-95, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Energy and water development appropriation bill for fiscal 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dingell as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Dodd: Page 11, lines 21 through 24, 
        strike out section 103.
            Page 9, line 14, after the period, insert the following: 
        ``None of the funds appropriated for the Federal Energy 
        Regulatory Commission under this paragraph in excess of 
        $550,000 shall be used to pay expenses of, or otherwise 
        compensate, parties intervening in regulatory or adjudicatory 
        proceedings funded under this paragraph.''. . .

        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, in hearing 
    with some difficulty the amendment as it was being read, I am 
    asking the Chair is the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Dingell) similar to the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) without the Johnson amendment?
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair can only indicate that 
    it appears to be germane and cannot get into the substance of the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.36 The Chair will not anticipate whether an amendment not yet 
    offered or available to him for examination might be precluded by 
    adoption of a pending amendment.

[[Page 6566]]

    The proceedings of June 26, 1979,(17) illustrate the 
principle that the Chair will decline to rule on hypothetical or 
anticipatory questions. An amendment was offered during consideration 
of H.R. 3930, the Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 125 Cong. Rec. 16681, 16682, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: Page 8, after line 13 add the 
    following new subsection and renumber the subsequent sections 
    accordingly:
        (g)(1) The Secretary of Energy is hereby authorized to 
    designate a proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock facility as a 
    priority synthetic project pursuant to the procedures and criteria 
    provided in this section. . . .
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered 
    as read and printed in the Record. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, I wish to make a point of order. Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment which I had offered and had printed in the Record would 
    be an appropriate substitute amendment for the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall). Under the time limitation, 
    if I understand correctly, I have 5 minutes to offer that 
    amendment.

        The Chairman: (18) That is correct if offered in the 
    proper form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: But if this amendment is not amended by my 
    amendment and succeeds, then I may be precluded from offering that 
    amendment; is that correct?
        The Chairman: It would be difficult for the Chair to rule on 
    that without having seen the gentleman's amendment.

Sec. 1.37 The Chair declines to make anticipatory rulings and will not 
    prejudge the propriety of amendments at the desk as to whether they 
    will be preempted by adoption of a pending amendment until they are 
    offered.

    On Dec. 18, 1979,(19) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 5860,(20) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 36794, 36801, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Authorizing loan guarantees to the Chrysler Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brademas to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: 
        Strike line 7, page 5, through line 7, page 9, (section 4(a)(4) 
        through section 4(d)) and replace with the following:
            (4) the Corporation has submitted to the Board a 
        satisfactory financing plan which meets the financing needs of 
        the Corporation as reflected in the operating plan for the 
        period covered by such operating plan, and which includes, in 
        accordance with the provisions of subsection (c), an aggregate 
        amount of nonfederally guaranteed assistance of not less than 
        $1,930,000,000. . . .

[[Page 6567]]

        Mr. [Mickey] Edwards of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk to section 4 of the Moorhead substitute as 
    does the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Weaver). Would our amendments 
    be in order if the Brademas amendment passes?
        The Chairman: (21) The Chair will have to examine 
    them if and when offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.38 It is not a proper parliamentary inquiry to ask the Chair to 
    characterize an amendment on which a separate vote has been 
    demanded.
    An example of the proposition described above occurred on May 31, 
1984,(1) during consideration of H.R. 5167, the Department 
of Defense authorization bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 130 Cong. Rec. 14677, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The Clerk will report 
    the first amendment on which a separate vote has been demanded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment: Page 131, after line 2, insert the following new 
        title. . . .

        Mr. [Lawrence J.] Smith of Florida: Mr. Speaker, might I 
    inquire of the Chair if this amendment just read by the Clerk would 
    be commonly known as the Stratton amendment on nuclear winter?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman 
    that that is not a parliamentary inquiry.

Chair's Determination as to Propriety of Form in Absence of Point of 
    Order

Sec. 1.39 The Chair may examine the form of an offered amendment to 
    determine its propriety and may rule it out of order even where no 
    point of order is raised from the floor, and debate has begun.

    On May 8, 1980,(3) during consideration of S. 1309 
(4) in the Committee of the Whole, the situation described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 126 Cong. Rec. 10421, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. The Food Stamp Amendments of 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (5) When the Committee of the Whole 
    rose on Wednesday, May 7, section 1 had been considered as having 
    been read and open to amendment at any point. It shall be in order 
    to consider an amendment to title I of said substitute printed in 
    the Congressional Record on April 30, 1980, and said amendment 
    shall not be subject to amendment except for the offering of pro 
    forma amendments for the purpose of debate. No further amendments 
    are in order which further change or affect the Internal Revenue 
    Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there any amendments to section 1?
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an

[[Page 6568]]

    amendment in the nature of a substitute. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Walker: Page 39, after line 22 insert the following new title:

        Mr. Walker (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
    Record.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania?
        There was no objection. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman will suspend for just a moment. The 
    Chair is advised by the Parliamentarian that the gentleman has not 
    offered a proper amendment in the nature of a substitute here. An 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute would strike everything 
    after the enacting clause. This is an amendment adding a new title 
    III.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding that the 
    amendment was prepared in the form of a substitute.
        The Chairman: The amendment at the desk is not prepared in that 
    form, the Chair is advised. When the committee reaches title II, 
    the first part of the gentleman's amendment would be in order. The 
    Chair will rule that the amendment is not pending at this time. . . 
    .
        Are there any amendments to section 1?
        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Idaho has an amendment to 
    section 1. This is the short title of the bill.
        Mr. Symms: It is on page 24, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair doubts that that is an amendment to 
    section 1. The amendment of the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Symms) is 
    not to section 1, but to title I.
        The Clerk will read title I.

Sec. 1.40 While a perfecting amendment to a pending substitute should 
    retain some portion of the substitute so as not to be in effect a 
    substitute in the third degree, the Chair is not obliged to look 
    behind the form of the amendment in the absence of a timely point 
    of order from the floor to determine whether it is a proper 
    perfecting amendment.

    On July 26, 1984,(6) in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry after debate had begun on a pending amendment to a substitute, 
the Chair indicated that the amendment had been prefaced as a 
perfecting amendment rather than as a substitute (although actually 
drafted as a substitute to replace all language).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 130 Cong. Rec. 21259-61, 21263, 21264, 98th Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 11, the Education Amendments of 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William F.] Goodling [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Goodling: Add at the end of the 
        bill the following new title. . . .

[[Page 6569]]

        Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ford of Michigan as a substitute 
        for the amendment offered by Mr. Goodling: Add at the end of 
        the bill the following new title. . . .

        Mr. Goodling: Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment to 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ford) as 
    a substitute for my amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Goodling to the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Ford of Michigan as a substitute for 
        the amendment offered by Mr. Goodling: In lieu of the matter 
        proposed to be inserted insert the following. . . .

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as 
    the perfecting amendment was not read, I am wondering if it happens 
    to be an amendment in the third degree.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman 
    that this amendment was offered as an amendment to the substitute 
    and not referred as a substitute which would be in the third 
    degree.
        Mr. Perkins: Drafted to the substitute that is being offered by 
    the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ford)?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman 
    that that is correct.
        Mr. [Steve] Bartlett [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 
    balance of my time.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (7) The question is on the 
    perfecting amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    (Mr. Goodling) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Ford) as a substitute for the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: It appears that a point of order might have 
been sustained if made prior to the beginning of debate on the Goodling 
amendment to the Ford substitute, since it was in reality in the form 
of a substitute ``in lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted insert 
the following. . . .'', but once debate began, the Chair would not take 
the initiative and rule the amendment to be a substitute for a 
substitute and in the third degree under Rule XIX.

When Amendment Should Be Offered to Text Rather Than to Pending 
    Amendment

Sec. 1.41 When it is proposed to strike out certain words in a section, 
    it is not in order to amend that amendment by proposing that 
    additional words of that section be stricken.

    On June 2, 1976,(8) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 13680,(9) the

[[Page 6570]]

Chair ruled on a point of order as described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 122 Cong. Rec. 16208-10, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. A bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Derwinski: At page 68, strike line 
        4 through page 69, line 4. . . .

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

         amendment offered by mr. zablocki to the amendment offered by 
                                 mr. derwinski

            Strike the words ``page 69, line 4'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``page 69, line 10''. . . .

        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order against the Zablocki amendment to the 
    amendment on the grounds that it is an effort to amend a perfecting 
    amendment. It deals with a different part of the bill, and since 
    the bill is open to amendment by titles, the perfecting amendment, 
    so-called, offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski), 
    as I understand, only strikes section 413 down through line 4 on 
    page 69. This is an effort to strike a different part of the title, 
    and therefore would not be in order as an amendment to the 
    Derwinski amendment. . . .
        Mr. Zablocki: . . . Mr. Chairman, the Derwinski amendment 
    strikes section 413 by striking the words ``page 69, line 4,'' and 
    substituting in lieu thereof, ``page 69, line 10.''. . .
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Derwinski) strikes all of section 413, beginning with line 5, page 
    68, through line 4, page 69. The amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) to that amendment would increase the 
    portion of section 413 that is stricken, expanding the area 
    stricken down through line 10, page 69.
        Under Cannon's Precedents in the House of Representatives, on 
    page 13, in middle of the page, under the heading ``amending a 
    motion'':

            When it is proposed to strike out certain words, it is not 
        in order to amend by adding to the words of the paragraph, but 
        it is in order to amend by striking out a portion of the words 
        specified.

        Since the question has come before the House before, in Hinds' 
    Precedents of the House of Representatives, volume V, 1907, page 
    389, section 5768, the Chair will quote from that decision as 
    follows:

            5768: When it is proposed to strike out certain words in a 
        paragraph, it is not in order to amend by adding to them other 
        words of the paragraph.--On April 3, 1902, the bill (S. 1025) 
        to promote the efficiency of the Revenue-Cutter Service was 
        under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the 
        state of the Union, when the following paragraph was read:
            Sec. 8. That when any commissioned officer is retired from 
        active service, the next officer in rank shall be promoted 
        according to the established rules of the service, and the same 
        rule of promotion shall be ap

[[Page 6571]]

        plied successively to the vacancies consequent upon such 
        retirement.
            Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, moved to strike out the 
        words ``according to the established rules of the service.''
            Mr. John F. Lacey, of Iowa, moved to amend the amendment by 
        adding to the words proposed to be stricken out other words in 
        the context of the paragraph.
            The Chairman held that the amendment of Mr. Lacey should be 
        offered as an independent amendment rather than as an amendment 
        to the amendment.

        For the reasons stated, the point of order of the gentleman 
    from Minnesota is sustained.

Sec. 1.42 Where there is pending an amendment striking out a portion of 
    a pending text, an amendment to strike out additional language of 
    the text should be offered as a separate amendment to the text and 
    not as an amendment to the first amendment.

    The proceedings of June 2, 1976, are discussed in Sec. 1.41, supra.

Debating Amendment Under Reservation of Objection; Discretion of Chair

Sec. 1.43 Unanimous consent is not required to adopt an amendment to a 
    pending amendment, and the Chair may decline to permit debate to 
    proceed under a reservation of objection to such unanimous-consent 
    request and require debate to proceed under the five-minute rule.

    On Feb. 24, 1977,(11) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 11,(12) an amendment was offered to 
a pending amendment. The proceedings, described above, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 5327, 5329, 5330, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act 
        Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Parren J.] Mitchell of Maryland: Madam Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: Page 2, line 
        23, insert ``(1)'' immediately before ``Notwithstanding.''
            Page 3, line 7, strike out the quotation marks and the 
        period immediately following the quotation marks.
            Page 3, immediately after line 7, add the following:
            ``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no grant 
        shall be made under this Act for any local public works project 
        unless at least 10 per centum of the dollar volume of each 
        contract shall be set aside for minority business enterprise. . 
        . .''

        Mr. [Robert A.] Roe [of New Jersey]: Madam Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland 
    (Mr. Mitchell) and ask unanimous consent that it be adopted.

[[Page 6572]]

        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Madam Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, I would like to know exactly the language of 
    the gentleman's amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Roe to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: In lieu of the Mitchell amendment 
        insert the following:
            Page 3, in lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted after 
        line 7, insert the following:
            ``(2) Except to the extent that the Secretary determines 
        otherwise, no grant shall be made under this Act for any local 
        public works project unless the applicant gives satisfactory 
        assurance to the Secretary that at least 10 per centum of the 
        amount of each grant shall be expended for minority business 
        enterprises. For purposes of this paragraph, the term 
        ``minority business enterprises'' means a business at least 50 
        percent of which is owned by minority group members. . . .''

        The Chairman: (13) Is there objection to the 
    unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from New Jersey to amend 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Harsha: Madam Chairman, reserving the right to object, I 
    want to try to clarify this. . . .
        The Chairman: Rather than proceed under the gentleman's 
    reservation of objection, the Chair will treat the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New Jersey to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Maryland as pending and proceed under the 5-
    minute rule, so that debate can then take place in the proper way. 
    . . .
        Mr. Roe: Is it possible for others who desire to do so to 
    reserve the right to object?
        The Chairman: The Chair will put the question on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New Jersey to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Maryland, unless further Members desire to 
    debate the issue under the 5-minute rule.
        The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Roe) is recognized for 5 
    minutes on his amendment. . . .
        Mr. [James J.] Howard [of New Jersey]: Madam Chairman, I would 
    ask the Chair if unanimous consent was granted for the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New Jersey to be before the House.

        The Chairman: That was not necessary. It is still an amendment 
    to an amendment which is pending business to be voted on by the 
    committee.

Time To Make or Reserve Point of Order

Sec. 1.44 A point of order may be made or reserved against an amendment 
    after it is read but before the proponent of the amendment has been 
    recognized to debate it; and where the proponent has asked 
    unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read, such 
    point of order may still be made or reserved.

[[Page 6573]]

    On Mar. 9, 1978,(14) during consideration of H.R. 50 
(15) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry concerning the proposition described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 124 Cong. Rec. 6285, 6286, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments as a substitute for the amendments offered by the 
    gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Sarasin).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Jeffords as a substitute for the 
        amendments offered by Mr. Sarasin: Page 64, line 16, strike out 
        ``and productivity'' and insert in lieu thereof ``productivity 
        and reasonable price stability''. . . .

        Mr. Jeffords (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the amendments offered as a substitute be 
    considered as read and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (16) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Vermont?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Augustus F.] Hawkins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on the amendments.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from California 
    reserves a point of order on the amendments.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Vermont has already made 
    the request that the amendment be considered as read and that 
    request was granted, therefore I think the point of order comes too 
    late.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair would advise the 
    gentleman from Maryland that the point of order can still be made 
    or reserved before the gentleman proceeds with his remarks. 
    Therefore, the reservation is in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.45 While the reservation of a point of order by one Member 
    against an amendment inures to all Members if insisted upon at the 
    appropriate time, the point of order must be made by a Member when 
    the Chair inquires whether the Member reserving the point of order 
    wishes to insist upon it, but comes too late after that Member has 
    withdrawn the point of order and further debate has intervened on 
    the amendment.

    On Aug. 2, 1978, (18) The Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 12514, (19) The above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 124 Cong. Rec. 23921, 23922, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. The International Security Assistance Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 6574]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Harkin: Page 19, immediately after 
        line 14, insert the following new section 21. . . .
            ``After the date of enactment of the International Security 
        Assistance Act of 1978, no deliveries of defense articles or 
        services may be made to Chile pursuant to any sale made before 
        the date of enactment of this section. . . .

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Zablocki: I do not insist on the point of order, to save 
    time.
        Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: . . . I would like to ask 
    the Chair, since the gentleman from Wisconsin reserved a point of 
    order, and the gentleman from Maryland who was also on his feet did 
    not reserve a point of order because he thought the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin was going to make a point of order, whether or not it 
    would be in order for the gentleman from Maryland to make a point 
    of order?
        The Chairman: The Chair has recognized the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) for 5 minutes, so the point of order could 
    not be made at this time.
        Mr. Bauman: Can the gentleman from Wisconsin still make his 
    point of order at this time?
        The Chairman: No, he cannot.

Discretion of Chair as to Reservation of Point of Order

Sec. 1.46 A reservation of a point of order against an amendment is 
    within the discretion of the Chair, who may insist that the point 
    of order be made following debate by the proponent of the amendment 
    and prior to recognition of other Members.

    During consideration of H.R. 5167 (1) in the Committee 
of the Whole on May 16, 1984,(2) the proposition described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Defense Department authorization bill.
 2. 130 Cong. Rec. 12509, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
    AuCoin) has reserved a point of order. Does the gentleman wish to 
    pursue that?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Les] AuCoin: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Under the rules of the 
    House I understand I am not required to raise the point of order at 
    this particular point. But I do continue to reserve my point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The Chair has the discretion to entertain the 
    point of order, and the Chair chooses at this time to have the 
    gentleman state his reservation.
        Does the gentleman make a point of order? . . .

[[Page 6575]]

        Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    Price amendment on the grounds that its scope is broader than that 
    of the primary amendment, title 1, and therefore is not germane to 
    the primary amendment.



 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
                              A. GENERALLY
 
Sec. 2. Pro Forma Amendments

    A pro forma amendment is a procedural formality--a device used to 
obtain recognition during consideration of a bill being read for 
amendment under the ``five-minute rule''--and such an amendment does 
not contemplate any actual change in the bill. While pro forma 
amendments are phrased to make some superficial change in the language 
under consideration, such as ``to strike the last word,'' the 
underlying purpose is to obtain time for debate which might otherwise 
be prohibited because of the restriction in Rule XXIII, clause 5, that 
there may be only five minutes of debate for and against any amendment 
or amendment thereto.
    Technically, a point of order should lie against a pro forma 
amendment if it constitutes an amendment in the third degree, whether 
offered while there is an amendment to an amendment pending, or offered 
to an amendment to a substitute; but the Chair hesitates to initiate 
action in ruling pro forma amendments out of order as in the third 
degree, the Committee of the Whole having the power to shut off debate 
when it chooses. (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. 6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Member who has occupied five minutes on a pro forma amendment may 
not lengthen this time by making another pro forma amendment, nor may 
he then automatically extend this time by offering a substantive 
amendment while other Members are seeking recognition,(5) 
but he may rise in opposition to a pro forma amendment offered by 
another Member when recognized for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See the discussion in the notes to Rule XXIII clause 5(a), House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 873 (101st Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a rule under which a bill is considered permits only 
specified amendments and prohibits amendments to such amendments, no 
pro forma amendments are in order and only two five-minute speeches are 
permitted on each of the specified amendments.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. 3.38, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It has frequently been held that pro forma amendments are not in 
order during consideration of an omnibus private bill.(7) In 
fact, the

[[Page 6576]]

rule has been so broadly stated as to preclude such amendments on 
private bills generally.(8) But on one occasion it has been 
specifically ruled that it is in order during the consideration of 
individual bills on the Private Calendar to strike out the last 
word.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See, for example, Sec. 2.6, infra.
            See also Rule XXIV clause 6, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 893 (101st Cong.).
 8. See 100 Cong. Rec. 1826, 1827, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 16, 1954; 
        and 80 Cong. Rec. 3158, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 3, 1936.
 9. 80 Cong. Rec. 5075, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 7, 1936.
            For discussion of private bills generally, see Ch. 22, 
        supra, Calendars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When in Order

Sec. 2.1 Any Member who gains the floor to offer any permissible 
    amendment is entitled to the floor, and it is not the duty of the 
    Chair to ask such Member whether he offers his amendment as a bona 
    fide or pro forma amendment.

    On May 16, 1938,(10) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 83 Cong. Rec. 6938, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: . . . My parliamentary 
    inquiry is whether a point of order would lie against the motion of 
    a Member to strike out the title when, as a matter of fact, the 
    Member was not in favor of striking out the title.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) The present occupant 
    of the chair would have no way of reading a Member's mind or 
    questioning his motive with reference to any amendment that he 
    might offer. The Chair thinks that any Member who gained the floor 
    to offer any permissible amendment would be in order and he would 
    be entitled to the floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 2.2 When an amendment in the nature of a substitute is being read 
    by sections pursuant to a special rule, substantive as well as pro 
    forma amendments are in order following the reading of each 
    section.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 22.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 2.3 When an amendment in the nature of a substitute is, by 
    unanimous consent, considered as read and open to amendment, the 
    entire amendment is then subject to substantive or pro forma 
    amendment.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 22.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of Debate

Sec. 2.4 Debate in the Committee of the Whole under the five-minute 
    rule is confined to the subject and, if the point of order is 
    raised, a Member may not under a pro forma

[[Page 6577]]

    amendment discuss a section of the bill not immediately pending.

    On Feb. 9, 1950,(14) The following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 96 Cong. Rec. 1753, 81st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7201, a deficiency appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Cecil F.] White of California: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the gentleman is not discussing the bill and he 
    did not ask for unanimous consent to proceed out of order. . . .
        Mr. [Reid F.] Murray of Wisconsin: . . . I moved to strike out 
    the last word. I am talking in connection with this bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman should discuss that 
    matter which is pending at the present time. The part of the bill 
    to which he refers has not been reached yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Mike Mansfield (Mont.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 2.5 Debate on a pro forma amendment must be confined to the 
    portion of the bill to which the pro forma amendment has been 
    offered.

    On June 21, 1974,(16) during consideration of a bill in 
the Committee of the Whole, the Chair made the ruling described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 120 Cong. Rec. 20595, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 15472, agriculture, environment, and consumer 
        appropriations, fiscal 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Pierre S.] du Pont [of Delaware]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I am taking this time now for fear that when we 
    get down to the end of the bill there will be a limitation of time, 
    and I will not have the opportunity to explain the amendment that I 
    intend to offer on the last page of the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, I intend to offer an amendment to set a maximum 
    limit on the appropriations under this bill to $12.7 billion. . . .
        Mr. [John E.] Moss [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Moss: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that I must insist 
    upon the regular order, and the regular order is not being 
    observed. There has been no unanimous-consent request to proceed 
    out of order, and the House is now proceeding out of order. So I 
    call for the regular order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will proceed in the regular order.
        Mr. [H. John] Heinz [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. du Pont: I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Heinz: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        I am afraid the intent----
        Mr. Moss: Mr. Chairman, I insist on the regular order, and the 
    regular order is the point of the bill where we are now reading. It 
    is not a point to be reached at a later time. I insist upon the 
    regular order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. The gentleman in the 
    well received permission to strike out the last

[[Page 6578]]

    word and then proceeded to discuss an amendment to be offered to 
    the last section of the bill. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
    not discussing a part of the bill that is pending.
        The point of order is sustained.

Private Bill

Sec. 2.6 The Chair on one occasion held that an amendment proposing to 
    reduce the amount of money in an omnibus private bill was a pro 
    forma amendment and therefore not in order.

    On July 20, 1937,(18) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 81 Cong. Rec. 7299, 7300, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            On page 5, line 9, strike out ``$5,000'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``$4,999.99.'' . . .

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: . . . I submit that this 
    is too small a matter to be considered by the House at this time.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The Chair must hold 
    that under the spirit of the rule for the consideration of omnibus 
    private bills, such an amendment, which is in effect a pro forma 
    amendment, is not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effects of Restrictive Rules on Pro Forma Amendments--Use of Pro Forma 
    Amendments Where Rule Permits Only Printed Amendments Not Subject 
    to Amendment

Sec. 2.7 Where there was pending a perfecting amendment to a title of a 
    bill being considered under a special rule permitting only germane 
    amendments printed in the Record for at least two calendar days to 
    be offered to that title, and prohibiting amendments thereto, the 
    Chairman of the Committee of the Whole indicated in response to 
    parliamentary inquiries that Rule XXIII clause 5 permitted only the 
    proponent and one opponent of the amendment to speak for five 
    minutes each, and that the special rule prohibited other Members 
    from offering pro forma amendments to that amendment to gain 
    additional time; and that the pendency of a perfecting amendment 
    precluded the offering of a pro forma amendment printed in the 
    Record as a perfecting amendment to the bill.

    The Chair responded as indicated to inquiries made on Mar.

[[Page 6579]]

26, 1974,(20) during consideration of H.R. 69, to amend and 
extend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. He stated further 
that by unanimous consent additional time for debate on the amendment 
could be obtained for either the proponent or opponent of the 
amendment, but not for other Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 120 Cong. Rec. 8242, 8243, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Peter] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Was there a time limit on the amendment when the gentleman 
    asked to be recognized in support of the amendment?
        The Chairman: (1) That is correct. The gentleman 
    from New York already has been recognized for 5 minutes with 
    several extensions by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Peyser: I did not ask for it; the gentleman from 
    Connecticut asked for it.
        The Chairman: The gentleman could have asked for an extension 
    on the time of the gentleman from Minnesota, but none on his own 
    time, under the rule.
        Mr. Peyser: Mr. Chairman, I have another parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Peyser: I am not aware of any time limit to speak on the 
    amendments under the regular 5-minute rule.
        The Chairman: The Chair might as well read the rule adopted in 
    the House for the benefit of the membership so they will 
    understand.
        House Resolution 963 adopted in the House on March 12 provides 
    in part:

            No amendment shall be in order to title I of said 
        substitute except germane amendments which have been printed in 
        the Congressional Record at least two calendar days prior to 
        their being offered during the consideration of said substitute 
        for amendment, and amendments offered by the direction of the 
        Committee on Education and Labor, and neither of said classes 
        of amendments shall be subject to amendment.

        Under the provisions of the rule, the proponent of the 
    amendment is to be allowed 5 minutes, and a Member in opposition to 
    the amendment, 5 minutes. . . .
        Under clause 5, rule XXIII, only one member may speak in 
    opposition, and under Public Resolution 963, a pro forma amendment 
    is in order only to the bill, not to an amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: The Chairman stated that 
    a pro forma amendment to the bill was in order?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Fraser: Should not a pro forma amendment to the bill be 
    considered in the nature of a perfecting amendment in order during 
    the consideration of Mr. Peyser's amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that a pro forma amendment 
    would not be in order while the amendment is pending, because that 
    would be considered as a perfecting amendment to the amendment 
    under consideration.
        Mr. Fraser: If the Chair would permit me to state, a pro forma 
    amendment is offered to the bill rather than

[[Page 6580]]

    to an amendment. It seems to me it would not fall under the 
    constraint which the Chair has placed on it.
        The Chairman: Under the rule there can be only one perfecting 
    amendment pending at a time, and a perfecting amendment is pending. 
    Therefore, a pro forma amendment would not be in order.

Sec. 2.8 Under a special rule permitting only germane amendments 
    printed in the Record for at least two calendar days to be offered 
    to a designated title of a bill, and prohibiting amendments 
    thereto, a Member was permitted to offer a pro forma amendment to 
    that title (``to strike the requisite number of words'') where that 
    amendment had been inserted in the Record by another Member, and at 
    a time when no substantive amendment was pending.

    On Mar. 26, 1974,(2) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 120 Cong. Rec. 8229, 8233, 8243, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 69, to amend and extend the Elementary 
        and Secondary Education Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (3) . . . Under the rule, no amendment 
    shall be in order to title I of the substitute committee amendment 
    printed in the reported bill except germane amendments which have 
    been printed in the Congressional Record at least 2 calendar days 
    prior to their being offered during the consideration of said 
    substitute for amendment, and amendment offered by direction of the 
    Committee on Education and Labor, and neither of said classes of 
    amendments shall be subject to amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk will now read by titles the 
    substitute committee amendment printed in the reported bill as an 
    original bill for the purpose of amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

        Title I--Amendments of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
                             Education Act of 1965

                         extension of title i programs

            Sec. 101. Section 102 of title I of the Elementary and 
        Secondary Education Act of 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 
        ``the Act'') is amended (1) by striking out ``for grants to 
        local educational agencies''. . . .

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of title I 
    be dispensed with, it be printed in the Record, and open to 
    amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Kentucky?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Perkins: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
    number of words.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order. Under the rule the motion is not in order unless he 
    has printed the motion in the Record.

[[Page 6581]]

        The Chairman: The Chair overrules the point of order. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky was printed in the 
    Record.

Sec. 2.9 Where there was pending an amendment to a title of a bill 
    being considered under a special rule permitting only germane 
    amendments printed in the Record for at least two calendar days to 
    be offered to that title, and prohibiting amendments thereto, a 
    modification of an amendment printed in the Record was permitted in 
    Committee of the Whole by unanimous consent.

    On Mar. 26, 1974,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill,(5) a modification to an 
amendment was permitted, as described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 120 Cong. Rec. 8253, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. H.R. 69, to amend and extend the Elementary and Secondary Education 
        Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Patsy T.] Mink [of Hawaii]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee substitute.
        The Chairman: (6) Is the amendment printed in the 
    Record?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. Mink: It is, Mr. Chairman.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Mink to the committee substitute: 
        The first sentence of Section 103(a)(1), beginning on line 13 
        on page 28, is amended to read as follows: ``Sec. 103. (a)(1) 
        There is authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year for 
        the purpose of this paragraph 1 per centum of the amount 
        appropriated for such year for payments to States under section 
        134(a). . . .

        Mr. [Lloyd] Meeds [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that at the end of the amendment . . . the 
    following words be added: ``and to the Secretary of the Interior 
    for payments pursuant to (d)(1) and (d)(2).'' . . .
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Washington?
        There was no objection.

--Closed Rule Prohibiting Amendments Except by Direction of Committee

Sec. 2.10 Pro forma amendments are not in order when a bill is being 
    considered under a ``closed'' rule which permits no amendments 
    except by direction of the committee reporting the 
    bill.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 3.34, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Recognition Under Rule Permitting Pro Forma Amendments

Sec. 2.11 Where the Committee of the Whole resumed consideration of a 
    bill under a special rule prohibiting amendments

[[Page 6582]]

    to a pending amendment except pro forma amendments for debate, the 
    Chair announced that he would first recognize Members who had not 
    offered pro forma amendments on the preceding day, priority of 
    recognition being given to members of the reporting committee.

    On Aug. 3, 1977,(8) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 8444, the National Energy Act, the Chair made 
a statement pertaining to the recognition of Members to offer pro forma 
amendments, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 123 Cong. Rec. 26444, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) The Chair would like to make a 
    statement for the information of the Members of the Committee of 
    the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has before it a list of those who spoke on this 
    amendment yesterday. The Chair will recognize those who have not 
    spoken on this amendment first and, of course, preference will be 
    given to the members of the ad hoc committee and any Member, of 
    course, under the rule has the right to offer pro forma amendments. 
    The Chair will adhere to that direction.
        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) did not speak on this 
    amendment yesterday, so as a member of the ad hoc committee, for 
    what purpose does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) rise?
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
    word.

--Rule Permitting Only Committee Amendments

Sec. 2.12 Pro forma amendments are not in order during consideration of 
    a title of a bill being read pursuant to a special rule prohibiting 
    all amendments except committee amendments to that title.

    On Oct. 13, 1977,(10) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 8309,(11) the Chair, citing from 
the rule providing for consideration of the bill and amendments 
thereto,(12) directed the Clerk to read by titles the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 123 Cong. Rec. 33627, 33637, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. The Navigation Development Act.
12. H. Res. 776, adopted Oct. 6, 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (13) . . . Pursuant to the rule, no 
    amendment to title II of said substitute, and no amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute changing title II of said substitute shall 
    be in order, except amendments offered by direction of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means, and said amendments shall not be 
    subject to amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will now read by titles the committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute. . . .

[[Page 6583]]

        Are there any committee amendments to title II?
        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike the last word.
        The Chairman: Without objection, the gentleman is recognized. 
    The Chair would, however, state that under the rule even pro forma 
    amendments are not allowed to title II.

--Preferential Motion Not Barred by Prohibition Against Pro Forma 
    Amendments

Sec. 2.13 A special order governing consideration of a bill in 
    Committee of the Whole which prohibits the Chair from entertaining 
    pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate does not preclude 
    the offering of a preferential motion that the Committee rise and 
    report the bill to the House with the recommendation that the 
    enacting clause be stricken, since that motion is not a pro forma 
    amendment and must be voted on (or withdrawn by unanimous consent).

    An illustration of the proposition described above occurred on May 
4, 1983,(14) during consideration of House Joint Resolution 
13 (relating to a nuclear weapons freeze). The proceedings in the 
Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 129 Cong. Rec. 11072, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Levitas moves that the Committee rise and report the 
        resolution back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        resolving clause be stricken.

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Downey of New York: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore (Leon E. Panetta, of California): The 
    gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Downey of New York: Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the 
    rule is that there is a provision in the rule that prohibits 
    motions of this sort for the purpose of debate time. Is that 
    correct?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman 
    it only prohibits pro forma amendments, not preferential motions 
    such as the gentleman has offered.

--Effect of Rule on Scope of Debate

Sec. 2.14 While normally under the five-minute rule debate on a pro 
    forma amendment may relate either to a pending amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute or to a perfecting amendment thereto (as not 
    necessarily in the

[[Page 6584]]

    third degree), where a special rule permitted the offering of both 
    perfecting amendments in the second degree and of pro forma 
    amendments to the substitute when perfecting amendments were not 
    pending, the Chair permitted pro forma amendments during pendency 
    of perfecting amendments but, in response to a point of order, 
    required that debate be related solely to the perfecting amendment.

    On May 26, 1982 (15) during consideration of House 
Concurrent Resolution 345 (16) in the Committee of the 
Whole, the situation described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 128 Cong. Rec. 12088, 12090, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. First concurrent resolution on the budget, fiscal 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike 
    the requisite number of words not because I intend to speak to the 
    amendment of the gentleman from Michigan, but instead to take this 
    time in concert with colleagues who care very much about what the 
    Latta amendment does to housing. Not for housing, but to housing. . 
    . .
        Mr. [James H.] Quillen [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    understood we were debating the Conyers amendment, and I did not 
    hear permission to speak out of order.
        Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Chairman, my remarks go to the Latta 
    substitute, and I believe that is pending before the committee.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair will have to state that 
    the matter that is pending is the Conyers amendment, and that 
    debate should be germane to the Conyers amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chairman insisted that debate proceed 
in an ``orderly fashion'', that once a perfecting amendment was 
offered, debate under the five-minute rule be confined thereto, and not 
to one of the three underlying substitutes pending simultaneously. 
Separate debate on those substitutes was to be permitted only between 
consideration of numbered perfecting amendments.

Sec. 2.15 Where a special order permits both the offering of specified 
    perfecting amendments in a certain order and pro forma amendments, 
    the Chair has discretion to recognize Members to offer pro forma 
    amendments to debate the underlying text between consideration of 
    perfecting amendments.

    On May 26, 1982,(18) The Committee of the Whole having 
under

[[Page 6585]]

consideration House Concurrent Resolution 345,(19) the Chair 
responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding the circumstances 
described above. The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 128 Cong. Rec. 12141, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. First concurrent resolution on the budget, fiscal 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: At the appropriate time 
    after we have completed this amendment, I will seek to strike the 
    last word to make other comments that may be of interest to 
    Members.
        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Madigan: Is the procedure that has just been suggested by 
    the gentleman from California one that would be in order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will entertain pro forma amendments 
    between amendments.
        Mr. Madigan: Further pursuing my parliamentary inquiry, 
    Mr.Chairman, how would the gentleman from California be able to be 
    recognized to speak in behalf of something that he says he is not 
    going to offer?
        The Chairman: Between amendments, no amendment is pending. That 
    is why a pro forma amendment presumably to one of the substitutes 
    will be allowed. It provides an opportunity for discussion between 
    amendments.

--Rule Permitting Only Designated Amendments

Sec. 2.16 Where a bill was being considered for amendment pursuant to a 
    special ``modified closed'' rule permitting only designated 
    amendments to be offered and precluding amendments thereto, with 
    debate on each amendment limited and controlled, the Chair 
    indicated that pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate were 
    not in order.

    On May 21, 1986,(1) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 4800,(2) the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry in the circumstances described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 132 Cong. Rec. 11484, 11566, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. The Omnibus Trade Act of 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (3) When the Committee of the Whole 
    rose on Tuesday, May 20, 1986, all time for general debate had 
    expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been 
    read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. The amendments printed 
    in section 2 of House Resolution 456, agreed to by the House on May 
    15, 1986, are considered as having been adopted.
        No other amendments to the bill are in order except the 
    following amendments printed in the Congressional Record of May 15, 
    1986, except amendment numbered (12) shall be the text of H.R. 4830 
    in lieu of being printed in the Record. . . .
        Mr. [Don] Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.

[[Page 6586]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr Chairman, can I move to strike the last 
    word and get 5 minutes?
        The Chairman: The time is controlled by the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Roth). The gentleman has to seek time from the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin or the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
    Bonker).

After Expiration of Debate

Sec. 2.17 Where a limitation on debate under the five-minute rule on an 
    amendment and all amendments thereto has expired, no further debate 
    is in order and a Member may not gain time for debate by offering a 
    pro forma amendment ``to strike the last word.''

    On Aug. 2, 1978,(4) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 12514,(5) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 124 Cong. Rec. 23947, 23954, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. The International Security Assistance Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on the pending amendment and all amendments thereto 
    end at 4 o'clock.
        The Chairman: (6) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Members standing at the time the motion was made 
    will be recognized for 1 minute and 20 seconds each. . . .
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Lagomarsino) rise?
        Mr. [Robert J.] Lagomarsino: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
    last word.
        The Chairman: The Chair will inform the gentleman that no 
    further debate is in order at this time.

Sec. 2.18 A motion to strike the last word is not in order after all 
    time for debate on a bill has expired.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 14.18, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 2.19 When the time for debate on a bill is closed by unanimous 
    consent prior to the conclusion of the reading thereof, and debate 
    time has expired, the remainder of the bill is read but pro forma 
    amendments are not then in order.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 14.17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pro Forma Amendment Offered by Proponent of Pending Amendment

Sec. 2.20 Under the five-minute rule the proponent of a pending 
    amendment may offer a pro forma amendment thereto (for additional 
    debate

[[Page 6587]]

    time) only by unanimous consent.

    On Apr. 13, 1983,(9) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Joint Resolution 13,(10) the 
above-stated proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 129 Cong. Rec. 8382, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. Nuclear weapons freeze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words.
        The Chairman: (11) Without objection, the gentleman 
    from Georgia (Mr. Levitas) is recognized for 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Georgia 
    (Mr. Levitas) have an amendment pending?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York is correct. The 
    gentleman from Georgia has an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute to the text pending.
        Mr. Stratton: Well, is it proper to strike the last word on 
    one's own amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman asked for recognition, and without 
    objection, he was recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Stratton: I just wanted to make sure the amendment was 
    still pending.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Sec. 2.21 A Member who has been recognized for five minutes in support 
    of his amendment in Committee of the Whole may offer a pro forma 
    amendment to his amendment to gain an additional five minutes only 
    by unanimous consent.

    The proposition stated above was the basis for the following 
proceedings which occurred on Mar. 18, 1986,(12) during 
consideration of H.R. 4151 (13) in the Committee of the 
Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 132 Cong. Rec. 5257, 5260, 5261, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. The Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Walker:
            (1) in the section heading, strike out ``effective date of 
        entitlements'' and insert in lieu thereof ``special budget act 
        rules for entitlements''; and
            (2) strike out the period at the end of the section and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following: ``, and shall be 
        effective for any fiscal year only to the extent or in the 
        amounts provided in appropriation Acts.''.

    After Mr. Walker's initial remarks in support of the amend

[[Page 6588]]

ment, the following proceedings took place:

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
    of words.
        The Chairman: (14) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Gerald D. Kleczka (Wisc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel A.] Mica [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, the normal 
    procedure is each individual is allowed to speak for one time, is 
    it not?
        The Chairman: By unanimous consent, the gentleman can be 
    recognized for another period of time.
        Mr. Mica: Mr. Chairman, I will not object at this time.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania?
        There was no objection

    Parliamentarian's Note: Occasionally, the proponent of an amendment 
has sought recognition as a matter of right ``in opposition to a pro 
forma amendment'' offered by another Member in order to gain an 
additional five minutes, on the assumption that in such case he is not 
amending his own amendment but is complying with the five-minute rule 
by speaking in opposition to another Member's amendment.

Debate After Adoption of Substitute

Sec. 2.22 Under the five-minute rule, no debate may intervene after a 
    substitute for an amendment has been adopted and before the vote on 
    the amendment, as amended, except by unanimous consent, since the 
    amendment has been amended in its entirety and no further 
    amendments including pro forma amendments are in order.

    On Oct. 18, 1983,(15) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 3231,(16) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 129 Cong. Rec. 28185, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. Export Administration Act Amendments of 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (17) The question is on 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
    Bonker), as amended, as a substitute for the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Roth), as amended. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Toby] Roth [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    240, noes 173, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 19, as follows. . 
    . .
        So the amendment, as amended, offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. [Edwin V.W.] Zschau [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike the last word.

[[Page 6589]]

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Without objection, the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Zschau) is recognized for 5 minutes.
        There was no objection.



 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
                              A. GENERALLY
 
Sec. 3. Effect of Special Rule; Amending Special Rule

    Bills are frequently considered pursuant to the terms of a special 
rule or resolution reported from the Committee on Rules which specifies 
whether amendments may be offered to the bill, the kind and number of 
amendments that may be offered, and the order of consideration and 
voting thereon. Broadly speaking, bills considered pursuant to an 
``open'' rule may be amended whereas bills considered pursuant to a 
``closed'' rule may not. In addition, special resolutions providing 
rules that are ``open in part'' or ``closed in part'' or providing a 
``modified closed or open rule'' are not uncommon.(18) The 
effect of a special rule is, of course, limited by the terms of the 
rule itself. A special rule may waive points of order against a bill or 
amendments thereto. Where the House waives all points of order against 
the bill, such waiver does not apply to amendments offered from the 
floor.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Compare 117 Cong. Rec. 15599, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., May 18, 1971 [H. 
        Res. 437, providing for consideration of H.R. 3613 pursuant to 
        an ``open'' rule]; 112 Cong. Rec. 13990, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        June 23, 1966, where the Committee on Rules reported a 
        ``closed'' rule, although the legislative committee requesting 
        the resolution had asked for an ``open'' rule; 116 Cong. Rec. 
        23901, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 13, 1970 [H. Res. 1093, 
        providing for a rule ``closed in part'']; 117 Cong. Rec. 18614, 
        92d Cong. 1st Sess., June 8, 1971 [H. Res. 466, providing for a 
        rule ``open in part'' and ``closed in part'']; 117 Cong. Rec. 
        21082, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., June 21, 1971 [H. Res. 487, 
        providing for consideration of H.R. 1, Social Security 
        Amendments of 1971, under a ``modified closed rule''].
19. 97 Cong. Rec. 11682, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 19, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For example, where the House by resolution waives all points of 
    order against any provisions in an appropriation bill, such action 
    does not waive points of order against amendments offered from the 
    floor. (However, where provisions of a bill, otherwise subject to a 
    point of order are permitted to remain in the bill, because the 
    rule protects them, ``perfecting amendments'' to those provisions 
    may be immune from a point of order.) (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See, for example, Ch. 26 Sec. 3.21, supra. (And see Ch. 26 Sec. 3, 
        generally, for discussion of waiver of points of order against 
        provisions of appropriation bills, and amendments that may be 
        offered to such provisions.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, where the House has adopted the resolution waiving

[[Page 6590]]

points of order against committee amendments, no authorization is given 
thereby to Members to offer amendments which are not 
germane.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 94 Cong. Rec. 8685, 8686, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1948.
            See also 94 Cong. Rec. 8670, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 
        1948.
            For specific application of these principles, see 
        particular topics, such as the discussion of the 
        ``germaneness'' rule in Ch. 28, infra; see also the discussion 
        of ``special rules'' in Ch. 21, supra, especially for 
        illustrative uses of the special rule. Ch. 13, which in part 
        discusses procedures under the Budget Act, contains discussion 
        of special rules in relation to the budget process, such as 
        special rules that waive points of order arising under the 
        Budget Act. And see Ch. 29, Consideration and Debate, for 
        further discussion of special rules, especially as they affect 
        control and distribution of debate time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House, of course, ultimately decides the conditions under which 
a bill will be considered. Special rules reported by the Committee on 
Rules are subject to germane amendment while the rule is pending if the 
Member in control yields for such amendment or offers the amendment 
himself, or if the previous question is voted down.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 3.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To a special rule providing for the consideration of one measure, 
an amendment providing for the consideration of, and waiving points of 
order against, an unrelated and nongermane measure is itself not 
germane, and may not be offered on the floor of the House even after 
defeat of the previous question on the rule. For further discussion of 
amending special rules, see Ch. 21 Sec. 18, e.g. Sec. Sec. 18.31, 
18.32, supra; see also Ch. 28, discussing germaneness of amendments 
generally, infra.
    A rule may provide that a committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be considered as an original bill for amendment. In 
such a case, the committee amendment is read by sections for amendment. 
A substitute for the committee amendment may be offered at the end of 
the first section or at the end of the committee 
amendment.(2) At the conclusion of the reading for amendment 
the question is on agreeing to the committee amendment in the nature of 
a substitute or such substitute as amended; if the committee substitute 
is voted down, the original bill is then read for 
amendment.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. Sec. 12.29, infra.
 3. See Sec. Sec. 12.30, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The terms of a special rule agreed to by the House may not be 
substantively altered in the Committee of the Whole, even by

[[Page 6591]]

unanimous consent, although the House may by unanimous consent delegate 
to the Committee of the Whole authority to entertain unanimous consent 
requests to change procedures contained in a special rule. And a proper 
amendment, once having been initially offered in conformity with a 
special rule, may be modified in the Committee of the Whole by 
unanimous consent.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. These and related issues are discussed in Sec. Sec. 3.22-3.33, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments to Rule

Sec. 3.1 Special rules reported by the Committee on Rules are subject 
    to amendment while the rule is pending if the Member in control 
    yields for such amendment or if he offers the amendment himself, or 
    if the previous question is voted down.

    On Nov. 24, 1942,(5) he following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 88 Cong. Rec. 9100, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin of Mississippi: Is the rule amendable 
    before the previous question is voted down? . . .
        The Speaker: (6) The Chair, of course, will 
    entertain a motion to amend any special rule at any time while the 
    rule is pending if the gentleman in control yields for it or if he 
    offers it himself or if the previous question should be voted down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.2 A Member to whom time is yielded only for debate in the House 
    on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, and who seeks 
    unanimous consent to offer an amendment, is not entitled to have 
    the amendment read by the Clerk where another Member objects to the 
    offering of the amendment.

    On May 14, 1985,(7) the minority Member controlling 
debate time on a special order reported from the Committee on Rules 
sought unanimous consent to offer a nongermane amendment to require all 
Budget Act waivers recommended by that committee to be explained in the 
accompanying reports for the remainder of the 99th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 131 Cong. Rec. 11713, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Moakley [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 
    157, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 157

            Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
        resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1

[[Page 6592]]

        (b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
        Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
        consideration of the bill (H.R. 1157) to authorize 
        appropriations for fiscal year 1986 for certain maritime 
        programs of the Department of Transportation and the Federal 
        Maritime Commission, and the first reading of the bill shall be 
        dispensed with. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Moakley: Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
    30 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Lott). . . .
        Mr. [Trent] Lott: Mr. Speaker, I send an amendment to the desk 
    and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Moakley) did not yield for that purpose.
        Mr. Moakley: That is right, Mr. Speaker. . . .

        I object to the unanimous-consent request. . . .
        Mr. Lott: Mr. Speaker, are we not going to have the amendment 
    read?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Massachusetts 
    objected.

Amendments to Closed Rule

Sec. 3.3 An amendment to a resolution providing a ``closed'' rule may 
    be offered in the House if the previous question is voted down on 
    the resolution.

    On Dec. 31, 1970,(9) an inquiry was addressed to the 
Chair concerning amendments to a resolution providing a closed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 116 Cong. Rec. 44292, 44293, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H. Res. 1337 (Committee on Rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: This is a closed rule that 
    will not permit any amendments to be offered to the resolution 
    itself?
        The Speaker: (10) The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman from Illinois that that is a matter for the House to 
    determine. In its present form, the gentleman's statement is 
    correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Yates: If the previous question on this rule is voted down, 
    will the resolution be open for amendment?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state in answer to the gentleman's 
    question, that it would be.

Sec. 3.4 If the House adopts an amendment to a pending ``closed'' rule 
    permitting motions to ``strike out any matter in the bill,'' 
    motions to strike out any portion of the bill would be in order as 
    the bill is read for amendment.

    On Nov. 18, 1970,(11) the Speaker pro tempore responded 
to a parliamentary inquiry concerning

[[Page 6593]]

the effect of an amendment as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 37823, 37838, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H. Res. 1225 (Committee on Rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) Under the terms of the 
    amendment, any motion to strike out any language, word or otherwise 
    in any part would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Including an entire section?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Including an entire section, or title.

Sec. 3.5 The House rejected the previous question on a ``modified 
    closed'' rule recommended by the Committee on Rules permitting 
    designated minority amendments to an omnibus reconciliation bill, 
    and specifying two allowable motions to recommit, and then adopted 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute providing a ``modified 
    closed rule'' different from the reported rule in the following 
    respects: placing all control of general debate in the chairman and 
    ranking minority member of the Budget Committee, and permitting 
    only two amendments in Committee of the Whole to the Budget 
    Committee's original text if offered by designated minority 
    Members; and allowing, without specifying the content of, one 
    motion to recommit with or without instructions.

    On June 25, 1981,(13) the House having under 
consideration House Resolution 169,(14) the proceedings 
described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 127 Cong. Rec. 14065, 14078, 14079, 14083, 14084, 97th Cong. 1st 
        Sess.
14. Providing for consideration of H.R. 3982, Omnibus Budget 
        Reconciliation Act of 1981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 169 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 169

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move, any rule of the House to the 
        contrary notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
        the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3982) to provide for 
        reconciliation pursuant to section 301 of the first concurrent 
        resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 1982, and the 
        first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General 
        debate shall continue not to exceed eight hours, with the 
        chairman and ranking minority member of each of the following 
        committees to equally divide and control the time indicated: 
        the Committee on the Budget, thirty minutes; the Committee on 
        Agriculture, thirty minutes; the Committee on Armed Services, 
        thirty minutes . . . and the Committee on Ways and Means, 
        thirty minutes: Provided, That the

[[Page 6594]]

        chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
        Budget may reserve a portion of their time to close general 
        debate. It shall be in order to consider an amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the bill H.R. 
        3964, as modified by the amendment printed in the Congressional 
        Record of June 23, 1981, by Representative Jones as an original 
        bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule, 
        said substitute shall be considered as having been read for 
        amendment, and said substitute shall be in order any rule of 
        the House to the contrary notwithstanding. No amendment to the 
        substitute or to the bill shall be in order in the House or in 
        the Committee of the Whole except the following amendments. . . 
        .
            The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
        bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
        intervening motion except two motions to recommit. One such 
        motion may not contain any instructions, but notwithstanding 
        any other provision of this resolution, it shall be in order to 
        offer a second motion to recommit with instruction containing 
        only the following amendments contained in the committee print: 
        the motion to strike out and insert the provisions on page 54, 
        line 13 through page 66, line 29 (social service block grants) 
        and the provisions on page 74, line 9 through page 95, line 3 
        (consolidation of education programs). . . .

        The Speaker: (15) The question is on ordering the 
    previous question. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    210, nays 217, not voting 4, as follows. . . .
        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Latta: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
            ``That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
        order to move, any rule of the House to the contrary 
        notwithstanding that the House resolve itself into the 
        Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
        consideration of the bill (H.R. 3982), to provide for 
        reconciliation pursuant to section 301 of the first concurrent 
        resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1982. . . . No 
        amendment to the bill shall be in order in the Committee of the 
        Whole except an amendment in the nature of a substitute which 
        shall be the text of the bill H.R. 3964, said amendment shall 
        be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, 
        and shall be considered as having been read, all points of 
        order are hereby waived against said amendment, and no 
        amendment shall be in order to said amendment except--
            ``(1) A substitute amendment to title VI by Representative 
        Broyhill, if offered, and said amendment shall be considered as 
        having been read and shall not be subject to amendment or to a 
        division of the question in the House or in the Committee of 
        the Whole, but shall be debatable for not to exceed 2 hours to 
        be equally divided and controlled by Representative Broyhill 
        and a Member opposed thereto and all points of order against 
        said amendment are hereby waived and (2) the amendments of 
        Representative Latta of Ohio, said amendments shall be 
        considered en bloc and shall be considered as having been read 
        and shall not be subject to amendment or to a division of the 
        question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole, but 
        shall be debatable for not to exceed 4 hours, to be equally 
        divided and controlled

[[Page 6595]]

        by Representative Latta and a Member opposed thereto, and all 
        points of order against said amendments are hereby waived. . . 
        .
            [T]he previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
        the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
        intervening motion except one motion to recommit, with or 
        without instructions. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The question is on the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
    from Ohio (Mr. Latta). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    216, nays 212, not voting 4, as follows. . . .
        So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to. . 
    . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the resolution, as 
    amended. . . .
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    214, nays 208, not voting 9, as follows.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Committee on Rules may, consistent with 
Rule XI clause 4(b), report a special order which limits the motion to 
recommit to a straight motion, or to a designated motion with 
instructions, based upon the ruling of Speaker Rainey on January 11, 
1934. (See ``House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(b), 100th Cong. (1987).)

Amendments to Bill on Adoption of Special Rule

Sec. 3.6 Amendments to a bill are not in order in the House during the 
    hiatus following agreement to a resolution making the bill a 
    special order of business in Committee of the Whole, but are 
    properly proposed following the expiration of the time for general 
    debate in Committee of the Whole.

    On Dec. 3, 1963,(17) an inquiry was made in the House, 
in the circumstances described above, concerning the proper time for 
offering amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 109 Cong. Rec. 23038, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
            The bill referred to was H.R. 6196 (Committee on 
        Agriculture), to encourage increased consumption of cotton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert J.] Dole [of Kansas]: Based on the decision of the 
    Chair, is it proper now or in order to offer amendments to section 
    330 and section 105?
        The Speaker: (18) Not at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dole: But the amendment would be proper at the proper time?
        The Speaker: At the proper time in the Committee of the Whole, 
    if the gentleman desires to offer an amendment he may do so.

Open Rule

Sec. 3.7 Where a bill is being considered in the Committee of the Whole 
    under an ``open'' rule, germane amendments

[[Page 6596]]

    to the bill are in order under the standing rules of the House.

    On July 26, 1965, (19) in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry as to amendments permissible under the open rule and amendment 
thereto before the House, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 111 Cong. Rec. 18076, 18077, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will state that the resolution is in accordance with 
    the standing rules of the House, and any amendment that is germane 
    under the standing rules of the House would be in order. The 
    standing rules of the House would determine the germaneness of any 
    amendment that might be offered.

Modified Closed Rule

Sec. 3.8 A ``modified closed rule'' sometimes permits only committee 
    amendments or designated amendments.

    On Dec. 11, 1973, (20) the Chairman (1) of 
the Committee of the Whole made the following statement with respect to 
the rule (2) pursuant to which the Trade Reform Act of 1973 
(3) as being considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 40794, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
 2. H. Res. 657.
 3. H.R. 10710 (Committee on Ways and Means).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        All time has expired. Under the rule the bill is considered as 
    having been read for amendment. No amendments are in order except 
    amendments offered by the direction of the Committee on Ways and 
    Means, an amendment offered to section 402 of the bill containing 
    the text printed on pages H9106 and H9107 of the Congressional 
    Record of October 16, 1973, an amendment proposing to strike out 
    title IV of said bill, and an amendment proposing to strike out 
    title V of said bill but said amendments shall not be subject to 
    amendment.

Modified Closed Rule--Effect on Motions To Strike

Sec. 3.9 To a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute being 
    read by titles for amendment under a special rule prohibiting 
    amendments to amendments offered to title I (thereby permitting 
    only 10 minutes of debate on each permissible amendment to title 
    I), an amendment inserting a new title II may be amended (including 
    pro forma amendments thereto) and is not subject to the 
    restrictions imposed by that rule.

    On Mar. 26, 1974,(4) during consideration of H.R 69 (to 
amend and extend the Elementary and

[[Page 6597]]

Secondary Education Act), a parliamentary inquiry was raised as to the 
effect of the special rule as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 120 Cong. Rec. 8264, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        . . . Will the rules that applied to title I apply to this 
    amendment as well, that there can be only one speaker on each side? 
    Or will we go back to the regular rules of the House, where pro 
    forma amendments can be offered to amendments so that the Members 
    can have 5 minutes each, for as long as they wish to do so?
        The Chairman (Mr. [Melvin] Price of Illinois): The restrictions 
    of the rule adopted by the House on March 12 would not apply to 
    this amendment.

Rule Restricting Amendments at End of Bill

Sec. 3.10 Where a special order prohibited the offering of amendments 
    to an amendment (being considered as an original bill) following 
    consideration of the final title for amendment, the Chair indicated 
    that amendments in the form of new titles could be offered prior to 
    consideration of the final title and that adoption of one such 
    amendment would not preclude the offering of another immediately 
    thereafter.

    During consideration of H.R. 5640 (5) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Aug. 10, 1984,(6) a question arose as to the 
proper time to offer amendments, in the light of a special rule (H. 
Res. 570, agreed to on Aug. 9, 1984) which provided in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Superfund Expansion and Protection Act of 1984.
 6. 130 Cong. Rec. 24022, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committees on 
    Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means now printed in the bill, it 
    shall be in order to consider, as an original bill for the purpose 
    of amendment under the five-minute rule, an amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute contained in the Committee Print, Committee on 
    Energy and Commerce, August 6, 1984, consisting of titles I through 
    IV of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
    the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill and 
    title V recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed 
    in the bill, said substitute shall be considered for amendment by 
    titles instead of by sections. . . . Until title V of said 
    substitute is considered for amendment, no amendment which changes, 
    affects or deletes title V shall be in order. No amendment to title 
    V of said substitute shall be in order except an amendment printed 
    in the Congressional Record of August 8, 1984 by, and if offered 
    by, Representative Conable of New York, and said amendment shall 
    not be subject to amendment. . . . At the conclu

[[Page 6598]]

    sion of the consideration of title V for amendment, no further 
    amendment shall be in order to the substitute, and the Committee 
    shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
    may have been adopted, and any Member may demand a separate vote in 
    the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to 
    the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
    order as original text by this resolution.

    The proceedings on Aug. 10 were as follows:

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment [adding a new title following title IV of the bill]. . . 
    .
        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I would just 
    question from the timing standpoint. I have an amendment that is 
    printed in the Record and I am wondering and want to make sure that 
    the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia, being offered at this 
    time, does not prevent mine from being offered following his.
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux) that he is unable to rule 
    until he sees the two amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Joseph G. Minish (N.J.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Breaux: Mr. Chairman, if an amendment is to be offered 
    which would create a new title following completion of title IV, 
    would it be in order to offer that amendment following the 
    amendment of the gentleman from Georgia?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that that is 
    correct.

Modified Closed Rule Permitting Only Pre-Printed Amendments

Sec. 3.11 While an amendment must ordinarily be in the precise form 
    permitted under a special ``modified closed rule'' under which only 
    specified amendments printed in the Record may be offered, where 
    that amendment has been inserted in the Record without a page 
    reference but with language indicating its point of insertion, the 
    amendment will be in substantial compliance with the special rule 
    when offered in identical form but also including a page 
    designation.

    On Apr. 1, 1976,(8) the Chair, in overruling a point of 
order, stated that, where a special rule made in order the text of a 
bill as an amendment and also permitted the precise text of an 
amendment (printed in the Record with a page designation left blank) to 
be offered as an amendment thereto, the amendment to the amendment, 
when offered, containing a page reference to the original

[[Page 6599]]

amendment which had been left blank in the Record version, was in order 
since the page insertion did not change the point at which the language 
was intended to be inserted in the original amendment. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 122 Cong. Rec. 9090, 9091, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 12406, Federal Election Campaign Amendments of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Timothy] Wirth [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wirth to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Phillip Burton: Page 14, immediately after section 9057(c) 
        of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as added by the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Phillip Burton, insert the following:
            ``(d) Limitation.--The Commission shall, not later than 
        April 1 of each election year, determine whether the amount of 
        moneys in the Congressional Election Payment Account will be 
        sufficient to make all payments to which candidates will be 
        entitled under this chapter during such election year. . . .

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I have heard the Clerk read the amendment, and that was 
    not the amendment that was printed in the Record of March 29, 1976. 
    . . .
        Mr. Chairman, rule XXIII, clause 6, says, in part:

            Material placed in the Record pursuant to this provision 
        shall indicate the full text of the proposed amendment, the 
        name of the proponent Member, the number of the bill to which 
        it will be offered and the point in the bill or amendment 
        thereto where the amendment is intended to be offered, and 
        shall appear in a portion of the Record designated for that 
        purpose.

        Mr. Chairman, on page 8493, of the March 29 Record, to which 
    the rule specifically makes mention, this particular Wirth 
    amendment appears as the beginning line with the page blank 
    Immediately after subsection 9057(c) there is no page 14 
    designated, and the Clerk just read page 14.
        Mr. Chairman, it is not the same amendment.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair has examined the 
    situation. To the best of his knowledge, there are no precedents. 
    Under the circumstances, it would have been difficult if not 
    impossible for the gentleman to have had the page number when he 
    printed his amendment in the Record, and the Chair believes that 
    the omission of the page number alone does not keep the amendment 
    from being in substantial compliance with the rule. In all other 
    respects, the amendment printed in the Record does indicate the 
    point at which the amendment is to be inserted into the amendment 
    of the gentleman from California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 3.12 Where a special order providing for the consideration of a 
    bill permits the offering only of designated amendments which have 
    been printed in the Congressional Record, an amendment offered 
    under the rule should be in the exact form

[[Page 6600]]

    in which it was printed in the Record, but the Committee of the 
    Whole may by unanimous consent permit modification of the amendment 
    to correct erroneous page and line numbers.

    On Aug. 3, 1977, (10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8444, the National Energy Act, under a special order 
which permitted the offering only of certain amendments. The 
proceedings described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 123 Cong. Rec. 26450, 26451, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
            Compare the proceedings of Apr. 1, 1976, at 122 Cong. Rec. 
        9091, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., where the Chairman stated that it 
        was permissible to insert a page reference in an amendment 
        printed in the Record, where the printed amendment did not 
        contain one, the amendment being considered in substantial 
        compliance with the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I further 
    direct a question to the gentleman from Ohio; this is the amendment 
    published in the Record on July 27, 1977; am I correct?
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: But for the page and line 
    numbers; that is correct.
        Mr. Dingell: That is the reason for my inquiry, because I 
    observe that the page and line numbers cited therein were 
    incorrect. The reason I am inquiring is to make sure it is the 
    correct amendment.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, at the 
    time it was published in the Record we were using page and line 
    numbers of the bill then available to us. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, if I heard the Clerk correctly, I think the Clerk 
    read the proper page and line numbers. The amendment at the desk 
    relates to the page and line numbers as they would be related in 
    the bill. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I make the observation that the rule 
    does provide that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) shall have 
    the authority to offer the amendment now referred to according to 
    the terms and the conditions of the rule. The rule says as follows:

            (3) An amendment printed in the Congressional Record of 
        July 27, 1977, beginning on page 25321, by Representative Brown 
        of Ohio, to part IV, title I, which amendment shall be in order 
        only after disposition of the amendments to that part 
        recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee on Energy printed in or 
        adopted to the bill;

        Mr. Chairman, I observe that the amendment printed in the 
    Record is to one portion of the bill, but I observe that the 
    amendment offered is offered to a different portion of the 
    legislation before us.
        Mr. Chairman, I am curious to know whether or not the amendment 
    is offered in conformity with the rule.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio . . . The question of the slight differences 
    in page numbers and so forth which were necessitated because of the 
    fact that the printed bill in its final form was not available for 
    the gentleman from Ohio to make reference to when he printed

[[Page 6601]]

    his amendment in the Record. Because of that circumstance we 
    cleared with the Parliamentarian, or so we thought, the 
    appropriateness of the amendment which was submitted to the desk in 
    accordance with the rule. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair finds that there is a 
    difference in the page and line numbers that are now before the 
    committee, and if the gentleman from Michigan insists upon his 
    request, the gentleman from Ohio will have to ask unanimous consent 
    that his amendment be modified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Edward P. Boland (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Does the gentleman from Michigan insist upon his request?
        Mr. Dingell: I think, Mr. Chairman, we would be better served 
    were that done. It will not prejudice my friend from Ohio.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to modification of the 
    amendment?
        Mr. [Clifford R.] Allen [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I make the same unanimous-consent 
    request.
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman that 
    the amendment will be in order regardless of the page and line 
    numbers since an amendment to part IV of title I is permitted in 
    the rule.
        Mr. Dingell: Perhaps I can obviate some of the problems. . .  . 
    I am sure my good friend from Ohio . . . would assure us that the 
    two amendments are substantively identical.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: They are.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.

Sec. 3.13 A special order prohibiting amendments to a bill except those 
    printed in the Congressional Record does not apply to amendments 
    which are offered to amendments, unless so specified.

    A point of order against an amendment to an amendment, on the 
grounds that it was not in order under the special rule providing for 
consideration of the bill, was overruled. The proceedings in the 
Committee of the Whole on Sept. 7, 1978, (12) were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 28419, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7308, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        Mr. [Morgan F.] Murphy of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (13) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Murphy of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not 
    germane in that it is not timely printed in the Record. The 
    gentleman came up to us just a few minutes ago and said the 
    gentleman had printed it in the Record yesterday; but the rule 
    issued July 12 requires it be reported 3 legislative days prior to 
    consideration.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will rule that the rule 
    applies to amendments to the bill and not to amendments to 
    amendments. In this case we have an amendment to a substitute 
    amendment, so the rule does not apply.

[[Page 6602]]

        The Clerk will report the amendment.

Sec. 3.14 Where a special order adopted by the House only requires that 
    all amendments offered to a bill in Committee of the Whole be 
    printed in the Record, any Member may offer any germane amendment 
    printed in the Record, and there is no requirement that only the 
    Member causing the amendment to be printed may offer it, unless the 
    special order so specifies.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on Oct. 31, 
1979,(14) during consideration of H.R. 4985, the Priority 
Energy Projects Act of 1979. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 125 Cong. Rec. 30441, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Nick J.] Rahall [II, of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have an amendment that was printed in the Record.
        I also have an amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Dingell) that was printed in the Record and through negotiations 
    between the two of us, I am offering the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) at this point. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, do I 
    understand that under this rule that governs the consideration of 
    this bill that any Member can offer any amendment that was printed 
    in the Record, no matter who the author of the amendment was?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (15) The gentleman is 
    correct. That is the correct interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Norman D. Dicks (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Who may offer a printed amendment under 
such a rule must be distinguished from who may offer a printed 
amendment under Rule XXIII clause 6 to be entitled to debate in 
Committee of the Whole; that rule specifically speaks to the Member who 
caused the amendment to be printed.

Sec. 3.15 A resolution reported from the Committee on Rules which 
    prohibits amendments to a bill except amendments printed in the 
    Congressional Record at least two legislative days before their 
    consideration requires that those amendments be submitted for 
    printing in the Congressional Record bearing a date at least two 
    days before they are offered under the 5-minute rule.

    On June 11, 1981,(16) during consideration of House 
Resolution 148 (17) in the House, the pro

[[Page 6603]]

ceedings described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 127 Cong. Rec. 12176, 12213, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3480, to amend the Legal 
        Services Corporation Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Frost [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 148 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 148

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to 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 (H.R. 3480) to amend the Legal 
        Services Corporation Act to provide authorization of 
        appropriations for additional fiscal years, and for other 
        purposes, and the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
        with. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill 
        and shall continue not to exceed one hour, to be equally 
        divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
        member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the bill shall be 
        read for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
        order to consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
        recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
        the bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under 
        the five-minute rule. No amendment to the bill or to said 
        substitute shall be in order except germane amendments printed 
        in the Congressional Record at least two legislative days 
        before their consideration. At the conclusion of the 
        consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall 
        rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
        may have been adopted. . . .

        [The resolution was adopted.]
        Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: To the Republican whip 
    or the majority leader, I would like a clarification on the Legal 
    Services Corporation legislation.
        Do I understand we will be allowed to file amendments with the 
    desk on Monday and that will constitute 48 hours, being 2 working 
    days, Monday and Tuesday? . . .
        The Speaker: (18) The Chair will answer that the 
    bill will be up on Tuesday for general debate and for amendments. 
    It is not anticipated, in view of the interest in the bill, that 
    the House will be able to complete the bill on that day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So, any amendment that would be offered on Tuesday would have 
    to be filed today. Any amendment filed on Monday could be offered 
    on Wednesday if offered to a portion of the bill not yet read.

Sec. 3.16 Where a special rule only permits the offering of amendments 
    in the order printed in the Record, but the Record incorrectly 
    prints certain amendments, the Chair has the prerogative of 
    permitting the amendment to be offered in the form and order 
    submitted for printing.

    The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole announced that, pursuant 
to a special order adopted by the House requiring perfecting amendments 
printed in the Record to be offered in a specified

[[Page 6604]]

order, he would recognize a designated Member to offer his amendments 
in the intended order submitted for printing consistent with grouping 
of amendments to the budget resolution (19) by subject 
matter, rather than in the order inadvertently printed in the Record. 
The proceedings on May 24, 1982,(20) ere as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 128 Cong. Rec. 11542, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
20. H. Con. Res. 345.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (1) Before the Chair entertains a 
    motion for the Committee to rise, the Chair desires to make a 
    statement relative to the order of the consideration of the 
    perfecting amendments made in order by the House to the amendments 
    in the nature of a substitute to be offered by Representatives 
    Latta, Aspin, and Jones. As indicated by an insertion which will be 
    made in today's Congressional Record by the chairman of the 
    Committee on Rules, which was submitted for printing in the 
    Congressional Record of May 21, but was omitted from that Record, 
    it was the intent of the special order reported by the Committee on 
    Rules and adopted by the House, House Resolution 477, to group the 
    perfecting amendments in discrete subject matters and categories in 
    order to fashion an orderly process for the consideration of the 
    congressional budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The subject matter of revenues is to be considered first, 
    followed by consideration of the defense budget. Due to a clerical 
    error, the first perfecting amendment to be offered by 
    Representative Jones, relating to revenues, was labeled No. 7 in 
    the Congressional Record of May 21, and the second amendment to be 
    offered by Representative Jones, relating to defense, was labeled 
    No. 3 in the May 21 Congressional Record. The amendments were 
    submitted in the proper order for printing in the Record and the 
    Chair would therefore advise the Committee that those amendments 
    will, if offered, be considered in the proper order, with 
    Representative Jones' revenue amendment to be the third perfecting 
    amendment made in order under the rule and Representative Jones' 
    defense amendment to be the seventh perfecting amendment made in 
    order under the rule. The Chair would also point out that the 
    amendment by Representative Wolf, the 47th perfecting amendment 
    made in order under the rule, was printed on page 2637 in the 
    Congressional Record for May 21, but the Member's name was 
    inadvertently omitted in the printing of the Record. The amendment, 
    which will be reprinted in the Record of May 24, will be in order 
    for consideration since it was properly submitted pursuant to the 
    rule.
        The Chair requests that Members bring to his attention any 
    further errors that require correction in order that the Committee 
    of the Whole may proceed in a fair and orderly fashion.

Sec. 3.17 During consideration of a bill pursuant to a special rule 
    permitting the majority and minority leaders to offer amendments 
    not printed in the Record but permitting all other Members to offer 
    only

[[Page 6605]]

    amendments to the bill which have been printed in the Record, the 
    majority leader was allowed to offer an amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute not printed in the Record, but while the substitute 
    was pending another Member was permitted to offer to the bill a 
    perfecting amendment printed in the Record.

    During the proceedings of July 28, 1983,(2) in the 
Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that, pending an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute for an entire bill, perfecting amendments 
to the pending portion of the bill could still be offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 129 Cong. Rec. 21468, 21469, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Wright Jr., [of Texas, the majority leader]: Mr. 
    Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Wright: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
            That the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
        1983 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        title. . . .

        Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: I have an amendment that was 
    printed in the Record. Will I be given an opportunity to offer it?
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman that a printed perfecting amendment to the bill can be 
    offered before the vote on the Wright amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.18 Where a special order of business mandates that certain 
    amendments be printed in the Congressional Record prior to their 
    being offered, but does not impose the same requirement on 
    amendments to amendments, an amendment offered as a substitute for 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute does not need to be 
    printed in the Record prior to its consideration.

    On July 28, 1983,(4) the proposition described above was 
demonstrated during consideration of H.R. 2760 in the Committee of the 
Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 129 Cong. Rec. 21473, 21474, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Doug] Bereuter [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter as a substitute for the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Wright:

[[Page 6606]]

            Strike out all after the enacting clause and in lieu 
        thereof insert the following. . . .

        Mr. [Theodore S.] Weiss [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, it is my 
    understanding that substitutes, except for the one offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas, the majority leader, have to be in written 
    form and filed in advance. I understand that this particular 
    substitute had not been, and that is the basis of my point of 
    order. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair would advise the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss) that this is an amendment 
    offered as a substitute for the Wright amendment and the rule does 
    not require that it be printed in the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.19 Where a bill is being considered under a special order 
    requiring amendments to be printed in the Record, and the Chair 
    inadvertently permits the offering of an unprinted amendment which 
    is adopted, those proceedings may be vacated only by unanimous 
    consent.

    The circumstance stated above was the basis of the following 
proceedings which occurred on Oct. 1, 1985,(6) during 
consideration of H.R. 2100 (7) in the Committee of the 
Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 131 Cong. Rec. 25463, 25464, 25467, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. The Food Security Act of 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Barkley] Bedell [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment that takes care of some concerns that the Committee on 
    Ways and Means had.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. Bedell (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
    Record.
        The Chairman: (8) is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Iowa?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Bedell: Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the 
    committee.
        Mr. [Kika] de la Garza [of Texas]: I thank my colleague for 
    yielding.
        Mr. Chairman, this takes care of a jurisdictional conflict 
    between our committee and the Committee on Ways and Means. After 
    diligent effort between the staffs and the respective chairmen, the 
    end result is this amendment which would satisfy the Committee on 
    Ways and Means and would do no harm to our committee version, and I 
    would urge the Members to accept it. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Bedell).
        The amendment was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    wanted to raise a problem that I have discovered where we have had 
    an amendment adopted here just a few minutes (ago) that was not 
    eligible for consideration under the rule. It is my understanding 
    that the Bedell amendment that was adopted to this section a few 
    minutes ago had not been printed in the Record in a timely fashion, 
    so

[[Page 6607]]

    under the rule, it was not eligible for consideration on the floor 
    except by unanimous consent.
        In fact, we did not have a unanimous-consent request for that 
    amendment, so therefore it should not have been considered under 
    the regular procedures. Given that situation, it seems to me that 
    the House should not be acting upon an amendment at this point that 
    is based upon perfecting language that was offered that was not in 
    fact eligible for consideration on the House floor.
        If I might, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    proceedings be vacated under [which] the Bedell amendment to this 
    section was adopted.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania?
        Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.

Sec. 3.20 Where the House had adopted a special order permitting only 
    amendments printed in the Record, a Member who had incorrectly 
    submitted an amendment for printing which was part of another 
    amendment and which did not contain separate instructions as to 
    where it would be inserted in the bill was precluded on a point of 
    order from offering the amendment.

    On Oct. 3, 1985,(9) during consideration of H.R. 2100 
(10) in the Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that 
an amendment must contain instructions to the Clerk as to the portion 
of the bill it seeks to amend, and is subject to a point of order if 
not proper in form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 131 Cong. Rec. 25970, 25971, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. The Food Security Act of 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conte: Page 11, line 12, add the 
        following after the period: ``The term `payments' as used in 
        this section shall include the amount by which any repayment of 
        construction costs pursuant to Federal reclamation law (Act of 
        June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, and Acts amendatory thereof and 
        supplementary thereto) is exceeded by the full cost, as defined 
        by section 202(3) (A)-(C) of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 
        (Public Law 97-293, 96 Stat. 1263), less $5,000.''. . .

        The Chairman: Will the gentleman from Massachusetts give the 
    Chair his attention on this issue?
        The Clerk reported an amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts dealing with reclamation.
        It would be in order for the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Conte) to ask unanimous consent that the amendment as reported be 
    the one that the gentleman printed in the Record and spoke to 
    concerning honey. Does the gentleman make that request at this 
    time?

[[Page 6608]]

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the amendment that I offered pertain to this 
    honeybee amendment. The Clerk now has it at the desk.
        The Chairman: Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conte:
            (1) Section 201 of the Agriculture Act of 1949; 7 U.S.C. 
        1446 is amended by striking in the first sentence the word 
        ``honey.''
            (2) Subsection (b) of such section is hereby repealed.

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas continue to reserve 
    on his point of order?
        Mr. [Kika] de la Garza [of Texas]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is 
    the amendment I was reserving the point of order on. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard on my point of order, I would 
    not object to the gentleman having made his plea for the amendment. 
    But the amendment as printed in the Record, Mr. Chairman, does not 
    designate a proper page or title or section of the bill, and for 
    that reason I would submit that it is out of order. . . .
        Mr. Conte: Mr. Chairman, when we submitted the amendments, 
    unfortunately the printer put them en bloc. That was the 
    unfortunate part, but I feel the amendment is germane, and it is 
    germane to section X of the bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair will rule that the amendment as submitted was not 
    correctly printed as a separate amendment, and the Chair will 
    sustain the point of order of the gentleman from Texas.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Despite Mr. Conte's unanimous consent to 
separate the honeybee amendment from the reclamation amendment, it was 
still subject to the point of order that it did not contain proper 
instructions as to where it would be inserted in the bill.

Sec. 3.21 Where a bill is being considered under a rule requiring prior 
    printing of amendments in the Congressional Record, an amendment 
    printed with specific page and line numbers may be offered in that 
    form, even though that form does not reflect the offeror's intent.

    On Oct. 3, 1985,(12) in the Committee of the Whole, an 
amendment was modified by unanimous consent to reflect the version of 
the bill (13) then being considered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 131 Cong. Rec. 26021, 26022, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H.R. 2100, the Food Security Act of 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Beryl F.] Anthony [Jr., of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is the amendment printed in the 
    Record?
        Mr. Anthony: It is printed in the Record, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the amendment.

[[Page 6609]]

        Mr. Anthony: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    amendment be modified to read ``Page 323, strike lines 6 through 
    10.''
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Arkansas?
        Mr. [William W.] Franklin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, 
    reserving the right to object, is this the amendment that was 
    originally offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Rostenkowski]?
        Mr. Anthony: Yes, it is.
        Mr. Franklin: I would like to ask, under the reservation, if I 
    could, if the amendment that is presently at the desk is in the 
    same form as the one printed in the Record.
        Mr. Anthony: It is the identical amendment. All it does is 
    correct the pages, inasmuch as when the amendment was filed, it was 
    according to the bill that was reported out of the committee rather 
    than the one that was under the Union Calendar version. It is the 
    identical amendment. . . .
        Mr. Franklin: Mr. Chairman, continuing under my reservation, I 
    would like to raise a point of order to the amendment now offered, 
    which was originally filed by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Rostenkowski), and state that the amendment as printed in the 
    Record does not refer to the sections to be amended on H.R. 2100, 
    the Union Calendar, under which we are dealing.
        I would call the Chair's attention to a previous ruling on a 
    point of order when the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts 
    attempted to strike the honey provisions of H.R. 2100 and the Chair 
    ruled, because of a not specific reference to line and title and 
    page number, that that amendment was ruled out of order.
        I at this time insist on my point of order to the amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The amendment that is in the Record 
    has a specific line and title and may be offered in that form.
        The Clerk will report the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Anthony: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
    amendment to conform with the Union Calendar version of the bill.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Arkansas?
        There was no objection.
        The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Anthony, as modified: Page 323, 
        strike out lines 6 through 10.

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Anthony), as modified.
        The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

Modification of Pending Amendments Under a Modified Closed Rule

Sec. 3.22 Where a special order of business precludes the offering of 
    amendments not printed in the Congressional Record by a previous 
    date, amendments may only be offered in the form as printed and may 
    be modified by unanimous consent.

[[Page 6610]]

    During consideration of H.R. 2100 (14) on Oct. 1, 
1985,(15) the proposition described above occurred as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. The Food Security Act of 1985.
15. 131 Cong. Rec. 25418-20, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) When the Committee of the Whole 
    rose on Thursday, September 26, title IV was open to amendment at 
    any point to amendments printed in the Congressional Record before 
    September 24, 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there amendments to title IV? . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Glickman: Title IV of H.R. 2100 is 
        amended by--
            On page 65, after line 8, striking all through ``shall'' on 
        line 11 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
            ``(2) If the Secretary determines that the availability of 
        nonrecourse loans and purchases will not have an adverse effect 
        on the program provided for in paragraph (3), the Secretary 
        may''. . . .
            Title V of H.R. 2100 is amended by--
            On page 87, after line 15, striking all through ``shall'' 
        on line 18 and inserting in lieu thereof the following: . . .

        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I believe 
    a point of order would lie against the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Glickman) because the amendment, if I 
    understand the amendment that is being offered, goes to more than 
    one title of the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Dan] Glickman [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    amends two titles of the bill. To be frank with the Chair, it was 
    submitted as one amendment, but the intention of the author of this 
    amendment as well as the other authors was to deal with the issues 
    as they affected title IV and then title V. I put it in one title 
    of the bill, but, to be honest with the Chair, the issues are 
    divisible, they are separate. I could have amended it and put it in 
    two separate amendments. I did not because that is not the way the 
    issue came up in the Committee on Agriculture. . . .
        Mr. Robert F. Smith [of Oregon]: . . . Mr. Chairman, rule III 
    of the rules provides that consideration can only be by title, not 
    by section. I think the point remains that there is no question 
    that this amendment does affect two titles. . . .
        Mr. [Arlan] Stangeland [of Minnesota]: . . . I just want to 
    make the point that the amendment was printed in two distinctly 
    separate sections. One portion of the amendment dealt with wheat 
    and target prices and marketing loans. The second section of the 
    amendment deals with title V, the feed grain section. Two 
    distinctly different amendments but introduced in the Record as, 
    unfortunately, one amendment. . . . I would just appeal to the 
    Chair that the intent of the authors was that because they were 
    handled en bloc in committee, we would run that way, but they are 
    divisible, they can be addressed to title IV and title V very 
    distinctly in the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair would state that the Chair can only look at the form 
    in which the amendment has been sub

[[Page 6611]]

    mitted for printing in the Record. According to the rule, the 
    substitute shall be considered for amendment by title instead of by 
    sections, and only amendments to the bill which have been printed 
    in the Record by September 24 may be offered.
        Therefore, the only way in which the amendment that the 
    gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Glickman) wishes to offer could be 
    considered is by unanimous consent.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under a closed or modified closed rule, it 
is not allowable in the Committee of the Whole to offer an amendment 
not made in order by the rule. But once a proper amendment is before 
the Committee of the Whole, having been offered in conformity with the 
terms of the rule, such amendment may in some instances be modified by 
unanimous consent. See, for further example, the unanimous consent 
request of Mr. Robert J. Lagomarsino, of California, at 131 Cong. Rec. 
37374, 99th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 17, 1985, during consideration of 
H.R. 3838 (the Tax Reform Act of 1985), being considered pursuant to 
House Resolution 343.

Sec. 3.23 Where the Committee of the Whole is considering a bill under 
    a ``modified closed'' rule allowing only designated amendments to 
    be offered and prohibiting amendments to said amendments, an 
    amendment made in order under the rule may be modified or amended 
    only by unanimous consent.

    An illustration of the procedure for modifying amendments made in 
order under a rule as described above is to be found in the proceedings 
of Sept. 1, 1976: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 122 Cong. Rec. 28871, 28872, 28877, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (18) Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
    considered as having been read for amendment. No amendments are in 
    order except amendments recommended by the Committee on 
    Appropriations and the amendments printed in the Congressional 
    Record of August 31, 1976, by Representative Shipley, but said 
    amendments shall not be subject to amendment except amendments 
    recommended by the Committee on Appropriations and pro forma 
    amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there any points of order?
        If not, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Shipley). . . .
        Mr. [George E.] Shipley: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Shipley: Page 2, line 15, strike 
        the period and insert in lieu thereof: ``Provided, That none of 
        the funds contained in this Act shall be used for increases in 
        salaries of Members of the House of Representatives pursuant to 
        section 204a of Public Law 94-82.''. . .

[[Page 6612]]

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent to modify the Shipley amendment by adding at the 
    end thereof a sentence which I will ask that the Clerk report.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the modification to the 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            At the end of the Shipley amendment add a further sentence 
        as follows: No part of the funds appropriated in this Act or 
        any other act shall be used to pay the salary of an individual 
        in a position or office referred to in section 225(f) of the 
        Federal Salary Act of 1967. . . .

        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Arizona?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 3.24 While a special rule adopted by the House controlling the 
    consideration of a bill may not be directly amended in the 
    Committee of the Whole even by unanimous consent, the Committee 
    may, by unanimous consent, permit the modification of an amendment, 
    when offered, made in order by that special rule.

    On Aug. 2, 1977,(19) during consideration of H.R. 8444 
(the National Energy Act), there was pending in the Committee of the 
Whole a committee amendment under a special rule permitting a 
designated amendment to be offered only to such committee amendment, 
rather than separately to the bill. The Chair,(20) during 
these proceedings, entertained a unanimous-consent request to modify 
the designated amendment, which had been made in order by the rule and 
offered by Mr. William D. Ford, of Michigan. The modified amendment, 
while retaining its status as an amendment to the committee amendment 
consistent with the rule adopted by the House, changed the substantive 
text of the amendment by limiting its application to the committee 
amendment to which offered rather than, as originally printed in the 
Record, to the entire title of the bill. The Ford amendment read as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 26161, 26163, 26166, 26167, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Frank E. Evans (Colo.), Chairman Pro Tempore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Ford of Michigan to the ad hoc 
    committee amendment: At the end of the committee amendment on page 
    180, insert the following new section:
        ``Sec. 5. Application of Davis-Bacon Act.
        ``The Federal employee or officer primarily responsible for 
    administering any program established under any provision of, or 
    amendment made by, title I of this Act which provides for

[[Page 6613]]

    Federal funding shall take such steps as are necessary to insure by 
    contractors or subcontractors in the performance of work on any 
    construction utilizing such funds will be paid at rates not less 
    than those prevailing on similar construction in the locality, as 
    determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Act of 
    March 3, 1931 (40 U.S.C. 276a-276a-5, known as the Davis-Bacon 
    Act); and the Secretary of Labor shall have with respect to the 
    labor standards specified in this section the authority and 
    functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950. . . 
    .

    At this point, Mr. Richard L. Ottinger, of New York, raised a 
parliamentary inquiry as follows:

        Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order to ask 
    unanimous consent that the Ford amendment be considered separately. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman from New York that the Ford amendment is in order only 
    under the rule and the rule cannot be changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ottinger: And it cannot be changed by unanimous consent?
        The Chairman: The Committee of the Whole cannot directly change 
    House Resolution 727, the special rule adopted by the House, even 
    by unanimous consent.

    Subsequently, after some discussion of the scope of the Ford 
amendment, Mr. Ford asked unanimous consent that it be modified.

        Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
    assist 
    me . . . I would be very happy to ask unanimous consent to add, 
    before the words, ``title I,'' on line 17, the words, ``part III 
    of.''. . .
        Mr. (Garry) Brown of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, it is my 
    understanding that the Chair has ruled that even by unanimous 
    consent the gentleman could not amend his amendment. All I am 
    trying to do in this colloquy is establish the legislative 
    understanding.
        Mr. Ford of Michigan: I do not understand that there would be a 
    ruling that by unanimous consent I cannot modify my amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the Chair 
    merely stated that the rule cannot be amended by unanimous consent. 
    The Chair did not state that the amendment could not be amended by 
    unanimous consent.

    Mr. Ford then modified his amendment by unanimous consent, 
whereupon the amendment was agreed to, and the ad hoc committee 
amendment, as so amended, was agreed to. A parliamentary inquiry was 
raised, as follows:

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, earlier 
    today when the gentleman from Massachusetts occupied the chair, a 
    question was put to the Chair whether or not by unanimous consent 
    amendments could be offered to the bill.
        The resolution under which this bill is being considered says 
    on page 2:

            No amendment to the bill shall be in order except pro forma 
        amend

[[Page 6614]]

        ments for the purpose of debate and except the following 
        amendments, which shall be in order without the intervention of 
        any point of order, which shall not be subject to amendment 
        except for amendments recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee on 
        Energy. . . .

        Now, subsequent to the Chair's rule, with the gentleman from 
    Colorado in the chair, in response to a question when the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Ford) offered a unanimous-consent request, said 
    that the unanimous-consent request would be in order.
        My question to the Chair is, what is the ruling on unanimous 
    consent amendments to this bill or to the bill henceforth?
        The Chairman: The Chair will respond by indicating that the 
    Chair at the time understood the unanimous-consent request by the 
    gentleman from New York was to change the rule adopted by the 
    House.
        The Chair would agree that by unanimous consent modification of 
    a pending amendment is permissible in Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, so any pending amendment can be 
    modified by unanimous consent?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

    Parliamentarian's Note: See also the proceedings of Sept. 1, 
1976,(2) relating to H.R. 14238, legislative branch 
appropriations for fiscal 1977, which was considered under a ``modified 
closed'' rule (H. Res. 1507) allowing only designated amendments to be 
offered and prohibiting amendments to said amendments. An amendment 
that had been made in order under the rule and offered by Mr. George E. 
Shipley, of Illinois, was modified pursuant to a unanimous-consent 
request by Mr. Morris K. Udall, of Arizona.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 122 Cong. Rec. 28877, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.25 Where a special rule permits the offering of only those 
    germane amendments to a bill which have been printed in the Record, 
    an amendment which differs in any respect from a printed amendment 
    may not be offered (except by unanimous consent) even to cure a 
    germaneness defect in a printed amendment previously ruled out.

    On Oct. 5, 1977,(3) The Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 8410,(4) a point of order against 
an amendment, described above, was sustained by the Chair. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 123 Cong. Rec. 32510, 32511, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. The Labor Reform Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: Page 17, line 5, insert 
        ``(i)''

[[Page 6615]]

        after ``(A)'' and insert the following new subparagraph (ii) 
        after line 15:
            ``(ii) which shall assure that the expressing of any views, 
        arguments, opinion, or the making of any statement or the 
        dissemination thereof . . . shall not constitute grounds for . 
        . . setting aside the results of any election conducted under 
        section 9(c)(6) of this Act, if such expression contains no 
        threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.'

        The Chairman: (5) The Chair would like to inquire of 
    the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) if this amendment which was 
    reported by the Clerk is printed in the Record?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I would say the amendment was 
    printed in the Record. The Chair previously ruled it out of order 
    and I have struck certain language to make it conform with the 
    ruling of the Chair.
        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment was not printed in the 
    Record, notwithstanding the attempt of my good friend to revise it 
    in such a way as to indicate that it was. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair would have to sustain the point of 
    order. . . .

        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, is the Chair indicating an 
    amendment that was printed in the Record on Monday and ruled out of 
    order for parliamentary reasons cannot be revised and offered as a 
    substitute?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman that 
    the amendment was not printed in the Record in the form in which 
    the gentleman now presents it as an amendment to the bill.
        Mr. Ashbrook: The gentleman from Ohio would concede that.
        The Chairman: And the Chair would be constrained to sustain the 
    point of order.

Sec. 3.26 Unanimous consent was obtained in the House to modify an 
    amendment printed in the Congressional Record and made in order for 
    consideration in the Committee of the Whole by a special order of 
    business.

    On Sept. 4, 1984,(6) during consideration of general 
business in the House, the situation described above occurred as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 131 Cong. Rec. 22837, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
            See 131 Cong. Rec. 31387, 99th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 12, 
        1985, for an instance in which, following adoption of a 
        ``modified closed'' rule permitting only one amendment to be 
        offered to a joint resolution continuing appropriations, the 
        Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations was, by unanimous 
        consent, permitted by the House to offer an additional 
        amendment in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James J.] Howard [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the committee amendment at the desk which 
    was printed in the Congressional Record on July 11, 1985, and which 
    the rule, House Resolution 223, passed by the House on July 24 
    makes in order during the consideration of H.R. 10, be modified to 
    conform to funding ceilings rep

[[Page 6616]]

    resented by Senate Concurrent Resolution 32, passed by the Congress 
    August 1, 1985, setting forth the congressional budget for the 
    United States.

Sec. 3.27 An amendment specifically made in order under a ``modified 
    closed'' rule adopted by the House and not amendable thereunder may 
    be modified in Committee of the Whole only by unanimous consent.

    The proposition stated above was the basis of the following 
exchange, which occurred on Aug. 14, 1986, (7) during 
consideration of H.R. 4428 (8) in the Committee of the 
Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 132 Cong. Rec. 21686, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. The Department of Defense Authorization, fiscal year 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James A.] Courter [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, is this 
    modification of the amendment permissible and germane, or does it 
    need unanimous consent to be considered?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (9) The Chair will state 
    to the gentleman from New Jersey that a modification of this sort 
    is permitted only by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Cardiss] Collins [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I again ask 
    unanimous consent to offer the modification to the amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentlewoman from Illinois?
        Mr. Courter: Mr. Chairman, I object.

Modification of Amendment Process by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 3.28 Where a bill is by unanimous consent considered in the House 
    as in the Committee of the Whole, the bill is considered as read 
    and open to amendment at any point, despite the fact that the House 
    has previously adopted a special order providing that the bill be 
    read by title in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Feb. 9, 1977,(10) The House having previously adopted 
a special order (11) providing that H.R. 692 be read by 
title in the Committee of the Whole, a unanimous-consent request was 
agreed to to consider the bill in the House as in the Committee of the 
Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 10. 123 Cong. Rec. 3977, 3981, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 11. H. Res. 270, 123 Cong. Rec. 3976, 3977, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I call up the bill H.R. 
    692 to amend the Small Business Act and the Small Business 
    Investment Act of 1958 to increase loan authorization and surety 
    bond guarantee authority; and to improve the disaster assistance, 
    certifi

[[Page 6617]]

    cate of competency and small business setaside programs, and ask 
    unanimous consent that the bill be considered in the House as in 
    the Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker: (12) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Iowa?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 12. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read the bill as follows:
        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled. . . .
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Iowa have further 
    amendments?
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to title 
    III but the bill is to be read by titles.
        The Speaker: The bill is open to amendment at any point so the 
    amendment is in order.

Sec. 3.29 Where the Committee of the Whole was considering for 
    amendment a bill pursuant to a special order permitting only 
    designated amendments, including committee amendments, which were 
    not subject to substantive amendments except those specified in the 
    resolution, the Chair stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry 
    that the pending amendment had been made in order only as a 
    perfecting amendment to the pending committee amendment, and that 
    the Committee of the Whole could not, even by unanimous consent, 
    directly alter the special order adopted by the House to require 
    the perfecting amendment to be offered to the bill after 
    disposition of the pending committee amendment.

    On Aug. 2, 1977,(13) The Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 8444, the National Energy Act. An amendment, 
referred to in the proceedings as the ``Mikulski amendment,'' was 
offered as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 13. 123 Cong. Rec. 26158, 26160, 26161, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) The Clerk will designate the page 
    and the line number of the ad hoc committee amendment (the 
    ``Mikulski amendment'') to part III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 14. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Ad hoc committee amendment: Page 146, insert the matter in 
        italic on lines 2 through 5, and on page 169, insert the matter 
        on page 169, line 3 through page 180, line 7.

        [The ad hoc committee amendment reads as follows:]

         Part III--Energy Conservation Program for Schools and Health 
             Care Facilities and Buildings Owned by Units of Local 
                               Government. . . .

    Mr. William D. Ford, of Michigan, offered an amendment:

[[Page 6618]]

        Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
    ad hoc committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ford of Michigan to the ad hoc 
        committee amendment: At the end of the committee amendment on 
        page 180, insert the following new section:
            ``Sec. 5. Application of Davis-Bacon Act.
            ``The Federal employee or officer primarily responsible for 
        administering any program established under any provision of, 
        or amendment made by title I of this Act which provides for 
        Federal funding shall take such steps as are necessary to 
        insure that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors 
        or subcontractors in the performance of work on any 
        construction utilizing such funds will be paid at rates not 
        less than those prevailing on similar construction in the 
        locality. . . .

        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, it was my 
    understanding under the rule previously adopted that we would 
    proceed to a consideration of all 23 of the amendments adopted in 
    the ad hoc committee and that any other amendments would be 
    subsequent to that.
        Can the Chair enlighten us as to what the procedure will be?
        The Chairman: We are only treating the ad hoc committee 
    amendments to the pending part of the bill under the rule, which 
    makes the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ford) in 
    order to the pending committee amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, is the 
    gentleman's amendment an amendment to the Mikulski amendment or an 
    amendment to the committee amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman's amendment is an amendment to the 
    committee amendment, the so-called Mikulski amendment.
        Mr. Ottinger: Is that in order?
        The Chairman: That amendment is in order under the rule.
        Mr. Ottinger: To the Mikulski amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan offered an amendment 
    to the committee amendment, the ad hoc committee amendment. That 
    amendment is the so-called Mikulski amendment and the amendment of 
    the gentleman from Michigan is in order under the rule. . . .
        Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order to ask 
    unanimous consent that the Ford amendment be considered separately, 
    since it has nothing to do with the Mikulski amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from New 
    York that the Ford amendment is in order only under the rule and 
    the rule cannot be changed.
        Mr. Ottinger: And it cannot be changed by unanimous consent?
        The Chairman: The Committee of the Whole cannot directly change 
    House Resolution 727, the special rule adopted by the House, even 
    by unanimous consent.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Unanimous-consent requests may be 
entertained in Committee of the Whole by the Chair if their effect is 
to allow procedures which differ only in minor or incidental respects 
from the procedure required by a special order adopted

[[Page 6619]]

by the House. Thus, debate under the five-minute rule may be extended 
by unanimous consent where the House is operating under a ``closed'' 
rule; (15) a modification to a designated amendment made in 
order by a ``modified closed'' rule may be permitted by unanimous 
consent; (16) and a page reference may be included in a 
designated amendment made in order where the printed amendment did not 
include that reference.(17) But where a unanimous-consent 
request directly alters the basic structure of a complex and detailed 
rule, particularly a ``modified closed'' rule, the Chair should refuse 
to entertain the request.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See 120 Cong. Rec. 8229, 8233, 8243, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 26, 
        1974.
16. See 122 Cong. Rec. 28871, 28872, 28877, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 
        1, 1976.
17. See 122 Cong. Rec. 9090, 9091, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 1, 1976.
18. See, for example, 119 Cong. Rec. 41153-55, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Dec. 12, 1973 (request to read a substitute by sections for 
        amendment was not in order where the special order did not so 
        provide). For further discussion of the use of unanimous 
        consent requests in Committee of the Whole to modify the 
        requirements of a special rule, see House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 877a (101st Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Of course, because the House, and not the Committee of the 
    Whole, has the authority to change the substantive terms of a 
    special order of business previously adopted by the House, the 
    House may, by unanimous consent, delegate to the Committee of the 
    Whole authority to entertain unanimous-consent requests to change 
    procedures contained in an adopted House special order. See, for 
    example, the unanimous-consent request of Mr. G. V. (Sonny) 
    Montgomery, of Mississippi, on Aug. 11, 1986, 99th Cong. 2d Sess., 
    relating to consideration of H.R. 4428 (defense authorization for 
    fiscal 1987) pursuant to House Resolution 531.

Sec. 3.30 In response to a parliamentary inquiry as to whether the 
    Committee of the Whole could, by unanimous consent, require 
    amendments offered to the pending text to be germane thereto 
    notwithstanding the adoption by the House of a resolution waiving 
    germaneness requirements for any amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, the Chairman stated that the Committee of the Whole 
    could not even by unanimous consent directly add to the specific 
    requirements in the rule adopted by the House.

    On May 18, 1978,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 39, the Alaska Na

[[Page 6620]]

tional Interest Conservation Lands Act of 1978. On the previous day, 
the House had agreed to House Resolution 1186,(20) providing 
for consideration of H.R. 39 and stating in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 124 Cong. Rec. 14391, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
20. Id. at pp. 14139-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    recommended by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs now 
    printed in italic in the bill, it shall be in order to consider the 
    text of the bill H.R. 12625 if offered as an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute for the bill, said substitute shall be read 
    for amendment under the five-minute rule as an original bill by 
    titles instead of by sections, and all points of order against said 
    substitute or any amendment in the nature of a substitute offered 
    thereto for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 7, rule 
    XVI and clause 5, rule XXI are hereby waived. It shall be in order 
    to consider as amendments to said substitute provisions contained 
    in the text of the bill H.R. 39 as introduced, in the text of the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs now printed in the bill 
    H.R. 39, and in the text of the amendments recommended by the 
    Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries now printed in the bill 
    H.R. 39, and all points of order against said amendments for 
    failure to comply with the provisions of clause 7, rule XVI and 
    clause 5, Rule XXI are hereby waived.

    The text of H.R. 12625 having been offered as an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute (to be read as an original bill for amendment), 
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute (the Meeds amendment) 
to be offered thereto subsequently, the following exchange occurred: 
(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Id. at p. 14394.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, would a 
    unanimous-consent request be in order that under the proceedings 
    under the 5-minute rule no additional substitute amendment for the 
    entire bill would be in order, unless it were germane to H.R. 39 or 
    to the Meeds substitute?
        In that case, I would not have to offer the substitute, my 
    substitute, and we can vote up or down on the Meeds amendment. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: (1) the Chair will respond to the 
    point raised by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall) in his 
    parliamentary inquiry. The Chair is advised that the Committee of 
    the Whole cannot amend the rule by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.31 Where a special order adopted by the House governing 
    consideration of a bill specifies the order in which amendments may 
    be considered in Committee of the Whole, the House (but not the 
    Committee of the Whole) may by unanimous consent change the order 
    of consideration of the amendments.

    The proposition stated above was the basis of the following pro

[[Page 6621]]

ceeding, which occurred on June 14, 1984,(2) durging 
consideration of H.R. 1510: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 130 Cong. Rec. 16403-05, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Romano L.] Mazzoli [of Kentucky]: . . . Therefore, the 
    gentleman from Kentucky now, Mr. Speaker, makes the unanimous 
    consent request that amendments numbered 46, 47, and 48 to the bill 
    (H.R. 1510) be postponed for consideration until Tuesday next, to 
    become the first order of business on that day.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) To become the first 
    order of business upon the resumption of the sitting of the 
    Committee of the Whole under the terms of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mazzoli: Precisely.
        Mr. [Howard L.] Berman [of California]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, are 46, 47, and 48 king of the mountain 
    amendments?
        Mr. Mazzoli: It says king of the mountain, on page 3, yes. The 
    gentleman is correct. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
    Mazzoli] asks unanimous consent that amendments numbered 46, 47, 
    and 48 be postponed for consideration until Tuesday next and that 
    they be in that order, the first order of business, when the 
    Committee resumes sitting under the Committee of the Whole for the 
    further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1510).
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Kentucky?
        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where the House has adopted a special order 
permitting the consideration of amendments in Committee of the Whole 
only in a prescribed order, the Committee of the Whole must rise to 
permit the House, by unanimous consent, to change the order of 
consideration of certain amendments in Committee of the Whole.

Sec. 3.32 On one occasion, where a special rule governing consideration 
    of a bill made in order only one amendment to a particular title, a 
    technical amendment was permitted to correct a drafting error in 
    the text.

        An example of the situation described above occurred on Aug. 
    10, 1984,(5) during consideration of H.R. 
    5640.(6) The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole 
    were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 130 Cong. Rec. 24052, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. Superfund Expansion and Protection Act of 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wyche] Fowler [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    technical amendment to title VI, and I ask unanimous consent for 
    its consideration at this time.
        The Chairman: (7) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Georgia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Joseph G. Minish (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

[[Page 6622]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fowler: Page 73, strike out lines 
        9 and 10 and substitute: ``(i) barium sulfide, or any other 
        taxable chemical which is a metal or metallic compound, and''. 
        . . .

        Mr. [Howard C.] Nielson of Utah: I understood the only 
    amendments to title V would be the one by Representative Conable.
        Mr. Fowler: I will say to the gentleman that this was done by 
    unanimous consent. It was a technical amendment because it was a 
    drafting problem. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Fowler).
        The amendment was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This type of modification of the terms of 
the rule should only be entertained in the House, not in the Committee 
of the Whole.

--Additional Debate Permitted by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 3.33 The House, by unanimous consent, agreed to permit 30 
    additional minutes debate in the Committee of the Whole on a 
    specified amendment to a bill being considered under a rule 
    prohibiting pro forma amendments.

    On Apr. 20, 1955,(8) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 101 Cong. Rec. 4829, 4834, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert J.] Corbett [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I would 
    like to raise the question, if this rule is adopted, and when the 
    amendments are presented, whether or not the amendments will be 
    open to discussion under the 5-minute rule or we will be limited to 
    one 5-minute speech for and one 5-minute speech against the 
    amendment?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) Under the rules, there 
    will be [one 5-minute speech for and one 5-minute speech against]. 
    No pro forma amendments will be in order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: . . . After consultation 
    with the minority I ask unanimous consent that debate under the 5-
    minute rule on the amendment which will be offered at page 82 of 
    the bill relating to the pay schedule, be extended for 30 
    additional minutes, which will provide for 40 minutes of debate. . 
    . .
        There was no objection.

Pro Forma Amendments

Sec. 3.34 Pro forma amendments are not in order when a bill is being 
    considered under a ``closed'' rule which permits no amendments 
    except by direction of the committee reporting the bill and no 
    amendments thereto.

    On Oct. 5, 1962,(10) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 108 Cong. Rec. 22636, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H. Con. Res. 570 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).

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

[[Page 6623]]

        The Chairman: (11) There being no further requests 
    for time, under the rule the House concurrent resolution is 
    considered as having been read for amendment. No amendment is in 
    order except amendments offered by the direction of the Committee 
    on Foreign Affairs and such amendments shall not be subject to 
    amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Samuel S. Stratton (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike out the last word.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the only amendment in 
    order is the amendment offered by the committee.
        The gentleman can rise in support of the amendment.

Sec. 3.35 Where a special order adopted by the House provides special 
    procedures governing the consideration of an amendment if offered 
    in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair announces after such an 
    amendment is offered and before debate begins thereon the relevant 
    provisions of the special order.

    On Oct. 17, 1979,(12) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration S. 832,(13) the above-stated proposition 
was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 125 Cong. Rec. 28643-45, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) Pursuant to the rule the Clerk 
    will now read the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    recommended by the Committee on House Administration now printed in 
    the reported bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
        section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
        U.S.C. 439c) is amended by striking out ``and'' after ``1977'' 
        and by inserting after ``1978'' the following: ``, and 
        $8,998,823 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980''. . . 
        .

        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Obey: At the end of the bill, add 
        the following:
            Sec. 2. (a) Section 320 of the Federal Election Campaign 
        Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended by adding at the end 
        thereof the following new subsection. . . .

        The Chairman: The Chair would like to state that pursuant to 
    the rule no amendments are in order to this amendment except pro 
    forma amendments for the purpose of debate, and the following 
    amendments which shall not be subject to amendment except for pro 
    forma amendments for the purpose of debate:
        First, the three amendments printed on page H8111 of the 
    Congressional

[[Page 6624]]

    Record of September 18, 1979, by Representative Obey; and Second, 
    the amendment to the text of H.R. 4970, printed in the 
    Congressional Record of September 19, 1979, by Representative 
    Minish, which shall be in order only if amendment No. 1, printed in 
    the Congressional Record of September 18, by Representative Obey, 
    is defeated.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Obey) for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The special order permitted the offering of 
a non-germane amendment, subject both to pro forma amendments for 
debate and to four designated amendments (which in turn were also 
subject to pro forma amendments). The Chair indicated, in response to a 
parliamentary inquiry, that pro forma debate on the original amendment 
could be had although one of the substantive amendments thereto might 
be pending. For further discussion of debate on amendments, see 
Sec. 28, infra.

Sec. 3.36 While normally under the five-minute rule debate on a pro 
    forma amendment may relate either to a pending amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute or to a perfecting amendment thereto (as not 
    necessarily in the third degree), where a special rule permitted 
    the offering of both perfecting amendments in the second degree and 
    of pro forma amendments to the substitute when perfecting 
    amendments were not pending, the Chair permitted pro forma 
    amendments during pendency of perfecting amendments but, in 
    response to a point of order, required that debate be related 
    solely to the perfecting amendment.

    On May 26, 1982,(15) during consideration of House 
Concurrent Resolution 345 (16) in the Committee of the 
Whole, the situation described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 128 Cong. Rec. 12088, 12090, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. First concurrent resolution on the budget, fiscal 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike 
    the requisite number of words not because I intend to speak to the 
    amendment of the gentleman from Michigan, but instead to take this 
    time in concert with colleagues who care very much about what the 
    Latta amendment does to housing. Not for housing, but to housing. . 
    . .
        Mr. [James H.] Quillen [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    understood we were debating the Conyers amendment, and I did not 
    hear permission to speak out of order.
        Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Chairman, my remarks go to the Latta 
    substitute, and

[[Page 6625]]

    I believe that is pending before the committee.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair will have to state that 
    the matter that is pending is the Conyers amendment, and that 
    debate should be germane to the Conyers amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chairman insisted that debate proceed 
in an ``orderly fashion'', that once a perfecting amendment was 
offered, debate under the five-minute rule be confined thereto, and not 
to one of the three underlying substitutes pending simultaneously. 
Separate debate on those substitutes was to be permitted only between 
consideration of numbered perfecting amendments.

Sec. 3.37 Where a special order permits both the offering of specified 
    perfecting amendments in a certain order and pro forma amendments, 
    the Chair has discretion to recognize Members to offer pro forma 
    amendments to debate the underlying text between consideration of 
    perfecting amendments.

    On May 26, 1982,(18) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Concurrent Resolution 345,(19) the 
Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding the circumstances 
described above. The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 128 Cong. Rec. 12141, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. First concurrent resolution on the budget, fiscal 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: At the appropriate time 
    after we have completed this amendment, I will seek to strike the 
    last word to make other comments that may be of interest to 
    Members.
        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Madigan: Is the procedure that has just been suggested by 
    the gentleman from California one that would be in order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will entertain pro forma amendments 
    between amendments.
        Mr. Madigan: Further pursuing my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Chairman, how would the gentleman from California be able to be 
    recognized to speak in behalf of something that he says he is not 
    going to offer?
        The Chairman: Between amendments, no amendment is pending. That 
    is why a pro forma amendment presumably to one of the substitutes 
    will be allowed. It provides an opportunity for discussion between 
    amendments.

Modified Closed Rule as Prohibiting Pro Forma Amendment

Sec. 3.38 Where a rule under which a bill is considered

[[Page 6626]]

    permits only specified amendments and prohibits amendments to such 
    amendments, no pro forma amendments are in order and only two five-
    minute speeches are permitted on each of the specified amendments.

    On Apr. 20, 1955,(1) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 101 Cong. Rec. 4829, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert J.] Corbett [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I would 
    like to raise the question, if this rule is adopted, and when the 
    amendments are presented, whether or not the amendments will be 
    open to discussion under the 5-minute rule or we will be limited to 
    one 5-minute speech for and one 5-minute speech against the 
    amendment?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) Under the rules, there 
    will be one 5-minutes for and one 5-minutes against. No pro forma 
    amendments will be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.39 Where a ``modified closed rule'' provides that a designated 
    amendment may be offered as a new title to a bill and, with the 
    exception of committee amendments thereto, only one designated 
    amendment to that amendment may be offered, only two five-minute 
    speeches are permitted on that amendment to the amendment, since a 
    pro forma amendment thereto would be in the third degree (and a pro 
    forma amendment to the original amendment inserting a new title is 
    specifically prohibited by the rule), and further debate may be had 
    only by unanimous consent.

    On Dec. 19, 1975,(3) during consideration of a bill 
(4) in the Committee of the Whole, an amendment was offered 
and the proceedings, described above, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 121 Cong. Rec. 41788-90, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. H.R. 9771, Airport and Airway Development Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Glenn M.] Anderson of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Anderson of California to the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Ullman: In proposed section 301, 
        strike out subsections (b) and (c) and insert in lieu thereof 
        the following:
            (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
        shall apply to obligations incurred on or after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.

        Mr. [Sam] Gibbons [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    opposition to the amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Alphonzo] Bell [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California. 
    . . .

[[Page 6627]]

        Mr. Gibbons: Mr. Chairman, as I understood the rule granted the 
    Ways and Means Committee, there was only one amendment, and the 
    time under the rule was limited to 5 minutes on each side, and that 
    pro forma amendments or any other amendments are out of order. That 
    is the way I understand the rule.
        The Chairman: (5) the rule is a rather complex rule, 
    and if the gentleman will permit the Chair to review this matter, 
    the Chair will respond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Without objection, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bell) is 
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        There was no objection.
        [Following Mr. Bell's remarks, the question was taken:]
        Mr. Gibbons: Mr. Chairman, I insist on regular order.
        The Chairman: Regular order is demanded.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Anderson) to the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Oregon (Mr. Ullman).
        [The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.]

Sec. 3.40 Pro forma amendments are not in order during consideration of 
    a title of a bill being read pursuant to a special rule prohibiting 
    all amendments except committee amendments to that title.

    On Oct. 13, 1977,(6) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 8309,(7) the Chair, citing from the 
rule providing for consideration of the bill and amendments 
thereto,(8) directed the Clerk to read by titles the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 123 Cong. Rec. 33627, 33637, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. The Navigation Development Act.
 8. H. Res. 776, adopted Oct. 6, 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) . . . Pursuant to the rule, no 
    amendment to title II of said substitute, and no amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute changing title II of said substitute shall 
    be in order, except amendments offered by direction of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means, and said amendments shall not be 
    subject to amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will now read by titles the committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute. . . .
        Are there any committee amendments to title II?
        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike the last word.
        The Chairman: Without objection, the gentleman is recognized. 
    The Chair would, however, state that under the rule even pro forma 
    amendments are not allowed to title II.

Sec. 3.41 Where a bill was being considered for amendment pursuant to a 
    special ``modified closed'' rule permitting only designated 
    amendments to be offered and precluding amendments thereto, with 
    debate on each amendment

[[Page 6628]]

    limited and controlled, the Chair indicated that pro forma 
    amendments for the purpose of debate were not in order.

    On May 21, 1986,(10) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 4800,(11) the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry in the circumstances described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 132 Cong. Rec. 11484, 11566, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. The Omnibus Trade Act of 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (12) When the Committee of the Whole 
    rose on Tuesday, May 20, 1986, all time for general debate had 
    expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been 
    read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. The amendments printed 
    in section 2 of House Resolution 456, agreed to by the House on May 
    15, 1986, are considered as having been adopted.
        No other amendments to the bill are in order except the 
    following amendments printed in the Congressional Record of May 15, 
    1986, except amendment numbered (12) shall be the text of H.R. 4830 
    in lieu of being printed in the Record. . . .
        Mr. [Don] Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr Chairman, can I move to strike the last 
    word and get 5 minutes?
        The Chairman: The time is controlled by the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Roth). The gentleman has to seek time from the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin or the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
    Bonker).

--Preferential Motion Not Precluded

Sec. 3.42 A special order governing consideration of a bill in 
    Committee of the Whole which prohibits the Chair from entertaining 
    pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate does not preclude 
    the offering of a preferential motion that the Committee rise and 
    report the bill to the House with the recommendation that the 
    enacting clause be stricken, since that motion is not a pro forma 
    amendment and must be voted on (or withdrawn by unanimous consent).

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on May 4, 
1983,(13) during consideration of House Joint Resolution 13 
(dealing with a nuclear weapons freeze). The proceedings in the 
Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 129 Cong. Rec. 11072, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.

[[Page 6629]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Levitas moves that the Committee rise and report the 
        resolution back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        resolving clause be stricken.

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Downey of New York: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Downey of New York: Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the 
    rule is that there is a provision in the rule that prohibits 
    motions of this sort for the purpose of debate time. Is that 
    correct?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman 
    it only prohibits pro forma amendments, not preferential motions 
    such as the gentleman has offered.

Rule Permitting Only Amendments Changing Money Amounts

Sec. 3.43 When a bill was being considered under a modified closed rule 
    providing that ``no amendments shall be in order to said bill 
    except proposals to strike out any of its provisions or to increase 
    or decrease the amounts authorized therein,'' amendments proposing 
    to change the time when provisions of the bill were to become 
    effective were held not to be in order.

    On Feb. 16, 1955,(14) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 101 Cong. Rec. 1585, 1586, 84th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 3828, increasing judicial and congressional salaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 5. . . .
            (b) The provisions of section 4 shall take effect as of the 
        commencement of the 84th Congress. . . .
            Amendment offered by Mr. [Richard H.] Poff [of Virginia]: 
        On page 5, line 13, strike out ``84th'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``85th''.

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. Under the rule, House Resolution 141, the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Virginia, is not germane, and therefore not 
    in order.
        The Chairman: (15) As stated by the Chair before the 
    reading of the bill, under the rule by which the bill is being 
    considered, no amendments are in order except those raising or 
    lowering the amount, or striking out some portion of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Therefore, such amendment changing the effective date of the 
    bill would not be in order. . . .

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Usher L.] Burdick [of North 
        Carolina]: Page 5, strike out section 5 and insert a new 
        section 5 to read as follows:
            ``Sec. 5. This act shall take effect on January 1, 1957.''. 
        . .

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that this amendment falls 
    within the same class as the one previously ruled on with respect 
    to this section.

Sec. 3.44 To a subsection of a bill (setting a $75,000 limitation

[[Page 6630]]

    on expenditures by candidates for Congress) being considered under 
    a special rule permitting only amendments which solely change money 
    amounts, an amendment adding the exception that a lower limit if 
    imposed by state law shall apply was held in order as solely 
    affecting money amounts in that subsection, by describing a lower 
    amount if enacted by state law without directly conferring 
    discretionary authority upon the states.

    On Aug. 8, 1974,(16) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 16090, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
1974. The bill was being considered under a special rule 
(17) which provided in part that ``no amendment, including 
any amendment in the nature of a substitute for the bill, shall be in 
order except the following: [in title I] germane amendments to 
subsection 101(a) proposing to change the money amounts regarding 
contribution and expenditure limits contained in that subsection, 
providing that the amendments have been printed in the Congressional 
Record at least 1 calendar day prior to being offered.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 120 Cong. Rec. 27460, 27461, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
17. H. Res. 1292, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. (H. Rept. 93-1260).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. David R. Obey, of Wisconsin, offered an amendment:

        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Obey: Page 5, line 2, strike out 
        ``; or'' and insert in lieu thereof ``Except that in any state 
        in which there is an overall spending limit (enacted after the 
        close of December 31, 1970) lower than the $75,000 limit in 
        this section, the spending limit imposed by state law shall 
        apply, notwithstanding any other provision of the law. . . .

    Mr. William L. Armstrong, of Colorado, made a point of order 
against the amendment, on the basis of the provisions of the special 
rule cited above. The following discussion then took place:

        The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Obey: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I suggest the amendment is in 
    order, because while the language of the rule specifies that 
    amendments are in order only if they change the dollar amounts, 
    this amendment solely changes the dollar amounts. It is just that. 
    It contains no formula, as the committee was worried about, it 
    contains no special formula, it contains no special arrangement. 
    The net effect is merely to change the dollar amounts allowed to be 
    spent under the bill.
        Mr. Armstrong: Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that the rule does 
    preclude

[[Page 6631]]

    this amendment, because it offers a new regulatory scheme and gives 
    to the States certain discretion not contemplated by the original 
    bill. The drafters of the bill went to considerable trouble to 
    preempt the States, and this does not simply change the dollar 
    amount.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair is familiar with the rule, and has also examined the 
    amendment. He finds that the effect of the amendment is, in fact, 
    only to limit the amounts. There is no additional discretionary 
    authority affirmatively conferred on the States by the terms of the 
    amendment.
        Therefore, it is not subject to the point of order last 
    discussed by the gentleman from Colorado.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Rule Permitting Only Amendment Changing Dates

Sec. 3.45 An amendment to a bill extending the temporary debt limit, 
    providing that the temporary increase in the debt limit shall 
    expire on the date specified in the bill or on the 15th day of the 
    month following the month in which the cost of servicing the public 
    debt exceeds a certain limit, whichever date is sooner, was ruled 
    out of order where the special order governing the consideration of 
    the bill restricted amendments only to those changing either the 
    expiration date or the amount of the debt limit contained in the 
    bill.

    On July 19, 1978,(19) during consideration of H.R. 13385 
in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order 
against an amendment on the grounds that it was not in order under the 
special rule governing consideration of the bill. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 124 Cong. Rec. 21737, 21738, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Weaver: On line 4, page 1, after 
        ``1979,'' insert: ``or ending the 15th day of the month 
        following the month upon which the cost of servicing the public 
        debt to the United States Treasury from March 31, 1978 first 
        exceeds $50,000,000,000 whichever date is soonest,''.

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment. . . .
        [T]he rule clearly puts limitations on the kind of amendments 
    that can be offered.
        On page 2 it reads:

            . . . which shall not be subject to amendment, and 
        amendments only changing the date on page 1, line 4 or only 
        changing the figure on page 1, line 7, . . .

        Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Oregon

[[Page 6632]]

    (Mr. Weaver) is a condition leading to a day it is not a day set, 
    it is an uncertain alternative. The reference is not a specific 
    change in the date in the bill and is outside the scope of the 
    rule. . . .
        Mr. Weaver: . . . The rule does state . . . that there may be 
    amendments on line 4, page 1, affecting the date. My amendment 
    simply says that the date on which the temporary ceiling will 
    terminate will be the point when the cost of servicing the national 
    debt shall have reached $50 billion. And that simply changes the 
    date and nothing but the date. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment is germane to this bill and according to the rule.
        The Chairman:  The Chair will rule.
        House Resolution 1277  provides that no amendments to the 
    pending bill shall be in order except amendments which only change 
    the date on page 1, line 4, or only change the amount on page 1, 
    line 7, of the bill.
        While it might be contended that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Weaver) provides an alternative 
    termination date for the extension of the temporary debt ceiling 
    contained in the bill, in the opinion of the Chair the amendment 
    does more than just change the date on line 4. It conditions the 
    temporary debt ceiling extension on factors other than a mere time 
    duration, and as such is not an amendment which only changes the 
    date contained in the bill.
        The Chair, therefore, holds that the amendment is not in order 
    under House Resolution 1277 and sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: House Resolution 1277, referred 
(20) to above, provided:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. James J. Delaney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to 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 (H.R. 13385) to provide for a temporary increase in the 
    public debt limit. . . . After general debate . . . the bill shall 
    be considered as having been read for amendment under the five-
    minute rule. No amendments to the bill shall be in order except 
    amendments recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, which 
    shall not be subject to amendment, and amendments only changing the 
    date on page 1, line 4 or only changing the figure on page 1, line 
    7, and said amendments shall not be subject to amendment except pro 
    forma amendments for the purpose of debate and germane amendments 
    only changing the date on page 1, line 4 or only changing the 
    figure on page 1, line 7. At the conclusion of the consideration of 
    the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise . . . and the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
    amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
    except one motion to recommit.

Text of Bill in Order as Amendment

Sec. 3.46 Where a special rule makes in order the text of another bill 
    as an amendment, that text may be offered as an amendment to the 
    bill or as an amendment in the nature of a substitute therefor.

[[Page 6633]]

    On July 17, 1968,(1) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
called up a resolution providing for consideration of the State 
Firearms Control Assistance Act of 1968.(2) The text of 
House Resolution 1249 and Mr. Bolling's discussion of the effect of the 
resolution follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 114 Cong. Rec. 21765, 21766, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. H. Res. 1249 (Committee on Rules) providing for consideration of 
        H.R. 17735.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution, it shall 
    be in order to 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 (H.R. 17735) to amend title 18, United 
    States Code, to provide for better control of the interstate 
    traffic in firearms. After general debate, which shall be confined 
    to the bill and shall continue not to exceed three hours, to be 
    equally divided and controlled by the Chairman and ranking minority 
    member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the bill shall be read 
    for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to 
    consider, without the intervention of any point of order, the text 
    of the bill H.R. 6137 as an amendment to the bill. At the 
    conclusion of the consideration of the bill H.R. 17735 for 
    amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
    House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
    amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
    except one motion to recommit. . . .
        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, I have just gotten permission to 
    include in the Record the text of the so-called Casey bill, H.R. 
    6137, which was made in order by the rule as an amendment to H.R. 
    17735, the bill this rule will make in order for consideration 
    under a 3-hour open rule.
        I do so because the procedure followed by the Committee on 
    Rules in granting this rule is a relatively unusual procedure. I 
    think it important that the Members understand what may be offered 
    as an amendment. It is also important that they understand that 
    this amendment, this so-called Casey bill, may be offered either as 
    a substitute for H.R. 17735, or as an amendment to it.

Sec. 3.47 Pursuant to a special rule making in order the text of 
    another bill as original text for amendment if offered as an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute, the amendment must be 
    offered from the floor after the first section of the original bill 
    is read.

    On July 26, 1978,(3) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 3350 pursuant to a special order, the above-
stated proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 124 Cong. Rec. 22884, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (4) . . . Pursuant to the rule, it 
    shall be in order to consider

[[Page 6634]]

    by titles the text of H.R. 12988, if offered as an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute, as an original bill for the purpose of 
    amendment. No amendment to title IV of said substitute which would 
    change title IV, shall be in order except amendments recommended by 
    the Committee on Ways and Means and an amendment printed in the 
    Congressional Record of June 5, 1978, by Representative Stark of 
    California, which amendments shall not be subject to amendment, but 
    it shall be in order to debate said amendments and title IV by the 
    offering of pro forma amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will now read section 1 of the original bill H.R. 
    3350, and the Chair will then recognize the gentleman from 
    Louisiana (Mr. Breaux) to offer the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Section 1. Short Title.

            This Act may be cited as the ``Deep Seabed Hard Mineral 
        Resources Act''.

        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute, the text of which is 
    contained in the bill, H.R. 12988, a copy of which is at the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Breaux: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert . . 
        .

        Section 1. Short title.

            Titles I, II, and III of this Act may be cited as the 
        ``Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act''.

Sec. 3.48 Where a special order adopted by the House provides that it 
    shall be in order to consider the text of a bill as an amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute for the pending bill and that said 
    amendment shall be considered before perfecting amendments and be 
    considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, said 
    amendment is not offered from the floor but is automatically 
    reported by the Clerk; and in the event said amendment is defeated, 
    the original bill is considered for amendment.

    On Sept. 20, 1979,(5) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 5229,(6) the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry regarding procedure under the special rule, as 
set out below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 125 Cong. Rec. 25526, 25527, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. Temporary Debt Limit Increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (7) Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
    considered as having been read for amendment. The text of H.R. 5310 
    shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of 
    amendment which shall be considered as having been read. No 
    amendments are in order except pro forma amendments, amendments 
    offered by direction of the Committee on Ways and Means or the 
    Committee on Rules, and germane

[[Page 6635]]

    amendments only changing the date certain ``March 31, 1981'' or the 
    numerical figure ``$529,000,000,000'' in section 101(a) and said 
    amendments shall not be subject to amendment except pro forma 
    amendments and germane amendments only changing said date or said 
    figure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
    follows:

                                   H.R. 5310

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled. . . .

            TITLE II--ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT AS PART OF 
                          CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET PROCESS

            Sec. 201. (a) The rules of the House of Representatives are 
        amended by adding at the end thereof the following new rule:

                                  ``Rule XLIX

             ``establishment of statutory limit on the public debt

            ``1. Upon the adoption by the Congress (under section 301, 
        304, or 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) of any 
        concurrent resolution on the budget setting forth as the 
        appropriate level of the public debt for the period to which 
        such concurrent resolution relates an amount which is different 
        from the amount of the statutory limit on the public debt that 
        would otherwise be in effect for such period, the enrolling 
        clerk of the House of Representatives shall prepare and enroll 
        a joint resolution, in the form prescribed in clause 2, 
        increasing or decreasing the statutory limit on the public debt 
        by an amount equal to the difference between such limit and 
        such appropriate level. . . .

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: I have a parliamentary inquiry, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ullman: Mr. Chairman, it has been my understanding that if 
    the substitute should fail, we would go back, however, to the 
    consideration of the committee bill?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Amendments in Nature of Substitute as ``Original Text''

Sec. 3.49 Where a bill was being considered under a special rule making 
    in order the text of a designated amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute but not providing for reading of said substitute by 
    sections as an original bill, the Chair indicated that if the 
    entire amendment were considered as read and printed in the Record 
    it would automatically be open to amendment at any point.

    On Feb. 3, 1976,(8) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 9464,(9) the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry regarding the situation as described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 122 Cong. Rec. 2008, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Krueger [of Texas] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I

[[Page 6636]]

    ask unanimous consent that the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute be considered as read and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: (10) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.  Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Continuing my reservation 
    of objection, Mr. Chairman, first of all, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry. Was it the request that the amendment be considered as 
    read and open to amendment at any point?
        The Chairman: That is the pending matter. The Chair was about 
    to put the question when the gentleman rose and said he reserved 
    the right to object further.
        Mr. Dingell: I just want to be sure that I understand the 
    unanimous-consent request properly. . . .
        The Chairman: Let me say in clarification the unanimous-consent 
    request that the gentleman made was that the amendment be 
    considered as read and printed in the Record, and it automatically 
    will be open for amendment at any point.

Sec. 3.50 An amendment in the nature of a substitute being read as an 
    original bill pursuant to a special order is read by sections for 
    amendment (unless otherwise specified in the rule), and the 
    amendment may be considered as read and open for amendment at any 
    point by unanimous consent only.

    On Mar. 20, 1978,(11) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 7700,(12) he above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 7558, 7559, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. The Postal Service Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (13) Pursuant to the rule, it shall be 
    in order to consider an amendment printed in the Congressional 
    Record of March 14, 1978, by Representative Hanley of New York if 
    offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the bill, 
    said substitute shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule 
    as an original bill, and all points of order against said 
    substitute for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 7, 
    rule XVI, are hereby waived. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Edward W. Pattison (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        At this time the Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Postal Service 
        Act of 1977''.

        Mr. [James M.] Hanley [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to 
    the rule, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute for 
    the bill.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment by sections.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
            That this Act may be cited as the ``Postal Service Act of 
        1978.''

        Mr. Hanley (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment in the nature

[[Page 6637]]

    of a substitute be considered as read, printed in the Record, and 
    open to amendment at any point. . . .
        [Objection was heard.]
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute is to be read by sections.
        Are there amendments to section 1?

Sec. 3.51 Where a special order adopted by the House provides that in 
    lieu of committee amendments printed in a bill, it shall be in 
    order to consider a designated amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute as an original bill for amendment in Committee of the 
    Whole, but does not require that the amendment be offered, the 
    Chair directs the Clerk to read the amendment for consideration as 
    original text for the purpose of amendment and no motion from the 
    floor is required.

    On July 14, 1978,(14) during consideration of a bill 
(15) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings 
described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 124 Cong. Rec. 20992-95, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. H.R. 12163, Department of Energy authorizations. The bill was being 
        considered pursuant to H. Res. 1261.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) . . . Pursuant to the rule The 
    Clerk will now read . . . the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute printed in the Congressional Record of June 23, 1978, by 
    Representative Fuqua of Florida as an original bill for the purpose 
    of amendment in lieu of the amendments now printed in the original 
    bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in 
        accordance with section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 
        (42 U.S.C. 2017) . . . there is hereby authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Department of Energy for the fiscal year 
        1979, for energy research and development and related 
        activities, the sum of the following amounts: . . .

        Mr. [Walter] Flowers [of Alabama]: Madam Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Flowers:
            On page 10, lines 16 and 17, strike the amount 
        ``$465,301,000'' and substitute in lieu thereof 
        ``$306,401,000.''

        Mr. [John W.] Wydler [of New York]: Madam Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry: What is the bill that is actually before the 
    Committee at the present time? Are we on the substitute bill?
        The Chairman: We are on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Florida (Mr. Fuqua), which is made in order by the rule.

    Parliamentarian's Note: If a special order provides that it shall 
be in order to consider an amendment ``if offered'' as an amend

[[Page 6638]]

ment in the nature of a substitute, the amendment must be offered from 
the floor (after the first section of the bill is read).

Sec. 3.52 Where a special rule provides that an amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute be considered as an original bill for amendment 
    under the five-minute rule if offered, the first section of the 
    original bill is first read and the amendment, if then offered from 
    the floor, must be read by sections for amendment in the absence of 
    unanimous consent to consider it as read and open to amendment at 
    any point.

    On July 18, 1978,(17) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 1609, pursuant to a special rule (H. Res. 
1252), the proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 124 Cong. Rec. 21486, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore [Mr. (Raymond F.) Lederer (of 
    Pennsylvania)]: Pursuant to the rule, it shall be in order to 
    consider an amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the 
    Congressional Record of June 28 by Representative Udall of Arizona, 
    if offered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment in lieu 
    of the amendments now printed in the bill.
        The Clerk will read section 1 of the original bill.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be cited as the ``Coal Pipeline Act of 1977.''

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the 
    Congressional Record of June 28.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Udall: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
        That this Act may be cited as the ``Coal Pipeline Act of 
        1978''.

        Mr. Udall (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent to dispense with further reading of this amendment. It is 
    printed in the Congressional Record.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Arizona?
        Mr. [Teno] Roncalio [of Wyoming]: Reserving the right to 
    object, Mr. Chairman--and I do not intend to--may I ask the 
    Chairman if he intends to rise at 5:30?
        Mr. Udall: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, as soon 
    as the amendment is read, I intend to ask unanimous consent that it 
    be open to amendment at any point, and then at that point I will 
    move that the Committee rise.
        Mr. [Joe] Skubitz [of Kansas]: Reserving the right to object, 
    Mr. Chairman, I will advise the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall) 
    that at this moment I have no objection to the sub

[[Page 6639]]

    stitute, but I do object to his second unanimous-consent request 
    that we amend at any point. I insist that we take it up section by 
    section.
        Mr. Udall: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the 
    gentleman is within his rights, and I renew my unanimous-consent 
    request that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with at this 
    time and considered as read. It is printed in the Congressional 
    Record.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The amendment has to be read by 
    sections. The Clerk has read section 1.
        Mr. Udall: When section 1 has been read, I will move that the 
    Committee rise, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that section 
    1 of the amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered as 
    read.
        Mr. Roncalio: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.
        Mr. Skubitz: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Arizona?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 3.53 Where a special order makes in order the consideration of a 
    designated amendment in the nature of a substitute (in lieu of the 
    committee amendments printed in the bill), said substitute may be 
    offered after section one of the original bill is read.

    On Sept. 20, 1978,(18) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 1,(19) the above-stated proposition 
was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 124 Cong. Rec. 30434, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. The Ethics in Government Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20) Pursuant to the rule, it shall be 
    in order to consider by titles as an original bill for the purpose 
    of amendment the text of H.R. 13850, in lieu of the amendments now 
    printed in the bill, if offered as an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute. No amendments to said substitute shall be in order 
    except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate and 
    amendments printed in the Congressional Record at least 1 
    legislative day prior to their consideration. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, under the rule 
    and the statement of the Chair, must the committee substitute which 
    appears in the text of H.R. 1 be read first, or is the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute, H.R. 13850, in order at any point?
        The Chairman: No. The Danielson amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute will be read in lieu of the committee amendment now 
    printed in the bill as a substitute amendment for the original 
    bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Clerk will read section 1 of the original 
    bill.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be cited as the ``Ethics in Government Act of 1977''.

        Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    an

[[Page 6640]]

    amendment in the nature of a substitute which is made in order by 
    House Resolution 1323, and I offer it as an amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute for the committee amendment to be read by titles 
    under the 5-minute rule as an original bill.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will read by titles the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In situations like that above, if the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute is offered and adopted, the 
original bill and committee amendments printed therein are not read.

Prohibition Against Amendments ``Affecting'' Certain Subject

Sec. 3.54 Where an amendment, recommended by the Committee on Ways and 
    Means, to amend the Internal Revenue Code was adopted to a bill 
    comprehensively amending the Food Stamp Act, pursuant to a special 
    order making such amendment in order and prohibiting any further 
    amendment to the bill to ``change or affect'' the Internal Revenue 
    Code, a subsequent amendment not directly amending the Code and 
    containing the disclaimer that nothing therein be construed to 
    change or affect that law was held in order, where the proponent of 
    the amendment demonstrated that the existing law was not 
    necessarily affected by the amendment.

    On May 8, 1980,(1) during consideration of the Food 
Stamp Act Amendments of 1980, a point of order was made against the 
following amendment, which sought to require repayments by food stamp 
recipients of excess benefits received, to be collected by the 
Secretary of the Treasury in coordination with his responsibilities 
under other federal laws or by the Secretary of Agriculture:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 126 Cong. Rec. 10451, 10452, 10454, 10455, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 204. The Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended, is amended by 
    redesignating section 18 as section 20, and by inserting after 
    section 17 the following new sections:

                    ``REPAYMENT FOR EXCESS BENEFITS RECEIVED

        ``Sec. 18. (a)(1) Each individual who is 19 years of age or 
    older during any entire taxable year and who, in any taxable year, 
    participates in the food stamp program as a member of any household 
    participating in the food stamp program, and has countable income 
    in excess of the exempt amount shall be liable to the United States 
    as determined in accordance with paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of 
    this section. . . .

[[Page 6641]]

        ``(f) The Secretary may transfer to the Secretary of the 
    Treasury an amount, as specified in appropriations acts, of any 
    funds appropriated to carry out this Act for fiscal years beginning 
    after September 30, 1980, which is sufficient to enable the 
    Secretary of the Treasury to carry out section 19 of this Act. . . 
    .
        ``Sec. 206. No provision of the amendment to the Food Stamp Act 
    of 1977 made by section 204 of this Act shall be construed to 
    change or affect in any manner the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or 
    the application of any provision of such Code. . . .
        Mr. [Fortney H.] Stark [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the Jeffords amendment. I object in no 
    uncertain terms to the amendment as a violation of the rule 
    providing for the consideration of this bill.
        The rule provides that after the amendment recommended by the 
    Committee on Ways and Means is adopted no further amendment is in 
    order ``to further change or affect the Internal Revenue Code.''
        The Ways and Means Committee amendment has been adopted. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont effectively amends 
    section 6402(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is therefore in 
    violation of the rule.
        The Jeffords amendment creates a liability for excess food 
    stamp benefits received. It then provides that the Secretary of the 
    Treasury and the Secretary of Agriculture may provide for the 
    collection of this liability by offsetting the liability against 
    tax refunds otherwise due an individual on account of overpayment 
    of a Federal tax. This effectively amends 6402(a) of the Internal 
    Revenue Code. This section is the only authority that the Secretary 
    of the Treasury has to reduce the amount of refund due a taxpayer 
    on account of overpayment of a tax. . . .
        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: . . . First of all, what 
    I really want to do is quote from the amendment. It is on page 10, 
    section 206:

            No provision of the amendment to the Food Stamp Act of 1977 
        made by section 204--

        The one we are talking about--
        of this Act shall be construed to change or affect in any 
        manner the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, or the application of 
        any provision of such Code.

        This is right out of the rule.
        What the gentleman would ask the Chair to do is change this 
    body from a parliamentary body into a court of law and have the 
    Chair act as a judge, not as chairman of the committee, for what he 
    seeks for the chairman to do is interpret the Internal Revenue Code 
    and make a judgment as a judge as to whether or not this is 
    occurring. The amendment we are seeking here says we do not believe 
    it does, and if it does it cannot, by virtue of the provision, it 
    cannot affect it and, therefore, whether it be the Attorney General 
    or some court of law who would say--

            All right, you cannot do that; what you are trying to do is 
        wrong; you cannot have it and offset against the refund.

        We happen to believe, or I happen to believe that it is 
    possible that they could interpret it to say that that is

[[Page 6642]]

    not an effect on the Internal Revenue Code because even though the 
    Internal Revenue Code says that nothing prevents a refund from 
    being used for some other purpose, I think that is a possible 
    interpretation, that we are not affecting the Code. We are 
    affecting a result of the Code which would not have anything to do 
    with the Internal Revenue Code. It might affect the procedures 
    under which the Internal Revenue Service operates, but there is 
    nothing that says that the Internal Revenue Service can only do 
    things which are prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code. They can 
    do other things.
        But I think, as the Chairman ruled last time, that it is not 
    nongermane to ask some other body to undertake some additional 
    burdens, but you cannot change and restructure the burdens they 
    have. We say this might be an additional burden, but irrelevant to 
    the Code. Let me say in finality that is a judgment to be made by a 
    court, a judgment to be made by the Attorney General, but not by 
    the Chairman of the House, because the bill itself precludes it 
    from being interpreted as in violation of the rule.
        The Chairman: (2) It is not the function of the 
    Chairman to rule on the merits of an amendment, but whether an 
    amendment, on its face, complies with the Rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from California appropriately pointed to the 
    sentence in the House Resolution 651 in question, as to whether in 
    fact this amendment causes further change in or effect on the 
    Internal Revenue Code.
        The Chair was aware that this controversy was pending. The 
    Chair has read the amendment as it appeared in the Record and was 
    prepared to rule that the amendment was not in order in that form.
        The amendment, however, as offered, does contain the additional 
    language,

            No provision of the amendment to the Food Stamp Act of 1977 
        made by section 204 of this Act shall be construed to change or 
        affect in any manner the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or the 
        application of any provision of such Code.

        The Chair would rule that on its face and for the reasons 
    stated by the gentleman from Vermont the amendment does comply with 
    the rule and the amendment, therefore, is in order.

Where Part of Bill Is Closed to Amendments, Conforming Amendments 
    Thereto Not Permitted

Sec. 3.55 To a bill being considered under a special rule prohibiting 
    any amendment to certain sections in a title thereof, an amendment 
    (offered en bloc with another amendment inserting a new section in 
    that title) making merely a conforming change in a section not open 
    to amendment was ruled out of order.

    On Aug. 8, 1974, (3) the Committee of the Whole had 
under

[[Page 6643]]

consideration H.R. 16090, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, 
pursuant to a special rule prohibiting any amendment to certain 
sections. An amendment was offered, with an amendment making a 
conforming change in a section not open to amendment. A point of order 
against the amendments was based on the contention that, first, the 
primary amendment constituted an appropriation on a legislative bill 
and that, second, the conforming amendment was out of order if the 
primary amendment was out of order. The Chair, (4) after 
ruling the primary amendment out of order, ruled out the conforming 
amendment as violating the provision of the special rule as described 
above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 120 Cong. Rec. 27496, 27497, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward I.] Koch [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer two 
    amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Koch: Page 79, immediately after 
        line 9, insert the following new section:

                                 campaign mail

            Sec. 410. (a) Chapter 95 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
        1954 (relating to Presidential Election Campaign Fund) is 
        amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section: 
        . . .
            ``(2) The Secretary shall make payments to an eligible 
        candidate for mailings under paragraph (1) upon the receipt of 
        certification from such candidate that such payments shall be 
        used exclusively for the mailing of campaign mail. . . .
            And redesignate the following section accordingly.
            Page 79, line 15, strike out ``and 409'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``409, and 410''. . . .

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order on the amendments. The gentleman from New York was kind 
    enough to offer one of the amendments to me, the one referring to 
    page 79, after line 9, on campaign mail. I will reserve a point of 
    order if the gentleman from New York wishes to use the balance of 
    his time to explain the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Does the gentleman from Ohio press his point of order?
        Mr. Hays: I am not sure I know what the second amendment is.
        Mr. Koch: It is just a perfecting amendment to locate the 
    numbers within the bill itself. It does not change the amendment.
        Mr. Hays: Mr. Chairman, I do press my point of order against 
    the amendments. I object to the first amendment, which is obviously 
    subject to a point of order in that it appropriates money and 
    orders the Secretary to make payments.
        The second amendment is an amendment to that amendment, or a 
    correcting amendment, so that if the first amendment is out of 
    order then the second one is also.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The point of order raised by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hays) 
    is well

[[Page 6644]]

    taken. The first amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Koch) constitutes an appropriation on a legislative bill in 
    violation of clause 4, rule XX, and is not protected by the rule. 
    The second amendment is not in order under House Resolution 1292. 
    Therefore the point of order is sustained.

Rule Permitting Only Committee Amendments--Preferential Motion Offered 
    After Stage of Amendment Passed

Sec. 3.56 The stage of amendment is passed in Committee of the Whole 
    where a bill is being considered under a rule permitting only 
    committee amendments and where no committee amendments are offered 
    at the conclusion of general debate.

    On Apr. 16, 1970, (5) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 116 Cong. Rec. 12092, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 16311 (Committee on Ways and Means).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) Under the rule, the bill is 
    considered as having been read for amendment. No amendments are in 
    order to the bill except amendments offered by direction of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John D. Dingell (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there any committee amendments?
        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, there are no 
    committee amendments. . . .
        Mr. [Omar T.] Burleson of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    preferential motion. Is it in order to offer a preferential motion 
    at this time?
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman advise the Chair what sort of 
    preferential motion he has in mind?
        Mr. Burleson of Texas: To strike the enacting clause.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Texas 
    that that motion is not in order unless amendments are in order, 
    and are offered. There being no committee amendments, that motion 
    will not be in order at this time.

En Bloc Committee Amendments

Sec. 3.57 Where a bill is being considered under a special rule 
    providing for consideration en bloc of certain committee amendments 
    printed in the bill, the Chair directs the Clerk to report the 
    amendments en bloc and they need not be offered from the floor.

    On July 8, 1975,(7) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 49, pursuant to a special rule, the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 21630, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (8) Under the rule, it shall now be in 
    order to consider en

[[Page 6645]]

    bloc the amendments recommended by the Committee on Armed Services 
    now printed in the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendments:
            Page 3, between lines 19 and 20 insert the following: 
        ``TITLE I''.
            Page 3, line 20, strike out ``That in'' and insert ``Sec. 
        101. In''. . . .

        Mr. [F. Edward] Hebert [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I will not 
    offer the amendments of the Armed Services Committee as described 
    in the rule.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from 
    Louisiana that under the rule the amendments are offered and 
    presented en bloc. They have been presented.

Sec. 3.58 Unanimous consent is required to consider en bloc separate 
    committee amendments printed in a bill, even where a special order 
    adopted by the House provides that the bill is considered as having 
    been read for amendment and that said committee amendments are 
    considered before other committee or individual amendments.

    On Aug. 10, 1978,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 13511, the Revenue Act of 1978, pursuant to House 
Resolution 1306,(10) a ``modified closed'' rule which 
provided that the bill be considered as read, allowed only designated 
amendments (including committee amendments), and prescribed the order 
of consideration for such amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 124 Cong. Rec. 25453, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
10. Id. at pp. 25415, 25416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) All time has expired for general 
    debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule the bill is considered as having been read 
    for amendment. No amendments shall be in order except the following 
    amendments which shall not be subject to amendment except 
    amendments recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, and 
    which shall be considered in the following order:
        First. The committee amendments printed in the bill (except for 
    section 404);
        Second. The committee amendment adding a new section 404. . . .
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the first committee 
    amendment.
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent, in the interest of saving time, that the committee 
    amendments as printed in the bill, except for section 404, be 
    considered en bloc, considered as read, and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Oregon?
        There was no objection.

Priority of Committee Amendments

Sec. 3.59 Where a ``modified closed'' rule adopted by the

[[Page 6646]]

    House permitted consideration of reported committee amendments en 
    bloc and permitted three designated amendments to be offered 
    without specifying the order of consideration, the Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole required that the committee amendments be 
    first disposed of unless the Committee of the Whole determined 
    otherwise by unanimous consent.

    On Dec. 1, 1982,(12) during consideration of H.R. 6995 
(13) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings 
described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 128 Cong. Rec. 28206, 28209, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. The Federal Trade Commission Authorization Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
    considered as having been read for amendment under the 5-minute 
    rule. No amendments are in order except: First, the amendments en 
    bloc recommended by the Committee on Rules now printed in the bill; 
    second, the amendment printed in the Congressional Record of 
    September 15, 1982, by, and if offered by, Representative Luken or 
    Representative Lee which shall be subject to a substitute printed 
    in the Congressional Record of September 15, 1982, by 
    Representative Broyhill and if offered by Representative Broyhill 
    or Representative Dingell. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would entertain first the amendments en bloc 
    recommended by the Committee on Rules now printed in the bill, 
    unless someone requests unanimous consent to proceed otherwise.
        Mr. [James J.] Florio [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Dannemeyer) be authorized at this point to offer the so-called 
    Luken-Lee amendment. . . .
        There was no objection.

Sec. 3.60 Pursuant to a special rule making in order the offering of a 
    designated amendment to a part of a bill only after the disposition 
    of three groups of committee amendments to that part, the Chair 
    indicated the third group of amendments en bloc must be disposed of 
    prior to the offering of a floor amendment to that part.

    On Aug. 3, 1977,(15) during consideration of H.R. 8444 
(the National Energy Act), the Chair responded to a parliamentary 
inquiry as indicated above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 26447, 26448, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) . . . The Clerk will designate 
    the next ad hoc committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 193, line 11, after ``the cost of'' insert 
        ``compression,''.

        The question is on the ad hoc committee amendment.

[[Page 6647]]

        The ad hoc committee amendment was agreed to.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Is the amendment that was made in order by the rule in order 
    now?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman from 
    Ohio that there are other ad hoc amendments.
        The Clerk will designate the next ad hoc committee amendments, 
    which under the rule are considered as read and considered en bloc.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 209, lines 3 and 4, on page 209, lines 12 through page 
        210, line 6, on page 210, line 7, on page 210, lines 16 through 
        18, on page 211, line 6, on page 211, lines 23 through 25, on 
        page 212, lines 4 through 6, and on page 212, lines 16 through 
        18.

        (The ad hoc committee amendments read as follows:) . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (17) The question is on ad 
    hoc committee amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The ad hoc committee amendments were agreed to.

Sec. 3.61 Where one committee's amendment printed in a reported bill 
    has been made in order by a special rule as a substitute for 
    another committee's amendment, and the primary amendment is ruled 
    out on a point of order, the committee amendment made in order as a 
    substitute retains the status of an amendment to the bill and is 
    reported by the Clerk.

    On Sept. 23, 1977,(18) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3, medicare-medicaid antifraud and abuse amendments. 
An amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means had been 
ruled out of order as not germane to the bill. An amendment recommended 
by another committee and made in order, by special rule, as a 
substitute for the amendment now ruled out of order, was ordered to be 
reported: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 123 Cong. Rec. 30534, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. The rule, it should be noted, did not indicate that the amendment 
        so made in order, was allowed to be considered only as a 
        substitute amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment recommended by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce, now printed beginning on page 70, line 6, through page 
    72, line 16, in the reported bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading Preliminary Sections Where Bill Being Read by Titles or Parts

Sec. 3.62 Where a bill was, pursuant to a special order, being

[[Page 6648]]

    considered for amendment by ``parts'', and several sections 
    preceded part I, each of those sections was considered as a 
    separate part for the purpose of the special order.

    On Aug. 2, 1977,(1) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill (2) pursuant to a special order 
as described above, the proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 123 Cong. Rec. 26124, 26125, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. H.R. 8444, National Energy Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (T)he House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
    the bill H.R. 8444, with Mr. Boland in the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Chairman: (3) When the Committee rose on Monday, 
    August 1, 1977, all time for general debate had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered by parts and each 
    part is considered as having been read for amendment. No amendment 
    shall be in order except pro forma amendments and amendments made 
    in order pursuant to House Resolution 727, which will not be 
    subject to amendment, except amendments recommended by the ad hoc 
    Committee on Energy and amendments made in order under House 
    Resolution 727. . . .
        The Clerk will designate the part of the bill now pending for 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 9, line 1, section 2. (Section 2 reads as follows:)

             SEC. 2. Findings and Statement of Purposes. . . .

        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, so I will 
    know how we are going to proceed, are we going to go through the 
    bill section by section, with the reading of each section?
        The Chairman: The Chair will inform the gentleman that the bill 
    will be considered part by part with each part considered as read. 
    The bill will not be read section by section.
        Mr. Volkmer: So we will continue, Mr. Chairman, with the 
    reading of each section or part, then, and the title of the 
    section?
        The Chairman: The Chair will further inform the gentleman that 
    section 4 precedes part I, and after that section has been disposed 
    of, we will move to part I of the bill. We have been considering 
    the preliminary four sections as separate parts.

Sec. 3.63 Where a special order provides that a committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute be considered by titles for amendment as 
    original text and that each title be considered as having been 
    read, the short title and table of contents (section 1) are 
    considered as one title, and once that portion has been designated 
    by the Clerk, the Clerk designates an amendment in the nature

[[Page 6649]]

    of a substitute, reported by another committee, whose (automatic) 
    consideration has been made in order by the special order.

    On May 15, 1979,(4) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 39,(5) the above-stated proposition 
was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 125 Cong. Rec. 11051, 11052, 11086, 11088, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, in order to 
    clarify the procedures of the House, I believe it would be helpful 
    if the House understood the rules under which we proceed.
        For that reason, I would propound to the Chair a series of 
    parliamentary inquiries.
        The Chairman: (6) If the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Dingell) would withhold for just 1 minute while the Chair 
    reads a statement, it may clarify the situation here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute recommended by the Committee on Interior and Insular 
    Affairs shall be considered by titles as an original bill for the 
    purpose of amendment and each title shall be considered as having 
    been read. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
    by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries shall be 
    considered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    amendment recommended by the Committee on Interior and Insular 
    Affairs and it shall be considered as having been read and it shall 
    be in order to consider as a substitute for the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Merchant 
    Marine and Fisheries the text of H.R. 3651 if offered by 
    Representative Udall, and said substitute if offered shall be 
    considered as having been read.
        The Clerk will designate section 1 of the Interior and Insular 
    Affairs Committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled,

                               table of contents

        Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents. . . .
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the amendment offered by the 
    Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries in the nature of a 
    substitute is considered as having been read and open for amendment 
    at any point.
        The Clerk will now designate the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute recommended by the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
    Fisheries.
        The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
    Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries reads as follows:
        That this Act may be cited as the ``Alaska National Interest 
    Lands Conservation Act''.

                               table of contents

            Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents. . . .

[[Page 6650]]

        Mr. Dingell: . . . Mr. Chairman, I believe the Chair has set 
    out with some clarity the parliamentary situation, but in order 
    that it might be very clear I would direct to the Chair the 
    following questions:
        One, as I understand, the Interior Committee bill is the bill 
    reported from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and is 
    the principal document under which we labor. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Dingell: And made in order by the rule is the substitute 
    which was reported from the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
    Fisheries, is that correct?
        The Chairman: That is correct, and that is the amendment that 
    is pending.
        Mr. Dingell: And the bill from the Committee on Merchant Marine 
    and Fisheries in the nature of a substitute is under the rule 
    before this body without having to be offered?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Dingell: And as I understand the rule, both bills are to be 
    read by title. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: Only the Interior text is read by title, but at 
    this point only section 1 of that text has been read.
        Mr. Dingell: Only the Interior bill is read by title. That 
    means, Mr. Chairman, that the Interior bill is open to amendment at 
    any time during the reading of the title, is that correct?
        The Chairman: Only the first part of the Interior bill has been 
    read.
        Mr. Dingell: Only the first part of the Interior bill has been 
    read, but the whole of the first part is open to amendment at this 
    time?
        The Chairman: The only portion of the Interior text that is 
    pending is section 1, the table of contents and the short title, up 
    to page 7. . . .
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Chairman: Pursuant to the rule, the amendment offered as a 
    substitute for the amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    considered as read and open to amendment at any point.
        The Clerk will designate the amendment.
        The amendment offered as a substitute reads as follows . . .

                       short title and table of contents

            Section 1. This Act, together with the following table of 
        contents, may be cited as the ``Alaska National Interest Lands 
        Conservation Act of 1979''.

                               table of contents
        Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents. . . .

Waiving First Reading

Sec. 3.64 Special rules for the consideration of bills routinely 
    recommend that the first reading of a bill in Committee of the 
    Whole be dispensed with, to remove the possibility of dilatory 
    tactics and to expedite consideration of legislation.

    An early example of this practice is House Resolution 1368,

[[Page 6651]]

under consideration on Sept. 29, 1978: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 124 Cong. Rec. 32662, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move, section 402(a) of the Congressional 
        Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344) to the contrary 
        notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into the 
        Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
        consideration of the bill (H.R. 14042) to authorize 
        appropriations for fiscal year 1979 for procurement of aircraft 
        . . . and other weapons and for research, development, test and 
        evaluation for the Armed Forces . . . and for other purposes, 
        and the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 
        After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and 
        shall continue not to exceed one hour, to be equally divided 
        and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
        the Committee on Armed Services, the bill shall be read for 
        amendment under the five-minute rule by titles instead of by 
        sections. . . .

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: . . . Mr. Speaker, can 
    the gentleman offer the House any explanation as to why a well-
    established and time-honored rule of the House requiring the first 
    reading of a bill is to be dispensed with in this instance? This is 
    not a lengthy bill nor a controversial one.
        Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, this was 
    discussed in the Committee on Rules, since this is the first one of 
    several rules that it was done on, and it is purely just in the 
    interest of time. The intent was to move this legislation through 
    as quickly as possible, since it is basically noncontroversial and 
    since we do have a number of pieces of legislation we are going to 
    try to complete in the next 2 weeks.

Amendments Designated Where Reading Waived

Sec. 3.65 Where a special order provided that a bill be considered for 
    amendment by parts and that each part and the committee amendments 
    thereto be considered as having been read, the Chair directed the 
    Clerk to designate only the page and line number of the pending 
    part or committee amendment; the text of the pending part or 
    committee amendment was printed in full at that point in the 
    Congressional Record.

    On Aug. 2, 1977,(8) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill (9) pursuant to a special order 
as described above, the proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 123 Cong. Rec. 26124, 26125, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. H.R. 8444, National Energy Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (10) When the Committee rose on 
    Monday, August 1, 1977, all time for general debate had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered by parts and each 
    part is considered as having been read for

[[Page 6652]]

    amendment. No amendment shall be in order except pro forma 
    amendments and amendments made in order pursuant to House 
    Resolution 727, which will not be subject to amendment, except 
    amendments recommended by the ad hoc Committee on Energy and 
    amendments made in order under House Resolution 727. . . .
        The Clerk will designate the part of the bill now pending for 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 9, line 1, section 2. (Section 2 reads as follows:)

                Sec. 2. Findings and Statement of Purposes.

        The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the page and line number 
    of the first ad hoc committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Ad hoc committee amendment: Page 12, strike line 9, and 
        insert the matter printed on lines 11 through 14. (The ad hoc 
        committee amendment reads as follows:)

        and

            (9) to provide incentives to increase the amount of 
        domestically produced energy in the United States for the 
        benefit and security of present and future generations.

Sec. 3.66 In accordance with the procedure for considering committee 
    amendments to a bill under the five-minute rule in Committee of the 
    Whole, pursuant to a special order providing that said committee 
    amendments be considered en bloc and be considered as having been 
    read, the Chairman instructs the Clerk to designate the page and 
    line number of the amendments.

    On Aug. 2, 1977,(11) during consideration of H.R. 8444, 
the National Energy Act, the proceedings described above were as 
indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 26172, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (12) The Clerk will designate the page 
    and line number of the ad hoc committee amendments, the first group 
    of the amendments recommended by the ad hoc committee to be 
    considered en bloc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 183, line 11 through page 184, line 19 . . . and on 
        page 208, line 4 through page 209, line 2, and an amendment 
        inserting on page 188, line 11, the word ``domestic'' before 
        the word ``crude''.

Recognition To Offer Amendments

Sec. 3.67 Where the Committee of the Whole was considering a bill 
    pursuant to a ``modified closed'' rule permitting only designated 
    amendments to be offered, the Chair inquired of a Member seeking 
    recognition to offer an amendment whether his amendment had been 
    made in order under the rule before recognizing him to offer the 
    amendment.

[[Page 6653]]

    On Aug. 3, 1977,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8444, the National Energy Act. When a Member sought 
recognition to offer an amendment, the proceedings, described above, 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 123 Cong. Rec. 26448, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (14) The Chair would like 
    to inquire of the gentleman from Ohio if this is an amendment 
    permissible under the rule and made in order under the rule?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: This is authorized under the rule and has 
    been assigned to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) to offer at 
    this point.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, two things. 
    I reserve all necessary points of order and, second, I inquire, has 
    the unanimous-consent request been made for the dispensation of the 
    reading of the amendment? I am not making that request.
        The Chairman: (15) The Clerk will first have to 
    report the amendment and then the gentleman's request will be in 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the amendment.

Sec. 3.68 A resolution reported from the Committee on Rules which 
    merely makes in order the consideration of a particular amendment 
    (in the nature of a substitute) but does not waive points of order 
    or otherwise confer a privileged status upon the amendment does 
    not, in the absence of legislative history establishing a contrary 
    intent by that committee, alter the principles that recognition to 
    offer an amendment under the five-minute rule is within the 
    discretion of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole and that 
    adoption of one amendment in the nature of a substitute precludes 
    the offering of another.

    On May 23, 1978,(16) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Resolution 1188,(17) the above-
stated proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 124 Cong. Rec. 15094-96, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
17. Providing for consideration of H.R. 10929, Department of Defense 
        authorization for fiscal year 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  H. Res. 1188

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to 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 (H.R. 10929). . . . It shall be 
        in order to consider the amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services

[[Page 6654]]

        now printed in the bill as an original bill for the purposes of 
        amendment, said substitute shall be read for amendment by 
        titles instead of by sections and all points of order against 
        said substitute for failure to comply with the provisions of 
        clause 5, rule XXI and clause 7, rule XVI, are hereby waived, 
        except that it shall be in order when consideration of said 
        substitute begins to make a point of order that section 805 of 
        said substitute would be in violation of clause 7, rule XVI if 
        offered as a separate amendment to H.R. 10929 as introduced. If 
        such point of order is sustained, it shall be in order to 
        consider said substitute without section 805 included therein 
        as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, said 
        substitute shall be read for amendment by titles instead of by 
        sections and all points of order against said substitute for 
        failure to comply with the provisions of clause 7, rule XVI and 
        clause 5, rule XXI are hereby waived. It shall be in order to 
        consider the amendment printed in the Congressional Record of 
        May 17, 1978, by Representative Carr if offered as an amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute for the amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services. 
        . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18). . . The . . . rule 
    requested makes in order the substitute of Representative Carr 
    printed in the Congressional Record of May 17, 1978. Under the open 
    rule, Mr. Carr would already be entitled to offer his amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute. Although this provision in the rule 
    does not give Mr. Carr special or preferred status under the rule, 
    it does indicate the Rules Committee's desire to have all the 
    diverse viewpoints on the DOD legislation available for 
    consideration by the House. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I would like 
    to put a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair regarding the language 
    on page 2 of the rule, line 24, through line 4 on page 3. It 
    appears to me that the making in order of the offering of a 
    substitute to the committee amendment by the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Carr) is nothing more than an expression of the right 
    of any Member of the House to offer such amendment at any time in 
    the Committee of the Whole. My question to the Chair is whether or 
    not the appearance of this language in the rule in any way changes 
    the right of the Chair to recognize members of the committee in 
    order of seniority at the Chair's discretion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The recognition will be a matter for 
    the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House to determine. . . 
    .
        Mr. Bauman: My specific question, Mr. Speaker, was whether or 
    not this varies the precedents regarding recognition and confers 
    upon the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Carr) some special status as 
    opposed to the Chair's recognizing other members of the Committee 
    on Armed Services handling the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It would still be up to the Chairman 
    of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union to 
    determine the priorities of recognition. . . .
        Let the Chair respond by stating that the rules of the House 
    will apply and will not be abridged by reason of the adoption of 
    this rule. If another amendment in the nature of a sub

[[Page 6655]]

    stitute should have been adopted, it would not perforce thereafter 
    be in order to offer an additional amendment, whether it be the 
    Carr amendment or any other.
        As the Chair interprets the inclusion of the language referred 
    to in the rule, it confers no special privilege upon the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute referred to as the Carr substitute. 
    It presumes and makes in order such language as an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute. Beyond that, it does not foreclose 
    consideration of any other germane language that otherwise would be 
    in order. . . .
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: . . . [I]f along the way 
    a substitute is adopted other than that offered by the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Carr) then at the end of our consideration the 
    substitute of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Carr) would not be 
    in order; is that correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair believes the gentleman from 
    Missouri (Mr. Volkmer) has correctly stated the parliamentary 
    situation, if any amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    adopted, then additional amendments would not be in order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Section 805 of the committee substitute 
related to troop withdrawals from Korea, a matter unrelated to the bill 
and beyond the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee. The 
Committee on International Relations successfully urged the Rules 
Committee to render that section alone subject to a point of order, 
while protecting the consideration of the remainder of the substitute 
as original text. (Since a point of order against any portion of an 
amendment renders the entire amendment subject to a point of order, 
language was necessary in the rule to allow the consideration of a new 
amendment without the offending section.)

Sec. 3.69 Where a special order adopted by the House makes in order a 
    designated amendment to a bill in Committee of the Whole but gives 
    no special priority or precedence to such an amendment, the Chair 
    is not required to extend prior recognition to offer that amendment 
    but may rely on other principles of recognition such as alternation 
    between majority and minority parties and priority of perfecting 
    amendments over motions to strike.

    Recognition to offer amendments in Committee of the Whole is in the 
Chair's discretion, and no point of order lies against the Chair's 
recognition of one Member over another, where the special order 
governing the consideration of the bill gives no particular precedence 
to an amendment. Thus, as indicated in the proceedings of

[[Page 6656]]

June 21, 1979,(19) the Chair may, after recognizing the 
manager of a bill to offer a pro forma amendment under the five-minute 
rule, then recognize the ranking minority member to offer a perfecting 
amendment, prior to recognizing another majority member seeking 
recognition on behalf of another committee with jurisdiction over a 
portion of the bill to move to strike out that portion, where the 
motion to strike is made in order but given no preferential status in 
the special rule governing consideration of the bill. The proceedings, 
during consideration of H.R. 111, the Panama Canal Act of 1979, were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 15999, 16000, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: Page 187, strike out line 
        19 and all that follows through line 20 on page 189 and insert 
        in lieu thereof the following:

                             Chapter 2--Immigration

            Sec. 1611. Special Immigrants.--(a) Section 101(a)(27) of 
        the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27), 
        relating to the definition of special immigrants, is amended . 
        . . 

        Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York] (during the reading): 
    Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a point of order. My point of order 
    is that under the rule the Committee on the Judiciary was given the 
    right to offer an amendment to strike section 1611, and I believe 
    that is the import of the amendment offered. The gentleman's 
    amendment goes to that section, and I was on my feet.
        The Chairman: (20) First the amendment should be 
    read, and then the Chair will recognize the gentlewoman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk continued the reading of the amendment. . . .
        Ms. Holtzman: Mr. Chairman, I renew the point of order that I 
    tried to state at an earlier time. . . .
        [A]t the time that the last amendment was voted on, I was on my 
    feet seeking to offer an amendment on behalf of the Committee on 
    the Judiciary with respect to striking in its entirety section 1611 
    of the bill. The right to offer that amendment is granted under the 
    rule, in fact on page 3 of House Resolution 274. I want to ask the 
    Chair whether I am entitled to be recognized or was entitled to be 
    recognized to make first a motion, which was a motion to strike the 
    entire section before amendments were made to the text of the bill.
        The Chairman: Unless an amendment having priority of 
    consideration under the rule is offered, it is the Chair's practice 
    to alternate recognition of members of the several committees that 
    are listed in the rule, taking amendments from the majority and 
    minority side in general turn, while giving priority of recognition 
    to those committees that are mentioned in the rule.

[[Page 6657]]

        The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Holtzman) is a member of 
    such a committee, but following the adoption of the last amendment 
    the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy), the chairman of the 
    Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, sought recognition to 
    strike the last word. Accordingly, the Chair then recognized the 
    gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) to offer a floor amendment, 
    which is a perfecting amendment to section 1611 of the bill.
        The rule mentions that it shall be in order to consider an 
    amendment as recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, to 
    strike out section 1611, if offered, but the rule does not give any 
    special priority to the Committee on the Judiciary to offer such 
    amendments over perfecting amendments to that section.
        Ms. Holtzman: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard further? The 
    gentleman said that he was going to recognize members of the 
    committees that had a right to offer amendments under the rule 
    alternately. I would suggest to the Chair that no member of the 
    Committee on the Judiciary has been recognized thus far in the 
    debate with respect to offering such an amendment and, therefore, 
    the Chair's principle, as I understood he stated it, was not being 
    observed in connection with recognition.
        The Chairman: The Chair would observe that the Chair is 
    attempting to be fair in recognizing Members alternately when they 
    are members of committees with priority and that the rule permits 
    but does not give the Committee on the Judiciary special priority 
    of recognition over other floor amendments, which under the 
    precedents would take priority over a motion to strike.
        Second, the Chair would like to advise the gentlewoman from New 
    York that recognition is discretionary with the Chair and is not 
    subject to a point of order. Does the gentlewoman have any further 
    comment to make on the point of order?
        The Chair overrules the point of order and recognizes the 
    gentleman in the well.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The amendment offered by Mr. Bauman struck 
out section 1611 of the bill and inserted a new section, whereas the 
amendment made in order under the rule on behalf of the Committee on 
the Judiciary was an amendment to strike that section; thus adoption of 
the Bauman amendment precluded the offering of the Judiciary Committee 
amendment. It would have made little difference if Ms. Holtzman was 
recognized first, since the Bauman amendment could have been offered 
(as a perfecting amendment) while the Holtzman motion to strike was 
pending and if the Bauman amendment was adopted the motion to strike 
would have necessarily fallen and would not have been voted on.
    If the Holtzman amendment, and the amendments to be offered on 
behalf of the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Post Office and Civil 
Service, had been committee amendments formally rec

[[Page 6658]]

ommended in reports on H.R. 111, they would have been automatically 
considered by the Committee of the Whole. But as indicated in the 
discussion on the rule, only the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries had formally reported H.R. 111.

Sec. 3.70 Under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a bill may ordinarily be offered either after the 
    first section has been read or at the conclusion of reading of the 
    bill; but where a bill is being considered under a special rule 
    precluding further amendment to the bill upon adoption of a 
    committee amendment at the end thereof, an amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute can only be offered after the first section is 
    read, unless the committee amendment is rejected.

    On Sept. 23, 1980, (1) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 7020, (2) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 126 Cong. Rec. 26757, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. The Hazardous Waste Containment Act of 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (3) When the Committee of the Whole 
    arose on Friday, September 19, 1980, all time for general debate 
    had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the substitute committee amendment 
    recommended by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce now 
    printed in the reported bill shall be considered as an original 
    bill for the purpose of amendment and each section shall be 
    considered as having been read. No amendments to the amendment 
    recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means printed in the bill 
    shall be in order except pro forma amendments for the purpose of 
    debate and following amendments which shall not be amendable except 
    by pro forma amendments: First, the amendments recommended by the 
    Committee on Ways and Means; second, the amendment printed on page 
    H7926 in the Congressional Record of August 25, 1980, by 
    Representative Ullman of Oregon; and third, the amendment to be 
    printed in the Congressional Record of September 5, 1980, by and if 
    offered by, Representative Florio of New Jersey. Upon the adoption 
    of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means to 
    the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and no further 
    amendment to the bill shall be in order. . . .
        Are there any amendments to section 1? . . .
        Mr. [David A.] Stockman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, under the 
    terms of the rule, would a substitute amendment to the entire bill, 
    H.R. 7020, be in order only now, at this point for this bill?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman that 
    the

[[Page 6659]]

    gentleman's statement is correct, assuming adoption of the Ways and 
    Means Committee amendment at the conclusion of the reading of the 
    bill for amendment. Under the rule, no further amendments would 
    then be in order.
        Mr. Stockman: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute.

    Parliamentarian's Note: After the first section of original text is 
read for amendment under the five-minute rule, an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute may be offered, even if a special order 
governing consideration would prohibit consideration of such an 
amendment at the end of the bill, and even if adoption of such an 
amendment would prohibit the consideration of other perfecting 
amendments specifically made in order by the special order (unless the 
special order specifically prohibits such an amendment from being 
offered at the beginning of the bill or substitute).

Waiving Points of Order Against Amendments

Sec. 3.71 The Speaker indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry 
    that a pending resolution reported from the Committee on Rules 
    waived all points of order based on the germaneness rule against 
    any amendment in the nature of a substitute offered from the floor 
    to the measure made in order as original text, but not against 
    substitutes therefor or perfecting amendments thereto.

    On May 17, 1978, (4) during consideration of House 
Resolution 1186 providing for consideration of H.R. 39, (5) 
the Speaker pro tempore responded to a parliamentary inquiry as 
described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 124 Cong. Rec. 14139, 14145, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Christopher J.] Dodd [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules I call up House Resolution 1186 
    and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1186

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move . . . that the House resolve itself 
        into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
        for the consideration of (H.R. 39). . . . After general debate 
        . . . the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-
        minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute recommended by the Committee on Interior and Insular 
        Affairs now printed in italic in the bill, it shall be in order 
        to consider the text of the bill H.R. 12625 if offered as an 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute for the bill, said 
        substitute

[[Page 6660]]

        shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule as an 
        original bill by titles instead of by sections, and all points 
        of order against said substitute or any amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute offered thereto for failure to comply with the 
        provisions of clause 7, rule XVI and clause 5, rule XXI are 
        hereby waived. . . .

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, this waiver 
    applies, as the Chair has just stated, only to substitutes, not to 
    ordinary amendments; is that correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) The Chair will state it 
    applies to amendments in the nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Charles A. Vanik (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The special rule, by waiving points of 
order based on clause 7 of Rule XVI against ``any amendment in the 
nature of a substitute'' to the amendment made in order for 
consideration as original text, would have made any amendment 
regardless of subject matter in order as an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute. In order that an overly broad application of the waiver 
could be forestalled, a compromise amendment in the nature of a 
substitute was offered at the outset of consideration to the amendment 
made in order as original text. Since the rule only waived all 
germaneness points of order against amendments in the nature of a 
substitute, and not against substitutes or perfecting amendments, the 
pendency of the initial amendment in the nature of a substitute and its 
ultimate adoption precluded the offering of other nongermane amendments 
in the nature of a substitute.

Sec. 3.72 During consideration of a special order reported from the 
    Committee on Rules providing a ``modified open'' rule ``making in 
    order'' only two amendments to a particular section of a bill, but 
    not waiving points of order against the second offered amendment 
    following adoption of the first, the Chair recognized the minority 
    leader to request unanimous consent to permit the offering of a 
    minority Member's amendment notwithstanding its possible change of 
    an amendment already adopted (the last adopted amendment to be 
    reported to the House).

    On Oct. 19, 1983, (7) during consideration of House 
Resolution 329 in the House, the proceedings described above occurred 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 129 Cong. Rec. 28307, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: I should like to alert 
    the other side to my making a rather unusual, a very unusual 
    unanimous-consent request,

[[Page 6661]]

    and it would be this, Mr. Speaker: that I ask unanimous consent 
    that during the consideration of H.R. 2968 in the Committee of the 
    Whole, Mr. Robinson of Virginia be permitted to offer, as his 
    amendment to section 108 provided for in House Resolution 329, an 
    amendment to strike out that section in its entirety and insert a 
    new section, even if an amendment to strike out that section in its 
    entirety and insert a new section has already been adopted, and 
    that only the last such amendment in the nature of a substitute for 
    the section, which has been adopted, shall be reported back to the 
    House.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A special order ``making in order'' an 
amendment offered by a designated Member but not specifically waiving 
points of order does not permit consideration of the amendment unless 
in conformity with the general rules of the House. In the above case, 
the unanimous consent request to permit consideration of the amendment 
was objected to by the manager of the special order on the basis that 
it constituted a major change in the special order reported from the 
Committee on Rules.

Proper Scope of Inquiries--Chair's Interpretation or Reiteration of 
    Terms

Sec. 3.73 The Chair will refuse to entertain as a parliamentary inquiry 
    questions concerning the availability or interpretation of 
    amendments not yet offered, but may reiterate the proposed terms of 
    a pending special order for the information of Members.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on June 25, 
1981, (8) during consideration of House Resolution 169, 
providing for consideration of H.R. 3982, the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1981. The proceedings in the House were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 127 Cong. Rec. 14065, 14079, 14082, 14083, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 169 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.

        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 169

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move, any rule of the House to the 
        contrary notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
        the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3982) to provide for 
        reconciliation pursuant to section 301 of the first concurrent 
        resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 1982, and the 
        first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General 
        debate shall continue not to exceed eight hours. . . .

    Following debate on the rule, and after defeat of the previous

[[Page 6662]]

question, the Speaker recognized the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Rules to offer an amendment to the reported resolution.

        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Latta: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
            ``That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
        order to move, any rule of the House to the contrary 
        notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into the 
        Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
        consideration of the bill (H.R. 3982), to provide for 
        reconciliation pursuant to section 301 of the first concurrent 
        resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1982, and the first 
        reading of the bill shall be dispensed with, and all points of 
        order against said bill are hereby waived. . . . The bill shall 
        be considered as having been read for amendment under the five 
        minute rule. No amendment to the bill shall be in order in the 
        Committee of the Whole except an amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute which shall be the text of the bill H.R. 3964, said 
        amendment shall be considered as an original bill for the 
        purpose of amendment, and shall be considered as having been 
        read, all points of order are hereby waived against said 
        amendment, and no amendment shall be in order to said amendment 
        except--
            ``(1) A substitute amendment to title VI by Representative 
        Broyhill, if offered, and said amendment shall be considered as 
        having been read and shall not be subject to amendment or to a 
        division of the question in the House or in the Committee of 
        the Whole, but shall be debatable for not to exceed 2 hours to 
        be equally divided and controlled by Representative Broyhill 
        and a Member opposed thereto and all points of order against 
        said amendment are hereby waived and (2) the amendments of 
        Representative Latta of Ohio, said amendments shall be 
        considered en bloc and shall be considered as having been read 
        and shall not be subject to amendment or to a division of the 
        question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole, but 
        shall be debatable for not to exceed 4 hours, to be equally 
        divided and controlled by Representative Latta and a Member 
        opposed thereto, and all points of order against said 
        amendments are hereby waived. At the conclusion of the 
        consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall 
        rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
        may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be 
        considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
        final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
        recommit, with or without instructions.''

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) The gentleman from 
    Michigan will state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9 James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dingell: Is the Broyhill amendment published? Is it 
    available?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot answer that question. 
    The amendment has been read by the Clerk. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: I have a further legitimate parliamentary inquiry. 
    Is the Broyhill amendment different from the

[[Page 6663]]

    language of the Latta amendment, the Latta-offered rule?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is not in a position to 
    answer that question. . . .
        Mr. [James R.] Jones of Oklahoma: I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to determine if we have the 
    proper language of the rule we are about to be voting on, and is it 
    the same rule that says: ``the amendments of Representative Latta 
    of Ohio, said amendments shall be considered en bloc and shall be 
    considered as having been read and shall not be subject to 
    amendment or to a division of the question in the House or in the 
    Committee of the Whole, but shall be debatable for not to exceed 4 
    hours, to be equally divided and controlled by Representative Latta 
    and a Member opposed thereto, and all points of order against said 
    amendments are hereby waived.''
        Is this the rule we are about to vote on?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correctly reading 
    from the amendment to the rule upon which the previous question has 
    been ordered.
        Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, 
    Mr. Speaker. Do we have or does anyone have a copy of the Latta 
    amendment to be considered en bloc? The chairman of the Committee 
    on the Budget has not been able to get it. Does anybody have it?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot answer that question. 
    . . .
        Mr. [George] Miller [of California]: I would like to ask the 
    Chair under the rule, if the rule is adopted, does it in fact make 
    in order then the consideration of what is titled committee print 
    June 25, 1981? It is unclear to this Member, Mr. Speaker, whether 
    it will be this 350-page document and whether or not we will have 
    an opportunity to have the Clerk read the document to the Members 
    of the House. Is this in fact the document to be debated?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is not in a position to 
    answer that question. The amendment proposed and upon which a vote 
    presently will be taken simply stipulates ``amendments of 
    Representative Latta of Ohio, said amendments'' to be considered en 
    bloc.
        In response to the second portion of the gentleman's question, 
    those amendments the rule considers as read and not open to 
    amendment at any point. . . .
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Listening to the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma and the Speaker reading the rule, I did not 
    hear anything about a motion to recommit being in order. I would 
    like to know, under the Rules of the House, even though the rule 
    does not specifically provide for a motion to recommit--is there a 
    provision?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman 
    from Missouri that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Latta) does specifically provide for one motion to recommit 
    either with or without instructions.

Specified Order of Amendments

Sec. 3.74 Pursuant to a ``modified closed rule'' permitting only

[[Page 6664]]

    two designated Members to offer amendments which would not be 
    amendable and not specifying the order of consideration, the Chair 
    indicated that either amendment could be offered first but could 
    not be offered during the pendency of the other amendment.

    On June 26, 1981, (10) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 3982, (11) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 127 Cong. Rec. 14492, 14493, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James R.] Jones of [Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I would like 
    to first pose a question to the Chair, and that is: If we do not 
    rise, what is the parliamentary situation? If the gentleman from 
    North Carolina [Mr. Broyhill] does not want to offer his substitute 
    at this time, is the gentleman precluded from doing so later?
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair will respond in the 
    negative. The rule does not dictate the order of amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: So at any time in these proceedings, the 
    gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill) could offer his 
    substitute?
        The Chairman: The Broyhill amendment cannot be offered if the 
    Latta amendments are pending.
        Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: But if the Latta amendment is pending 
    and disposed of, could the Broyhill amendment be offered after 
    that?
        The Chairman: The Chair will respond in the affirmative, yes.

Limiting Consideration of All Amendments

Sec. 3.75 When the Committee of the Whole is operating under a special 
    order limiting consideration of all amendments to a number of hours 
    of consideration, and the Committee rises during that time 
    immediately following the offering of an amendment, that amendment 
    remains pending when the Committee resumes its sitting and 
    subsequent amendments may be offered only after its disposition and 
    during the time remaining for consideration of all amendments; no 
    amendments may be offered thereafter, since the special order 
    terminates consideration and overrides Rule XXIII clause 6, which 
    would otherwise guarantee additional time for amendments printed in 
    the Record.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on Apr. 9, 
1986, (13) during consideration of H.R. 4332 (the Firearms 
Law Re

[[Page 6665]]

form Act). The bill was being considered under the terms of a special 
rule (H. Res. 403, agreed to on Apr. 9, 1986) which provided:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 132 Cong. Rec. 6896, 6897, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
        resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
        XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
        Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 
        the bill (H.R. 4332) to amend chapter 44 (relating to firearms) 
        of title 18, United States Code, and for other purposes, and 
        the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. After 
        general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall 
        continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally divided and 
        controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
        Committee on the Judiciary, the bill shall be considered for 
        amendment under the five-minute rule. Immediately after the 
        enacting clause is read, it shall be in order to consider the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
        Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, and said 
        amendment shall be considered as having been read. Before the 
        consideration of perfecting amendments to said amendment, it 
        shall be in order for Representative Volkmer of Missouri to 
        offer a substitute for said amendment consisting of the text of 
        his amendment printed in the Congressional Record of March 18, 
        1986, and said substitute shall be considered as having been 
        read. Before the consideration of other perfecting amendments 
        to the amendment or to the substitute it shall be in order, 
        notwithstanding the prohibition against a member offering an 
        amendment to his own amendment, to consider a perfecting 
        amendment printed in the Congressional Record of March 19, 1986 
        by, and if offered by Representative Volkmer of Missouri to his 
        substitute. No amendment to the amendment or to the substitute 
        shall be in order except pro forma amendments for the purpose 
        of debate and amendments printed in the Congressional Record. 
        At the expiration of five hours of consideration of said 
        amendment and substitute for amendment under the five-minute 
        rule, no further amendment to the amendment, to the substitute 
        or to the bill shall be in order, and the question shall occur 
        on the pending amendment or amendments. At the conclusion of 
        the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee 
        shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
        amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question 
        shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
        thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one 
        motion to recommit.

    The proceedings relating to H.R. 4332 were as follows:

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hughes to the amendment, as 
        amended, offered by Mr. Volkmer as a substitute for the 
        Judiciary Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
        amended: Page 7, line 10, strike out ``shall not apply'' and 
        all that follows through ``firearms'' in line 2 on page 8, and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following: ``shall not apply to the 
        sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a 
        State other than a State in which the licensee's place of 
        business is located. . . .

        Mr. [William J.] Hughes [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I yield 
    the balance of my time, and move that the Committee do now rise.

[[Page 6666]]

        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman yields back the 
    balance of his time and moves that the Committee rise. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Charles B. Rangel (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles] Roemer [of Louisiana]: Is it the position of the 
    House, Mr. Chairman, that when we rise and meet tomorrow, the 
    Hughes amendment pendng now would begin the debate?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Louisiana is exactly correct.
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Volkmer: When we come in tomorrow and the Committee begins 
    to act on the bill, we will have only the time left under the 5 
    hours for amendments, is that not correct?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Volkmer: Which right now is approximately 1 hour?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Volkmer: And then the rest of the amendments, are they cut 
    off? Or do we go ahead for those that are in the Record and vote on 
    them after 5 minutes each?
        The Chairman: There will not be any amendments that would be in 
    order after the conclusion of the 5-hour consideration.

Debate on Amendments

Sec. 3.76 Where a ``modified closed'' rule permitted only one amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute and one substitute therefor, and 
    divided a separate hour of debate on each substitute between the 
    same two Members, the Chair permitted the total time to be 
    accumulated and consumed before putting the question on the 
    substitute.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on June 10, 
1982,(15) during consideration of House Concurrent 
Resolution 352, the first concurrent resolution on the budget, fiscal 
1983. The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 128 Cong. Rec. 13387, 13390, 13395, 13399, 13409, 97th Cong. 2d 
        Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) All time for general debate has 
    expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XXIII, the concurrent resolution 
    is considered as having been read for amendment and open for 
    amendment at any point.
        The concurrent resolution is as follows. . . .

    TITLE I--REVISION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES 
                    GOVERNMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1982

        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: . . . The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute.

[[Page 6667]]

        The amendment in the nature of a substitute is as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Latta: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following. . . .

        The Chairman: Under the rule, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
    Jones) will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Latta) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Jones.
        Mr. [James R.] Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Chairman: Pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 
    496, the amendment in the nature of a substitute is considered as 
    having been read.
        The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute is as follows. . . .
        The Chairman: Pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 
    496, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones) will be recognized for 
    30 minutes and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) will be 
    recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
    Jones).
        Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, in order to resolve the 
    technicalities, I will use 30 minutes on the Jones substitute 
    first, and the remaining 30 minutes on the Latta substitute. I 
    think we have agreed to alternate back and forth the total hour we 
    have.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Simon) a member of the committee. . . .
        Mr. [Ralph] Regula [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        What is the situation at the moment? Have we completed with the 
    first hour, that is, in effect, the debate on the Jones substitute?
        The Chairman: In effect, the Chair has. The Chair believes, and 
    it has been treating the time as a fungible commodity. The total 
    time has been allocated as to both amendments. In effect, the 
    gentleman from Ohio has remaining to himself to yield, 30 minutes, 
    and the gentleman from Oklahoma has 29 minutes remaining.

Sec. 3.77 The Committee on Rules may report a resolution providing 
    additional procedures to govern the further consideration of a 
    measure already pending in Committee of the Whole, including 
    limiting further consideration of amendments to a total amount of 
    time, and prohibiting further debate or amendments when the 
    limitation has expired.

    On May 4, 1983,(17) Committee on Rules Chairman Claude 
Pepper, of Florida, called up for immediate consideration in the House, 
House Resolution 179, providing for the further consider

[[Page 6668]]

ation of House Joint Resolution 13, then pending in Committee of the 
Whole. The reported resolution and Chairman Pepper's comments thereon 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 129 Cong. Rec. 11036, 11037, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Pepper: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
    Rules, I call up House Resolution 179 and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 179

            Resolved, That during the further consideration of the 
        joint resolution (H.J. Res. 13) calling for a mutual and 
        verifiable freeze on and reductions in nuclear weapons, further 
        consideration of amendments to the committee amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute shall terminate at the expiration of ten 
        further hours of such consideration, and at the expiration of 
        said time the Committee of the Whole shall immediately proceed 
        to vote on any amendments pending to said substitute, and then 
        on said substitute. During such time limitation, debate on any 
        amendment to said substitute, and on any amendment thereto, 
        whether or not printed in the Congressional Record, shall 
        continue not to exceed thirty minutes, equally divided and 
        controlled by the proponent of the amendment and a Member 
        opposed thereto. After the disposition of said substitute, the 
        preamble shall be considered for amendment, debate on each 
        amendment to the preamble or on each amendment thereto shall 
        continue not to exceed thirty minutes, equally divided and 
        controlled by the proponent of the amendment and a Member 
        opposed thereto, and further consideration of amendments to the 
        preamble shall terminate at the expiration of two hours of such 
        consideration, and at the expiration of said time the Committee 
        of the Whole shall immediately proceed to vote on any 
        amendments pending to the preamble. After the disposition of 
        said amendments, it shall be in order to consider the amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute by Representative Broomfield made 
        in order by House Resolution 138 for amendment under the five-
        minute rule, debate on each amendment to the amendment or on 
        each amendment thereto shall continue not to exceed thirty 
        minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent of the 
        amendment and a Member opposed thereto, and further 
        consideration of amendments to said amendment shall terminate 
        at the expiration of two hours of such consideration, and at 
        the expiration of said time the Committee of the Whole shall 
        immediately proceed to vote on any amendments pending to said 
        amendment, and then on said amendment. During the further 
        consideration of the joint resolution, the Chairman of the 
        Committee of the Whole shall not entertain any pro forma 
        amendment offered for the purpose of obtaining time for debate 
        only. During the further consideration of the joint resolution, 
        the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may, in his 
        discretion, announce after a recorded vote has been ordered 
        that he may reduce to not less then five minutes the period of 
        time in which a recorded vote, if ordered, will be taken by 
        electronic device on any amendment which is to be voted on 
        without further debate immediately following that fifteen-
        minute recorded vote. In the event that an amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute to the committee amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute to the resolution is adopted, it shall not be 
        in order to demand a separate vote in the House on any other 
        amendment adopted to said committee substitute. . . .

[[Page 6669]]

        Mr. Pepper: Mr. Speaker, there are two essential elements 
    involved in the legislative process. One is the right to debate, 
    the other is the right to decide. We have had some 45 hours of 
    debate upon the pending resolution. This rule today is offered by 
    the Rules Committee as an instrument by which the Members of this 
    House may also enjoy the right to decide the pertinent issues 
    involved in the pending resolution.
        Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 179 provides additional 
    procedures for the consideration of House Joint Resolution 13, 
    calling for a mutual and verifiable freeze on and reductions in 
    nuclear weapons. Prior to discussing the actual provisions of this 
    rule, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss 
    the necessity for this rule.
        On March 15, 1983, the Committee on Rules ordered reported an 
    open rule allowing 3 hours of general debate on House Joint 
    Resolution 13. The rule, House Resolution 138, was adopted on March 
    16 and since that time, Mr. Speaker, the House has spent more than 
    45 hours over 5 days considering only the resolving clause of the 
    joint resolution. On April 14, Chairman Zablocki requested an 
    additional rule on House Resolution 13, but later asked the Rules 
    Committee that the meeting scheduled for April 19 be canceled after 
    he reached what he believed at that time to be an agreement to 
    finish debate on the matter.
        On April 21, the House agreed, by a vote of 214 to 194 and 
    after three attempts, to a motion that ``debate on the resolving 
    clause--to House Joint Resolution 13--and all amendments thereto 
    cease at 3:30 p.m.'' on that date. The effect of that time 
    limitation agreement was to stop further debate on the resolving 
    clause of House Joint Resolution 13 under the 5-minute rule, with 
    the exception that amendments printed in the Congressional Record 
    could be offered pursuant to clause 6, rule XXIII, allowing the 
    member presenting the amendment 5 minutes to explain his amendment, 
    and the first person to obtain the floor 5 minutes to oppose the 
    amendment. In addition, perfecting amendments could be offered 
    while such amendments were pending. However, such perfecting 
    amendments would have been decided without debate unless printed in 
    the Record.
        The Committee of the Whole again debated House Joint Resolution 
    13 on Thursday, April 28. At that time, it became apparent that the 
    House would not be able to complete consideration of the nuclear 
    freeze resolution in any reasonable amount of time. Chairman 
    Zablocki then stated his intention of asking the Rules Committee to 
    grant an additional rule of the joint resolution.
        The Committee on Rules met on Monday, May 2, to consider the 
    possibility of granting an additional rule and again yesterday to 
    discuss further the rule and to vote on special order that we are 
    bringing before the House today.
        Let me say that during my absence last week I had left 
    authority before my departure with the able ranking majority member 
    on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Long, to 
    perform the necessary duties to allow the Rules Committee to 
    function. He subsequently met with the leadership of the House and 
    they formulated basically the rule which is presented today. It was 
    that rule

[[Page 6670]]

    which was considered on Monday and Tuesday of this week. We heard 
    several witnesses, 10 to 12 witnesses, most from the minority party 
    on that rule on Monday.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This rule has provided a model for further 
rules on complicated bills (see, for example, House Resolution 247, on 
H.R. 2760, Intelligence Authorization Amendment; and House Resolution 
300, on H.R. 2453, Radio Broadcasting to Cuba). It should be noted that 
there existed the possibility in this instance that a point of order 
would be made, based on the contention that the meeting on May 2 
(referred to by Chairman Pepper, above) was not called by the chairman, 
as required, but by the ranking majority member; and that clause 
2(g)(5) of Rule XI allowed such point of order since a similar point of 
order had been improperly overruled in committee. However, such point 
of order would not ordinarily lie since such provisions of Rule XI 
apply only to hearings. The May 2 proceeding was not a hearing but a 
meeting, and therefore the point of order did not survive, a subsequent 
and valid meeting having been held to report the rule.

Sec. 3.78 Where a special order adopted by the House limits debate on 
    an amendment to be controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and 
    prohibits amendments thereto, the Chair may in his discretion 
    recognize the manager of the bill if opposed, and there is no 
    requirement for recognition of the minority party.

    On June 18, 1986,(18) during consideration of H.R. 4868 
(19) in the Committee of the Whole, the situation described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 132 Cong. Rec. 14275, 14276, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. The Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20) Under the rule, the gentleman 
    from California (Mr. Dellums) will be recognized for 30 minutes, 
    and a Member opposed to the amendment will be recognized for 30 
    minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Bob Traxler (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Will those gentlemen who are opposed to the Dellums amendment 
    kindly stand so the Chair can designate?
        Is the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Bonker) opposed to the 
    amendment?
        Mr. [Don] Bonker [of Washington]: I advise the Chair that I 
    oppose the amendment.
        The Chairman: Then the Chair will recognize the gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. Bonker) for 30 minutes in opposition to the Dellums 
    amendment.
        Does the gentleman from Washington wish to yield any of his 
    time or share any of his time?

[[Page 6671]]

        Mr. Bonker: Mr. Chairman, I would yield half the allotted time, 
    15 minutes, to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Siljander).
        The Chairman: The time in opposition will be equally divided 
    between the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Bonker) and the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Siljander). . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, do I 
    understand that the process that has just taken place has given the 
    minority side one-quarter of the time.
        The Chairman: The Chair would counsel the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania in regard to his inquiry that the rule provides that a 
    Member will be recognized in opposition. The gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. Bonker) was recognized in opposition, and he shared 
    his time with your side.
        Mr. Walker: In other words, the minority, though, was not 
    recognized for the purposes of opposition. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: The Chair would state that the procedures of the 
    House are governed by its rules, but more importantly in this 
    instance, by the rule adopted by the House as reported from the 
    committee.

Sec. 3.79 The House having adopted a special order governing 
    consideration of a bill in Committee of the Whole providing for the 
    consideration of a substitute for a designated amendment, but also 
    providing that ``before the consideration of any amendments to said 
    amendment, it shall be in order to debate said amendment for not to 
    exceed one hour'', debate on the amendment must conclude before the 
    substitute may be offered (unless otherwise provided by unanimous 
    consent).

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on Aug. 15, 
1986,(1) during consideration of H.R. 4428.(2) 
The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 132 Cong. Rec. 22050, 22051, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. The Department of Defense Authorization, fiscal year 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (3) When the Committee of 
    the Whole rose on Thursday, August 14, 1986, amendment numbered 113 
    made in order pursuant to paragraph 3 of the House Resolution 531 
    had been completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is in order to consider an amendment if offered by 
    Representative Hawkins relating to the application of the Davis-
    Bacon Act at this point, which shall not be subject to amendment 
    except a substitute if offered by Representative Dickinson 
    consisting of the text of amendment numbered 114 printed in House 
    Report 99-766, which shall not be subject to amendment.
        The amendment and the substitute shall each be debatable for 1 
    hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and a Member 
    opposed thereto.

[[Page 6672]]

        Mr. [Augustus F.] Hawkins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment. . . .
        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, in order 
    to clarify the parliamentary situation, Mr. Chairman, I would like 
    to get a ruling from the Chair as to the procedure.
        The Chair has already announced the preference of offering the 
    amendments and what would be available as a substitute. My question 
    is, Under the rule, is it correct to say that Mr. Hawkins would 
    offer an amendment which would give him 1 hour to be divided, half 
    by him and half by some Member in opposition, which in this case 
    would be myself?
        At the end of that time, then the substitute, which I have, 
    would be offered and there would be another hour of debate, or is 
    there another allocation of time?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: That would be the scenario, the Chair 
    will state. . . . If the gentleman from California (Mr. Hawkins) 
    would yield to the gentleman at this point, we could have both the 
    amendments pending at the same time by unanimous consent.
        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, it was my thinking that perhaps it 
    would be advantageous, rather than having the gentleman go forward 
    for an hour and my going forward an hour, if we would agree that 
    there would be a total of 2 hours, half of which the gentleman 
    would control and half of which I would control. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair needs to make a 
    clarification.
        The Chair will state that under the rule, the gentleman's 
    amendment has to be debated for 1 hour.
        Mr. Dickinson: Well, that was my question.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Before the substitute can be offered.

Effect of Adoption or Rejection of Amendments Being Considered Under 
    Special Rule

Sec. 3.80 Where a special order adopted by the House makes in order an 
    amendment to strike out a portion of a bill and to insert new text, 
    and prohibits amendments to that amendment or further amendments 
    changing that portion of the bill if the designated amendment is 
    adopted, further amendments to that portion of the bill, including 
    a motion to strike, are in order if the designated amendment is 
    rejected.

    On Sept. 14, 1978,(4) the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole responded to several parliamentary inquiries concerning the 
procedure for offering amendments under the special rule providing for 
consideration of the bill H.R. 8729.(5) The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 124 Cong. Rec. 29477, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. Aircraft Noise Reduction Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William A.] Steiger [of Wisconsin]: . . . If the amendment 
    from the Committee on Ways and Means is

[[Page 6673]]

    adopted, is a motion to strike title III in order?
        The Chairman: (6) It would not be in order in that 
    event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Steiger: If the amendment from the Ways and Means Committee 
    is rejected, is a motion to strike title III in order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that in the 
    event the pending Ways and Means Committee amendment made in order 
    under the rule were to be rejected, then germane amendments to 
    title III would be in order, including a motion to strike.

Sec. 3.81 Where the House had adopted a special rule permitting 
    amendments to be offered although changing portions of the text of 
    amendments already agreed to, the Chair overruled a point of order 
    against an amendment changing provisions already amended.

    On Nov. 30, 1982,(7) it was held that, while under 
general procedure an amendment may not be offered which directly 
changes an amendment already agreed to, where the House has adopted a 
special rule permitting amendments to be offered even if changing 
portions of amendments already agreed to that principle does not apply. 
The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of 
H.R. 3809 (8) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 128 Cong. Rec. 28049, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Markey [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Markey: In section 114(a)(3), 
        strike out ``and legislature'' and insert in lieu thereof ``or 
        legislature''.
            In section 115(a), strike out ``and legislature'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``or legislature''. . . .

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on the amendment. . . .
        [T]he point of order is that the language that we adopted on 
    yesterday has already amended the sections and has stricken out 
    ``legislature,'' and thus this amendment would not be in order, 
    since it is action on amendments and sections that have already 
    been amended. . . .

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I think 
    the amendment is clearly in order, because under the rule that was 
    adopted for consideration of this bill, House Resolution 601, on 
    page 3, in lines 14, 15, and 16, it says: ``and all such amendments 
    shall be in order even if changing portions of the text of said 
    substitute already changed by amendment.''. . .
        The Chairman: (9) Is there any further discussion on 
    the point of order? If not, the Chair will rule pursuant to the

[[Page 6674]]

    rule that was adopted on page 3, lines 14 through 16, it clearly 
    states that all such amendments shall be in order even if changing 
    portions of the text of said substitute already changed by 
    amendment. And therefore, the point of order is not well taken, and 
    it is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Votes on Amendments Reported Back to the House

Sec. 3.82 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,(10) the Committee of the Whole having 
reported H.R. 3816 back to the House with an amendment, the proceedings 
described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 123 Cong. Rec. 33622, 33623, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) Are there further amendments? If 
    not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 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: (12) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).

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

[[Page 6675]]

        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.

Amendments Considered En Bloc

Sec. 3.83 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.

[[Page 6676]]

    On Sept. 7, 1978,(13) during consideration of H.R. 
7308,(14) the situation described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 124 Cong. Rec. 28423, 28425, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
14. 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: (15) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Thomas P. O'Neill (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?
        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).

[[Page 6677]]

        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.

    Parliamentarian's Note: En bloc consideration of amendments in 
Committee of the Whole pursuant to a unanimous-consent request therein 
does not result in an en bloc vote in the House upon demand for a 
separate vote, since that is an order of the Committee not binding on 
the House. Moreover, even amendments considered en bloc pursuant to a 
special rule are subject to a demand for a division of the question in 
the House if divisible, unless prohibited by the rule.


 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
                              A. GENERALLY
 
Sec. 4. Recognition To Offer Amendments; Priority

Necessity of Recognition

Sec. 4.1 A Member wishing to offer an amendment must first be 
    recognized by the Chair for that purpose.

    On Sept. 21, 1967,(16) the following exchange took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 113 Cong. Rec. 26370, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary 
    inquiry is this: Is a continuing resolution subject to amendment 
    when it is brought onto the floor of the House, if the amendment is 
    germane?
        The Speaker: (17) The Chair will state that any 
    germane amendment will be in order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: The parliamentary inquiry is this: 
    That the gentleman could offer an amendment if the Speaker 
    recognized the gentleman for that purpose?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the question answers 
    itself. The answer would be yes, subject to the right of 
    recognition, it is a question within the discretion of the Speaker.

Discretion of Chair

Sec. 4.2 Recognition for the purpose of offering amendments is within 
    the discretion of the Chair.

    On Dec. 15, 1937,(18) the following proceedings took 
place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 82 Cong. Rec. 1590, 75th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was S. 
        4275, the wages and hours bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Would not perfecting 
    amendments have priority over an amendment to substitute?
        The Chairman: (19) So far as voting is concerned, 
    yes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Boileau: I appreciate that fact, but may I propound a 
    further parliamentary inquiry, whether or not a Member rising in 
    his place and seeking recognition would not have a prior

[[Page 6678]]

    right to recognition for the purpose of offering a perfecting 
    amendment to the amendment now pending?
        The Chairman: It does not necessarily follow that such Member 
    would have a prior right. Recognition is in the discretion of the 
    Chair.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Other factors affecting recognition being 
equal, the Chair would normally recognize a Member to offer a 
perfecting amendment before recognizing a Member to offer a substitute 
for the entire text, under the doctrine that the pending text should be 
perfected before a decision is made on whether to strike out, or to 
strike out and insert new text.

Sec. 4.3 A resolution reported from the Committee on Rules which merely 
    makes in order the consideration of a particular amendment (in the 
    nature of a substitute) but does not waive points of order or 
    otherwise confer a privileged status upon the amendment does not, 
    in the absence of legislative history establishing a contrary 
    intent by that committee, alter the principles that recognition to 
    offer an amendment under the five-minute rule is within the 
    discretion of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole and that 
    adoption of one amendment in the nature of a substitute precludes 
    the offering of another.

    On May 23, 1978,(20) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Resolution 1188,(1) the above-
stated proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 124 Cong. Rec. 15094-96, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. Providing for consideration of H.R. 10929, Department of Defense 
        authorization for fiscal year 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 1188

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to 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 (H.R. 10929). . . . It shall be 
        in order to consider the amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now 
        printed in the bill as an original bill for the purposes of 
        amendment, said substitute shall be read for amendment by 
        titles instead of by sections and all points of order against 
        said substitute for failure to comply with the provisions of 
        clause 5, rule XXI and clause 7, rule XVI, are hereby waived, 
        except that it shall be in order when consideration of said 
        substitute begins to make a point of order that section 805 of 
        said substitute would be in violation of clause 7, rule XVI if 
        offered as a separate amendment to H.R. 10929 as introduced. If 
        such point of order is sustained, it shall be in order to 
        consider said substitute without section 805 included therein 
        as an original bill for the purpose of amend

[[Page 6679]]

        ment, said substitute shall be read for amendment by titles 
        instead of by sections and all points of order against said 
        substitute for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 
        7, rule XVI and clause 5, rule XXI are hereby waived. It shall 
        be in order to consider the amendment printed in the 
        Congressional Record of May 17, 1978, by Representative Carr if 
        offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
        Committee on Armed Services. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) . . . The . . . rule 
    requested makes in order the substitute of Representative Carr 
    printed in the Congressional Record of May 17, 1978. Under the open 
    rule, Mr. Carr would already be entitled to offer his amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute. Although this provision in the rule 
    does not give Mr. Carr special or preferred status under the rule, 
    it does indicate the Rules Committee's desire to have all the 
    diverse viewpoints on the DOD legislation available for 
    consideration by the House. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I would like 
    to put a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair regarding the language 
    on page 2 of the rule, line 24, through line 4 on page 3. It 
    appears to me that the making in order of the offering of a 
    substitute to the committee amendment by the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Carr) is nothing more than an expression of the right 
    of any Member of the House to offer such amendment at any time in 
    the Committee of the Whole. My question to the Chair is whether or 
    not the appearance of this language in the rule in any way changes 
    the right of the Chair to recognize members of the committee in 
    order of seniority at the Chair's discretion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The recognition will be a matter for 
    the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House to determine. . . 
    .
        Mr. Bauman: My specific question, Mr. Speaker, was whether or 
    not this varies the precedents regarding recognition and confers 
    upon the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Carr) some special status as 
    opposed to the Chair's recognizing other members of the Committee 
    on Armed Services handling the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It would still be up to the Chairman 
    of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union to 
    determine the priorities of recognition. . . .
        Let the Chair respond by stating that the rules of the House 
    will apply and will not be abridged by reason of the adoption of 
    this rule. If another amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    should have been adopted, it would not perforce thereafter be in 
    order to offer an additional amendment, whether it be the Carr 
    amendment or any other.
        As the Chair interprets the inclusion of the language referred 
    to in the rule, it confers no special privilege upon the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute referred to as the Carr substitute. 
    It presumes and makes in order such language as an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute. Beyond that, it does not foreclose 
    consideration of any other germane language that otherwise would be 
    in order. . . .
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: . . . [I]f along the way 
    a sub

[[Page 6680]]

    stitute is adopted other than that offered by the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Carr) then at the end of our consideration the 
    substitute of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Carr) would not be 
    in order; is that correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair believes the gentleman from 
    Missouri (Mr. Volkmer) has correctly stated the parliamentary 
    situation, if any amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    adopted, then additional amendments would not be in order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Section 805 of the committee substitute 
related to troop withdrawals from Korea, a matter unrelated to the bill 
and beyond the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee; the 
Committee on International Relations successfully urged the Rules 
Committee to render that section alone subject to a point of order, 
while protecting the consideration of the remainder of the substitute 
as original text. (Since a point of order against any portion of an 
amendment renders the entire amendment subject to a point of order, 
language was necessary in the rule to allow the consideration of a new 
amendment without the offending section.)

Sec. 4.4 Recognition to offer amendments in Committee of the Whole is 
    in the Chair's discretion, and no point of order lies against the 
    Chair's recognition of one Member over another, where the special 
    order governing the consideration of the bill gives no particular 
    precedence to an amendment.

    Where a special order adopted by the House makes in order a 
designated amendment to a bill in Committee of the Whole but gives no 
special priority or precedence to such an amendment, the Chair is not 
required to extend prior recognition to offer that amendment but may 
rely on other principles of recognition such as alternation between 
majority and minority parties and priority of perfecting amendments 
over motions to strike. Thus, as indicated in the proceedings of June 
21, 1979,(3) the Chair may, after recognizing the manager of 
a bill to offer a pro forma amendment under the five-minute rule, then 
recognize the ranking minority member to offer a perfecting amendment, 
prior to recognizing another majority member seeking recognition on 
behalf of another committee with jurisdiction over a portion of the 
bill to move to strike out that portion, where the motion to strike is 
made in order but given no preferential status in the special rule 
governing consideration of the bill.

[[Page 6681]]

The proceedings, during consideration of H.R. 111, the Panama Canal Act 
of 1979, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 125 Cong. Rec. 15999, 16000, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: Page 187, strike out line 
        19 and all that follows through line 20 on page 189 and insert 
        in lieu thereof the following:

                             Chapter 2--Immigration

            Sec. 1611. Special Immigrants.--(a) Section 101(a)(27) of 
        the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)), 
        relating to the definition of special immigrants, is amended . 
        . .

        Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York] [during the reading): 
    Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a point of order. My point of order 
    is that under the rule the Committee on the Judiciary was given the 
    right to offer an amendment to strike section 1611, and I believe 
    that is the import of the amendment offered. The gentleman's 
    amendment goes to that section, and I was on my feet.
        The Chairman: (4) First the amendment should be 
    read, and then the Chair will recognize the gentlewoman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk continued the reading of the amendment. . . .
        Ms. Holtzman: Mr. Chairman, I renew the point of order that I 
    tried to state at an earlier time. . . . [A]t the time that the 
    last amendment was voted on, I was on my feet seeking to offer an 
    amendment on behalf of the Committee on the Judiciary with respect 
    to striking in its entirety section 1611 of the bill. The right to 
    offer that amendment is granted under the rule, in fact on page 3 
    of House Resolution 274. I want to ask the Chair whether I am 
    entitled to be recognized or was entitled to be recognized to make 
    first a motion, which was a motion to strike the entire section 
    before amendments were made to the text of the bill.
        The Chairman: Unless an amendment having priority of 
    consideration under the rule is offered, it is the Chair's practice 
    to alternate recognition of members of the several committees that 
    are listed in the rule, taking amendments from the majority and 
    minority side in general turn, while giving priority of recognition 
    to those committees that are mentioned in the rule.
        The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Holtzman) is a member of 
    such a committee, but following the adoption of the last amendment 
    the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy), the chairman of the 
    Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, sought recognition to 
    strike the last word. Accordingly, the Chair then recognized the 
    gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) to offer a floor amendment, 
    which is a perfecting amendment to section 1611 of the bill.
        The rule mentions that it shall be in order to consider an 
    amendment as recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, to 
    strike out section 1611, if offered, but the rule does not give any 
    special priority to the Committee on the Judiciary to offer such 
    amendments over perfecting amendments to that section.

[[Page 6682]]

        Ms. Holtzman: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard further? The 
    gentleman said that he was going to recognize members of the 
    committees that had a right to offer amendments under the rule 
    alternately. I would suggest to the Chair that no member of the 
    Committee on the Judiciary has been recognized thus far in the 
    debate with respect to offering such an amendment and, therefore, 
    the Chair's principle, as I understood he stated it, was not being 
    observed in connection with recognition.
        The Chairman: The Chair would observe that the Chair is 
    attempting to be fair in recognizing Members alternately when they 
    are members of committees with priority and that the rule permits 
    but does not give the Committee on the Judiciary special priority 
    of recognition over other floor amendments, which under the 
    precedents would take priority over a motion to strike.
        Second, the Chair would like to advise the gentlewoman from New 
    York that recognition is discretionary with the Chair and is not 
    subject to a point of order. Does the gentlewoman have any further 
    comment to make on the point of order?
        The Chair overrules the point of order and recognizes the 
    gentleman in the well.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The amendment offered by Mr. Bauman struck 
out section 1611 of the bill and inserted a new section, whereas the 
amendment made in order under the rule on behalf of the Committee on 
the Judiciary was an amendment to strike that section; thus adoption of 
the Bauman amendment precluded the offering of the Judiciary Committee 
amendment. It would have made little difference if Ms. Holtzman was 
recognized first, since the Bauman amendment could have been offered 
(as a perfecting amendment) while the Holtzman motion to strike was 
pending and if the Bauman amendment was adopted the motion to strike 
would have necessarily fallen and would not have been voted on.

    If the Holtzman amendment, and the amendments to be offered on 
behalf of the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Post Office and Civil 
Service, had been committee amendments formally recommended in reports 
on H.R. 111, they would have been automatically considered by the 
Committee of the Whole. But as indicated in the discussion on the rule, 
only the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries had formally 
reported H.R. 111.

Sec. 4.5 The order of recognition to offer amendments is within the 
    discretion of the Chair, who may either base his initial 
    recognition on committee seniority or upon the preferential voting 
    status of the amendments sought to be offered.

[[Page 6683]]

    As indicated in the proceedings of May 15, 1979,(5) 
where both a pending amendment and a substitute therefor are open to 
perfecting amendments, the Chair has the discretion of either first 
recognizing the senior committee member, or a junior committee member 
whose amendment would be first voted upon, where both amendments could 
ultimately be pending at the same time. Under consideration that day 
was H.R. 39, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 
1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 125 Cong. Rec. 11135, 11136, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk.
        The Chairman: (6) Is this to the Udall substitute?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk 
    to the Udall-Anderson bill, which is actually a series of technical 
    amendments which I will ask unanimous consent to offer en bloc.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, reserving a 
    point of order, reserving the right to object to any unanimous-
    consent request relating to dispensation from reading of this 
    wondrous compendium of documents, I have no objection to the 
    gentleman proceeding. . . .
        The Chairman: Since there is no other amendment pending to the 
    Udall substitute, the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio may be 
    offered.
        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Louisiana will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Breaux: Mr. Chairman, assuming there is an amendment to be 
    offered to the so-called Breaux-Dingell merchant marine version, 
    that would take precedence over an amendment to the so-called 
    Udall-Anderson interior bill?
        The Chairman: The Chair has the option either to recognize the 
    senior Member first or to first recognize that Member seeking to 
    offer the amendment which will be preferential and first voted 
    upon.
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Huckaby [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    amendments at the desk for the Breaux-Dingell bill.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendments.
        Mr. [Don H.] Clausen [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Chairman, what is the parliamentary situation? Is there an 
    amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling) 
    or the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby)?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Seiberling) sought recognition to amend the Udall substitute, 
    but the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby) has an amendment to 
    the Merchant Marine and Fisheries amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, and he will be recognized. The Chair will recognize the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiber

[[Page 6684]]

    ling) later for the purposes of offering his amendment. . . .
        Mr. Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments to the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendments.

Yielding for Amendment

Sec. 4.6 A Member recognized under the five-minute rule in Committee of 
    the Whole may not yield to another Member to offer an amendment, as 
    recognition to offer amendments rests in the Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole.

    An example of the principle stated above occurred on Apr. 9, 
1979,(7) during consideration of H.R. 3324, the 
International Development Cooperation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 125 Cong. Rec. 7761, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike the requisite number of words.
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield for the purpose of offering an amendment?
        Mr. Rousselot: Yes.
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Illinois that he will have to seek his own time for 
    the purposes of offering his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.7 A Member in charge of a resolution loses his right to resume 
    if he yields to another to offer an amendment.

    On Apr. 12, 1956,(9) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 102 Cong. Rec. 6264, 6265, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 400) and 
    ask for its immediate consideration. . . .
        Mr. [Ivor D.] Fenton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Speaker: (10) Does the gentleman from Virginia 
    yield? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: If the gentleman will let me have (the 
    amendment) for a few minutes, as soon as I get through with my 
    remarks, I will be glad to look it over.
        Mr. Fenton: It just strikes out the word ``bituminous.''
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I yield for the gentleman's 
    amendment.
        The Speaker: The Chair would think it would be wiser for the 
    gentleman from Virginia to offer the amendment; otherwise he might 
    lose the floor.
        Similarly, on July 16, 1956,(11) Speaker Rayburn 
    indicated in response to inquiries that, in the House, a Member in 
    charge of a resolution loses his

[[Page 6685]]

    right to resume when he yields to another to offer an amendment and 
    the sponsor of the amendment is recognized under the hour rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 102 Cong. Rec. 12922, 12923, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Members

Sec. 4.8 Recognition for offering amendments is in the discretion of 
    the Chair and preference is given to members of committees 
    reporting the bill, if on their feet seeking recognition.

    On June 29, 1939, (12) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 84 Cong. Rec. 8311, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.J. Res. 306, the Neutrality Act of 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to be recognized.
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Knutson] has already been recognized.
        The Chairman: (13) Recognition is in the discretion 
    of the Chair, and the Chair will recognize members of the committee 
    first. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that inasmuch as Members of the committee were 
    not on their feet and the gentleman from Minnesota had been 
    recognized, the gentleman is entitled to recognition.

Sec. 4.9 Members of the committee reporting a bill usually have 
    preference with respect to recognition to offer amendments, but the 
    Chair has recognized another where, as he stated, he did not see 
    committee members seeking recognition.

    On Aug. 10, 1949,(14) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 95 Cong. Rec. 11196, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 5886, amending the Fair Labor Standards Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman from North Carolina 
    is recognized to offer his amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Harold D. Cooley (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Does the Chair 
    rule that a member of the committee does not have preference in 
    recognition when two Members, one not a member of the committee, 
    are seeking recognition at the same time?
        The Chairman: The Chair did not see the gentleman from Ohio on 
    his feet at the same time. The Chair had recognized the gentleman 
    from North Carolina, then the Chair recognized the gentleman from 
    Michigan to submit a consent request. The gentleman from Ohio will 
    be recognized in due time.

Priority of Recognition to Committee Members

Sec. 4.10 While the Chair endeavors to alternate recognition for the 
    purpose of offering amendments between majority and minority 
    members, the usual practice is that

[[Page 6686]]

    members of the committee reporting a pending bill are entitled to 
    prior recognition over noncommittee members despite their party 
    affiliation.

    On July 22, 1974,(16) the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole indicated that he would continue to accord prior recognition 
to minority members of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to 
offer amendments to a bill reported from that committee over majority 
noncommittee members, but that he would alternate between parties if 
majority committee members sought recognition. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 120 Cong. Rec. 24454, 24457, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 11500, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 
        of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered by Mrs. Mink as a substitute for 
    the amendment offered by Mr. Hosmer to the committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute. . . .
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: It is my understanding that 
    under the long-standing rules of the House and the Committee of the 
    Whole that we alternate from the Democratic side to the Republican 
    side, or vice versa, whichever the case may be.
        Now, there are Members on this side who want to offer 
    amendments. If the Chair is going to consistently listen to three 
    in a row that the gentleman from California has had, we do not know 
    where we stand.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair understands the 
    gentleman's parliamentary inquiry; but the Chair believes that as 
    long as members of the committee seek recognition, they are 
    entitled to recognition first; at least up to a certain point, and 
    if a member of the committee from the majority side stands, he 
    could be recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.11 While the matter of recognition to offer amendments in 
    Committee of the Whole under the five-minute rule is within the 
    discretion of the Chairman, members of the reporting committee or 
    committees are normally accorded prior recognition in order of 
    committee seniority.

    On May 17, 1978,(18) during consideration of House 
Resolution 1186 providing for the consideration of H.R. 
39,(19) The Speaker Pro Tempore responded to several 
parliamentary inquiries regarding general principles relating to 
recognition to offer amendments to the bill during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 124 Cong. Rec. 14139, 14145, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Christopher J.] Dodd [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of

[[Page 6687]]

    the Committee on Rules I call up House Resolution 1186 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration. . . .

                                  H. Res. 1186

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move . . . that the House resolve itself 
        into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
        for the consideration of (H.R. 39). . . . After general debate, 
        which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to 
        exceed three hours, two hours to be equally divided and 
        controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
        Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and one hour to be 
        equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
        minority members of the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
        Fisheries, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-
        minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute recommended by the Committee on Interior and Insular 
        Affairs now printed in italic in the bill, it shall be in order 
        to consider the text of the bill H.R. 12625 if offered as an 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute for the bill, said 
        substitute shall be read for amendment under the five-minute 
        rule as an original bill by titles instead of by sections, and 
        all points of order against said substitute or any amendment in 
        the nature of a substitute offered thereto for failure to 
        comply with the provisions of clause 7, rule XVI and clause 5, 
        rule XXI are hereby waived. . . .

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, this waiver 
    applies, as the Chair has just stated, only to substitutes, not to 
    ordinary amendments; is that correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) The Chair will state 
    it applies to amendments in the nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Charles A. Vanik (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Udall: The Chair will tell us, will he not, that the rules 
    and customs of the House would ordinarily indicate that the floor 
    managers of the bill or members of the appropriate committees would 
    be recognized ahead of other Members in case there were more than 
    one substitute to be offered?

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that recognition 
    of Members will be under the control of the Chair at the time that 
    the House is in the Committee of the Whole. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: I would like to ask the 
    Chair whether it is not true, under the precedents of the House, 
    that any member of either committee has a right to be recognized to 
    offer amendments; of course, the chairman and ranking minority 
    member first and other Members after that, may be recognized to 
    offer amendments, so that no restriction is imposed on any Member's 
    right to offer amendments under this rule?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the 
    gentleman has correctly stated the general principles relating to 
    recognition.

Sec. 4.12 Where a pending title of a bill is open to amendment and a 
    unanimous-consent request is made that the next two succeeding 
    titles also be considered as open to amendment, all three titles 
    would be open to amend

[[Page 6688]]

    ment, with priority in recognition being given to members of the 
    Committee reporting the bill.

    On Jan. 29, 1980,(1) during consideration of H.R. 4788 
(2) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 126 Cong. Rec. 973, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. The Water Resources Development Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ray] Roberts [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that titles III and IV be considered as read and open for 
    amendment at any point. . . .
        Mr. [Allen E.] Ertel [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, am I 
    under the understanding at this point that titles II, III, and IV 
    are now open to amendment?
        The Chairman: (3) That is correct, if no objection 
    is heard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ertel: I have no objection.
        Mr. [Don H.] Clausen [of California]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, I want to make sure we are going to be 
    proceeding in an orderly manner. I am assuming we will proceed 
    through title II for the consideration of the amendment and then 
    follow on with the consideration of titles III and IV.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that if the 
    unanimous-consent request is adopted without objection, titles II, 
    III, and IV will be open for amendment at any point. Committee 
    members will, of course, have priority in recognition.

Sec. 4.13 Priority of recognition to offer amendments under the five-
    minute rule in Committee of the Whole is extended to members of the 
    full committee reporting the bill, alternating between the majority 
    and minority, and the Chair does not distinguish between members of 
    the subcommittee which considered the bill and other members of the 
    full committee.

    An example of the proposition stated above occurred on July 2, 
1980,(4) during consideration of H.R. 7235, the Rail Act of 
1980. The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 126 Cong. Rec. 18288, 18290-92, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James J.] Florio [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Florio: Page 103, line 14, insert 
        ``or (c)'' immediately after ``subsection (b)''. . . .

        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Madigan as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Florio:

[[Page 6689]]

            Page 103, line 14 insert ``or (c)'' immediately after 
        ``subsection (b)''.
            Page 104, line 20, strike out the closing quotation marks 
        and the following period.
            Page 104, after line 20, insert the following new 
        subsection. . . .

        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (5) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment to the substitute amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Madigan: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Madigan: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the procedure is 
    that the members of the subcommittee would be recognized for 
    amendments first, and that the gentleman from Texas sought 
    recognition for the purpose of making a parliamentary inquiry and 
    was recognized for that purpose, and was not recognized for the 
    purpose of offering an amendment.
        I further understand that the gentlewoman from Maryland, a 
    member of the subcommittee, was on her feet seeking recognition for 
    the purpose of offering an amendment, as well as the gentleman from 
    North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill). . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will respond to the gentleman by saying 
    to him that the normal procedure is to recognize members of the 
    full committee by seniority, alternating from side to side, which 
    the Chair has been doing. The gentleman was recognized under that 
    procedure, and the Chair's recognition is not in any event subject 
    to challenge.
        Therefore, the gentleman is recognized, and any point of order 
    that the gentleman from Illinois would make on that point would not 
    be sustained.
        Mr. Madigan: Further pursuing my point of order, and with all 
    due respect to the Chair, am I incorrect in assuming that the 
    gentleman from Texas was recognized for the point of raising a 
    parliamentary inquiry?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. He was recognized for 
    that purpose; then separately for the purpose of the amendment that 
    he is offering, which the Clerk will now report.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As the above proceedings demonstrate, the 
fact that the Chair has recognized a Member to raise a parliamentary 
inquiry does not prohibit the Chair from then recognizing the same 
Member to offer an amendment, and the principle of alternation of 
recognition does not require the Chair to recognize a Member from the 
minority to offer an amendment after recognizing a Member from the 
majority to raise a parliamentary inquiry.

Sec. 4.14 While the Chair endeavors to alternate recognition for the 
    purpose of offering amendments, and controlling time in opposition 
    thereto, between majority and minority members, members of the 
    committee reporting a pend

[[Page 6690]]

    ing bill are entitled to prior recognition over non-committee 
    members regardless of their party affiliation.

    On May 4, 1983,(6) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 13 (7) in the Committee of the Whole, the 
proceedings described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 129 Cong. Rec. 11068, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. Nuclear weapons freeze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solarz to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Levitas: Strike out the matter proposed to be added to the 
        resolution by the Levitas amendment and insert in lieu thereof 
        the following: ``, with reductions to be achieved as soon as 
        possible after the achievement of a mutual and verifiable 
        freeze''.

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Solarz) is recognized for 15 minutes, for purposes of debate only, 
    on his amendment.
        Mr. [James G.] Martin of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Solarz: Certainly. I am happy to yield for that purpose. . 
    . .
        Mr. Martin of North Carolina: . . . Is it customary and is it 
    correct order for the business of the House of Representatives for 
    the Chair to sequentially recognize only Members of the majority 
    party time and time again, both to make an amendment, to take the 
    position opposing that amendment, and then to offer the next 
    amendment; is that regular order?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Under the precedents the priority in 
    this instance is with the committee members to offer an amendment 
    to the amendment.

Sec. 4.15 The proponent of an amendment may be recognized to control 
    the time in opposition to a substitute offered therefor, but a 
    Member of the committee reporting the bill has priority of 
    recognition to control such time.

    On May 4, 1983,(8) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Joint Resolution 13,(9) the Chair 
responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding the circumstances 
described above. The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 129 Cong. Rec. 11074, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. Concerning a nuclear weapons freeze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Norman D.] Dicks [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dicks as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Levitas: In view of the

[[Page 6691]]

        matter proposed to be inserted, insert the following: ``with 
        negotiators proceeding immediately to pursuing reductions.''. . 
        .

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . . (U)nder the rule if I am opposed to 
    the amendment being offered as a substitute for my amendment, can I 
    be recognized in opposition thereto? . . .
        The Chairman: (10) . . . It is appropriate under the 
    rules to offer an amendment. In terms of whom the Chair recognizes 
    in opposition, the Chair would be inclined to recognize a member of 
    the committee, if a member of the committee seeks recognition in 
    opposition to the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If a committee member does not seek recognition for that 
    purpose the Chair would be inclined to recognize the gentleman.

Committee Chairman Opposed to Bill

Sec. 4.16 Where a special order governing consideration of a bill in 
    Committee of the Whole provides that debate on each amendment be 
    equally divided between the proponent and a Member opposed thereto, 
    the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole will recognize the 
    chairman of the committee managing the bill to control the time in 
    opposition if he states he is opposed, and the Chair cannot 
    question his qualifications to speak in opposition at a later time.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on May 4, 
1983,(11) during consideration of House Joint Resolution 13 
(providing for a nuclear weapons freeze). The proceedings in the 
Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 129 Cong. Rec. 11066, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    to comment and yield time. I am not necessarily at this point in 
    opposition.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Zablocki) rises in opposition to the amendment, and the gentleman 
    is recognized for 15 minutes for purposes of debate only. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James A.] Courter [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield to me for the purpose of making a parliamentary 
    inquiry?
        Mr. Zablocki: I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey for the 
    purpose of making a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Courter: My parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman, is as 
    follows:
        It is my understanding that the proponent of the amendment, the 
    gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Levitas) is recognized for 15 minutes, 
    and then someone could be recognized if they, in fact, oppose it.
        The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) rose initially 
    indicating that

[[Page 6692]]

    he was against the amendment, was recognized for 15 minutes, and 
    during his monolog has indicated that, in fact, he is not opposed 
    to it. Should he be recognized for the balance of his time?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot question the 
    gentleman's qualifications. The Chair did ask the question if he 
    rose in opposition to the amendment, and the Chairman so stated. 
    Therefore, he controls the time.

--Special Rule Permitting Only Pro Forma Amendments

Sec. 4.17 Where the Committee of the Whole resumed consideration of a 
    bill under a special rule prohibiting amendments to a pending 
    amendment except pro forma amendments for debate, the Chair 
    announced that he would first recognize Members who had not offered 
    pro forma amendments on the preceding day, priority of recognition 
    being given to members of the reporting committee.

    On Aug. 3, 1977,(13) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 8444, the National Energy Act, the Chair made 
a statement pertaining to the recognition of Members to offer pro forma 
amendments, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 123 Cong. Rec. 26444, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) The Chair would like to make a 
    statement for the information of the Members of the Committee of 
    the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has before it a list of those who spoke on this 
    amendment yesterday. The Chair will recognize those who have not 
    spoken on this amendment first and, of course, preference will be 
    given to the members of the ad hoc committee and any Member, of 
    course, under the rule has the right to offer pro forma amendments. 
    The Chair will adhere to that direction.
        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) did not speak on this 
    amendment yesterday, so as a member of the ad hoc committee, for 
    what purpose does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) rise?
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
    word.

Majority or Minority Member of Committee

Sec. 4.18 In recognizing Members to offer amendments in the Committee 
    of the Whole, the Chair gives preference to members of the 
    committee which reported the measure and it is within his 
    discretion as to whether he will first recognize a majority or 
    minority member of such committee.

    On June 4, 1948,(15) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 94 Cong. Rec. 7189, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6801, a foreign aid appropriation bill.

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

[[Page 6693]]

        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. W. Sterling Cole (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: The minority is entitled 
    to recognition to move to amend the bill.
        The Chairman: Under the rules of the House, any member of the 
    committee may offer an amendment, and it is in the discretion of 
    the Chair as to which member shall be recognized. The Chair has 
    recognized the gentleman from Illinois to offer an amendment, which 
    the Clerk will report.

Sec. 4.19 While recognition of Members to offer amendments is within 
    the Chair's discretion and cannot be challenged on a point of 
    order, the Chair under the precedents alternates recognition 
    between majority and minority members of the committee reporting 
    the bill.

    On June 11, 1976,(17) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 6218, the Outer Continental Shelf Act, the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 122 Cong. Rec. 17754, 17764, 17773, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (18) The Clerk will read title II. . . 
    .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Murphy of New York: On page 59, 
        lines 12 to 20, strike paragraphs 5(a) (6), (7), and (8) and 
        renumber subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

                               Point of Order

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Fish: Mr. Chairman, the minority has amendments to offer, 
    including a substitute amendment to title II. It is my 
    understanding that the minority would have its turn at the same 
    time as the majority in considering the amendments.
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Fish) that that would not come under the category of a 
    point of order; but the Chair would further advise the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Fish) that since the gentleman has raised the 
    point, the Chair will alternate from side to side.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Murphy). . . .
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Murphy).
        The amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. Fish: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fish: Page 45, strike out line 1 
        and all that follows through page 122, line 4, and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:

        Title II--Improved Management of Outer Continental Shelf Energy 
                                   Resources

            Sec. 201. (a) Paragraph (c) of section 2 of the Outer 
        Continental Shelf

[[Page 6694]]

        Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331) is amended to read as follows: . . .

        Mr. [Abraham] Kazen [Jr., of Texas]: Is this a complete 
    substitute for title II?
        Mr. Fish: No; it is not.
        Mr. Kazen: What is it?
        Mr. Fish: It embraces a great deal of title II; on some it does 
    not and on some it lets matters stand, such as the section on 
    limitation of exports, for example. During the course of my 
    explanation, I think the gentleman will understand that we have 
    incorporated a good deal of title II and have added additional 
    material.
        Mr. Kazen: All I wanted to find out is whether it is a 
    substitute for title II?
        Mr. Fish: Technically, it is not a substitute.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under the rule, the committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute was being read by title. The Fish amendment 
to title II was a perfecting amendment since it left one or two 
sections of that title unamended, and was intentionally drafted in that 
form to permit its consideration prior to adoption of all the Murphy 
perfecting amendments to that title.

Where Debate Time Limited, Chair Uses Discretion in Recognition

Sec. 4.20 The time for debate having been fixed on amendments to a 
    committee substitute, the Chair may recognize the same committee 
    member in opposition to each amendment offered where no other 
    member of the committee seeks such recognition.

    On Feb. 8, 1950,(19) during consideration of H.R. 2945, 
a bill to adjust postal rates, a motion was made to close debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 96 Cong. Rec. 1690, 1691, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Murray of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on the committee substitute and all amendments thereto 
    close in 20 minutes.
        [The motion was agreed to.]
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair will announce that 
    Members who have amendments at the desk will be recognized for 1 
    minute in support of their amendment and the committee will be 
    recognized for 1 minute in opposition to each amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After amendments were offered, and Mr. Murray had been recognized 
in opposition to each amendment, a parliamentary inquiry was made, as 
follows:

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Under what precedent or 
    ruling is the Chair recognizing a certain member of the committee 
    for 1 minute in opposition to each amendment being offered? That 
    was not included in the motion. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is trying to be fair in the conduct of 
    the com

[[Page 6695]]

    mittee, and the only gentleman that has arisen on the opposite side 
    has been the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Murray). There was no 
    point of order raised at the time that I announced that I would 
    recognize the committee for 1 minute in rebuttal to each amendment. 
    . . .
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: . . . [O]rdinarily, under the 
    precedents always followed in the House, when time is closed on 
    amendments, the time is divided among those who are seeking to 
    offer amendments, and unless the motion specifically reserves time 
    to the committee, it has been the precedent to divide the time 
    among those who are seeking to offer amendments.
        The Chairman: The Chair feels that the committee is entitled to 
    a rebuttal on any amendment that is offered, and has so announced, 
    and there was no point of order made at the time. The Chair 
    sustains its present position.

Sec. 4.21 Priority of recognition under a limitation of time for debate 
    under the five-minute rule is in the complete discretion of the 
    Chair, who may disregard committee seniority and consider amendment 
    sponsorship.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on June 26, 
1979,(1) during consideration of H.R. 3930 (2) in 
the Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 125 Cong. Rec. 16677, 16678, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on section 3 and all amendments thereto cease at 
    6:40 p.m.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Rousselot) there were--ayes 43, noes 33. . . .
        The Chairman: (3) . . . The Committee has just voted 
    to end all debate on section 3 and all amendments thereto at 6:40. 
    The Chair in a moment is going to ask those Members wishing to 
    speak between now and then to stand. The Chair will advise Members 
    that he will attempt, once that list is determined, to recognize 
    first those Members on the list with amendments which are not 
    protected by having been printed in the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would ask those Members wishing to be recognized in 
    the remaining 20 minutes to stand. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, did I understand 
    the Chair correctly that Members who are protected by having their 
    amendments printed in the Record will not be recognized until the 
    time has run so that those Members will only have 5 minutes to 
    present their amendments, but that other Members will be recognized 
    first for the amendments which are not printed in the Record?
        The Chairman: Those Members who are recognized prior to the 
    expiration of time have approximately 20 seconds to present their 
    amendments. Those Members whose amendments are printed in the 
    Record will have a guaranteed 5 minutes after time has expired. . . 
    .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: In what way does that protect Members by 
    having their amendments then printed in the

[[Page 6696]]

    Record? It would seem to me they are penalized by having their time 
    limited to 5 minutes and the other time goes ahead and runs in 
    terms of general debate.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that Members 
    do not need and are not required to seek their protection for 
    debate on the amendment under the rules, but if they do not they 
    will be recognized for at most 20 seconds instead of 5 minutes. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair will now recognize those Members 
    who wish to offer amendments which have not been printed in the 
    Record.
        The Chair will advise Members he will recognize listed Members 
    in opposition to the amendments also for 20 seconds.

        Mr. [Richard] Kelly [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Kelly: Mr. Chairman, is it not regular order that the 
    Members of the Committee with amendments be given preference and 
    recognition?
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman once the 
    limitation of time has been agreed to and time divided, that 
    priority of recognition is within the complete discretion of the 
    Chair.

Sec. 4.22 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a bill and amendments thereto, the Chair indicated 
    in response to parliamentary inquiries that a motion to limit 
    debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute and all 
    amendments thereto was in order although the bill itself had not 
    been read, and that all Members would be allocated equal time under 
    the limitation regardless of committee membership but that Members 
    seeking to offer amendments could be first recognized.

    On June 10, 1976,(4) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 13367,(5) with an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute and amendments thereto pending, when a motion 
was offered to limit debate, as described above. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 122 Cong. Rec. 17380, 17381, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. A bill to amend and extend the State and Local Fiscal Assistance 
        Act of 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on the Brooks amendment and all amendments thereto end by 6 
    p.m. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, is there 
    any reason for the Clerk to read? I do not remember the bill being 
    open at any point to amendment.
        The Chairman: (6) The motion of the gentleman from 
    New York, as the

[[Page 6697]]

    Chair understood it, was that all debate on the Brooks amendment 
    and all amendments thereto end at 6 p.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: So that the motion is in order?
        The Chairman: The motion is in order. It is limited to the 
    Brooks amendment and amendments thereto. . . .
        Mr. [J.J.] Pickle [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, under the proposed 
    time limitation, would the Chair tend to recognize a Member who is 
    not a member of the committee? For instance, the gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. Adams) has an important amendment, and if he is not 
    recognized within the time limitation, would the chairman of the 
    committee let the gentleman be recognized? . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that under limitation of 
    time committee members no longer have priority in seeking 
    recognition. Time is equally allocated.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair would ask that Members with 
    amendments to be offered seek recognition first, and the Chair 
    would request that Members attempt to address themselves to the 
    amendments.

Sec. 4.23 In allocating time under a limitation on debate under the 
    five-minute rule, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may in 
    his discretion recognize first those Members wishing to offer 
    amendments after having equally divided the time among all Members 
    desiring to speak.

    On Nov. 18, 1981,(7) during consideration of H.R. 4995 
(8) in the Committee of the Whole, the situation described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 127 Cong. Rec. 28074, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Department of Defense appropriation bill, fiscal year 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, there are 
    about nine amendments at the desk. I have looked at those 
    amendments. The committee will be accepting at least six or seven 
    of them. There are only two or three that may be slightly 
    controversial and subject to some slight debate.
        I would therefore believe that we can finish this bill tonight 
    and not be burdened with it tomorrow because I know full well if we 
    come in tomorrow, we will be using a whole day for what can be 
    completed in approximately half an hour here tonight.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this 
    bill and all amendments thereto end at 9:30 p.m.
        The Chairman: (9) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Members standing at the time the unanimous 
    consent request was agreed to will be recognized for 1 minute each.
        The Chair will recognize first those Members who have 
    amendments.

Sec. 4.24 Where debate on an amendment has been limited and equally 
    divided between

[[Page 6698]]

    the proponent and a Member opposed, and the Chair has recognized 
    the only Member seeking recognition in opposition to the amendment, 
    no objection lies against that Member subsequently yielding back 
    all the time in opposition.

    On May 4, 1983,(10) the situation described above was 
demonstrated during consideration of House Joint Resolution 13 
(concerning a nuclear weapons freeze) in the Committee of the Whole. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 129 Cong. Rec. 11078, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William S.] Broomfield [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    in opposition to the amendment.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman is recognized for 
    15 minutes in opposition to the amendment, for purposes of debate 
    only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Broomfield: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
    time.
        Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I yield back 
    the balance of my time and request a vote.
        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, we have 
    15 minutes in order to oppose the amendment?
        The Chairman: No one stood up on that side of the aisle, and 
    the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) represented to the 
    Chair that he opposed the amendment and was recognized for 15 
    minutes in opposition, and he yielded back the balance of his time, 
    as did the gentleman form Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it?
        Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Chairman, my inquiry is this: This side, which 
    opposes the amendment, has been foreclosed an opportunity, not on 
    this amendment but on the previous amendment, to have 15 minutes in 
    opposition to the amendment because a Member on that side who voted 
    against an amendment that was hostile to the exact amendment said 
    he was opposed to it.
        My parliamentary inquiry is, Mr. Chairman, is that in order?
        The Chairman: As the Chair previously explained, no one on the 
    majority side of the aisle rose in opposition to that amendment. 
    The Chair looked to the other side of the aisle and the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) rose, represented that he was in 
    opposition to the amendment and was recognized. The Chair has 
    previously made that statement.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Had another Member also been seeking to 
control time in opposition at the time the first Member was recognized 
and yielded back his time, the Chair would have allocated the time to 
that Member so that it could have been utilized.

Sec. 4.25 Where debate under the five-minute rule on a bill and all 
    amendments thereto has

[[Page 6699]]

    been limited by motion to a time certain, the Chair may in his 
    discretion continue to recognize Members under the five-minute rule 
    according priority to members of the committee reporting the bill, 
    instead of allocating time between proponents and opponents or 
    among all Members standing, where it cannot be determined what 
    amendments will be offered.

    On July 29, 1983,(12) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 2957,(13) the Chair responded to 
several parliamentary inquiries regarding the circumstances described 
above. The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 129 Cong. Rec. 21649, 21659, 21660, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. The International Monetary Fund Authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill, H.R. 2957, be 
    considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at 
    any point.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Rhode Island?
        There was no objection.
        The text of title IV and title V is as follows:

              Title IV--International Lending Supervisio . . .

        Mr. St Germain: I have a motion, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        I now move that all debate on the bill, H.R. 2957, and all 
    amendments thereto, cease at 12 o'clock noon.
        The Chairman: (14) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. St Germain). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic devise, and there were--ayes 
    242, noes 145, not voting 46, as follows. . . .
        Mr. [George W.] Gekas [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike the last word.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) is 
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bethune: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Gekas: I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Bethune).
        Mr. Bethune: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bethune: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary inquiry is for the 
    Chair to please state the process by which we will do our business 
    from now until the time is cut off.
        The Chairman: For the time being, the Chair intends to proceed 
    under the 5-minute rule. . . .
        Mr. [Stephen L.] Neal [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, would 
    it not be in order at this time to ask that the time be divided 
    between the proponents and the opponents of this measure, since 
    there is a limitation on the time?

[[Page 6700]]

        The Chairman: The Chair believes not, because the time has been 
    limited on the entire bill. It would be very difficult to allocate 
    time to any one particular party or two parties when the Chair has 
    no knowledge of the amendments that will be offered. . . .
        Mr. Neal: Mr. Chairman, is it not true that members of the 
    committee should be given preference in terms of recognition?
        The Chairman: That is true. At the time the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania was recognized, he was the only one seeking 
    recognition.

--Amendment Not Covered by Limitation

Sec. 4.26 Where debate has been limited on a pending section and all 
    amendments thereto and time allocated among those Members desiring 
    to offer amendments to that section, the Chair may decline to 
    recognize a Member to offer an amendment adding a new section and 
    therefore not covered by the limitation, until perfecting 
    amendments to the pending section have been disposed of under the 
    limitation.

    On June 26, 1979,(15) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 3930,(16) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 125 Cong. Rec. 16679, 16680, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: Page 8, after line 13 add the 
    following new section and renumber the subsequent sections 
    accordingly:

        Sec. 4. The Secretary of Energy is hereby authorized to 
    designate a proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock facility as a 
    priority synthetic project pursuant to the procedures and criteria 
    provided in this section.
        (2) For the purposes of this section the term--
        (A) Synthetic fuel or feedstock facility means any physical 
    structure, including any. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J. Brown of Ohio (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, is this amendment to section 3 
    or section 4?
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: This is an amendment to 
    section 3, the Udall fast-track amendment, which cuts through the 
    redtape.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: The copy I have indicates that it is to 
    section 4, Mr. Chairman. Is that correct?
        Mr. Udall: I had modified it to apply to section 3.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will cease reading the amendment.
        The Chair will advise the gentleman from Arizona that this 
    amendment currently being read adds a new section 4, and is not 
    covered by the limitation on time, and should not be offered at 
    this time.

[[Page 6701]]

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, if I understand correctly, the 
    gentleman was recognized on the basis that the amendment had not 
    been printed in the Record, and therefore it would not be 
    appropriate under this limitation for it to be considered at all, 
    is that not correct?
        Mr. Udall: I had intended--I had so instructed the Clerk to 
    change this to an amendment to section 3, not section 4.
        The Chairman: The amendment, the Chair states to the gentleman, 
    would have to be submitted to the Clerk.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: My point of order is sustained or----
        The Chairman: Yes. The Chair will advise the gentleman from 
    Arizona that he is within his rights to redraft the amendment as an 
    amendment to section 3, but the Chair understood that is not the 
    amendment currently being read.
        Mr. Udall: I so offer it as an amendment to section 3.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.

Amendments Sent to the Desk; Necessity of Recognition

Sec. 4.27 Members must be in the Chamber and offer their amendments 
    from the floor at the proper point in the bill as it is read; it is 
    not sufficient to merely place such amendments on the Clerk's desk.

    On Apr. 1, 1947, (18) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 93 Cong. Rec. 2987, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 2849, the deficiency appropriation bill for 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Sam] Hobbs [of Alabama]: On page 46, 
    between lines 8 and 9 insert as follows: . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    comes too late. The Clerk has read beyond that point. . . .
        Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, as I 
    understand it this amendment was on the Clerk's desk and the fact 
    it was not reported was due to the Clerk's failing to see the 
    amendment. The parliamentary inquiry is: Does it come too late when 
    the amendment was on the desk?
        The Chairman: (19) The gentleman from Alabama was 
    not present to protect his rights and the Clerk continued to read 
    beyond the point where the amendment should properly have been 
    offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. George A. Dondero (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, on Sept. 5, 1940, (20) the following exchange 
took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 83 Cong. Rec. 10665, 75th Cong. 3d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 10132, a bill relating to compulsory military training and 
        service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Miller [of Arkansas]: Can the Chair tell us how 
    many proposed amendments there are?
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is unable to tell 
    because the Chair does not

[[Page 6702]]

    recognize amendments sent to the desk. Of course, under the rules 
    of the House, Members must offer amendments from the floor. 
    However, the Chair is informed that there are quite a number of 
    amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Lindsay C. Warren (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration of Committee Amendments

Sec. 4.28 Where a resolution is considered in the House, committee 
    amendments to the body of the resolution and printed therein may be 
    reported and acted on before the Member calling up the resolution 
    is recognized for debate thereon.

    On June 8, 1970, (2) the sequence of actions in the 
House was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 116 Cong. Rec. 18656-58, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H. Res. 976 (Committee on Rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (3) . . . The Chair was about to 
    instruct the Clerk to report the committee amendments after the 
    original resolution had been read. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The committee amendment was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Anderson) is 
    recognized for 1 hour.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Mr. William R. Anderson had called up the resolution for 
        consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.29 Perfecting committee amendments to a resolution reported from 
    the Committee on Rules may be considered before the Member calling 
    up the resolution is recognized to control debate thereon where 
    there is no controversy on the committee amendments.

    On Mar. 9, 1971, (5) the sequence of actions in the 
House was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 117 Cong. Rec. 5587, 5588, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H. Res. 115 (Committee on Rules), creating a select 
        committee to investigate crime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John A.] Young of Texas: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
    Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 115 and ask for its 
    immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 115

            Resolved, That, effective January 3, 1971, there is hereby 
        created a select committee. . . .

        With the following committee amendments:

            On page 1, line 2, strike the word ``seven'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof the word ``eleven''. . . .

        The committee amendments were agreed to.
        The Speaker: (6) The gentleman from Texas is 
    recognized for one hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Carl Albert (Okla.).

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

[[Page 6703]]

Seniority, Not Order in Paragraph, Basis for Recognition for Amendment

Sec. 4.30 The order in which amendments may be offered to a pending 
    paragraph is not determined by the sequence of lines to which the 
    amendments may relate; for when a paragraph is open to amendment at 
    any point, the order in which the Chair recognizes Members to offer 
    amendments is dictated by the committee rank of those seeking 
    recognition and not by the text of their amendments.

    On July 23, 1970, (7) the following discussion took 
place with respect to the order in which Members would be recognized to 
offer amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 116 Cong. Rec. 25635, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 18515 (Committee on Appropriations), relating to 
        appropriations for the Departments of Labor and Health, 
        Education, and Welfare for fiscal 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas (of North Carolina): May I respectfully 
    remind the Chair that I was recognized, and that the Chair allowed 
    a point of order to intervene only, and I had been recognized. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair respectfully states that 
    the point of order did intervene following the gentleman's 
    recognition. The Chair intends to recognize members of the 
    committee in the order of their seniority. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jonas: I respectfully ask the Chair to rule that my 
    amendment does precede the amendment that will be offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas. My amendment goes to line 5, page 38, and my 
    information is that the amendment to be offered by the gentleman 
    from Texas comes at a later point in the paragraph.

        The Chairman: A whole paragraph is open to amendment at the 
    same time. Therefore, the line does not determine the order of the 
    amendment. (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Compare 109 Cong. Rec. 20368, 20370, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 28, 
        1963, where the Chairman of the Committee on Rules called up a 
        resolution reported by his committee and then yielded to 
        another Member to offer an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.31 The Chairman may announce that he will first recognize 
    members of the committee reporting the bill in order of seniority 
    thereon, alternating between majority and minority sides, to offer 
    amendments.

    On Dec. 12, 1973, (10) where a bill (11) as 
being considered in the Committee of the Whole under a special 
procedure making in order

[[Page 6704]]

the text of another bill as an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
immediately after the reading of the enacting clause, but not providing 
for reading of the substitute as an original bill for amendment, the 
Chairman (12) indicated that the entire amendment in the 
nature of a substitute would be read and then open to amendment at any 
point, and that he would first recognize members of the committee 
reporting the bill in order of seniority, alternating between the 
majority and minority sides, to offer amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 41105, 41106, 41110, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
11. H.R. 11450 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce), the 
        Energy Emergency Act.
12. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternation of Recognition Not Mandated

Sec. 4.32 Recognition to offer amendments is first extended to the 
    manager of a bill; and the fact that the Committee of the Whole has 
    just completed consideration of one amendment offered by the 
    manager does not preclude his being recognized to offer another.

    On Apr. 6, 1967,(13) the following exchange took place 
concerning the priority of recognition to offer amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 113 Cong. Rec. 8617, 8618, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 2512 (Committee on the Judiciary), relating to 
        revision of the copyright laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert W.] Kastenmeier [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John H. Dent (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: The gentleman from Wisconsin just 
    offered an amendment, and certainly I as a member of the committee 
    ought to have the privilege of offering an amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Wisconsin is manager of the 
    bill. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Order of Consideration; Priority of Committee Amendments Over 
    Amendments From Floor

Sec. 4.33 Perfecting committee amendments to the section or paragraph 
    under consideration are disposed of before amendments from the 
    floor are considered.

    On Apr. 25, 1963, (15) a parliamentary inquiry was made 
with respect to the precedence of committee amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 109 Cong. Rec. 7139, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 4997 (Committee on Agriculture), the Feed Grain Act of 
        1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .

[[Page 6705]]

        Are we to have all of the committee amendments adopted before 
    any amendments are to be accepted by the Committee?
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair will state that that is 
    the usual procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.34 Where a bill is considered as read and open for amendment at 
    any point, committee amendments are considered before the Chair 
    extends recognition for amendments from the floor.

    On July 18, 1968, (17) the sequence of actions taken 
with respect to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1968 (18) as 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 114 Cong. Rec. 22094, 22095, 22108, 22109, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. H.R. 15263 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be considered as 
    read and open to amendment at any point. . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Clerk will report the next 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the committee amendment on 
    page 9, after line 17.
        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all the committee amendments be considered 
    en bloc.
        The Chair further advised, in response to a parliamentary 
    inquiry, that when committee amendments are being considered en 
    bloc, it is in order to offer amendments to the committee 
    amendments. After several such amendments had been so offered and 
    considered, and the committee amendments voted on, the Chair 
    extended recognition for amendments to the bill that were offered 
    from the floor.

Bill Considered Under Special Rule--Where Amendment in Nature of 
    Substitute Is Open for Amendment at Any Point

Sec. 4.35 Where a bill is being considered in the Committee of the 
    Whole under a special order making in order the text of another 
    bill as an amendment in the nature of a substitute, the Chairman 
    may announce that recognition to offer an amendment to said 
    substitute will be governed by the precedents relating to 
    recognition where the special order does not specify priorities 
    with respect thereto.

    On Dec. 12, 1973, (20) the following discussion arose 
with respect to the procedure for offering amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 41153, 41154, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 11450 (Committee on Interstate and 
        Foreign Commerce), the Energy Emergency Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. (James T.) Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    an amendment to section 103.

[[Page 6706]]

        The Chairman: (1) The Chair feels that the Chair 
    should explain to the Committee that under the rule the whole of 
    the text of H.R. 11882 will be read before any amendment is in 
    order. It will not be read by sections. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry, or perhaps this is not a parliamentary 
    inquiry, but I would ask the Chairman if there is any way in which 
    we can have an orderly procedure for the offering of amendments, 
    starting at the first part of the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, and going through the bill, rather than jumping all 
    over the whole bill for amendment purposes?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Chair, with the 
    cooperation of the Members, will attempt to achieve that purpose. 
    The Chair will say that if permitted by the Membership to do so, 
    that the Chair proposes to bring order into the situation by 
    following the usual custom of recognizing the Members of the 
    committee alternately from one side to the other, more or less in 
    their order on the committee. . . .
        Mr. [Jonathan B.] Bingham [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    further parliamentary inquiry. If the Chair is advised that 
    nonmembers of the committee have amendments to early sections, 
    would he be free to recognize nonmembers of the committee before 
    recognizing other members of the committee for amendments to a 
    later section?
        The Chairman: The custom of the House, and the almost unfailing 
    custom of the House, is to recognize members of the committee, 
    alternating sides from the majority to the minority. The Chair does 
    not propose to discuss the philosophy of that custom, but that is 
    the custom. . . .
        Mr. (Clarence J.) Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, I should like to inquire, if the request of the 
    gentleman is accepted and there is no objection to it, when it 
    would be timely for the amendment made in order by the rule to the 
    text of the substitute to be offered, that amendment being H.R. 
    11891, which would be the amendment, as the rule prescribes, to 
    H.R. 11882?
        The Chairman: The Chair would repeat what the Chair has already 
    said. The Chair would recognize Members to offer amendments as they 
    are reached in the customary procedure of the House.
        There is no particular priority, there is no special priority 
    given to that amendment but the gentleman is a member of the 
    committee and he ranks on the committee and the Chair would seek to 
    reach him in an orderly fashion.

--Inquiry by Chair as to Whether Amendment In Order Under Rule

Sec. 4.36 Where the Committee of the Whole was considering a bill 
    pursuant to a ``modified closed'' rule permitting only designated 
    amendments to be offered, the Chair inquired of a Member seeking 
    recognition to offer an amendment whether his

[[Page 6707]]

    amendment had been made in order under the rule before recognizing 
    him to offer the amendment.

    On Aug. 3, 1977, (2) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8444, the National Energy Act. When a Member sought 
recognition to offer an amendment, the proceedings, described above, 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 123 Cong. Rec. 26447, 26448, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (3) The Chair would like 
    to inquire of the gentleman from Ohio if this is an amendment 
    permissible under the rule and made in order under the rule?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: This is authorized under the rule and has 
    been assigned to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) to offer at 
    this point.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, two things. 
    I reserve all necessary points of order and, second, I inquire, has 
    the unanimous-consent request been made for the dispensation of the 
    reading of the amendment? I am not making that request.
        The Chairman: (4) The Clerk will first have to 
    report the amendment and then the gentleman's request will be in 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the amendment.

Rule Requiring Printing of Amendments in Record

Sec. 4.37 Where a special rule restricts the offering of amendments to 
    those printed in the Congressional Record but does not specify the 
    Members who must offer them, the right to propose amendments 
    properly inserted in the Record inures to all Members.

    The proceedings of Mar. 26, 1974, (5) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 120 Cong. Rec. 8229, 8233, 8243, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 69, to amend and extend the Elementary 
        and Secondary Education Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) . . . Under the rule, no amendment 
    shall be in order to title I of the substitute committee amendment 
    printed in the reported bill except germane amendments which have 
    been printed in the Congressional Record at least 2 calendar days 
    prior to their being offered during the consideration of said 
    substitute for amendment, and amendment offered by direction of the 
    Committee on Education and Labor, and neither of said classes of 
    amendments shall be subject to amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk will now read by titles the 
    substitute committee amendment printed in the reported bill as an 
    original bill for the purpose of amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

[[Page 6708]]

        Title I--Amendments of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
                             Education Act of 1965

                         EXTENSION OF TITLE I PROGRAMS

        Sec. 101. Section 102 of title I of the Elementary and 
    Secondary Education Act of 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ``the 
    Act'') is amended (1) by striking out ``for grants to local 
    educational agencies''. . . .

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of title I 
    be dispensed with, that it be printed in the Record, and open to 
    amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Kentucky?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Perkins: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
    number of words.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order. Under the rule the motion is not in order unless he 
    has printed the motion in the Record.
        The Chairman: The Chair overrules the point of order. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky was printed in the 
    Record.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I submit to the Committee that the 
    motion I heard was to strike out the requisite number of words. If 
    the gentleman from Kentucky has not had that motion printed in the 
    Record, he is not entitled to 5 minutes under the rule.
        The Chairman: That amendment was printed in the Record.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, how many times does he get to use it?
        The Chairman: As many times as it is printed in the Record.

Sec. 4.38 Where a special order adopted by the House only requires that 
    all amendments offered to a bill in Committee of the Whole be 
    printed in the Record, any Member may offer any germane amendment 
    printed in the Record, and there is no requirement that only the 
    Member causing the amendment to be printed may offer it, unless the 
    special order so specifies.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on Oct. 31, 
1979,(7) during consideration of H.R. 4985, the Priority 
Energy Projects Act of 1979. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 125 Cong. Rec. 30441, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Nick J.] Rahall [II, of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have an amendment that was printed in the Record.
        I also have an amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Dingell) that was printed in the Record and through negotiations 
    between the two of us, I am offering the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) at this point. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.) Bauman [of Maryland): Mr. Chairman, do I 
    understand that under this rule that governs the consideration of 
    this bill that any Member can offer any amendment that

[[Page 6709]]

    was printed in the Record, no matter who the author of the 
    amendment was?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (8) The gentleman is 
    correct. That is the correct interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Norman D. Dicks (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Who may offer a printed amendment under 
such a rule must be distinguished from who may offer a printed 
amendment under Rule XXIII clause 6 to be entitled to debate in 
Committee of the Whole; that rule specifically speaks to the Member who 
caused the amendment to be printed.

Sec. 4.39 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole announced that, 
    pursuant to a special order adopted by the House requiring 
    perfecting amendments printed in the Record to be offered in a 
    specified order, he would recognize a designated Member to offer 
    his amendments in the intended order submitted for printing 
    consistent with grouping of amendments to the budget resolution by 
    subject matter, rather than in the order inadvertently printed in 
    the Record.

    It was demonstrated on May 24, 1982,(9) that where a 
special rule only permits the offering of amendments in the order 
printed in the Record, but the Record incorrectly prints certain 
amendments, the Chair has the prerogative of permitting the amendment 
to be offered in the form and order submitted for printing. The 
proceedings in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of House 
Concurrent Resolution 345 are indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9 128 Cong. Rec. 11549, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (10) Before the Chair entertains a 
    motion for the Committee to rise, the Chair desires to make a 
    statement relative to the order of the consideration of the 
    perfecting amendments made in order by the House to the amendments 
    in the nature of a substitute to be offered by Representatives 
    Latta, Aspin, and Jones. As indicated by an insertion which will be 
    made in today's Congressional Record by the chairman of the 
    Committee on Rules, which was submitted for printing in the 
    Congressional Record of May 21, but was omitted from that Record, 
    it was the intent of the special order reported by the Committee on 
    Rules and adopted by the House, House Resolution 477, to group the 
    perfecting amendments in discrete subject matters and categories in 
    order to fashion an orderly process for the consideration of the 
    congressional budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The subject matter of revenues is to be considered first, 
    followed by consideration of the defense budget. Due to a clerical 
    error, the first perfecting amendment to be offered by Represent

[[Page 6710]]

    ative Jones, relating to revenues, was labeled No. 7 in the 
    Congressional Record of May 21, and the second amendment to be 
    offered by Representative Jones, relating to defense, was labeled 
    No. 3 in the May 21 Congressional Record. The amendments were 
    submitted in the proper order for printing in the Record and the 
    Chair would therefore advise the Committee that those amendments 
    will, if offered, be considered in the proper order, with 
    Representative Jones' revenue amendment to be the third perfecting 
    amendment made in order under the rule and Representative Jones' 
    defense amendment to be the seventh perfecting amendment made in 
    order under the rule. The Chair would also point out that the 
    amendment by Representative Wolf, the 47th perfecting amendment 
    made in order under the rule, was printed on page 2637 in the 
    Congressional Record for May 21, but the Member's name was 
    inadvertently omitted in the printing of the Record. The amendment, 
    which will be reprinted in the Record of May 24, will be in order 
    for consideration since it was properly submitted pursuant to the 
    rule.
        The Chair requests that Members bring to his attention any 
    further errors that require correction in order that the Committee 
    of the Whole may proceed in a fair and orderly fashion.

Priority of Motion To Strike Enacting Clause

Sec. 4.40 Under Rule XXIII clause 7, a motion to recommend that the 
    enacting clause be stricken takes precedence over a motion to 
    amend, and may be offered where another Member has been recognized 
    to offer an amendment but prior to reading of the amendment by the 
    Clerk.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(11) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill,(12) an amendment was 
offered and the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 11513, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. H.R. 6096, Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec 2. There is authorized to be appropriated to the 
        President for the fiscal year 1975 not to exceed $150,000,000 
        to be used, notwithstanding any other provision of law, on such 
        terms and conditions as the President may deem appropriate for 
        humanitarian assistance to and evacuation programs from South 
        Vietnam.

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (13) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Michael T.] Blouin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Blouin moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken. . . .

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner, [Jr., of Louisiana]: I recognize that 
    the gen

[[Page 6711]]

    tleman has a preferential motion, but is it not so that the Chair 
    had recognized the gentleman from Texas to offer his amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair had recognized the gentleman from 
    Texas, to offer an amendment but the preferential motion supersedes 
    that amendment.
        Mr. Waggonner: Even after the gentleman had been recognized to 
    proceed? . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman had been recognized only for the 
    purpose of finding out the reason for which he sought recognition. 
    The gentleman stated that he had an amendment at the desk. The 
    Chair asked the Clerk to report the amendment, and before the 
    amendment was reported, a preferential motion was made.

Perfecting Amendment by Proponent of Motion To Strike

Sec. 4.41 A Member who has offered a motion to strike a section of a 
    bill may not thereafter offer a perfecting amendment to that 
    section while his motion to strike is pending.

    On Sept. 29, 1975,(14) during consideration of a bill 
(15) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to 
parliamentary inquiries as described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 30772, 30773, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. H.R. 8630, Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I will 
    try to propound a proper parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        . . . My original amendment was to strike section 2 in its 
    entirety. We have just accepted striking from line 20, section 2, 
    through line 6 on page 13. Is an amendment in order at this point 
    to strike The remainder of that section?
        The Chairman: (16) the Chair will respond to the 
    gentleman by saying that an amendment would be in order to strike 
    so much of the section that was not amended by the gentleman from 
    Arkansas' amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Derwinski: But obviously I am precluded at this point from 
    offering an amendment to strike beginning on line 20, page 12.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Illinois that other Members would not be precluded from offering 
    such an amendment.

Amendment Adding New Title

Sec. 4.42 The Chair may decline recognition to offer an amendment 
    adding a new title to a bill until all amendments to the pending 
    title have been disposed of.

    On Mar. 16, 1978,(17) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 50,(18) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 124 Cong. Rec. 7333-36, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 6712]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: On page 106 add the 
        following new title:

                               Title V. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Before the Chair would entertain this 
    amendment, the Chair would like to know if there are other 
    amendments to title IV?
        Mr. [Clarence] Long [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to 
    offer an amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to advise the 
    gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) if his amendment were accepted 
    at this time it would cut off the additional amendments. Would the 
    gentleman withhold? . . .
        The Chairman would like to state to the gentleman that the 
    Chair should have inquired of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Bauman) as to the nature of his amendment before extending 
    recognition.

    [Mr. Bauman withdrew his amendment by unanimous consent.]


 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
                              A. GENERALLY
 
Sec. 5. Permissible Pending Amendments

One Perfecting Amendment

Sec. 5.1 Only one perfecting amendment to the original text may be 
    pending at a time.

    The above principle is well established. Thus, on June 29, 1959, 
(19) during proceedings relating to a supplemental 
appropriation act,(20) the Chairman,(1) indicated 
in response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Joel T. Broyhill, of 
Virginia, that Mr. Broyhill would be able to offer an amendment ``After 
the disposition of the pending amendment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 105 Cong. Rec. 12122-24, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
            For a discussion of permissible pending amendments and 
        their disposition, see Rule XIX, House Rules and Manual Sec. 
        822 (101st Cong.).
20. H.R. 7978 (Committee on Appropriations).
 1. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On July 17, 1962,(2) the following exchange took 
    place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 108 Cong. Rec. 13795, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James E.] Van Zandt [of Pennsylvania]: Reserving the right 
    to object, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding now that the 
    committee will offer two amendments to the bill. If that be the 
    case, would it then be in order for me to offer a substitute 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: (3) In the event that a member of the 
    committee offers an amendment, a substitute would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Van Zandt: Would that apply if the committee offers two 
    amendments?
        The Chairman: The members of the committee can offer only one 
    amendment at a time. Of course, a substitute would be in order in 
    either case or to either amendment, or an amendment to the 
    amendment would be in order.

[[Page 6713]]

Sec. 5.2 Where there is pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and a perfecting amendment thereto, an amendment to or a 
    substitute for the perfecting amendment is in the third degree and 
    is not in order.

    On Sept. 11, 1974,(4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill,(5) the Chair responded to 
a parliamentary inquiry regarding an amendment as described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 120 Cong. Rec. 30650, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. H.R. 13565, the nonnuclear energy source research and development 
        program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Philip E.] Ruppe [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk to the Kastenmeier amendment.
        Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order. . . .
        The Kastenmeier amendment is already in order as an amendment 
    in the second degree, and this amendment would not be in order, 
    would it? We have an amendment before us to a substitute.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (6) The Chair will advise 
    the gentleman from Michigan that the amendment is not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ruppe: Mr. Chairman, the point of order is not to the whole 
    Udall substitute, which, under the rule, is to the bill that is 
    being debated. Actually, it is not an amendment in terms as we 
    would ordinarily think of it, but rather, to the vehicle by which 
    we are allowing the legislation on the floor.
        My understanding is that this would not be an amendment of the 
    second order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman 
    from Michigan that under the rule, the Udall amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute is an amendment in the first degree. The 
    amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kastenmeier) to the 
    Udall amendment is an amendment in the second degree, and therefore 
    an amendment to the amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin would 
    be in the third degree and is not in order. . . .
        Mr. Ruppe: Would it be possible, then, for me to offer this as 
    a substitute?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: In response to the gentleman's 
    request, it would not be in order to offer the amendment as a 
    substitute for the Kastenmeier amendment as it would still be an 
    amendment in the third degree.

Amendments to Substitute

Sec. 5.3 A substitute for an amendment is subject to amendment.

    On May 4, 1983,(7) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Joint Resolu

[[Page 6714]]

tion 13, the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry concerning the 
circumstances described above. The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 129 Cong. Rec. 11074, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Norman D.] Dicks [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dicks as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Levitas: In view of the matter 
        proposed to be inserted, insert the following: ``with 
        negotiators proceeding immediately to pursuing reductions.''. . 
        .

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        . . . Is the substitute open for amendment?
        The Chairman: (8) The answer to the (question) is 
    the substitute is open for amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.4 It is in order to offer a perfecting amendment to a substitute 
    for a pending amendment.

    On May 2, 1979,(9) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Concurrent Resolution 107,(10) the 
above-stated proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 125 Cong. Rec. 9556, 9562, 9563, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. The first concurrent resolution on the Budget, fiscal 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:
    Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
amendment.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Ms. Holtzman: In the matter relating 
        to the appropriate level of total new budget authority decrease 
        the amount by $8,113 million. . . .
            In the matter relating to the appropriate level of total 
        budget outlays decreased the amount by $2,705 million. . . .

        Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California as 
        a substitute for the amendment offered by Ms. Holtzman: In the 
        matter relating to National Defense for fiscal year 1980, 
        strike out the amount specified for new budget authority and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``$137,808,000,000''.
            In the matter relating to National Defense for fiscal year 
        1980, strike out the amount specified for outlays and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$125,070,000,000''. . . .

        Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (11) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment to the amending offered as a substitute. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William H. Natcher (Ky.).

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

[[Page 6715]]

        Mr. John L. Burton: My amendment is an amendment to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Charles H. 
    Wilson) as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California (Mr. John L. 
    Burton) is in order with an amendment to the substitute. . . .

            Amendment offered by Mr. John L. Burton to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California as a substitute 
        for the amendment offered by Ms. Holtzman: Strike all after 
        line 1 and insert:
            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That the Congress hereby determines and declares, 
        pursuant to section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
        1974, that for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1979--
            (1) The recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $510,800,000,000, and the amount by which the aggregate level 
        of Federal revenues should be decreased is zero.

Disposition of Amendments Seriatim

Sec. 5.5 As soon as an amendment to an amendment is adopted or rejected 
    another is in order seriatim until the amendment is perfected; and 
    only after disposition of the amendment will further amendment of 
    the bill be allowed.

    On Feb. 4, 1946,(12) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 92 Cong. Rec. 848, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 
        4908, a bill relating to investigation of labor disputes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (13) . . . The amendment now pending 
    is the Landis amendment, and the gentlemen are being recognized for 
    pro forma amendments. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Emmet O'Neal (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph P.] O'Hara [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment which is not an amendment to the Landis amendment but to 
    the Case bill. When will it be in order to offer my amendment?
        The Chairman: When the Landis amendment is disposed of the Case 
    bill will be open to further amendment.

Sec. 5.6 Where there is pending an amendment and a substitute therefor, 
    amendments consisting of the same text may be offered one at a time 
    to the original amendment and to the substitute.

    On July 23, 1974,(14) the Committee of the Whole having under 
consideration the bill, H.R. 11500, the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act of 1974, a parliamentary inquiry was addressed to the 
Chair and the proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 120 Cong. Rec. 24600, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ken] Hechler of West Virginia: If I were to offer an 
    amendment to the Hosmer substitute it would then go down if the 
    Hosmer substitute were defeated? As I understand the par

[[Page 6716]]

    liamentary situation, it would not be in order for me to offer 
    amendments at this point to the Mink amendment.
        The Chairman: (15) Amendments to both the Mink 
    amendment and to the Hosmer substitute are in order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: But could the same 
    amendment be offered to the Hosmer substitute, as well as the Mink 
    substitute?
        The Chairman: One could be offered and then the other.
        Mr. Hosmer: They could be offered simultaneously at the same 
    time?
        The Chairman: They could be pending simultaneously.

Sec. 5.7 Only one amendment to a pending amendment may be pending at 
    one time.

    An example of the principle stated above occurred on Apr. 9, 
1979,(16) during consideration of H.R. 3324 (17) 
in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 7763, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. The International Development Co-operation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of new York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solarz to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Bauman: On page 2 of the amendment, strike out subsections 
        (b) and (c). . . .

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on the Bauman amendment and the 
    Solarz amendment to the Bauman amendment and all amendments thereto 
    end at 3:30 o'cock. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    to limiting time, I think we have discussed it enough; but this 
    would not preclude the gentleman from Maryland from offering a 
    substitute amendment for the Solarz amendment at this point, would 
    it?
        Chairman: (18) The Chair will state that the Solarz 
    amendment is not subject to a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: No substitute would be in order to the Solarz 
    amendment?
        The Chariman: That would be an amendment in the third degree. 
    The Bauman amendment would be subject to a substitute. . . .
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: In the last paragraph 
        substitute ``may'' for the word `'shall.''

        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from 
    Illinois the amendment is not in order. There is already an 
    amendment pending to the Bauman amendment.

Sec. 5.8 Only one amendment to a substitute may be pending at one time, 
    and amendments which might be subsequently offered may not be 
    debated while another amendment in pending.

[[Page 6717]]

    An example of the situation described above occurred on May 15, 
1979,(19) during consideration of H.R. 39 (20) in 
the Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 11178, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (21) The question is on the amendments 
    offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby) to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the Committee on 
    Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    were agreed to.
        Mr. [Peter H.] Kostmayer [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have two amendments.
        The Chairman: Are these amendments to the Merchant Marine 
    Committee amendments?
        Mr. Kostmayer: To the Udall-Anderson.
        The Chairman: There is already an amendment pending to the 
    Udall substitute. Another amendment to the Udall substitute is not 
    in order at this point.
        Mr. Kostmayer: Well, Mr. Chairman, they can be spoken on now 
    and voted on later; is that correct?
        The Chairman: They are not in order at this time.

Improperly Drafted Substitute Treated as Perfecting Amendment

Sec. 5.9 While there may be pending only one perfecting amendment to a 
    section at a time and there are no degrees of preference as between 
    perfecting amendments, where there was pending an amendment 
    proposing to strike out a subsection and insert new language, the 
    Chairman announced that an amendment improperly drafted as a 
    substitute which merely perfected the subsection of the bill would 
    be treated as a perfecting amendment to the bill and would be voted 
    on first.

    On Mar. 21, 1975,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill,(2) the proceedings, 
described above, occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 7950, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. H.R. 4485, the Emergency Middle-Income Housing Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick: Page 11, strike out 
        lines 1 through 12 and insert in lieu thereof:
            ``(d) Not more than 50 per centum of the aggregate mortgage 
        amounts approved in appropriation Acts may be allocated (1) for 
        use with respect to existing previously occupied dwellings 
        which have not been substantially rehabilitated and (2) for use 
        with respect to new, unsold dwelling units the construction of 
        which commenced prior to the enactment of this Act. Not more 
        than 10 per cen

[[Page 6718]]

        tum of the aggregate mortgage amounts approved in appropriation 
        Acts may be allocated with respect to dwelling units with 
        appraised values in excess of $38,00.''. . .

        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. AuCoin: On page 11, 
        line 1, strike out ``25'' and insert in lieu thereof ``30.''
            On page 11, line 3, insert ``with respect to existing units 
        and'' immediately after ``use.''

        The Chairman: (3) The Chair will treat this 
    amendment as a perfecting amendment to the paragraph of the bill 
    and it will be voted on first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pefecting Amendments Pending Motion To Strike

Sec. 5.10 There may be pending a motion to strike out a pending title 
    of a bill, a perfecting amendment (adding a new section at the end 
    of the title) and a substitute therefor. After the first perfecting 
    amendment has been disposed of, another may be offered and the vote 
    on the motion to strike out is deferred until the amendment is 
    disposed of.

    On Oct. 3, 1969,(4) a bill (5) as under 
consideration which stated in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 115 Cong. Rec. 28454, 28455, 28459, 28460, 28463, 28464, 91st Cong. 
        1st Sess.
 5. H.R. 14000 (Committee on Armed Services).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      TITLE V--COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS

        Sec. 501. The Department of Defense shall keep the Committees 
    on Armed Services of the Senate and of the House of Representatives 
    fully and currently informed with respect to all of the 
    Department's activities. . . .
        Sec. 504. As used in this Act . . .
        (c) ``Restricted data'' means data classified as ``Restricted 
    data,'' in accordance with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act 
    of 1954, as amended. . . .

    A motion to strike out the entire title was offered:

        Motion offered by Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: On 
    page 16, line 9, strike all of Title V. . . .
Mr. Andrew Jacobs, Jr., of Indiana, offered a perfecting amendment 
adding a new section to the title. The following proceedings then took 
place:

     SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ANDERSON OF ILLINOIS FOR THE 
                 AMENDMENT TO TITLE V OFFERED BY MR. JACOBS

        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment to title V. . . .

[[Page 6719]]

        The Chairman: (6) The question is on the substitute 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson) for 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Jacobs). . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the substitute amendment was rejected. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Jacobs).
        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Jacobs and Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina].
        The Committee divided, and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 89, noes 109.
        So the amendment was rejected.
        Mr. William F.] Ryan [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ryan: On page 16, after the period 
        on line 13, strike out the remainder of line 13 and lines 14 
        through 25. . . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Ryan).
        The amendment was rejected.
        The Chairman: . . . The question is on the motion to strike 
    offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton).
        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 5.11 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chairman stated 
    that where there was pending a motion to strike a title of a bill, 
    perfecting amendments to that title could be offered and would be 
    voted on prior to voting on the motion to strike.

    On June 13, 1975,(7) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the bill H.R. 6860,(8) parliamentary 
inquiry was addressed to the Chair, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 18819, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Energy Conservation and Conversion Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ken] Hechler of West Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hechler of West Virginia: Does this amendment strike all of 
    title IV?
        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Yes.
        Mr. Hechler of West Virginia: In that event, my parliamentary 
    inquiry is, Mr. Chairman, I have a perfecting amendment to title 
    IV. I would inquire of the Chair whether that perfecting amendment 
    could be considered.
        The Chairman: The Chair desires to inform the gentleman from 
    West Virginia that his perfecting amendment would be in order 
    pending the vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin.

[[Page 6720]]

Sec. 5.12 Where there has been offered a motion to strike out the 
    entire pending portion of a bill, only one perfecting amendment to 
    that portion of the bill may be offered at a time, even though it 
    may propose to strike out a lesser portion of the pending text and 
    its adoption might preclude other perfecting amendments to that 
    stricken portion.

    On June 11, 1975,(10) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill,(11) an amendment was offered and 
the proceedings, described above, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 18435, 18437, 18438, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. H.R. 6860, Energy Conservation and Conversion Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Alexander: Strike out title II 
        (relating to energy conservation taxes), beginning on line 1 of 
        page 29, and ending on line 24 of page 57. . . .

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment to 
    strike will not be voted on until there is opportunity to vote on 
    all of the perfecting amendments to title II?
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fortney H.] Stark [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    several amendments, and ask unanimous consent that they be 
    considered en bloc.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Stark:
            Page 30, strike out line 1 and all that follows down 
        through line 5 on page 31.
            Page 32, strike out line 20 and all that follows down 
        through line 25. . . .

        Mr. Ullman: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California has 
    offered an amendment which would strike part B. The gentleman from 
    Arkansas has offered an amendment which would strike the whole 
    title.
        I would assume, after part B is perfected, as the gentleman's 
    amendment to strike part B asks, it would come before the amendment 
    to strike the whole title. Am I correct?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the chairman of 
    the committee that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Stark) is a perfecting amendment and will be voted 
    on first. . . .
        Mr. Stark: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent at this point 
    to withdraw my amendment and offer it later, after the gentleman 
    from Ohio offers his amendment.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from California?
        Mr. [Herman T.] Schneebeli [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, 
    reserving the right to object, I will ask what the parliamentary 
    procedure is. In the event the gentleman withdraws his amendment, 
    where do we stand?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Schneebeli) that if

[[Page 6721]]

    the unanimous-consent request is approved, we are back then to the 
    Alexander amendment, which would be the amendment before the 
    Committee, to strike the whole title, and other perfecting 
    amendments to the title, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania knows, 
    would be in order one at a time.
        Mr. Schneebeli: Mr. Chairman, if it is withdrawn and we get 
    back to the Alexander amendment, does that mean other amendments of 
    a lesser tax cut would be considered first?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Schneebeli: Mr. Chairman, I object because I want to vote 
    on the Stark amendment before I vote on any other alternative 
    amendments.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Ullman: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
    of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. . . .
        There ought to be a way to perfect a section of a title before 
    a motion to strike is made. Now we are in a situation where there 
    is a probability that because there was a motion to strike the 
    whole title, the motion to strike subsection (b) is considered a 
    perfecting motion, and, therefore, subsection (b) will not be 
    perfected before the vote to strike comes.
        Now, Mr. Chairman, of course I rise in strong opposition to the 
    Stark motion to strike the title. I had hoped there could be some 
    perfecting amendments so that subsection (b) can better represent 
    the will of the House before the motion to strike comes before the 
    body. And I am still hopeful that that kind of a ruling can be 
    forthcoming. And simply because there is an amendment to strike one 
    part of the bill before you have a chance to perfect it is, it 
    seems to me, not sound parliamentary procedure. . . .
        Mr. Schneebeli: Mr. Chairman, my question to the Chair is: In 
    the event we go beyond the Stark amendment and go to the amendment 
    that I understand will be forthcoming from the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Vanik) his cut of the 20-cent tax is less than that of the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Stark). In the event we recede and 
    agree to go to a consideration of the Vanik amendment, and it is 
    adopted, does this then preclude us from acting on the Stark 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania that it would not, if the amendment is presently 
    withdrawn.

    Parliamentarian's Note: When title II of the bill was read, an 
amendment was offered to strike out the entire title (no one sought 
recognition at that point with a perfecting amendment). Perfecting 
amendments to the text of the bill proposed to be stricken were in 
order although the motion to strike itself was not amendable. The first 
such perfecting amendment offered was to strike out a portion of the 
title. The Committee on Ways and Means sought to consider amendments to 
modify that portion prior to the consideration of a motion to strike 
that portion, but since only one perfecting amendment could be pending 
at a time and there is no degree of preference as between per

[[Page 6722]]

fecting amendments, unanimous consent was required to withdraw the 
perfecting amendment to strike; objection to that request precluded the 
offering of other perfecting amendments at that time.

Number of Amendments Permitted

Sec. 5.13 Where an amendment, an amendment thereto, and a substitute 
    for the original amendment are pending, it is in order to offer an 
    amendment to the substitute.

    On Aug. 24, 1967,(13) a question arose as to the 
propriety of an amendment offered to a substitute amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 113 Cong. Rec. 23936, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 12048 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Iowa [Mr. Gross]. . . .
        Mr. [E. Ross] Adair [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that (the amendment) is not in order, as there are 
    two amendments pending.
        The Chairman: (14) The amendment is offered as an 
    amendment to the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Iowa. The Selden amendment is an amendment to the Adair amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment to the substitute amendment is in order.

Sec. 5.14 It is possible to have pending an amendment to the text, a 
    substitute for the amendment to the text, and an amendment to the 
    substitute.

    On July 17, 1962,(15) during consideration of a bill 
(16) relating to atomic energy, a question arose with regard 
to the number of permissible pending amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 108 Cong. Rec. 13795, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. H.R. 11974 (Joint Committee on Atomic Energy).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James E.] Van Zandt [of Pennsylvania]: Reserving the right 
    to object, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding now that the 
    committee will offer two amendments to the bill. If that be the 
    case, would it then be in order for me to offer a substitute 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: (17) In the event that a member of the 
    committee offers an amendment, a substitute would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Van Zandt: Would that apply if the committee offers two 
    amendments?
        The Chairman: The members of the committee can offer only one 
    amendment at a time. Of course, a substitute would be in order in 
    either case or to either amendment, or an amendment to the 
    amendment would be in order.

Sec. 5.15 Where both an amendment and a substitute have

[[Page 6723]]

    been offered, each may have one amendment pending to it at one 
    time.

    On Aug. 12, 1959,(18) the Labor-Management Reporting and 
Disclosure Act of 1959 (H.R. 8342, Committee on Education and Labor) 
was under consideration. To that bill (referred to as the ``committee'' 
or ``Elliott'' bill), another bill (H.R. 8400, the ``Landrum-Griffin'' 
bill) was offered as an amendment; and to the Landrum-Griffin 
amendment, a third bill (H.R. 8490, the ``Shelley'' bill) was offered 
as a substitute. The parliamentary situation was summarized by Mr. 
Howard W. Smith, of Virginia: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 105 Cong. Rec. 15660, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. Id. at p. 15512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, we have a very remarkable situation here today. We 
    have a rule for the consideration of a labor bill. We have two 
    proposed substitutes to the labor bill. And to be as brief as I can 
    about the rule, it is, I will say, a wide-open rule under the rules 
    of the House. The so-called committee bill will first be 
    considered. When it is read for amendment, at the conclusion of the 
    first section, the gentleman from Georgia will offer the so-called 
    Landrum-Griffin bill as an amendment. It will then be in order to 
    offer the so-called Shelley-Roosevelt bill as a substitute for the 
    Landrum amendment. Then it will be in order to have one amendment 
    each to the Shelley-Roosevelt substitute and the Landrum-Griffin 
    amendment pending at the same time. The Landrum-Griffin amendment 
    will be perfected by whatever amendment may be offered before any 
    vote is taken on amendments to the Shelley-Roosevelt substitute. 
    Then that amendment will be perfected. Then the Roosevelt 
    substitute will be, I hope, voted down. Then the Landrum-Griffin 
    bill will, I hope, be voted up. If that occurs, we will then be at 
    the end of the road. That would then be reported back to the House 
    and the House would vote on the Landrum-Griffin amendment. If that 
    is defeated, in the Committee of the Whole, of course, the 
    committee bill will be open to the much-needed amendments to make 
    it a good labor-management bill.

    Mr. Phillip M. Landrum, of Georgia, offered his amendment after the 
reading of the short title of the committee bill: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 20. Id. at p. 15702.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Landrum: Strike out all after the 
        enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

                              ``TABLE OF CONTENTS

            Sec. 1. Short title.
            Sec. 2. Declaration of findings, purposes, and policy.
            Sec. 3. Definitions.''. . .

    Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, offered H.R. 8490: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 15711.

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

[[Page 6724]]

        Mr. Perkins: Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute for the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Perkins of Kentucky as a 
        substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Landrum of Georgia;
            Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:

                              ``TABLE OF CONTENTS

            Sec. 1. Short title.
            Sec. 2. Declaration of findings, purposes, and policy.
            Sec. 3. Definitions.''. . .

    A parliamentary inquiry was made, as follows: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 15720.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]: Mr. Chairman, there is 
    some confusion in the minds of some as to the proper procedure from 
    this point on. Now that the substitute amendment and the second 
    substitute amendment have been offered, I would like to inquire, 
    Mr. Chairman, as to whether there is any limit to the number of 
    amendments which may be offered to each of the substitute 
    amendments.
        The Chairman: (3) There is no limit on the number of 
    amendments that may be offered, but only one amendment at a time 
    may be considered to each of the pending amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.16 There is no limit to the number of amendments that may be 
    offered either to an amendment or to a substitute, but only one 
    amendment may be pending to such amendment or substitute at one 
    time.

    By way of example, the statement of the above principle was made by 
the Chairman, Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania,(4) in 
response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. James Roosevelt, of 
California.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.. 105 Cong. Rec. 15720, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 12, 1959. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 8342 (Committee on Education and Labor).
 5. See Sec. 5.15, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.17 Only one perfecting amendment to an amendment may be pending 
    at a time.

    In the 88th Congress, a bill (6) was under consideration 
relating to crime and criminal procedure in the District of Columbia. 
While there was pending an amendment to change the age of consent in 
the definition of statutory rape in the criminal code, it was held that 
a second amendment to change the penalty for such crime did not qualify 
as a ``substitute'' for the first amendment and was therefore not in 
order until the first perfecting amendment had been acted upon. The 
proceedings were as follows: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.R. 7525 (Committee on the District of Columbia).
 7. 109 Cong. Rec. 14757, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 12, 1963.

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

[[Page 6725]]

        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (8) Is it a substitute for the 
    amendment pending?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Ross Bass (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Harsha: It is a substitute for the amendment pending. (The 
    amendment was read.)
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman this does 
    not constitute a substitute for the other amendment. The Chair will 
    dispose of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Bell).

Sec. 5.18 Where there is pending an amendment and a substitute 
    therefor, it is in order to offer an amendment to the original 
    amendment.

    On July 14, 1970,(9) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 116 Cong. Rec. 24040, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 17654 (Committee on Rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Marion G.] Snyder [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, is an 
    amendment to the Fascell amendment in order while the substitute 
    amendment is still pending?
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair would like to inform 
    the gentleman from Kentucky that an amendment to the amendment 
    would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.19 Where there is pending an amendment, a substitute therefor, 
    and an amendment to the substitute, it is in order to offer a 
    germane amendment to the original amendment.

    On Sept. 25, 1973,(11) proceedings took place which 
illustrate the application of the above principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 119 Cong. Rec. 31338, 31339, 31341, 31343, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. 
        Under consideration was H.J. Res. 727 (Committee on 
        Appropriations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment. . . .
        Mrs. [Edith] Green of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, I offer a substitute 
    amendment for the amendment offered by Mr. Quie. . . .
        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment to the substitute amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered by Mr. Quie. . . .
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, we have pending 
    an amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Quie) and 
    then we have the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentlewoman from Oregon (Mrs. Green). Then we have the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Perkins).
        Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if a further amendment at this time 
    is in order.
        The Speaker: (12) The Chair will state that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) is

[[Page 6726]]

    in order at this time. It is the understanding of the Chair that 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) does 
    relate to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
    (Mr. Quie) and is an amendment thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.20 Where both an amendment (in the nature of a substitute) and a 
    substitute therefor are pending, it is in order also to have an 
    amendment to the amendment and an amendment to the substitute 
    pending at the same time.

    On Sept. 29, 1965,(13) during consideration of H.R. 4644 
(Committee on the District of Columbia), an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute was offered by Mr. Abraham J. Multer, of New York: 
(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 25376, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. Id. at p. 25376.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk: The amendment offered by Mr. Multer is to strike all 
    after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

            That, subject to the retention by Congress of the ultimate 
        legislative authority over the Nation's Capital which is 
        granted by the Constitution, it is the intent of Congress to 
        restore to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia the 
        powers of local self-government which are a basic privilege of 
        all American citizens. . . .

                               table of contents

                              Title I--Definitions

            Sec. 101. Definitions.

                        Title II--Status of the District

            Sec. 201. Status of the District. . . .

    A substitute for the above amendment was offered: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 25389.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [B. F.] Sisk [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk: The amendment offered by Mr. Sisk, as a substitute 
    for the amendment offered by Mr. Multer, is to strike out all after 
    the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

            That this Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia 
        Charter Act''.

                             declaration of policy

            Sec. 2. It is the intent of Congress to make available to 
        the inhabitants of the District of Columbia such measure and 
        form of local self-government as they themselves shall 
        democratically establish if such self-government is consistent 
        with the constitutional injunction that Congress retain 
        ultimate legislative authority over the Nation's Capital.

    Subsequently, a parliamentary inquiry was raised, as follows: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 25418.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: As I understand it the 
    Committee may now proceed to amend both the Multer amendment and 
    the Sisk substitute to the amendment; is that correct?
        The Chairman: (17) That is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).

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

[[Page 6727]]

        Mr. Harsha: And we may amend either one interchangeably at this 
    state of the game?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

Sec. 5.21 To a pending amendment in the nature of a substitute for 
    several paragraphs of a bill, there may be offered an amendment, a 
    substitute for the amendment, and an amendment to the substitute; 
    and as often as amendments to the amendment are disposed of, 
    further amendments may be offered and voted upon prior to voting on 
    the amendment to the substitute.

    On June 26, 1973, during consideration of H.R. 8877, Departments of 
Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriation bill for fiscal 
1974, Mr. Robert H. Michel, of Illinois, offered an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute for several paragraphs of the bill: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 119 Cong. Rec. 21368, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the paragraph 
    of the bill just read which is a single substitute for several 
    paragraphs of the bill dealing with the Department of Health, 
    Education, and Welfare and related agencies, and I hereby give 
    notice that if the amendment is agreed to, I will make motions to 
    strike out the remaining paragraphs as follows: The paragraph on 
    page 8, lines 13 through 20; the paragraph on page 11, lines 9 
    through 11. . . .

    Subsequently, amendments were offered as follows: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at pp. 21375, 21376, 21379.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conte to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Michel: At the end of the first sentence, after ``Drug 
        Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-255),'', strike 
        out ``$725,311,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$745,851,000.''. . . .

        Mr. [Howard W.] Robison of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment. The amendment is in the nature of a substitute for the 
    pending Michel amendment. It does not change the Michel amendment 
    except insofar as it alters certain dollar amounts. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Substitute amendment offered by Mr. Robison of New York for 
        the amendment offered by Mr. Michel: On page 7, strike out 
        lines 16 through 24 and on page 8, lines 1 and 2 and substitute 
        in lieu thereof the following:
            For carrying out the Public Health Service Act with respect 
        to mental health and, except as otherwise provided, the 
        Community Mental Health Centers Act (42 U.S.C. 2681, et seq.), 
        the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, 
        Treatment, and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-616), 
        the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-793), 
        and the Drug

[[Page 6728]]

        Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-255), 
        $725,311,000. . . .

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Robison).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Quie to the substitute amendment 
        offered by Mr. Robison of New York: In sentence 16, after the 
        words ``fiscal 1972,'' insert the following: ``and (2) shall 
        not be more than 110 percent of the amounts made available to 
        such State for that purpose for fiscal year 1972, plus one-half 
        the difference between such amounts and the amounts which would 
        be made available to such State under this Act without 
        application of this clause.''

    A parliamentary inquiry was made: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 21382.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Conte: Mr. Chairman, as I understand, we will first 
    consider my amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Illinois (Mr. Michel)?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct, the first vote will be 
    on the amendment the gentleman has offered to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel). That will be disposed 
    of first.
        Mr. Conte: . . . Mr. Chairman, I then have another amendment 
    that I would like to offer. Will I be permitted to offer that 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that after the first 
    amendment has been disposed of, the gentleman may rise and offer 
    his other amendment. (21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The votes on the amendments were taken as follows: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 119 Cong. Rec. 21383, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendments offered by the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Conte) there were--ayes 25, noes 87. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Quie) to the substitute amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Robison) for the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel).
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Quie) there were--ayes 8, noes 89.
        So the amendment to the substitute amendment was rejected. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: The question is on the substitute amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Robison) for the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel).
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Robison of New York: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
    vote.
        A recorded vote was refused.
        So the substitute amendment was rejected.

Sec. 5.22 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute there may be 
    pending an amend

[[Page 6729]]

    ment, a substitute, and an amendment to the substitute.

    On Jan. 23, 1962,(2) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 108 Cong. Rec. 758, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7927 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
            See also 82 Cong. Rec. 1570, 1571, 75th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Dec. 15, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: The distinguished majority leader 
    said that the chairman of the committee will offer a substitute to 
    the committee bill. My question is: Will the substitute be open to 
    amendments at any point? How many amendments may be offered to the 
    substitute, and will it be open to amendment at any point?
        The Chairman: (3) The proposed amendment being an 
    original amendment will be open to an amendment at any point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: To an amendment?
        The Chairman: And a substitute and an amendment to the 
    substitute.

Sec. 5.23 Where there were pending to title I of a bill an amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute for the title and a substitute therefor, 
    responses made by the Chair to various inquiries indicated that: 
    (1) both the amendment and the substitute were open to an 
    amendment; (2) adoption of the substitute would preclude further 
    amendment of either the amendment or the substitute; and (3) 
    rejection of the substitute would leave the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute open to further amendment.

    On Apr. 23, 1969, a number of parliamentary inquiries were made 
with respect to the extent to which a pending amendment in the nature 
of a substitute, and a substitute amendment, could be 
amended.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 115 Cong. Rec. 10066, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 514 (Committee on Education and Labor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, is the 
    Perkins substitute amendment open to amendment at this point?
        The Chairman: (5) It is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Erlenborn: And is the Green of Oregon amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute open to amendment at this point?
        The Chairman: It is. . . .
        Mr. Erlenborn: Should the Perkins substitute amendment be voted 
    upon and adopted, would it then be subject to amendment?
        The Chairman: No, it would not.
        Mr. Erlenborn: If the Perkins substitute amendment is voted 
    upon and rejected, would the Green of Oregon amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute then be open to amendment?
        The Chairman: It would be.

[[Page 6730]]

Sec. 5.24 Where there was pending an amendment and a substitute 
    therefor, the Chair indicated that only one amendment to the 
    substitute could be offered at one time.

    On Oct. 16, 1973,(6) during consideration of the 
Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973,(7) Mr. William 
A. Steiger, of Wisconsin, offered an amendment, and Mr. Richard W. 
Mallary, of Vermont, offered an amendment thereto, which was agreed to. 
A substitute amendment to the Steiger amendment had been offered by Mr. 
Roger H. Zion, of Indiana, and after adoption of the Mallary amendment, 
Mr. Mallary stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 119 Cong. Rec. 34336, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. H.R. 9681 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, at this point it would be important, I believe, 
    since the same deficiency exists in the substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana, I would move to amend the substitute in the 
    manner in which the amendment just acted on is worded. . . .

Upon being informed that the amendment would have to be in writing, Mr. 
Mallary stated:

        . . . I wonder if the Clerk would be willing to use the 
    language in the amendment to the amendment in order to make the 
    correction. In view of the vote on the amendment, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the substitute amendment of the gentleman from Indiana 
    be amended as we have just amended the amendment to the amendment. 
    . . .

Subsequently, following the Chairman's request to the Clerk to report 
the Zion amendment as proposed to be amended, the following exchange 
took place:

        Mr. [Torbert H.] Macdonald [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, 
    the perfecting amendment to the Zion amendment on line 3, where it 
    reads ``insert in lieu thereof the following: crude oil and refined 
    products'' should be nailed down and say ``refined petroleum 
    products.'' I so move.
        The Chairman: (8) The substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana is pending at the present time, the Chair 
    has recognized the gentleman from Vermont to offer a perfecting 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Charles H. Wilson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.25 Where there was pending an amendment, a substitute therefor 
    and an amendment to the substitute, the Chairman indicated that 
    other amendments to the substitute would be in order under the 
    five-minute rule following disposition of the pending amendment to 
    the substitute.

    On Oct. 20, 1971,(9) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 117 Cong. Rec. 37082, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 10367 (Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs).

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

[[Page 6731]]

        Mr. [Sam] Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, is it the Chair's 
    intention after calling for the vote on the Cederberg amendment to 
    the Udall substitute, that we then vote immediately on the Udall 
    substitute or not, or will there be some time for discussion in 
    between?
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair will inform the 
    gentleman that will depend on whether other amendments are offered 
    to the substitute. If so, the gentleman's statement would be 
    correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne N.] Aspinall [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, would a 
    motion to strike the necessary number of words be in order?
        The Chairman: A motion to strike the necessary number of words 
    would then be in order.

Sec. 5.26 Where there is pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for an entire bill, a substitute therefor and an 
    amendment to the substitute, it is in order to offer an amendment 
    to the original amendment in the nature of a substitute.

    On Dec. 2, 1970,(11) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 39500, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 19436 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Olin E.] Teague of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Stephens).

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Benjamin B.] Blackburn [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. Am I to understand the gentleman from Texas 
    is offering an amendment to the Stephens substitute amendment?
        The Chairman: (12) To the Stephens amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute. That is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Blackburn: So the amendment I have offered is still 
    pending?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. It is in order for the 
    gentleman from Texas to offer an amendment to the Stephens 
    amendment, which is in the nature of a substitute.

Sec. 5.27 Only one amendment to an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute or to a substitute therefor can be pending at one time.

    On Oct. 1, 1974,(13) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a resolution,(14) a parliamentary 
inquiry was addressed to the Chair and proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 120 Cong. Rec. 33338, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
14. H. Res. 988, to reform the structure, jurisdiction, and procedures 
        of House committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, do I understand 
    correctly

[[Page 6732]]

    that the Thompson amendment is to the Hansen substitute, and that 
    no other amendment would be in order to that amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute until the Thompson amendment is voted upon?
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair would like to inform 
    the gentleman that he is correct. No additional amendments to the 
    Hansen amendment in the nature of a substitute are in order until 
    the Thompson amendment is voted on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Further, the Chair would like to advise the gentleman that no 
    additional amendments to the Martin substitute are in order until 
    the Sullivan amendment is voted upon.

Five Amendments Pending at One Time

Sec. 5.28 In one instance, five amendments were pending at one time, 
    and were offered in the following order: (1) an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute for the resolution; (2) a substitute 
    therefor; (3) perfecting amendments to the original text; (4) an 
    amendment to the substitute; and (5) an amendment to the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute.

    On May 1, 1975,(16) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H. Con. Res. 218,(17) the proceedings 
described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 12765, 12771, 12775, 12776, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. Setting forth the congressional budget on an aggregate basis for 
        fiscal 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, 
    I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        O'Neill:
            Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
            ``That the Congress hereby determines and declares, 
        pursuant to section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
        1974, that for the fiscal year beginning on July 1, 1975--
            ``(1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $295,181,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Latta as a substitute for the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. O'Neill: 
        Strike out all after the resolving clause in House Concurrent 
        Resolution 218 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            ``he Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant to 
        section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that 
        for the fiscal year beginning on July 1, 1975--
            ``(1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $296,400,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [Phil M.] Landrum [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    series of amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Landrum: Page 1, line 11, strike 
        out

[[Page 6733]]

        ``$395,600,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$387,486,000,000''.
            Page 2 line 2, strike out ``$368,200,000,000'' and insert 
        in lieu thereof ``$361,012,000,000''. . . .

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Is this an amendment 
    to the substitute offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta)?
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair understands that it is 
    a perfecting amendment to the original resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rousselot: Is it in order, then, at this time?
        The Chairman: It is, the Chair will state.
        Mr. Rousselot: Will my amendment to the substitute still be in 
    order?
        The Chairman: It will, at the appropriate time. . . .
        Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
    substitute amendment for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rousselot to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Latta as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of 
        a substitute offered by Mr. O'Neill: Strike out 
        ``$296,400,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$299,400,000,000.''. . .

        Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Reuss to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. O'Neill: Paragraph (1), 
        strike ``$295,181,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$298,181,000,000''. . . .

        Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington]: . . . It is my understanding 
    that there is presently pending the O'Neill amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute to the original text, a Latta substitute to the 
    O'Neill amendment, a perfecting amendment by Mr. Reuss to the 
    O'Neill amendment, a perfecting amendment by Mr. Rousselot to the 
    Latta substitute, and an amendment to the original text by Mr. 
    Landrum.
        I intend to oppose the Landrum amendment, the Latta substitute, 
    and the Rousselot amendment, and I would like to know which one 
    will be first voted on by the body, so that I can address myself to 
    that one.
        The Chairman: The Chair will respond to the gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. Adams) that the first vote will occur on the 
    Landrum perfecting amendment to the concurrent resolution.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In this context, eight amendments could 
have been pending at once, since any Member could have offered an 
amendment to Mr. Landrum's perfecting amendment, a substitute for Mr. 
Landrum's amendment, and an amendment to the substitute.

Sec. 5.29 There may be pending at one time: (1) a motion to strike the 
    pending title (or section, or paragraph) when offered before 
    perfecting amendments are offered; (2) a perfecting amendment to 
    the title; (3) an amendment to that amendment; (4) a sub

[[Page 6734]]

    stitute for the perfecting amendment; and (5) an amendment to the 
    substitute.

    The following proceedings took place on Aug. 3, 
1966,(19) during consideration of the Civil Rights Act of 
1966.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 112 Cong. Rec. 18113-15, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
20. H.R. 14765 (Committee on the Judiciary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Arch A.] Moore [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Moore: On page 61, strike line 19 
        and all that follows down through page 74, line 6, and renumber 
        the following titles and sections accordingly. . . .
    [This amendment struck out Title IV of the pending text.]

        Mr. [Charles McC.] Mathias [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a perfecting amendment.
        The Chairman: (1) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clark] MacGregor [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . . Mr. Chairman, when will it be in order 
    for me to seek recognition for the purpose of offering . . . a 
    substitute to the Mathias perfecting amendment?
        The Chairman: It will be in order for the gentleman from 
    Minnesota to offer such an amendment after the gentleman from 
    Maryland has concluded his remarks on his amendment. . . .
        Mr. [William C.] Cramer [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, assuming 
    that the gentleman is recognized for that purpose and offers his 
    substitute, then is it correct to say that no other amendments or 
    substitutes will be in order?
        The Chairman: That is not correct.
        Mr. Cramer: Then at what point would additional amendments be 
    in order?
        The Chairman: An amendment to the Mathias amendment would be in 
    order. An amendment to the substitute, if it is offered--the 
    substitute for the Mathias amendment, if it is offered--would be in 
    order. . . .
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Under what 
    conditions can a perfecting amendment to title IV be offered by the 
    gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mathias] in view of the fact that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Moore] 
    was to strike out all of title IV. What does it perfect? Or what 
    would it then perfect?
        The Chairman: Under our rules--the rules of the House, and 
    ordinary parliamentary procedure--the basic legislation is 
    perfected before there is a vote on an amendment to strike. . . .
        Mr. Waggonner: If the Chair has correctly stated the rules of 
    the House--and I do not at this moment accept that he has--would 
    the vote then occur in this manner: if the gentleman from Minnesota 
    [Mr. MacGregor] offers substitute language, would there first be a 
    vote on the substitute language which is intended to be offered by 
    Mr. MacGregor to the perfecting amendment?
        Then, if that substitute language is rejected, would the so-
    called perfecting

[[Page 6735]]

    amendment of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mathias] be voted on? 
    And, if that amendment or that so-called perfecting amendment is 
    rejected, would the vote then occur on the motion of the gentleman 
    from West Virginia [Mr. Moore] to strike all of title IV?
        The Chairman: The gentleman's assumptions are correct, unless 
    there intervened after the defeat of the substitute amendment which 
    may be offered and the perfecting amendment which has been offered 
    another amendment in the nature of a perfecting amendment.

Amendment to Several Paragraphs of Appropriation Bill

Sec. 5.30 The Chairman indicated in response to inquiries that where 
    there was pending a paragraph of an appropriation bill and an 
    amendment ``in the nature of a substitute'' for that paragraph and 
    the succeeding paragraphs, perfecting amendments to both the 
    original paragraph and to any part of the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute, as well as a substitute for the latter, would be 
    in order.

    On July 29, 1969,(2) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 115 Cong. Rec. 21218, 21219, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 13111 (Committee on Appropriations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles S.] Joelson [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the paragraph just read which is a simple 
    substitute to several paragraphs of the bill dealing with the 
    Office of Education and I hereby give notice that after the 
    amendment is agreed to I will make a motion to strike out the 
    paragraphs appearing as follows: . . .
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Would a substitute for the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Joelson) . 
    . . be in order if offered by someone?
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair will state that a 
    substitute for the amendment would be in order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, the entire 
    substitute, as I understand, is open to amendment at any point, but 
    insofar as the bill is concerned is the paragraph on page 25 which 
    was read by the Clerk also open to amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Text of Another Bill Made in Order as Amendment

Sec. 5.31 Where the Committee on Rules had reported a resolution making 
    in order the consideration of a committee amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute as an original bill for amendment, and making in 
    order the text of another bill offered from the floor as an 
    amendment in the

[[Page 6736]]

    nature of a substitute therefor, the Speaker pro tempore indicated 
    that (1) amendments would be in order to the floor amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute at any point; (2) if the substitute text 
    were offered after section 1 of the committee amendment had been 
    read, only that section of the committee amendment would be open to 
    perfecting amendment while the substitute was pending; and (3) if 
    the substitute were defeated in Committee of the Whole, the 
    committee amendment would be read by sections for amendment.

    On June 16, 1970,(4) during proceedings relating to a 
postal reform bill (5) a number of inquiries were raised 
with respect to applicable amendment procedures. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 116 Cong. Rec. 19838, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. See H. Res. 1077 (Committee on Rules), providing for consideration 
        of H.R. 17070, the Postal Reform Act of 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. Allen] Smith of California: In connection with H.R. 
    17070, which the Rules Committee has made in order as a committee 
    substitute for the original committee bill, which was stricken out, 
    and against which bill points of order are to be waived, and in 
    addition in connection with H.R. 17966, which has been made in 
    order as a substitute, waiving points of order, my understanding of 
    the parliamentary situation is, if we do not get into the third 
    degree where we are stopped, that when H.R. 17966 is offered as a 
    substitute it will be open to amendment as we go through the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) It will be open to 
    amendment at any point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of California: It is my understanding if we have an 
    amendment pending on that bill, which is one amendment, we can also 
    have an amendment pending on the original bill if it applies to the 
    same section or same part of the bill. In other words, we are not 
    precluded from amending H.R. 17070 until we completely take care of 
    H.R. 17966 and the Committee rises and you vote on that. We can 
    amend in the Committee of the Whole H.R. 17070.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the Chair correctly understands the 
    gentleman, the answer to it is that the Udall substitute can be 
    offered as an amendment to section 1. Other amendments can be 
    offered to section 1 of the committee amendment, but no other 
    amendments can be offered beyond section 1 to the committee 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Is it not accurate to say, 
    however, that if the Udall-Derwinski substitute, H.R. 17966, is 
    defeated in the Committee of the Whole, then any other part of H.R. 
    17070 is open for amendment at any point?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: In that event, the Committee of the 
    Whole

[[Page 6737]]

    would go back and read the committee amendment as an original bill, 
    in which case each section would be open for amendment as it was 
    read.

    [Note: In this context, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute assumes the character of original text under the special 
rule, and the text of the other bill is properly described as an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute (an amendment in the first 
degree) rather than as a substitute for the committee amendment.]

Committee Amendment Read as Original Text

Sec. 5.32 Where, pursuant to a special rule, a committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute, printed in the bill, is being read as 
    original text for purpose of amendment there may be pending to that 
    text (1) an amendment (in the nature of a substitute), (2) a 
    substitute therefor, and (3) amendments to both the amendment and 
    the substitute.

    On Apr. 23, 1969,(7) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 514, extending and amending the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, pursuant to a special rule as indicated by the 
Chair. Where there were pending to title I of the bill an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute for the title and a substitute therefor, the 
Chair indicated in response to a series of parliamentary inquiries that 
both the amendment and the substitute were open to an amendment; that 
adoption of the substitute would preclude further amendment of either 
the amendment or the substitute; that rejection of the substitute would 
leave the amendment in the nature of a substitute open to further 
amendment; and that pending a vote on either the amendment or the 
substitute, title I remained open to a perfecting amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 115 Cong. Rec. 10052-54, 10061, 10062, 10066, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proceedings were as follows:

        The Chairman: (8) Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk 
    will now read by title the substitute committee amendment printed 
    in the bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be cited as the ``Elementary and Secondary Education 
        Amendments of 1969''.

[[Page 6738]]

     TITLE I--EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT OF TITLE I OF THE ELEMENTARY AND 
                      SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965

     extension of title i of elementary and secondary education act of 
                                    1965

            Sec. 101. (a) Section 102 of title I of the Elementary and 
        Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended by striking out 
        ``June 30, 1970'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``June 30, 
        1975''.
            (b) Section 121(d) of title I of the Elementary and 
        Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended to read as follows:
            ``(d) For the purpose of making grants under this part 
        there are authorized to be appropriated not in excess of 
        $50,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and for 
        each of the six succeeding fiscal years. . . .

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that title I be considered as 
    read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Illinois?
        There was no objection.

     amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mrs. green of 
                                   oregon

        Mrs. [Edith S.] Green of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. 
        Green of Oregon: Strike out everything after the enacting 
        clause and insert in lieu thereof:

    ``TITLE I--EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT OF TITLE I OF THE ELEMENTARY AND 
                      SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965

    ``extension of title i of elementary and secondary education act of 
                                    1965

            ``Section 101. (a) Section 102 of title I of the Elementary 
        and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended by striking out 
        `June 30, 1970' and inserting in lieu thereof `June 30, 1972'.

            ``(b) Section 121(d) of title I of the Elementary and 
        Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended to read as follows:

            `` 6 (d) For the purpose of making grants under 
        this part there are authorized to be appropriated not in excess 
        of $50,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and 
        for each of the three succeeding fiscal years.' . . .

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute amendment for the so-called Green of Oregon amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Substitute amendment offered by Mr. Perkins for the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Green 
        of Oregon: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert 
        in lieu thereof the following:

            ``That this Act may be cited as the `Elementary and 
        Secondary Education Amendments of 1969'.

[[Page 6739]]

    ``TITLE I--EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT OF TITLE I OF THE ELEMENTARY AND 
                      SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965

    ``extension of title i of elementary and secondary education act of 
                                    1965

            ``Sec. 101. (a) Section 102 of title I of the Elementary 
        and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended by striking out 
        `June 30, 1970' and inserting in lieu thereof `June 30, 1973.'
            (b) Section 121(d) of title I of the Elementary and 
        Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended to read as follows:
            `` `(d) For the purpose of making grants under this part 
        there are authorized to be appropriated not in excess of 
        $50,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and for 
        each of the four succeeding fiscal years.' . . .

        Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, is the Perkins substitute 
    amendment open to amendment at this point?
        The Chairman: It is.
        Mr. Erlenborn: And is the Green of Oregon amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute open to amendment at this point?
        The Chairman: It is.
        Mr. Erlenborn: So both are open to amendment at this point?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Erlenborn: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Erlenborn: Should the Perkins substitute amendment be voted 
    upon and adopted, would it then be subject to amendment?
        The Chairman: No, it would not.
        Mr. Erlenborn: If the Perkins substitute amendment is voted 
    upon and rejected, would the Green of Oregon amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute then be open to amendment?
        The Chairman: It would be.
        Mr. Erlenborn: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Erlenborn: Is title I of H.R. 514 subject to amendment at 
    this time?
        The Chairman: It is.

Debate Limited on Certain Amendments

Sec. 5.33 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, a substitute therefore and an amendment to the 
    substitute, and debate had been limited on the substitute and all 
    amendments thereto but not on the original amendment or amendments 
    thereto, the Chair indicated that (1) further amendments to the 
    substitute or modifications of the substitute by unanimous consent 
    must await disposition of the pending amendment to the substitute; 
    (2) amendments to the original amendment could be offered and 
    debated under the five-minute rule and would be voted on before 
    amendments

[[Page 6740]]

    to the substitute; (3) amendments to the substitute could be 
    offered and voted upon without debate unless printed in the Record 
    pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6; and (4) the question would not be 
    put on the substitute until all perfecting amendments to it and to 
    the original amendment were disposed of.

    On Feb. 5, 1976,(9) during consideration of H.R. 9464, 
the Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1976, there was pending an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute (the Krueger amendment); a substitute 
therefore (the Smith amendment); and an amendment to the substitute 
(the Eckhardt amendment). A unanimous-consent request was made to limit 
debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 122 Cong. Rec. 2646-48, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    strike the requisite number of words.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the 
    Smith amendment and all amendments thereto terminate immediately 
    upon the conclusion of consideration of the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt). . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, as I understood 
    it, the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Dingell) was that all debate on the Smith substitute amendment 
    cease after the disposition of the Eckhardt amendment.
        The Eckhardt amendment would be the pending business then, and 
    immediately after the determination of the Eckhardt amendment, we 
    would vote on the Smith amendment. Is that not correct? . . .
        The Chairman: (10) Not necessarily, because there 
    could be an amendment to the Krueger amendment, which would be 
    debatable. . . . Before we vote on the Smith substitute, amendments 
    to the Krueger amendment are debatable if offered. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point that the Chair is trying to make, regardless of what 
    agreements are reached, is that until the Krueger amendment is 
    finally perfected to the satisfaction of the Committee, the Chair 
    cannot put the question on the Smith substitute.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: The Chair cannot put the question on the 
    Smith amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot put the question on the Smith 
    substitute until the Krueger amendment is perfected to the 
    satisfaction of the Committee.
        There has been no limitation of debate on the Krueger amendment 
    or amendments thereto. The basic parliamentary situation is that we 
    have a substitute amendment for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, the Krueger amendment. Both of those are subject to 
    amendment, but both must be perfected before the Chair can put the 
    question on the substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.

[[Page 6741]]

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: With respect to the unanimous-consent 
    request of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the Eckhardt 
    amendment is still to be voted upon, and then there are to be no 
    other amendments to the Smith amendment?
        The Chairman: There is to be no further debate on such 
    amendments. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, if my time still applies, I 
    would like to ask the Chair to state the circumstances. If I may, 
    before the Chair does that, I would like to ask the question this 
    way: As the situation stands at this moment, the Krueger amendment 
    is still perfectable by amendments under the normal course of time, 
    and there is no limitation on the Krueger amendment.
        The Smith amendment, however, can be perfected only by the vote 
    on the Eckhardt amendment, and then if there are other amendments 
    to the Smith amendment there is no debate time remaining on those 
    amendments.
        Is that correct?
        The Chairman: Unless they are printed in the Record.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: And if they are printed in the Record, the 
    debate time is 5 minutes per side pro and con. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: That is correct. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, it is, however, a fact that the 
    gentleman may have an amendment at the desk and it may be voted on 
    without debate under the unanimous-consent request?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. [Robert] Krueger [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Krueger: Mr. Chairman, there are still those of us who are 
    not certain of the parliamentary situation. I am among them.

        Mr. Chairman, my question is this: We will vote first on the 
    Eckhardt amendment to the Smith substitute?
        The Chairman: That is right.
        Mr. Krueger: Following that, there will then be a vote without 
    further debate on the Smith substitute, or no?
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot say, because if there were 
    amendments printed in the Record, there can be both an amendment 
    offered and debate on the amendment. If there were no amendments 
    that were qualified for debate by being printed in the Record, they 
    could not be offered and voted on without debate.
        But if they are offered to the Krueger amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute, they would both be considered and would be 
    debatable under the 5-minute rule. . . .
        The 5-minute rule applies only to amendments to the Smith 
    amendment which has been printed in the Record. Other amendments to 
    the Smith amendment do not have debate time; they are just voted 
    on. . . .
        Mr. [Benjamin A.] Gilman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the Krueger amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute. My amendment has been printed in the Record.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Krueger immediately after 
        section 26 of the

[[Page 6742]]

        Natural Gas Act (as added by section 208) insert the following:

        ``treatment of rates and charges for natural gas sold to senior 
                                    citizens

            ``Sec. 27. (a) The Commission shall prohibit any natural-
        gas company from selling or otherwise supplying natural gas to 
        any local natural gas company which increases the rates for 
        natural gas sold to senior citizens. . . .

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana] (during the 
    reading): Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
        The point of order lies to the fact that the amendment now 
    being read is to the Krueger amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and is not in order until there has been a disposition 
    of the Eckhardt amendment to the Smith substitute.
        The Chairman: The Chair has stated that any amendment to the 
    Krueger amendment in the nature of a substitute may now be offered 
    and is debatable.
        Mr. Waggonner: But, Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not in order 
    until there has been a disposition of the Eckhardt amendment to the 
    Smith substitute which is now under consideration.
        The Chairman: This amendment takes precedence. This amendment 
    takes precedence over the amendment to the substitute amendment. 
    That is what the Chair has been trying to say now, repeatedly. The 
    amendment that has precedence is an amendment to the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute, and this is the amendment that is now 
    before the committee. . . .
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Iowa (Mr. Smith) as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger).
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Eckhardt) there were--ayes 33, noes 35.
        So the amendment to the substitute amendment for the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute was rejected.

Amendment to Original Text While Amendment in Nature of Substitute 
    Pending

Sec. 5.34 Where there is pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a resolution, it is in order to offer a perfecting 
    amendment to the pending portion of original text.

    On Apr. 27, 1976, (11) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Concurrent Resolution 611, (12) an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute for the resolution was pending 
when a perfecting amendment to the original text was offered. The 
proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 122 Cong. Rec. 11409-11, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. Concurrent resolution on the budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (13) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Spark M. Matsunaga (Hawaii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 6743]]

            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That the Congress hereby determines and declares, 
        pursuant to section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
        1974, that for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1976--
            (1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $363,000,000,000, and the amount by which the ag-
        gregate level of Federal revenues should be decreased is 
        $14,800,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be 
    considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at 
    any point.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Washington?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Latta: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
            That the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant 
        to section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that 
        for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1976--
            (1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $352,100,000,000, and the amount by which the ag-
        gregate level of Federal revenues should be decreased is 
        $25,700,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment to House Concurrent Resolution 611.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Wright: Page 4, line 3, 
        strike out ``$18,649,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$19,849,000,000''.

Sec. 5.35 Where there is pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for an entire measure, it is in order to offer a 
    perfecting amendment to that portion of the original text which has 
    been read.

    The proceedings of Apr. 13, 1983,(14) during 
consideration of House Joint Resolution 13 (concerning a nuclear 
weapons freeze), provide an instance in which a Member had two 
amendments pending to the original text at the same time--first, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, and then a perfecting 
amendment to the original text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 129 Cong. Rec. 8402, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    perfecting amendment at the desk to section 2 of House Joint 
    Resolution 13.
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair will advise that 
    perfecting amendments to the underlying text are in order at this 
    time while the Levitas amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    pending. But the Chair will also point out that if any Member is 
    recognized to offer a perfecting amendment at this time, de

[[Page 6744]]

    bate will not be limited on the perfecting amendment and the vote 
    will first come on the perfecting amendment and on any potential 
    amendments thereto before the question is put on the Levitas 
    substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
                              A. GENERALLY
 
Sec. 6. Amendments in the Third Degree

    The parliamentary prohibition against amendments ``in the third 
degree'' was stated in Jefferson's Manual:(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 454 (101st Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            [I]f an amendment be moved to an amendment, it is admitted; 
        but it would not be admitted in another degree, to wit, to 
        amend an amendment to an amendment of a main question. . . . 
        The line must be drawn somewhere, and usage has drawn it after 
        the amendment to the amendment. The same result must be sought 
        by deciding against the amendment to the amendment, and then 
        moving it again as it was wished to be amended. In this form it 
        becomes only an amendment to an amendment.

    This principle is considered fundamental in the House of 
Representatives, and is reflected in Rule XIX:(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 822 (101st Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        When a motion or proposition is under consideration a motion to 
    amend and a motion to amend that amendment shall be in order, and 
    it shall also be in order to offer a further amendment by way of 
    substitute, to which one amendment may be offered, but which shall 
    not be voted on until the original matter is perfected, but either 
    may be withdrawn before amendment or decision is had 
    thereon.                          -------------------

Prohibition Against Amendments in Third Degree; Application of Rule 
    Generally

Sec. 6.1 Amendments in the third degree are not in order.

    This principle (18) has been applied frequently. An 
example occurred on Aug. 18, 1965,(19) during consideration 
of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965.(20) A committee 
amendment had been reported, to which Mr. Albert H. Quie, of Minnesota, 
had offered an amendment. Mr. Paul C. Jones, of Missouri, then sought 
to offer an amendment to the Quie amendment. The following exchange 
then took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Amendments in the third degree are not authorized by the rule 
        governing permissible pending amendments. See Rule XIX, House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 822 (101st Cong.).
19. 111 Cong. Rec. 20938, 20943, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. H.R. 9811 (Committee on Agriculture).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edwin E.] Willis [of Louisiana]: While I do not want to 
    deprive the gentleman from Missouri of his right to offer his 
    amendment, the amendment that he proposes to offer now is an 
    amendment in the third degree; is it not?

[[Page 6745]]

        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman is correct. It would 
    be an amendment in the third degree.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Oren Harris (Ark.).
 2. For a further example of the application of the principle that 
        amendments in the third degree are not in order, see 105 Cong. 
        Rec. 11108, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 17, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 6.2 When an amendment and a perfecting amendment thereto are 
    pending, neither an amendment to, nor a substitute for, the 
    perfecting amendment are in order, being in the third degree.

    On Apr. 29, 1963,(3) an amendment to an amendment was 
under consideration as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 109 Cong. Rec. 7242, 7243, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 1762 (Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Leo W.] O'Brien of New York to the 
    amendment offered by Mr. Griffin: ``Strike the last four words.''

An attempt was made to offer a further amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [John H.] Kyl [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute 
    amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York.
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman is out of order. He 
    may not offer a substitute at this point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John M. Slack, Jr. (W. Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edmond] Edmondson [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman may not offer an amendment to the 
    amendment at this point. . . .
        Mr. Edmondson: I yield to the distinguished Speaker.
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: As I understand the 
    gentleman's observation, he suggests that the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New York [Mr. O'Brien] be voted down and then a 
    Member will be able to offer another amendment to the Griffin 
    amendment; is that correct?
        Mr. Edmondson: The gentleman is entirely correct and I 
    appreciate his clarification.

Sec. 6.3 Where there is pending an amendment and a perfecting amendment 
    thereto, an amendment to the perfecting amendment is in the third 
    degree and not in order, but it may be offered when the perfecting 
    amendment is disposed of or, if in proper form, as a substitute for 
    the original amendment.

    On Apr. 19, 1973,(5) the following exchange took place 
concerning the propriety of offering an amendment to a perfecting 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 119 Cong. Rec. 13250, 13252, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was S. 502 (Committee on Public Works).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stewart B.] McKinney [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    will offer my amendment at this point.

[[Page 6746]]

        I will state that I am offering this amendment as a perfecting 
    amendment. The Clerk has a copy at the desk.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair will state that there is 
    already a perfecting amendment pending, the one offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Reid).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Morris K. Udall (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If that amendment should be defeated or withdrawn, the 
    gentleman could then offer it, or he may offer it as a substitute 
    for the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Reid).

Sec. 6.4 Where there is pending an amendment and a substitute therefor, 
    an amendment to the substitute is not in the third degree and is in 
    order.

    On Mar. 17, 1975,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of an amendment and a substitute therefor, a 
point of order was raised as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 6798, 6799, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Philip E.] Ruppe [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the substitute amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ruppe to the substitute amendment 
        offered by Mr. Seiberling: On page 194, line 11, amend the 
        substitute by striking ``50'' and inserting the word ``ten.''

        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (8) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, I believe that is an amendment of 
    the third degree, and therefore is out of order.

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio offered a substitute. An 
    amendment to that substitute is not in the third degree at this 
    point.

Sec. 6.5 To a proposition being read as original text for amendment 
    there may be pending at one time only one amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute, a substitute therefor, a perfecting amendment to 
    the original amendment in the nature of a substitute and a 
    perfecting amendment to the substitute, and any further amendment 
    to perfecting amendments would be in the third degree; and the vote 
    is first taken on perfecting amendments to the original amendment, 
    then on perfecting amendments to the substitute, then on the 
    substitute (as perfected), and finally on the original amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute (as amended).

    In the proceedings described below, which occurred on May 18,

[[Page 6747]]

1978,(9) the Committee of the Whole had under consideration 
H.R. 39, the Alaska National Interest Conservation Lands Act of 1978. 
An amendment in the nature of a substitute (the Leggett amendment) was 
offered which, pursuant to House Resolution 1186, agreed to the 
previous day, was to be read for amendment under the five-minute rule 
as an original bill by titles. To such amendment, an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute (the ``Meeds amendment'') was subsequently 
offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 124 Cong. Rec. 14391, 14394, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (10) When the committee rose on 
    yesterday, Wednesday, May 17, 1978, all time for general debate had 
    expired, the Clerk had read through line 4 on page 1 of the bill. . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute, the text of H.R. 12625.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will read the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute by titles.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Leggett: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following. . . .

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: . . . The script we have 
    put together here was that when section 1 of the Leggett amendment, 
    the consensus substitute, was read, the gentleman from Washington 
    (Mr. Meeds) would offer his substitute, but that I would offer a 
    substitute for the Meeds amendment, and we would then have 
    foreclosed these nongermane things that we have been talking about. 
    But it would also be understood that both sides, the Meeds and the 
    Udall substitutes, would be open. As long as anybody has serious 
    amendments, we would be prepared to stay here and take them and 
    discuss those serious amendments.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry. . . .
        At that point have we gotten into amendments in the third 
    degree, or would amendments to both the pending substitutes be in 
    order?
        The Chairman: Perfecting amendments to the Meeds amendment if 
    offered or amendments to a substitute thereto would be in order.
        Mr. Bauman: But no further amendments in the nature of a 
    substitute would be in order at that point?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Udall: I am advised that the parliamentary preference is 
    that the main amendment, the Meeds' amendment, get priority and 
    could be perfected first, after which the substitute I have could 
    be perfected before the committee chooses between those two, so we 
    are not going to try to foreclose any opportunity to have the 
    gentleman from Washington (Mr. Meeds) perfect his amendment as much 
    as he desires, or as much as the Members desire. . . .

[[Page 6748]]

        Mr. Bauman: I would like to put the parliamentary inquiry to 
    the Chair, whether, indeed, that is the parliamentary situation.
        The Chairman: Perfecting amendments to the Meeds' amendment if 
    offered will be voted on first, and the amendments to the Udall 
    substitute offered would be voted upon.

Sec. 6.6 An amendment to, or a substitute for, an amendment to a 
    pending amendment is in the third degree and not in order.

    On Apr. 9, 1979,(11) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 3342,(12) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 125 Cong. Rec. 7763, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. The International Development Cooperation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solarz to the amendment offerd by 
        Mr. Bauman: On page 2 of the amendment, strike out subsections 
        (b) and (c). . . .

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on the Bauman amendment and the 
    Solarz amendment to the Bauman amendment and all amendments thereto 
    end at 3:30 o'clock. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, I have no objection to limiting time, I think 
    we have discussed it enough; but this would not preclude the 
    gentleman from Maryland from offering a substitute amendment for 
    the Solarz amendment at this point, would it?
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair will state that the 
    Solarz amendment is not subject to a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: No substitute would be in order to the Solarz 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: That would be an amendment in the third degree. 
    The Bauman amendment would be subject to a substitute. . . .
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: In the last paragraph 
        substitute ``may'' for the word ``shall.''

        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from 
    Illinois the amendment is not in order. There is already an 
    amendment pending to the Bauman amendment.

Modification of Amendment by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 6.7 Where there is pending an amendment and an amendment thereto, 
    a modification of the latter amendment is in order only by 
    unanimous consent and further amendment would be in the third 
    degree; but a substitute for the original

[[Page 6749]]

    amendment remains in order.

    On June 25, 1975,(14) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 8069,(15) the proceedings, 
described above, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 20855, 20858, 20863, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare 
        appropriations, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For expenses of the Community Services Administration, 
        $399,185,000.
            For ``Community services program'' for the period July 1, 
        1976, through September 30, 1976, $99,800,000.

        Mr. [Augustus F.] Hawkins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer amendments, and I ask unanimous consent that they be 
    considered en bloc.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Hawkins: On Page 44, line 18, 
        strike ``$399,185,000'' and insert in lieu thereof, 
        ``$434,185,000'', and on line 20, strike ``$99,800,000'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof, ``$108,600,000''. . . .

        Mrs. [Yvonne B.] Burke of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendments offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Hawkins).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Burke of California to the 
        amendments offered by Mr. Hawkins: On Page 44, line 18, strike 
        ``$399,185,000'' and insert in lieu thereof: ``$439,385,-000''. 
        . . .

        Mrs. Burke of California: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
    in order to clarify the Record that the amendment be corrected so 
    it will include these figures to be inserted:
        On page 44, line 18, insert: ``$474,385,000'' and on page 44, 
    line 20, insert ``$144,975,000''.
        The Chairman: If there is no objection, the Clerk will report 
    the figures.
        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I am 
    constrained to object, if it will save time.
        The Chairman: The gentlewoman has asked unanimous consent to 
    change the amendment to the amendment, and objection is heard.
        Therefore the amendment as originally offered by the 
    gentlewoman from California will have to be considered as the 
    amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California.
        Mr. [John] Buchanan [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry. Would it be in order for an amendment now to be offered if 
    it is not offered by unanimous consent?
        The Chairman: It would depend on the form in which the 
    amendment would come. If it is a substitute for the original 
    amendment, it would be in order, the Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Alabama. However, an amendment to the amendment to 
    the amendment would not be in order, it being in the third degree.

Substitute for Amendment

Sec. 6.8 A substitute for an amendment to an amend

[[Page 6750]]

    ment is in the third degree and is not in order.

    On Mar. 9, 1978,(17) during consideration of H.R. 50 
(18) in the Committee of the Whole, an amendment to an 
amendment was pending which prompted the following exchange concerning 
the proposition described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 124 Cong. Rec. 6281, 6282, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ronald A.] Sarasin [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments and ask unanimous consent that the amendments be 
    considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: (19) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Connecticut?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Sarasin: Page 58, line 3, strike 
        out ``reasonable price stability'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``the absence of inflation''.
            Page 59, strike out line 1 and everything that follows 
        through line 5, and redesignate the following paragraphs (2), 
        (3), and (4) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively. . . 
        .

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments to the amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Wright to the amendments offered 
        by Mr. Sarasin: On line 2 of the Sarasin amendment, strike all 
        that follows the word ``thereof,'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        the following: ``the effective control of inflation.''.
            Page 64, line 16, strike out ``and productivity'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``productivity and reasonable price 
        stability''.
            Page 64, line 22, before ``and'' insert ``reasonable price 
        stability.''. . .

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, do I 
    understand the majority leader's proposal is an amendment to the 
    amendment or is it in the form of a substitute?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to advise the 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) that the gentleman from Texas 
    (Mr. Wright) offers an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Connecticut. . . .
        Mr. Michel: Would a substitute not be in order for an amendment 
    to an amendment?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to advise the 
    gentleman that that would not be in order; it would be in the third 
    degree.

Sec. 6.9 A substitute for a perfecting amendment to a substitute is in 
    the third degree and is not in order.

    On July 2, 1980,(20) during consideration of H.R. 7235, 
the Rail Act of 1980, a perfecting amendment to a substitute amendment 
was pending. The following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 126 Cong. Rec. 18299, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, may I ask, 
    is it

[[Page 6751]]

    in order to offer a substitute for this amendment at this point to 
    strike the section?
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair will state that the 
    answer to that question is, no, it is not in order to offer a 
    substitute for an amendment to a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 6.10 Where there is pending an amendment and a substitute 
    therefor, a further substitute would be in the third degree and is 
    not in order.

    On Nov. 3, 1971,(2) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 117 Cong. Rec. 39092, 39093, 39096, 39098, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. 
        Under consideration was H.R. 7248 (Committee on Education and 
        Labor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard C.] White [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. White as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. [Jack B.] Brooks [of Texas]: Strike 
        title IX from H.R. 7248. . . .

        Mr. [Roman C.] Pucinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    substitute amendment at the desk.
        The Chairman: (3) A substitute is now pending. The 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) offered an amendment and the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. White) has offered a substitute for that 
    amendment; so a further substitute at this point would not be in 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 6.11 Where there is pending an amendment and a substitute 
    therefor, an amendment to the original amendment is not in the 
    third degree and is in order.

    On July 19, 1967,(4) a question arose as to the 
propriety of offering an amendment to an amendment where there was 
pending at the same time a substitute for the amendment. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 113 Cong. Rec. 19416, 19417, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 421 (Committee on the Judiciary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (5) . . . The Chair will state, we 
    have an amendment moved by Mr. Holifield. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Joseph L. Evins (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Chet] Holifield [of California]: My understanding was that 
    the Joelson amendment was offered as a substitute for the Holifield 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. . . .
        Mr. [Edmond] Edmondson [of Oklahoma]: Would it be in order at 
    this time to offer the word ``legitimate'' as an amendment to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Holifield]?
        The Chairman: It would be in order.

[[Page 6752]]

Amendment Disposed of Before Another Offered

Sec. 6.12 Until an amendment to an amendment is disposed of, no further 
    amendment to the amendment may be offered.

    On June 11, 1959,(6) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 105 Cong. Rec. 10551-54, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 7246 (Committee on Agriculture).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles H.] Brown of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the substitute amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Missouri, to the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Belcher: Strike out all the first 
        paragraph in section 106 beginning with the words 
        ``Notwithstanding the provisions of . . .'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
            ``Notwithstanding the provisions of section 101 of this 
        act, if marketing quotas are disapproved for the 1960 crop of 
        wheat, no price support shall be available for the 1960 crop 
        and each subsequent crop of wheat.''. . .

        Mr. [Harlan F.] Hagen [of California]: I have had an amendment 
    at the Clerk's desk for some time. When may it be offered?
        The Chairman: (7) It cannot be offered until the 
    pending amendment is disposed of. The gentleman may proceed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Joseph L. Evins (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 6.13 Until a perfecting amendment to an amendment is disposed of, 
    further perfecting amendments may not be offered.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See 109 Cong. Rec. 7242, 7243, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 29, 1963. 
        See also Sec. Sec. 6.2, 6.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments When Amendment in Nature of Substitute Pending

Sec. 6.14 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a bill and an amendment to that substitute, the 
    Chair indicated that a further amendment to the amendment would be 
    in the third degree and not in order.

    On Nov. 30, 1971, (9) parliamentary inquiry arose, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 117 Cong. Rec. 43363-71, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 11060 (Committee on House Administration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: The gentleman from 
    Massachusetts has just offered an amendment to the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute offered a few minutes ago by the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Harvey). My parliamentary inquiry is, would it 
    be in order at this time to submit further amendments to the 
    amendment just offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. 
    Macdonald?
        The Chairman: (10) The answer is that it would not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richard Bolling (Mo.).

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

[[Page 6753]]

Sec. 6.15 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and an amendment thereto, an amendment to the latter 
    amendment and a substitute therefor were ruled out as being in the 
    third degree.

    On Dec. 13, 1973,(11) during consideration of the Energy 
Emergency Act,(12) the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 119 Cong. Rec. 41259, 41261, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
12. H.R. 11450 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tim Lee] Carter [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Carter to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: On page 32, 
        line 17, after the word ``oil'', strike out the words ``and 
        coal''. . . .

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer a substitute amendment for the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Carter).
        The Chairman: (13) That is not in order. The Chair 
    will have to state to the gentleman that a substitute is not in 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair will have to state that no amendment to 
    the amendment is in order. It would be in the third degree. The 
    Committee is considering the bill H.R. 11450, to which there has 
    been offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute, that being 
    the text of the bill H.R. 11882. An amendment to that offered by 
    the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Carter) is now pending. Further 
    amendment to that amendment would be in the third degree and 
    contrary to the rules of the House.

    Parliamentarian's Note: There may be pending at one time an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill, an amendment 
thereto, a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
and an amendment to the substitute; but an amendment to or a substitute 
for the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute would 
be in the third degree and not in order. This principle, however, would 
not apply if the amendment in the nature of a substitute were being 
considered as original text for purposes of amendment; this may be 
done, for example, pursuant to a special rule.

Sec. 6.16 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and an amendment thereto, the Chair indicated in 
    response to a parliamentary inquiry

[[Page 6754]]

    that a further amendment to the amendment would be in the third 
    degree and that only one amendment to the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute could be pending at one time.

    On Feb. 4, 1976,(14) during consideration of a bill 
(15) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry regarding the situation described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 122 Cong. Rec. 2359, 2361, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. H.R. 9464, the Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wylie to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Krueger: In section 204, 
        paragraph (8) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(8) `New natural gas' means natural gas produced from a 
        well the drilling of which commenced on or after January 1, 
        1976.''. . .

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Chairman, is it possible to offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Wylie), or, in the alternative, to offer an amendment striking 
    certain provisions of that amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that either 
    of such amendments would be in the third degree, and therefore not 
    in order.

        Mr. Ottinger: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Ottinger: Would it be possible to go back to the original 
    one with a perfecting amendment?
        The Chairman: By the ``original one'' does the gentleman mean 
    the Krueger amendment in the nature of a substitute?
        Mr. Ottinger: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: No. After the Wylie amendment is disposed of, 
    another amendment would be in order.

Sec. 6.17 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a bill, an amendment thereto, a substitute therefor 
    and an amendment to the substitute, the Chair indicated that any 
    further amendment would be in the third degree and not in order.

    On June 10, 1976,(17) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 13367,(18) with

[[Page 6755]]

the above-described amendments thereto pending, the Chair responded to 
a parliamentary inquiry regarding further amendment. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 122 Cong. Rec. 17327-51, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. A bill to extend and amend the State and Local Fiscal Assistance 
        Act of 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Brooks: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
        That this Act may be cited as the ``Fiscal Assistance 
        Amendments of 1976''.

                                   definition

            Sec. 2. As used in this Act the term ``the Act'' means the 
        State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Horton as a substitute for the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Brooks: 
        Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following: That this Act may be cited as the 
        ``Fiscal Assistance Amendments of 1976.''. . .
            Sec. 3. (a) Subtitle A of title I of the Act is amended by 
        striking out section 103.
            (b) Section 123(a) of the Act is amended by striking out 
        paragraph (3). . . .

        Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. John L. Burton to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Horton as a substitute for the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Brooks: In the substitute 
        offered by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Horton, strike out 
        everything after the first section thereof down through section 
        4 and insert in lieu thereof the following: . . .

    At this point in the proceedings, a parliamentary inquiry was 
directed to the Chair and he responded as follows:

        The Chairman: (19) The Chair will state that the 
    gentleman's amendments, under the existing situation, are not 
    subject to further amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Any further amendment would be an amendment in the third 
    degree.

--Amendment in Nature of Substitute Considered as Original Text

Sec. 6.18 Where an amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    considered as original text for the purpose of amendment, pursuant 
    to a special order, an amendment to an amendment thereto is not in 
    the third degree and is in order.

    On Sept. 30, 1983,(20) the proposition described above 
was dem

[[Page 6756]]

onstrated during consideration of H.R. 3231 (1) in the 
Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 129 Cong. Rec. 26732, 26741, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. The Export Administration Amendments Act of 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (2) When the Committee of the Whole 
    rose on Thursday, September 29, title I was open for amendment at 
    any point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John F. Seiberling (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there further amendments to title I?
        Mr. [Howard E.] Wolpe [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wolpe:
            Page 13, line 2, strike out the quotation marks and second 
        period.
            Page 13, insert the following after line 2:
            ``(o) Nuclear Exports.--Notwithstanding section 17 of this 
        Act or any other provision of law--
            ``(1) no license may be issued under this Act for the 
        export to a non-nuclear-weapon state of goods or technology 
        which are to be used in a nuclear production or utilization 
        facility. . . .

        Mr. [Toby] Roth [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Roth to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Wolpe: On page 3 of the amendment, line number 1, strike 
        out the quotation marks and the last period and in lieu thereof 
        insert the following:
            ``The restrictions contained in this subsection shall not 
        apply in a particular case if foreign availability is 
        determined to exist in accordance with the procedures and 
        criteria established under subsection (f)(1) of this section. . 
        . .

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        I believe the amendment is in the third degree. The gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Wolpe) offered an amendment to the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute and, for that reason, I think it is not 
    in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Ottinger) that this is an amendment in the second degree. 
    The original amendment in the nature of a substitute is considered 
    as an original bill for purpose of consideration under the rule.

Committee Amendment Pending

Sec. 6.19 Where there was pending a committee amendment and an 
    amendment thereto, the Chairman declined to permit a Member to 
    offer an amendment in the third degree but indicated that a 
    substitute for the committee amendment would be in order.

    On June 1, 1972,(3) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 118 Cong. Rec. 19458, 19460, 19463, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 13918 (Committee on Interstate and 
        Foreign Commerce).

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

[[Page 6757]]

       Amendment to the Committee Amendment Offered by Mr. Mathis of 
                                  Georgia

        Mr. [Dawson] Mathis of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment to the committee amendment offered by Mr. Mathis 
        of Georgia. . . .

        Mr. [Hastings] Keith [of Massachusetts]: I offer an amendment 
    to the substitute offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
    Mathis).
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts that an amendment to the Mathis 
    amendment is in the third degree and is not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keith: An amendment to the substitute is not in order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts that there is presently pending an amendment to the 
    committee amendment. . . .
        Mr. Keith: Then I would respectfully ask the Chair: Would it be 
    in order to offer a substitute to the amendment offered and pending 
    before us?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts that it would be in order to offer a substitute for 
    the entire committee amendment.

Amendments While Motion To Strike Pending

Sec. 6.20 While a motion to strike out is pending, it is in order to 
    offer an amendment to perfect the language proposed to be stricken 
    out; such a perfecting amendment (which is in the first degree) may 
    be amended by a substitute (also in the first degree), and 
    amendments to the substitute are then in the second degree and in 
    order.

    On Oct. 19, 1983,(5) during consideration of H.R. 
3231,(6) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings 
described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 129 Cong. Rec. 28274, 28282, 28283, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. Export Administration Act Amendments of 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      amendment offered by mr. courter

        Mr. [James A.] Courter [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Courter: Page 14, line 4, strike 
        out ``If'' and all that follows through ``involved.'' on line 
        8.
            Page 16, line 18, strike out ``If'' and all that follows 
        through ``involved.'' on line 22. . . .

                 perfecting amendment offered by mr. bonker

        Mr. [Don] Bonker [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Bonker: Page 14, line 
        4, strike

[[Page 6758]]

        out ``If'' and all that follows through ``involved.'' on line 8 
        and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``If, within 6 months 
        after the President's determination, the foreign availability 
        has not been eliminated, the Secretary may not, after the end 
        of that 6-month period, require a validated license for the 
        export of the goods or technology involved.''. . .

    amendment offered by mr. solomon as a substitute for the perfecting 
                      amendment offered by mr. bonker

        Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon as a substitute for the 
        perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Bonker: Page 14, line 8, 
        insert the following immediately after the first period: ``The 
        President may extend the 6-month period described in the 
        preceding sentence for an additional period of one year if the 
        President determines that the absence of the export control 
        involved would prove detrimental to the national security of 
        the United States.''. . .

      amendment offered by mr. hunter to the amendment offered by mr. 
    solomon as a substitute for the perfecting amendment offered by mr. 
                                   bonker

        Mr. [Duncan L.] Hunter [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hunter to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Solomon as a substitute for the perfecting amendment 
        offered by Mr. Bonker: At the end of the Solomon amendment add 
        the following new sentence: ``If at the end of said year, 
        foreign availability remains, and the President determines that 
        transfer of the subject technology by the United States would 
        damage national security, the Secretary shall require a license 
        as a prerequisite to transfer.''. . .

        Mr. Bonker: Mr. Chairman, I have offered an amendment to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute but as I understand it the 
    gentleman from New Jersey simply strikes. So my amendment would be 
    to the text of the bill.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman is correct. His 
    amendment is in the first degree as a perfecting amendment to the 
    provision which the gentleman from New Jersey would strike out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John F. Seiberling (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bonker: The amendment that has been offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), is that in the form of an 
    amendment to my substitute or in the form of an amendment to my 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: As the Chair understands it, it is an amendment 
    to the substitute offered by the gentleman from New York. It is an 
    amendment to the Solomon substitute for the Bonker perfecting 
    amendment.
        Mr. Bonker: Is that an amendment in the third degree?
        The Chairman: No, it is not. The Solomon amendment is a 
    substitute and this is an amendment to the substitute for the 
    Bonker amendment.
        Mr. Bonker: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

[[Page 6759]]

Form of Amendment

Sec. 6.21 While a perfecting amendment to a pending substitute should 
    retain some portion of the substitute so as not to be in effect a 
    substitute in the third degree, the Chair does not look behind the 
    form of the amendment in the absence of a timely point of order 
    from the floor to determine whether it is a proper perfecting 
    amendment.

    On July 26, 1984,(8) in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry after debate had begun on a pending amendment to a substitute, 
the Chair indicated that the amendment had been prefaced as a 
perfecting amendment rather than as a substitute (although actually 
drafted as a substitute to replace all language).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 130 Cong. Rec. 21259, 21261, 21263, 21264, 98th Cong. 2d Sess. 
        Under consideration was H.R. 11, the education amendments of 
        1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William F.] Goodling [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Goodling: Add at the end of the 
        bill the following new title. . . .

        Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ford of Michigan as a substitute 
        for the amendment offered by Mr. Goodling: Add at the end of 
        the bill the following new title. . . .

        Mr. Goodling: Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment to 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ford) as 
    a substitute for my amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Goodling to the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Ford of Michigan as a substitute for 
        the amendment offered by Mr. Goodling: In lieu of the matter 
        proposed to be inserted insert the following. . . .

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as 
    the perfecting amendment was not read, I am wondering if it happens 
    to be an amendment in the third degree.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman 
    that this amendment was offered as an amendment to the substitute 
    and not as a substitute which would be in the third degree.
        Mr. Perkins: Drafted to the substitute that is being offered by 
    the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ford)?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman 
    that that is correct.
        Mr. [Steve] Bartlett [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 
    balance of my time.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (9) The question is on the 
    perfecting amendment offered by the gentleman from

[[Page 6760]]

    Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) to the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ford) as a substitute for the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Goodling). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: It appears that a point of order might have 
been sustained if made prior to the beginning of debate on the Goodling 
amendment to the Ford substitute, since it was in reality in the form 
of a substitute ``in lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted insert 
the following. . . .'', but once debate began, the Chair would not take 
the initiative and rule the amendment to be a substitute for a 
substitute and in the third degree under Rule XIX.

Pro Forma Amendment as Third Degree

Sec. 6.22 While, in the Committee of the Whole, pro forma amendments 
    are technically not in order to amendments to a pending amendment 
    or to amendments to a substitute therefor if the point of order is 
    raised (as in either case they would constitute amendments in the 
    third degree), Chairmen have hesitated to rule pro forma amendments 
    out of order as being in the third degree and have permitted such 
    amendments to be offered by unanimous consent.

    On Oct. 2, 1974,(10) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration House Resolution 988, to reform the structure, 
jurisdiction, and procedures of House committees. A point of order was 
raised against a pro forma amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 120 Cong. Rec. 33572, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
            See also the proceedings at 92 Cong. Rec. 848, 79th Cong. 
        2d Sess., Feb. 4, 1946, where the Chair declined to initiate 
        action in ruling a pro forma amendment out of order as in the 
        third degree.
            Note: One reason for the Chair's latitude in allowing pro 
        forma amendments is that the Committee in any event has the 
        power to close debate when it chooses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Lloyd] Meeds [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order. The gentleman from Washington offers an amendment in the 
    proscribed degree and cannot be recognized on that basis. . . .
        I make the point of order the gentleman is offering an 
    amendment which is not proper under the rules.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman from Washington 
    will state his purpose for rising.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Meeds: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page 6761]]

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, and I make the point of order that 
    is not in order.
        The Chairman: Without objection, the gentleman from Washington 
    is recognized for 5 minutes.



 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
           B. WHEN TO OFFER AMENDMENT; READING FOR AMENDMENT
 
Sec. 7. In General; Reading by the Clerk


    At the close of general debate on a bill in the Committee of the 
Whole, debate on amendments normally proceeds under the five-minute 
rule.(12) he bill is read for amendment, and amendments are 
offered and debated at the appropriate point in the reading. Thus, when 
a bill is being read for amendment in the Committee of the Whole by 
sections, it is not in order to offer amendments except to the one 
section under consideration. Of course, where a bill consists of only 
one section, the entire bill is open to amendment.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule XXIII clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 (101st 
        Cong.).
13. See 92 Cong. Rec. 1974, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 6, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amendments are offered in accordance with established procedures, 
described above.(14) Amendments and amendments thereto are 
offered in the prescribed order,(15) amendments in the third 
degree (16) being precluded. As soon as an amendment to an 
amendment is adopted or rejected, another is in order seriatim until 
the amendment is perfected; and only after disposition of the amendment 
will further amendment of the bill be allowed.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 5, supra.
15. See Sec. Sec. 15-19, infra, for a discussion of precedence of 
        various kinds of amendments.
16. See Sec. 6, supra.
17. See Sec. 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A special rule may prescribe the consideration of amendments in a 
specified order.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 3, supra, for discussion of special rules as they affect 
        the amending process. For discussion of special rules 
        generally, see Ch. 21, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Committee of the Whole, amendments to the preamble of a joint 
resolution are considered following disposition of any amendments to 
the resolving clause; and, although in reading a concurrent resolution 
with a preamble for amendment, the Clerk reads the preamble first and 
then reads the body of the resolution, amendments to the preamble in 
Committee of the Whole are considered after amendments to the

[[Page 6762]]

body of the resolution. In the practice of the House of Representatives 
the preamble of a joint resolution is amended after the engrossment and 
before the third reading, but the preamble is not voted on separately 
even if amended, since the question on passage covers the preamble as 
well as the resolving clause. After an amendment to the preamble has 
been considered, it is too late to propose amendments to the text of 
the bill. Amendments to the preamble of a concurrent or simple 
resolution are considered in the House following the adoption of the 
resolution.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 414 (101st Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Not all propositions, of course, are open to amendment. Examples of 
such propositions are discussed elsewhere.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 1.5, 1.6, and 3, 
        supra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dispensing With First Reading

Sec. 7.1 The first reading of a bill in Committee of the Whole may be 
    dispensed with by unanimous consent only.

    On May 17, 1978,(1) during consideration of H.R. 39 
(2) in the Committee of the Whole, objection was made to a 
unanimous-consent request to dispense with the first reading of the 
bill, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 124 Cong. Rec. 14146, 14147, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. Alaska National Interest Conservation Lands Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: 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 [H.R. 39]. . . .
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
    bill, H.R. 39, with Mr. Simon in the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have a point 
    of order.
        Under rule XXI, the bill must be read. I see no waiver of that 
    provision in the rule that we adopted.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair will state that he will 
    put the unanimous-consent request to the Committee. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: Without objection, the first reading of the bill 
    will be dispensed with.
        Mr. Ashbrook: . . . Mr. Chairman, I will object to that 
    unanimous-consent request.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk proceeded to read the bill. . . .
        Mr. Udall (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that further reading of the bill on its first reading be 
    dispensed with.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Arizona?

[[Page 6763]]

        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk continued the reading of the bill.
        The Clerk concluded the reading of the bill.

Bill Considered in House as in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 7.2 Where a bill is by unanimous consent considered in the House 
    as in the Committee of the Whole, the bill is considered as read 
    and open to amendment at any point, despite the fact that the House 
    has previously adopted a special order providing that the bill be 
    read by title in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Feb. 9, 1977,(4) the House having previously adopted 
a special order (5) providing that H.R. 692 be read by title 
in the Committee of the Whole, a unanimous-consent request was agreed 
to to consider the bill in the House as in the Committee of the Whole. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 123 Cong. Rec. 3977, 3981, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. H. Res. 270, 123 Cong. Rec. 3976, 3977, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I call up the bill H.R. 
    692 to amend the Small Business Act and the Small Business 
    Investment Act of 1958 to increase loan authorization and surety 
    bond guarantee authority; and to improve the disaster assistance, 
    certificate of competency and small business setaside programs, and 
    ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered in the House as 
    in the Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker: (6) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Iowa?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read the bill as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled. . . .

        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Iowa have further 
    amendments?
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to title 
    III but the bill is to be read by titles.
        The Speaker: The bill is open to amendment at any point so the 
    amendment is in order. .

Amendments in Order to Pending Portion of Bill Until Next Portion Read

Sec. 7.3 Amendments are in order to the pending portion of a bill under 
    the five-minute rule until the Clerk has read the next portion to 
    be considered, and are not precluded if the Committee of the Whole 
    has risen on a previous day with no Members

[[Page 6764]]

    seeking recognition to offer amendments to the pending portion at 
    that time.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on Sept. 13, 
1979,(7) during consideration of H.R. 4040 (8) in 
the Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 125 Cong. Rec. 24425, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. The Defense Department authorization bill, fiscal year 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (9) When the Committee of 
    the Whole rose on Wednesday, September 12, 1979, sections 812 
    through 815 had been considered as having been read and open for 
    amendment, and all time for debate on these sections and all 
    amendments thereto had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there any further amendments to section 815?
        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brooks: Page 31, line 3, strike 
        out ``(a)'', and beginning on line 9, strike out subsection (b) 
        through line 15.

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will ask the gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Brooks), has this amendment been printed in the Record?
        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Chairman, the amendment was printed in the 
    Record this morning. I submitted it yesterday for printing in the 
    Record.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Texas is 
    recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment. . . .
        Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California: I was under the impression 
    that when we completed sections 812 through 815 we would then 
    revert back to title I. Are we going to complete title VIII before 
    we go back to title I?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Only section 815, since sections 812-
    814 have been amended.
        Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California: We completed that?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Only debate.
        Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California: I thought that we closed 
    that off last night when the chairman asked if there were any 
    further amendments, and that those three sections were completed at 
    that time.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Only the debate on those sections and 
    on amendments thereto had been completed last evening.

Substitute for Amendment Offered After Amendment Read

Sec. 7.4 Until an amendment has been read or considered as read by 
    unanimous consent, a substitute for the amendment may not be 
    offered.

    On June 26, 1979,(10) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 3930,(11) the proceedings described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 16681-83, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: Page 8, after line 13 add the 
    following

[[Page 6765]]

    new subsection and renumber the subsequent sections accordingly:
        (g)(1) The Secretary of Energy is hereby authorized to 
    designate a proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock facility as a 
    priority synthetic project pursuant to the procedures and criteria 
    provided in this section. . . .
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered 
    as read and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: (12) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Arizona?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, I wish to made a point of order. Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment which I had offered and had printed in the Record would 
    be an appropriate substitute amendment for the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall). Under the time limitation, 
    if I understand correctly, I have 5 minutes to offer that 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: That is correct if offered in the proper form. . 
    . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: . . . Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall).
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that it is 
    not yet in order.
        Is there objection to the unanimous-consent request of the 
    gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall)?

Resolving Clauses Read Before Preamble

Sec. 7.5 Where a joint resolution is read for amendment in the 
    Committee of the Whole, the resolving clauses are read for 
    amendment before consideration is given to the preamble.

    On May 7, 1968,(13) the order of consideration of 
portions of a joint resolution was indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 114 Cong. Rec. 12088-90, 12093-96, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read [the complete body of the joint resolution] as 
    follows:

            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) the 
        Secretary of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as the 
        `Secretary'). . . .

        The Chairman: (14) he Clerk will report the 
    preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Augustus F. Hawkins (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Whereas Congress finds that suffering and loss of life 
        resulting from motor vehicle accidents and the consequent 
        social and economic dislocations are critical national 
        problems.

General Appropriation and Revenue Bills Considered by Paragraph

Sec. 7.6 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair stated the 
    general rule for consideration of bills, which is that general 
    appropriation bills and general revenue bills are usually 
    considered by paragraph for

[[Page 6766]]

    amendment, and all other bills are considered by sections.

    On May 21, 1940,(15) House Joint Resolution 544, a bill 
making appropriations for relief and work relief, was under 
consideration. Mr. John Taber, of New York, made a parliamentary 
inquiry with respect to the reading of the bill and the offering of 
amendments. The response was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 86 Cong. Rec. 6542, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. This joint resolution was 
        not reported or called up as privileged. Since it was not a 
        general appropriation bill, it was considered pursuant to a 
        unanimous consent agreement reached on May 14, 1940 (see 86 
        Cong. Rec. 6113, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) The Chair will state, in response 
    to the parliamentary inquiry presented by the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Taber], that it is the understanding of the Chair that, 
    under the rule, general revenue measures and appropriation bills 
    are considered by paragraph and that all other measures are 
    considered by sections. [The Chair went on to indicate that the 
    present bill would be considered by sections.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.7 Appropriation bills are read by paragraph and amendments 
    thereto are in order only to the paragraph just read and not to the 
    entire subject matter under a heading of the bill.

    On Jan. 17, 1940,(17) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 86 Cong. Rec. 442, 443, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7922, the independent offices appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Luce [of Massachusetts]: May I ask how far the 
    bill has been read?
        The Chairman: (18) Down through the bottom of page 
    50. The only paragraph under the heading ``United States Housing 
    Authority'' that would now be subject to amendment would be the 
    last four lines on page 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Lindsay C. Warren (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Luce: Mr. Chairman, if I recollect the practice of the 
    House, it has always been to include everything under a heading for 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: It has been the practice of the House from time 
    immemorial to read appropriation bills by paragraphs.

Sec. 7.8 A special purpose appropriation bill, not qualifying as a 
    general appropriation bill, is considered by sections rather than 
    by paragraphs.

    On May 21, 1940,(19) in response to an inquiry 
concerning the reading of House Joint Resolution 544, a bill making 
appropriations for relief and work relief, the Chair

[[Page 6767]]

man (20) first stated the general rule governing reading of 
bills. Ordinarily, as the Chairman indicated, general revenue and 
general appropriation bills are considered by paragraph for amendment 
and all other bills are considered by sections. Then, recognizing that 
the pending bill was not a ``general'' appropriation measure, the 
Chairman announced, ``the pending bill will be considered by sections 
and amendments offered by sections rather than by paragraphs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 86 Cong. Rec. 6542, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
20. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rivers and Harbors Bills Were Read by Sections

Sec. 7.9 Rivers and harbors bills in the more recent practice were read 
    by sections rather than by paragraphs under the five-minute rule.

    On Apr. 8, 1935,(1) a bill (2) was under 
consideration relating to construction, repair, and preservation of 
public works on rivers and harbors. The following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 79 Cong. Rec. 5268, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. H.R. 6732.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph J.] Mansfield [of Texas]: Under the rules of the 
    House, bills ordinarily are read by sections. In former years 
    rivers and harbors bills have been read either by sections or by 
    paragraphs. I would suggest that in order to dispatch the business 
    of the House speedily we adhere to the rule of having this bill 
    read by sections.
        The Chairman: (3) . . . [T]he last expression we 
    have, so far as has been called to the attention of the Chair, is 
    that decision of the Committee itself made in 1926 to the effect 
    that bills of this character should be read by sections; and the 
    Chair is inclined to follow the decision of the Committee made at 
    that time.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William W. Arnold (Ill.).
 4. See also 84 Cong. Rec. 5654, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., May 17, 1939. 
        Since the privilege given to the Committee on Public Works (now 
        the Committee on Public Works and Transportation) to report 
        rivers and harbors bills was revoked in 1975 (See House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. 726 [101st Cong.]), these measures have been 
        considered pursuant to special resolutions reported from the 
        Committee on Rules. Such resolutions will normally specify the 
        mode of reading under the five-minute rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Entire Bill Was Read Prior to Amendment

Sec. 7.10 On one occasion, by unanimous consent, a bill was read under 
    the five-minute rule in its entirety and then each section in its 
    numerical order was called for amendment.

[[Page 6768]]

    On Aug. 17, 1935,(5) the following unanimous-consent 
request was agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 79 Cong. Rec. 13507, 74th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 9100, the Snyder-Guffey coal bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Samuel B. Hill [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the bill may be read in its entirety and 
    then be open for amendments to each section numerically. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) . . . The bill is to be read, and 
    then amendments may be offered to any section of the bill as it is 
    reached in numerical order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam D. McReynolds (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Bill Read by Chapter

Sec. 7.11 A bill was read for amendment by chapters in the Committee of 
    the Whole.

    On July 23, 1954,(7) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 100 Cong. Rec. 11686, 11687, 83d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 9757.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (8) . . . The request is that section 
    1 of the bill beginning on page 1 and extending to page 102 may be 
    read by chapter and be open to amendment by chapters, as it is 
    read. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John Taber (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: During consideration of the bill, which was 
to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, it had been observed that the 
first section of the bill was 102 pages long and that the sections of 
the bill were subdivided into chapters. (A special rule [H. Res. 630] 
had been adopted by the House on the preceding day which provided for 
reading the bill for amendment under the 5-minute rule, so that reading 
would ordinarily have proceeded by sections.)

Bill Comprising One Section

Sec. 7.12 When a bill consists of only one section, the entire bill is 
    read before amendments may be offered.

    On Mar. 13, 1963,(9) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 109 Cong. Rec. 4081, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 2440 (Committee on Armed Services).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis [of Missouri]: At what point may one 
    move to strike out the last word?
        The Chairman: (10) The bill consists of but one 
    section, and under the rule the entire bill must be read without 
    interruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John F. Shelley (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Similarly, on July 28, 1965,(11) during 
    consideration of a bill (12) to amend a portion of the 
    National Labor Rela

[[Page 6769]]

    tions Act, the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 18630, 18631, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. H.R. 77 (Committee on Education and Labor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert P.] Griffin [of Michigan]: If an amendment were to 
    be offered to the provision which was just read relating to 14(b), 
    would it have to be offered at this point, or could it be offered 
    at the conclusion of the reading of the bill?
        The Chairman: (13) It could be offered at the 
    conclusion of the reading of the bill, because the bill contains 
    only one section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Leo W. O'Brien (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dispensing With Further Reading

Sec. 7.13 When a bill is being read for amendment under the five-minute 
    rule, a motion to dispense with the further reading is not in 
    order.

    On May 1, 1947,(14) during consideration of H.R. 3203, 
relating to housing and rent controls, the following motion was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 93 Cong. Rec. 4412, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    the balance of the bill be considered as read and that all debate 
    on the bill and all amendments thereto close at 6:45.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that it is not in order to move to dispense with the 
    reading of the bill. If it cannot be done by unanimous consent it 
    cannot be done at all. It is not in order to move to dispense with 
    the reading of the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Thomas J. Jenkins (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Section (or Title) Preceding First Section (or Title)

Sec. 7.14 It is in order to offer an amendment after the first section 
    of a bill is read to insert a section to follow after the enacting 
    clause and to precede section 1 of the bill; and the Chair has 
    indicated that such amendment, if offered, must be disposed of 
    before amendments to section 1 of the bill are in order.

    On Apr. 18, 1935,(16) during consideration of H.R. 7260, 
the social security bill, the following proceedings and inquiry 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 79 Cong. Rec. 5948, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. Monaghan rose.
        The Chairman: (17) For what purpose does the 
    gentleman rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam D. McReynolds (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph P.] Monaghan [of Montana]: I desire to propound a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Monaghan: Would it be in order, following the reading of 
    the first title of the bill, to offer an amendment inserting a new 
    title to precede title I

[[Page 6770]]

    of the bill? If it is in order, would such an amendment have to be 
    disposed of before amendments to title I are offered?
        The Chairman: It is in order, and it would be disposed of 
    before amendments were offered to title I of the bill. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

                                   ``Title I

                                 ``Definitions

            ``Section 1. . . .

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under current practice, disposition of the 
amendment to precede section 1 would not have priority over perfecting 
amendments to section 1 of the bill (or title I, where the bill is 
being read by titles), but would be construed as being on an equal 
footing with such amendments.

Sections Preceding Part I of Bill Being Considered by ``Parts''

Sec. 7.15 Where a bill was, pursuant to a special order, being 
    considered for amendment by ``parts'', and several sections 
    preceded part I, each of those sections was considered as a 
    separate part for the purpose of the special order.

    On Aug. 2, 1977,(1) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill (2) pursuant to a special order 
as described above, the proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 123 Cong. Rec. 26124, 26125, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. H.R. 8444, National Energy Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [T]he House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
    the bill H.R. 8444, with Mr. Boland in the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Chairman: (3) When the Committee rose on Monday, 
    August 1, 1977, all time for general debate had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered by parts and each 
    part is considered as having been read for amendment. No amendment 
    shall be in order except pro forma amendments and amendments made 
    in order pursuant to House Resolution 727, which will not be 
    subject to amendment, except amendments recommended by the ad hoc 
    Committee on Energy and amendments made in order under House 
    Resolution 727. . . .
        The Clerk will designate the part of the bill now pending for 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 9, line 1, section 2. (Section 2 reads as follows:)

             Sec. 2. Findings and Statement of Purposes. . . .

        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, so I will 
    know how we are going to proceed, are we going to go through the 
    bill section by section, with the reading of each section?
        The Chairman: The Chair will inform the gentleman that the bill 
    will

[[Page 6771]]

    be considered part by part with each part considered as read. The 
    bill will not be read section by section.
        Mr. Volkmer: So we will continue, Mr. Chairman, with the 
    reading of each section or part, then, and the title of the 
    section?
        The Chairman: The Chair will further inform the gentleman that 
    section 4 precedes part I, and after that section has been disposed 
    of, we will move to part I of the bill. We have been considering 
    the preliminary four sections as separate parts.

Table of Contents of Bill

Sec. 7.16 By unanimous consent, the Committee of the Whole delayed 
    consideration for amendment of the table of contents at the 
    beginning of a bill until the bill had been considered for 
    amendment in its entirety.

    On Aug. 2, 1977,(4) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 8444,(5) the unanimous-consent 
request described above was agreed to as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 123 Cong. Rec. 26124, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. National Energy Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) When the Committee rose on Monday, 
    August 1, 1977, all time for general debate had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered by parts and each 
    part is considered as having been read for amendment. No amendment 
    shall be in order except pro forma amendments and amendments made 
    in order pursuant to House Resolution 727, which will not be 
    subject to amendment, except amendments recommended by the ad hoc 
    Committee on Energy and amendments made in order under House 
    Resolution 727.
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the Committee amendments to the table of contents and 
    the table of contents be passed over and considered after all other 
    amendments have been considered, in order that they can be 
    correctly disposed of.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Ohio?
        There was no objection.

Short Title and Table of Contents Considered as One Title

Sec. 7.17 Where a special order provides that a committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute be considered by titles for amendment as 
    original text and that each title be considered as having been 
    read, the short title and table of contents (section 1) are 
    considered as one title, and once that portion has been designated 
    by the Clerk, the Clerk designates an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, reported by another committee, whose

[[Page 6772]]

    (automatic) consideration has been made in order by the special 
    order.

    On May 15, 1979,(7) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 39,(8) the above-stated proposition 
was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 125 Cong. Rec. 11051, 11052, 11086, 11088, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, in order to 
    clarify the procedures of the House, I believe it would be helpful 
    if the House understood the rules under which we proceed.
        For that reason, I would propound to the Chair a series of 
    parliamentary inquiries.
        The Chairman: (9) If the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Dingell) would withhold for just 1 minute while the Chair 
    reads a statement, it may clarify the situation here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute recommended by the Committee on Interior and Insular 
    Affairs shall be considered by titles as an original bill for the 
    purpose of amendment and each title shall be considered as having 
    been read. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
    by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries shall be 
    considered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    amendment recommended by the Committee on Interior and Insular 
    Affairs and it shall be considered as having been read and it shall 
    be in order to consider as a substitute for the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Merchant 
    Marine and Fisheries the text of H.R. 3651 if offered by 
    Representative Udall, and said substitute if offered shall be 
    considered as having been read.
        The Clerk will designate section 1 of the Interior and Insular 
    Affairs Committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled,

                               table of contents

            Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents. . . .

        The Chairman: Under the rule, the amendment offered by the 
    Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries in the nature of a 
    substitute is considered as having been read and open for amendment 
    at any point.
        The Clerk will now designate the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute recommended by the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
    Fisheries.
        The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
    Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries reads as follows:
        That this Act may be cited as the ``Alaska National Interest 
        Lands Conservation Act''.

                               table of contents

            Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents. . . .

        Mr. Dingell: . . . Mr. Chairman, I believe the Chair has set 
    out with

[[Page 6773]]

    some clarity the parliamentary situation, but in order that it 
    might be very clear I would direct to the Chair the following 
    questions:
        One, as I understand, the Interior Committee bill is the bill 
    reported from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and is 
    the principal document under which we labor. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Dingell: And made in order by the rule is the substitute 
    which was reported from the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
    Fisheries, is that correct?
        The Chairman: That is correct, and that is the amendment that 
    is pending.
        Mr. Dingell: And the bill from the Committee on Merchant Marine 
    and Fisheries in the nature of a substitute is under the rule 
    before this body without having to be offered?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Dingell: And as I understand the rule, both bills are to be 
    read by title. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: Only the Interior text is read by title, but at 
    this point only section 1 of that text has been read.
        Mr. Dingell: Only the Interior bill is read by title. That 
    means, Mr. Chairman, that the Interior bill is open to amendment at 
    any time during the reading of the title, is that correct?
        The Chairman: Only the first part of the Interior bill has been 
    read.
        Mr. Dingell: Only the first part of the Interior bill has been 
    read, but the whole of the first part is open to amendment at this 
    time?
        The Chairman: The only portion of the Interior text that is 
    pending is section 1, the table of contents and the short title, up 
    to page 7. . . .
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Chairman: Pursuant to the rule, the amendment offered as a 
    substitute for the amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    considered as read and open to amendment at any point.
        The Clerk will designate the amendment.
        The amendment offered as a substitute reads as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled,

                       short title and table of contents

            Section 1. This Act, together with the following table of 
        contents, may be cited as the ``Alaska National Interest Lands 
        Conservation Act of 1979''.

                               table of contents
        Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.

Amendment in Nature of Substitute Open to Amendment at any Point After 
    Being Read

Sec. 7.18 An amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill offered 
    from the floor must be read in its entirety or the reading 
    dispensed with by unanimous consent and is then open to amend

[[Page 6774]]

    ment at any point, and not by sections.

    On Dec. 18, 1979,(10) during consideration of H.R. 5860 
(11) in the Committee of the Whole, the situation described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 36791, 36793, 36794, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Authorizing loan guarantees to the Chrysler Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will designate section 1.
        Section 1 reads as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled,

                                  short title

            Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Chrysler 
        Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 1979''.

        The Chairman: (12) Are there any amendments to 
    section 1?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Page 14, strike out line 10 and all 
        that follows through page 32 and insert on lieu thereof the 
        following:

                                  short title

            Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Chrysler 
        Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 1979''. . . .

        Mr. [S. William] Green [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Green: Mr. Chairman, if I have an amendment to offer to 
    section 3 of the Moorhead substitute, may I ask, at what point is 
    it in order to offer it?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman's inquiry 
    is not in order until the Moorhead amendment has been read.
        The Clerk will read.
        (The Clerk continued the reading of the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute.)

Substitute for Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 7.19 While there is pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and an amendment thereto, a substitute for the original 
    amendment may be offered.

    On Dec. 18, 1979,(13) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 5860,(14) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 36794, 36801, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. Authorizing loan guarantees to the Chrysler Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brademas to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: 
        Strike line 7, page 5, through line 7, page 9, (section 4(a)(4) 
        through section 4(d)) and replace with the following:

[[Page 6775]]

            (4) the Corporation has submitted to the Board a 
        satisfactory financing plan which meets the financing needs of 
        the Corporation as reflected in the operating plan for the 
        period covered by such operating plan, and which includes, in 
        accordance with the provisions of subsection (c), an aggregate 
        amount of nonfederally guaranteed assistance of not less than 
        $1,930,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: If the gentleman 
    from Indiana (Mr. Quayle) should decide to offer his substitute to 
    the Moorhead-McKinney amendment before the vote on the Brademas 
    amendment, it would be in order, would it not?
        The Chairman: (15) It would be in order to offer it. 
    . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     amendment offered by mr. quayle as a substitute for the amendment 
         in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. moorhead of 
                                pennsylvania

        Mr. [Dan] Quayle [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.

Amendment to Original Text Where Amendment in Nature of Substitute 
    Pending

Sec. 7.20 Where there is pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for an entire measure, it is in order to offer a 
    perfecting amendment to that portion of the original text which has 
    been read.

    The proceedings of Apr. 13, 1983,(16) during 
consideration of House Joint Resolution 13 (concerning a nuclear 
weapons freeze), provide an instance in which a Member had two 
amendments pending to the original text at the same time--first, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, and then a perfecting 
amendment to the original text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 129 Cong. Rec. 8402, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    perfecting amendment at the desk to section 2 of House Joint 
    Resolution 13.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair will advise that 
    perfecting amendments to the underlying text are in order at this 
    time while the Levitas amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    pending. But the Chair will also point out that if any Member is 
    recognized to offer a perfecting amendment at this time, debate 
    will not be limited on the perfecting amendment and the vote will 
    first come on the perfecting amendment and on any potential 
    amendments thereto before the question is put on the Levitas 
    substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Amendment Not Open to Amendment After Amendment in Nature of 
    Substitute Offered Thereto

Sec. 7.21 Where pursuant to a special rule the first section of a 
    committee amendment in the

[[Page 6776]]

    nature of a substitute had been read for amendment, and there was 
    pending an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    committee amendment, an amendment thereto and a substitute 
    therefor, the Chair indicated in response to a parliamentary 
    inquiry that the amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    committee amendment, and the substitute therefor, could each be 
    perfected by amendment before a vote was had on the substitute, but 
    that the original committee amendment had not been read and was not 
    open to amendment.

    On Feb. 5, 1976,(18) during consideration of a bill 
(19) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry regarding the situation described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 122 Cong. Rec. 2623, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. H.R. 9464, Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20) When the Committee rose on 
    yesterday there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger) for 
    the substitute committee amendment; an amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) to the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger) 
    and a substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
    Smith) for the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, do I correctly understand the 
    parliamentary situation to be this, that there is before the House 
    as one item of legislation which may be amended, the original bill 
    from the committee?
        There is also the Krueger amendment in the form of a 
    substitute, made in order, of course, by the Committee on Rules as 
    a rule; and there is also another substitute, the Smith amendment, 
    that is before the body, that these three all may be amended; but 
    no more than one amendment to each may be available for 
    consideration of the House at any given time?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman is nearly 
    correct. The basic bill, the basic committee product, has not been 
    read. Therefore, it is not subject to amendment at this point.
        The Krueger amendment is subject to amendment, and there is 
    pending to the Krueger amendment the gentleman's amendment. The 
    Smith substitute for the Krueger amendment is pending to the 
    Krueger amendment, and it can be amended. There is no

[[Page 6777]]

    amendment pending to the Smith substitute at this time.
        Mr. Eckhardt: Let me put it this way: It would be appropriate 
    to vote on an amendment pending to the Krueger amendment prior to 
    the time a vote would be taken with respect to the Smith 
    substitute?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Eckhardt: In other words, each of the pieces of legislation 
    before us is subject to being perfected before a choice is made 
    between the two?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Only the first section of the basic 
committee amendment had been read. The remainder would be subject to 
amendment, as read, if the Krueger amendment were ultimately defeated.

Special Order Providing for Consideration of Amendment Without 
    Requiring That It Be Offered

Sec. 7.22 Where a special order adopted by the House provides that in 
    lieu of committee amendments printed in a bill, it shall be in 
    order to consider a designated amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute as an original bill for amendment in Committee of the 
    Whole, but does not require that the amendment be offered, the 
    Chair directs the Clerk to read the amendment for consideration as 
    original text for the purpose of amendment and no motion from the 
    floor is required.

    On July 14, 1978,(1) during consideration of a bill 
(2) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings described 
above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 124 Cong. Rec. 20992-95, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. H.R. 12163, Department of Energy authorizations. The bill was being 
        considered pursuant to H. Res. 1261.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (3) . . . Pursuant to the rule the 
    Clerk will now read . . . the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute printed in the Congressional Record of June 23, 1978, by 
    Representative Fuqua of Florida as an original bill for the purpose 
    of amendment in lieu of the amendments now printed in the original 
    bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in 
        accordance with section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 
        (42 U.S.C. 2017) . . . there is hereby authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Department of Energy for the fiscal year 
        1979, for energy research and development and related 
        activities, the sum of the following amounts. . . .

        Mr. [Walter] Flowers [of Alabama]: Madam Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 6778]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Flowers:
            On page 10, lines 16 and 17, strike the amount 
        ``$465,301,000'' and substitute in lieu thereof 
        ``$306,401,000.''

        Mr. [John W.] Wydler [of New York]: Madam Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry: What is the bill that is actually before the 
    Committee at the present time? Are we on the substitute bill?
        The Chairman: We are on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Florida (Mr. Fuqua), which is made in order by the rule.

    Parliamentarian's Note: If a special order provides that it shall 
be in order to consider an amendment ``if offered'' as an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, the amendment must be offered from the 
floor (after the first section of the bill is read).

Motion To Limit Debate Where Bill Has Not Been Read

Sec. 7.23 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a bill and amendments thereto, the Chair indicated 
    in response to parliamentary inquiries that a motion to limit 
    debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute and all 
    amendments thereto was in order although the bill itself had not 
    been read, and that all Members would be allocated equal time under 
    the limitation regardless of committee membership but that Members 
    seeking to offer amendments could be first recognized.

    On June 10, 1976,(4) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 13367,(5) ith an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute and amendments thereto pending, when a motion 
was offered to limit debate, as described above. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 122 Cong. Rec. 17380, 17381, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. A bill to amend and extend the State and Local Fiscal Assistance 
        Act of 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on the Brooks amendment and all amendments thereto end by 6 
    p.m. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, is there 
    any reason for the Clerk to read? I do not remember the bill being 
    open at any point to amendment.
        The Chairman: (6) The motion of the gentleman from 
    New York, as the Chair understood it, was that all debate on the 
    Brooks amendment and all amendments thereto end at 6 p.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: So that the motion is in order?
        The Chairman: The motion is in order. It is limited to the 
    Brooks

[[Page 6779]]

    amendment and amendments there to. . . .
        Mr. [J. J.] Pickle [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, under the proposed 
    time limitation, would the Chair tend to recognize a Member who is 
    not a member of the committee? For instance, the gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. Adams) has an important amendment, and if he is not 
    recognized within the time limitation, would the chairman of the 
    committee let the gentleman be recognized? . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that under limitation of 
    time committee members no longer have priority in seeking 
    recognition. Time is equally allocated.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair would ask that Members with 
    amendments to be offered seek recognition first, and the Chair 
    would request that Members attempt to address themselves to the 
    amendments.

Amendment Not Covered Under Limitation on Debate

Sec. 7.24 Where debate has been limited on a pending section and all 
    amendments thereto and time allocated among those Members desiring 
    to offer amendments to that section, the Chair may decline to 
    recognize a Member to offer an amendment adding a new section and 
    therefore not covered by the limitation, until perfecting 
    amendments to the pending section have been disposed of under the 
    limitation.

    On June 26, 1979,(7) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 3930,(8) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 125 Cong. Rec. 16679, 16680, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: Page 8, after line 13 add the 
    following new section and renumber the subsequent sections 
    accordingly:

        Sec. 4. The Secretary of Energy is hereby authorized to 
    designate a proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock facility as a 
    priority synthetic project pursuant to the procedures and criteria 
    provided in this section.
        (2) For the purposes of this section the term--
        (A) Synthetic fuel or feedstock facility means any physical 
    structure, including any. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, is this amendment to section 3 
    or section 4?
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: This is an amendment to 
    section 3, the Udall fast-track amendment, which cuts through the 
    redtape.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: The copy I have indicates that it is to 
    section 4, Mr. Chairman. Is that correct?

[[Page 6780]]

        Mr. Udall: I had modified it to apply to section 3.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will cease reading the amendment.
        The Chair will advise the gentleman from Arizona that this 
    amendment currently being read adds a new section 4, and is not 
    covered by the limitation on time, and should not be offered at 
    this time.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, if I understand correctly, the 
    gentleman was recognized on the basis that the amendment had not 
    been printed in the Record, and therefore it would not be 
    appropriate under this limitation for it to be considered at all, 
    is that not correct?
        Mr. Udall: I had intended--I had so instructed the Clerk to 
    change this to an amendment to section 3, not section 4.
        The Chairman: The amendment, the Chair states to the gentleman, 
    would have to be submitted to the Clerk.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: My point of order is sustained or--
        The Chairman: Yes. The Chair will advise the gentleman from 
    Arizona that he is within his rights to redraft the amendment as an 
    amendment to section 3, but the Chair understood that is not the 
    amendment currently being read.
        Mr. Udall: I so offer it as an amendment to section 3.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.

Distribution by Clerk of Copies of Amendments

Sec. 7.25 While Rule XXIII clause 5 imposes a duty on the Clerk to 
    transmit to the majority and minority committee tables five copies 
    of any amendment offered in Committee of the Whole, a point of 
    order against the amendment does not lie based upon the inability 
    of the Clerk to comply with that requirement.

    On Mar. 25, 1976,(10) he Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 12566,(11) point of order was 
raised against an amendment and the Chair ruled as indicated above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 7997, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. 1, supra, 
        for further discussion of the requirement that copies of 
        amendments be distributed.
11. National Science Foundation authorization, fiscal 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: On page 6, line 3 insert 
        the following new section, and renumber the succeeding 
        sections;
            ``Sec. 9. Notwithstanding any other provision of law the 
        Director of the National Science Foundation shall keep all 
        Members of Congress . . . informed with respect to all the 
        activities of the National Science Foundation. . . .

        Mr. [James W.] Symington [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order. We do not have five copies of the amendment as far as I 
    can tell.

[[Page 6781]]

        The Chairman: (12) That is not a point of order, 
    although the Chair hopes the copies will be provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. George E. Danielson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.26 No point of order lies against an amendment on the grounds 
    that copies thereof are not available to Members, as Rule XXIII 
    clause 5, places upon the Clerk the responsibility to distribute 
    copies to the committee tables and cloakrooms.

    On Sept. 15, 1977,(13) during consideration of H.R. 
3744,(14) in the Committee of the Whole, the above-described 
proceedings were as indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 123 Cong. Rec. 29440, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Phillip Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Phillip Burton: Page 9, insert 
        after line 5 of the following:
            (b) Section 6 (29 U.S.C. 206) is amended by adding at the 
        end the following:
            ``(9)(1) Every employer shall pay to each of his employees 
        who in any workweek is engaged in commerce or in the production 
        of goods for commerce, or is employed in an enterprise engaged 
        in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, wages 
        at the following rates: during the period ending December 31, 
        1977, not less than $2.30 an hour. . . .

        Mr. [Clifford R.] Allen [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order. I can find no copy of this amendment. I would like to be 
    able to read the amendment and I believe under the rules a certain 
    number of copies are supposed to be available.
        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman does not state a 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Placing Amendment on Clerk's Desk

Sec. 7.27 Amendments at the Clerk's desk must be offered by a Member 
    before they will be read by the Clerk.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(16) the Chair indicated the procedure 
by which amendments are offered and read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 119 Cong. Rec. 41731, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11450 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] McClory [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I assume that the procedure will be to read each 
    of the amendments that remain at the Clerk's desk?
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman from Illinois that the Member having the amendment to 
    offer would have to rise and offer the amendment before it could be 
    read by the Clerk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advice by Chair as to Offering

Sec. 7.28 It is not within the province of the Chair to advise

[[Page 6782]]

    Members where an amendment may be in order in a bill.

    On June 19, 1939,(18) the Chair addressed an inquiry, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 84 Cong. Rec. 7500, 7501, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 6851, the revenue bill of 1939 (Committee on Ways and 
        Means).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (19) . . . [T]he amendment offered by 
    the gentleman is not germane to the subject matter of title IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William J.] Miller [of Connecticut]: Would it be in order 
    to ask the Chair this question: Where or when could such an 
    amendment be offered?
        The Chairman: It is not within the province of the Chair to 
    state that.

Time for Making Points of Order

Sec. 7.29 Points of order against the text of a title of a committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute being read by title must be 
    made immediately after unanimous consent is granted to consider the 
    title as read and open to amendment, but such consent does not 
    affect points of order which might lie against amendments to that 
    title or against a subsequent title not yet read.

    On Oct. 5, 1972,(20) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 118 Cong. Rec. 34115, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 16656 (Committee on Public Works).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that title I be considered as 
    read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, under the reservation I would make a 
    parliamentary inquiry as to whether or not points of order would 
    have to be lodged, that might be appropriate against title I, at 
    this time, if such unanimous-consent request is granted.
        The Chairman: (1) No. The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman, under the rule the committee amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute is read as an original bill by title for the purpose 
    of amendment. It is the understanding of the Chair that points of 
    order would need to be lodged only at the time a particular 
    amendment were offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Morris K. Udall (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If the gentleman wished to raise a point of order as to the 
    text of title I, that point of order would need to be lodged 
    immediately upon the granting of the unanimous-consent request now 
    pending before the committee. . . .
        The only thing pending before the committee is the unanimous-
    consent request relating to title I. The granting of that request 
    would have no effect on the parliamentary situation as to 
    subsequent titles.

Sec. 7.30 The Chair entertained a point of order against a por

[[Page 6783]]

    tion of a paragraph which had been passed in the reading for 
    amendment, where the Committee of the Whole had agreed that the 
    entire bill (rather than the remainder of the bill) would be open 
    to any point of order and where the point of order was conceded by 
    the manager of the bill.

    On June 7, 1972,(2) unanimous-consent request was agreed 
to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 118 Cong. Rec. 19900, 19901, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 15259 (Committee on Appropriations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky] [during the reading]: 
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered 
    as read, open to amendment at any point, and subject to any points 
    of order. . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, my point of 
    order should lie on page 3, line 8, following the colon, against 
    the phrase:

            Provided, That the certificates of the Commissioner (for 
        $2,500) and of the Chairman of the City Council (for $2,500) 
        shall be sufficient voucher for expenditures. . . .

        The Chairman: (3) The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman from Missouri that that part of the bill to which the 
    gentleman has raised his point of order was previously read prior 
    to the unanimous-consent request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Dante B. Fascell (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: But, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the unanimous-
    consent request was granted to the entire bill, that it be open to 
    amendment and open for points of order at any point. This request 
    was granted and therefore I have gone back to this point of order. 
    . . .
        Mr. Natcher: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Hall) is correct, and we concede the point of order.

Disposition of Points of Order Preceding Amendment

Sec. 7.31 Points of order raised against a proposition must be disposed 
    of before amendments are in order.

    On May 14, 1937,(4) the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration H.R. 6958, Interior Department appropriations for 1938:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 81 Cong. Rec. 4596, 4597, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                     Industrial Assistance and Advancement

            For the preservation of timber on Indian reservations. . . 
        .

        Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    the point of order against the proviso and move to strike out the 
    last word. . . .
        I do not withdraw my reservation of the point of order, Mr. 
    Chairman, but I have an amendment that I desire to offer.
        The Chairman: (5) The point of order will have to be 
    disposed of before an amendment is in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).

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

[[Page 6784]]

Amendment Inserting New Section or Title To Follow Pending Section

Sec. 7.32 Amendments to the pending section of a bill should be 
    disposed of prior to consideration of amendments inserting a new 
    section immediately thereafter.

    On Mar. 20, 1975,(6) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill,(7) an amendment was offered to a 
pending section and the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 121 Cong. Rec. 7665, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. H.R. 4296, emergency price supports for 1975 crops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment which I believe comes before that offered by the 
    gentleman from New York.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) that his amendment is to 
    section 2, while the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Peyser) would provide a new section 3. If the gentleman 
    from Vermont insists, his amendment is in order at this time. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jeffords: Mr. Chairman, I do insist and I do desire to have 
    my amendment considered at this time. . . .
        Mr. Peyser: Mr. Chairman, I may be mistaken, but I do not 
    believe the amendment I have at the desk forms a new section, but 
    follows on line 16 of the page.
        The Chairman: But the point made by the Chair is that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York does provide a new 
    section 3 and may be offered following disposition of amendments to 
    section 2.
        Mr. Jeffords: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jeffords: Page 3, after line 6 
        strike out ``the support price of milk shall be established at 
        no less than 80 per centum of the parity price therefor.''

Sec. 7.33 The Chair inquires whether any Member seeks to offer an 
    amendment to the pending portion of a bill before recognizing a 
    Member to offer an amendment inserting a new section or title 
    thereafter.

    The following exchange occurred on May 3, 1984,(9) 
during consideration of H.R. 4275, the Federal Reclamation 
Hydroelectric Powerplants Authorization Act:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 130 Cong. Rec. 10955, 10956, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk which adds a new title III, and I will offer 
    it now if this is the appropriate time.

[[Page 6785]]

        The Chairman: (10) First the Chair will inquire, are 
    there further amendments to title II?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Ronnie G. Flippo (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If not, are there further amendments?
        Mr. Udall: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk adding 
    a new title III, and I offer it at this time.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.

--Effect of Adoption

Sec. 7.34 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair indicated 
    that the adoption of an amendment adding a new section to a bill 
    would preclude further amendment to the pending section.

    On Mar. 20, 1975,(11) during consideration of a bill 
(12) in the Committee of the Whole, a parliamentary inquiry 
was addressed to the Chair and the proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 7666, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. H.R. 4296, emergency price supports for 1975 crops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Peyser: Page 3, immediately after 
        line 16, insert the following new section:
            ``Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, there 
        shall be no acreage allotment, marketing quota or price support 
        for rice effective with the 1975 crop of such commodity.'

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: reserved a point of 
    order on the amendment.
        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Symms: Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment to section 2 
    of the bill. Will this amendment preclude the offering of the next 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: It will if the amendment is agreed to.

Amendment Adding New Section at End of Bill

Sec. 7.35 An amendment adding a new section at the end of a bill is in 
    order when the last section of the bill has been read for amendment 
    and no amendments to that section are offered.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on June 26, 
1984,(14) during consideration of H.R. 5490, the Civil 
Rights Act of 1984. The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 130 Cong. Rec. 18857, 18858, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (15) Are there any further amendments 
    to title IV?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Al Swift (Wash.).

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

[[Page 6786]]

        If not, the Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 5. (a) Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
        (hereafter in this section referred to as the ``Act'') is 
        amended--
            (1) by striking out ``in'' the second time it appears;
            (2) by striking out ``the benefits of'' and inserting in 
        lieu thereof ``benefits''. . . .

        Mr. [Steve] Bartlett [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment which would create a section 6. Is now the appropriate 
    time to offer it, or should I wait until the completion of section 
    5?
        The Chairman: If there are no amendments to section 5 and when 
    it is determined there are no amendments to section 5, the Chair 
    will recognize the gentleman for his amendment.
        Mr. Bartlett: I thank the Chair.
        The Chairman: Are there any amendments to section 5?
        Hearing none, the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Texas 
    (Mr. Bartlett) for his amendment.

Substitute Adding Language at End Offered for Amendment Making Changes 
    Within Section

Sec. 7.36 For a perfecting amendment making several changes in a 
    pending section, a substitute adding language at the end of the 
    section rather than striking and inserting within the section was 
    held in order since relating to the same subject as the amendment.

    On Aug. 1, 1978,(16) during consideration of H.R. 12514 
(17) in the Committee of the Whole, it was held that a 
substitute for a pending amendment could be offered to change a 
different or lesser portion of the pending section if it related to the 
same subject matter as the amendment. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 124 Cong. Rec. 23732, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
17. The International Security Assistance Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Derwinski as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Stratton: Page 18, immediately after 
        line 4, insert the following new subsection:
            (e) It is the sense of the Congress that further withdrawal 
        of ground forces of the United States from the Republic of 
        Korea may seriously risk upsetting the military balance in that 
        region and requires full advance consultation with the 
        Congress. . . .

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (18) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, do I understand that the 
    gentleman's amendment is a substitute for my amendment.

[[Page 6787]]

        The Chairman: That is correct. It is a substitute for the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, unless I am mistaken, the gentleman 
    has not bothered to look at my amendment. My amendment makes 
    specific changes in the text in section 19. I am not clear where 
    the gentleman's amendment would come in section 19. He cannot 
    substitute a straight wording, as I understand it, for something 
    that has a series of changes in 3 pages of a particular section.
        Mr. Derwinski: Mr. Chairman, my amendment would come at the end 
    of section 19.
        The Chairman: The Chair might inform the gentleman from New 
    York that it is a proper substitute amendment. Both the proposed 
    amendment and the substitute are perfecting amendments to the 
    section and deal with the same subject.

Amendment to Committee Amendment That Is Not Pending

Sec. 7.37 An amendment may not be offered to a committee amendment that 
    is not yet pending.

    On Apr. 6, 1978,(19) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 10899,(20) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 124 Cong. Rec. 9090, 9097, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
20. International Banking Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (1) The Clerk will report the first 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Richard Nolan (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 14, strike out lines 2 through 15 
        and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            Sec. 5. (a) Except as provided by subsection (b)--
            (1) No foreign bank may directly or indirectly operate a 
        Federal branch outside its home State. . . .

        Mr. [William S.] Green [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Green to the committee amendment: 
        On page 16, line 10, strike ``May 1, 1978'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``May 23, 1977.''. . .

        The Chairman: The Chair wishes to announce that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Green) is technically 
    an amendment to the second committee amendment which is not before 
    the committee at this time. Therefore, it can be offered at the 
    appropriate time, when the next committee amendment has been 
    reported.

Amendment to Amendment That Has Not Yet Been Offered

Sec. 7.38 An amendment to an amendment that has not yet been offered is 
    not in order.

    On Sept. 8, 1976,(2) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 10498,(3) an

[[Page 6788]]

amendment was offered and proceedings occurred as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Cong. Rec. 29231, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew] Maguire [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Maguire----

        The Chairman: (4) Is this an amendment to the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Maguire: Yes; this is the amendment to section 108.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Maguire: In the last sentence of 
        section 160(c)(1) of the text inserted by the Rogers amendment. 
        . . .

        Mr. Maguire (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment be considered as read and I will explain 
    it. . . .
        The Chairman: Before the Clerk reads further, the Chair would 
    like to advise the gentleman from New Jersey that the amendment is 
    not properly drafted as an amendment to the committee bill, but has 
    been drafted as an amendment to an amendment which has not been 
    offered.

Amendment Offered to Amendment Before Vote

Sec. 7.39 An amendment must be offered to an amendment before the vote 
    thereon.

        On May 4, 1983,(5) the Committee of the Whole having 
    under consideration House Joint Resolution 13, the above-stated 
    proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 129 Cong. Rec. 11074, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Norman D.] Dicks [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, my 
    parliamentary inquiry is if I want to offer an amendment to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia I have to do it 
    before the vote on his amendment; is that not correct?
        Is this the appropriate time to offer that amendment?
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dicks: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute 
    for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dicks as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Levitas: In view of the matter 
        proposed to be inserted, insert the following: ``with 
        negotiators proceeding immediately to pursuing reductions.''.

Substitute for Amendment in Order Before Question Put

Sec. 7.40 As long as the Chair has not put the question on an 
    amendment, a substitute is in order therefor.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on June 14, 
1979,(7) during consideration of H.R. 4388 (8) in 
the Committee

[[Page 6789]]

of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 125 Cong. Rec. 14993, 14994, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. The Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bill for fiscal year 
        1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment, as amended. . . .
        Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, on the amendment, 
    as amended, I ask for a rollcall vote.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair has not yet put the 
    question on the amendment, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bevill: I ask for a vote then.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I happen to have an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: The Chair had recognized the gentleman from 
    Michigan and asked him for what purpose he sought recognition. The 
    gentleman indicated that he had an amendment.
        Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman from Alabama, 
    the chairman of the subcommittee, requested an agreement to end 
    debate, there was no objection on the amendment and amendments 
    thereto. At that point the vote was put.
        I suggest to the Chair that it is in order now to vote on the 
    amendment.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment I desire to 
    offer as a substitute at this time.
        The Chairman: The Chair will indicate to the gentleman from 
    Washington that we are operating under a time limit; however, that 
    does not exclude the possibility of offering an amendment as a 
    substitute, though no debate will be in order in the absence of a 
    unanimous-consent request.
        Therefore, the Clerk will read the amendment.

Debate on Amendment Concluded Before Substitute Offered

Sec. 7.41 The House having adopted a special order governing 
    consideration of a bill in Committee of the Whole providing for the 
    consideration of a substitute for a designated amendment, but also 
    providing that ``before the consideration of any amendments to said 
    amendment, it shall be in order to debate said amendment for not to 
    exceed one hour'', debate on the amendment must conclude before the 
    substitute may be offered (unless otherwise provided by unanimous 
    consent).

    On Aug. 15, 1986,(10) during consideration of H.R. 4428 
(11) in the Committee of the Whole, the

[[Page 6790]]

proceedings described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 132 Cong. Rec. 22050, 22051, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. The Department of Defense Authorization, fiscal year 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (12) When the Committee of 
    the Whole rose on Thursday, August 14, 1986, amendment numbered 113 
    made in order pursuant to paragraph 3 of the House Resolution 531 
    had been completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is in order to consider an amendment if offered by 
    Representative Hawkins relating to the application of the Davis-
    Bacon Act at this point, which shall not be subject to amendment 
    except a substitute if offered by Representative Dickinson 
    consisting of the text of amendment numbered 114 printed in House 
    Report 99-766, which shall not be subject to amendment.
        The amendment and the substitute shall each be debatable for 1 
    hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and a Member 
    opposed thereto.
        Mr. [Augustus F.] Hawkins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment. . . .
        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, in order 
    to clarify the parliamentary situation, Mr. Chairman, I would like 
    to get a ruling from the Chair as to the procedure.
        The Chair has already announced the preference of offering the 
    amendments and what would be availabe as a substitute. My question 
    is, Under the rule, is it correct to say that Mr. Hawkins would 
    offer an amendment which would give him 1 hour to be divided, half 
    by him and half by some Member in opposition, which in this case 
    would be myself?
        At the end of that time, then the substitute, which I have, 
    would be offered and there would be another hour of debate, or is 
    there another allocation of time?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: That would be the scenario, the Chair 
    will state. . . . If the gentleman from California (Mr. Hawkins) 
    would yield to the gentleman at this point, we could have both the 
    amendments pending at the same time by unanimous consent.
        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, it was my thinking that perhaps it 
    would be advantageous, rather than having the gentleman go forward 
    for an hour and my going forward an hour, if we would agree that 
    there would be a total of 2 hours, half of which the gentleman 
    would control and half of which I would control. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair needs to make a 
    clarification.
        The Chair will state that under the rule, the gentleman's 
    amendment has to be debated for 1 hour.
        Mr. Dickinson: Well, that was my question.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Before the substitute can be offered.

Amendment Unrelated to Amendment to Which Offered

Sec. 7.42 Where no point of order was raised against an amendment which 
    was improperly drafted and unrelated to the amendment to which 
    offered, the Chair indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry 
    that if the amendment were adopted, it would be engrafted onto the 
    amendment to which offered.

[[Page 6791]]

    On Sept. 8, 1976,(13) during consideration of H.R. 10498 
(the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976), several parliamentary inquiries 
were directed to the Chair regarding an amendment. The proceedings were 
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 122 Cong. Rec. 29234-36, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers: Page 216, after line 23, 
        insert:
            (f) The Clean Air Act, as amended by sections 306, 201, 
        304, 312, 313, 108, and 211 of this Act, is further amended by 
        adding the following new section at the end thereof:

                      ``national commission on air quality

            ``Sec. 325. (a) There is established a National Commission 
        on Air Quality which shall study and report to the Congress 
        on--
            ``(1) the effects of the implementation of requirements on 
        the States or the Federal Government under this Act to identify 
        and protect from significant deterioration of air quality, 
        areas which have existing air quality better than that 
        specified under current national primary and secondary 
        standards. . . .

        Mr. [Andrew] Maguire [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Maguire to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Rogers: In the last sentence of section 160(c)(1) of the 
        text inserted by the Rogers amendment, strike out ``, class II, 
        or class III'' and substitute ``or class II''. . . .

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: My parliamentary 
    inquiry further would be is it the intention to strike out the 
    language offered by the gentleman from Florida and insert this 
    language in lieu of that language? . . .
        The Chairman: (14) . . . The Chair cannot comment 
    further on the offering of the amendment to the amendment, since a 
    point of order was not raised at the appropriate time. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Broyhill: . . . If the Maguire amendment to the amendment 
    were adopted, would the Committee then be voting on the language 
    that is in the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
    Rogers] and the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman 
    from New Jersey [Mr. Maguire]? Would we then be acting on the 
    language offered by both the gentlemen or just one?
        The Chairman: The Chair would first put the question on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey to the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Florida. If that amendment should 
    prevail the question would then be propounded on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Florida as amended.
        Mr. Broyhill: . . . I would like to ask would the amendment be 
    the language offered by both gentlemen or just the language offered 
    by the gentleman from New Jersey? . . .
        The Chairman: The amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    Jersey is before the Committee, and if the

[[Page 6792]]

    amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey is adopted, then 
    it would be engrafted as an amendment to the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Florida, and then the question before the 
    Committee would be on the Rogers amendment as so amended.

Original Bill Considered After Amendment in Nature of Substitute Voted 
    Down

Sec. 7.43 Where a rule provides for consideration of a committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for 
    amendment, such substitute is read by sections for amendment, at 
    the conclusion of which the question is on agreeing to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute or the substitute as 
    amended; if the committee amendment is voted down, the original 
    bill is then read for amendment.

    On June 13, 1939,(15) the House had under consideration 
a special rule (H. Res. 219) providing for consideration of S. 1796, an 
act to amend the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933. The rule 
provided for consideration of a committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute as an original bill for amendment. A parliamentary inquiry 
arose as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 84 Cong. Rec. 7108, 7109, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: As I understand the 
    situation now, the entire Senate bill has been stricken out and the 
    House bill inserted as an amendment, so at the completion of the 
    consideration under the 5-minute rule the vote will come on 
    adopting the House bill as an amendment. If that is voted down, 
    then the Senate bill will be before the House for a vote.

        The Speaker: (16) As the Chair understands the 
    parliamentary situation, under the rule the House substitute 
    amendment for the Senate bill will be considered by sections as an 
    original bill, open to germane amendment. At the conclusion of the 
    reading for amendment the question will be put on agreeing to the 
    substitute, or the substitute as amended, for the Senate bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: If that is voted down, as I understand it, the 
    original Senate bill will be before the House.
        The Speaker: If the committee substitute amendment is voted 
    down, that will leave the Senate bill before the Committee of the 
    Whole for consideration.

Sec. 7.44 Where a special order adopted by the House provides that it 
    shall be in order to consider the text of a bill as an amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute for the pending bill and that said 
    amendment shall be considered before perfecting

[[Page 6793]]

    amendments and be considered as an original bill for the purpose of 
    amendment, said amendment is not offered from the floor but is 
    automatically reported by the Clerk; and in the event said 
    amendment is defeated, the original bill is considered for 
    amendment.

    On Sept. 20, 1979,(17) during consideration of H.R. 5229 
(18) n the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to 
several parliamentary inquiries regarding procedure under the special 
rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 125 Cong. Rec. 25526, 25527, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. Temporary Debt Limit Increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (19) Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
    considered as having been read for amendment. The text of H.R. 5310 
    shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of 
    amendment which shall be considered as having been read. No 
    amendments are in order except pro forma amendments, amendments 
    offered by direction of the Committee on Ways and Means or the 
    Committee on Rules, and germane amendments only changing the date 
    certain ``March 31, 1981'' or the numerical figure 
    ``$529,000,000,000'' in section 101(a) and said amendments shall 
    not be subject to amendment except pro forma amendments and germane 
    amendments only changing said date or said figure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
    follows:

                                   H.R. 5310

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled. . . .

            TITLE II--ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT AS PART OF 
                          CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET PROCESS

            Sec. 201. (a) The rules of the House of Representatives are 
        amended by adding at the end thereof the following new rule:

                                  ``Rule XLIX

             ``ESTABLISHMENT OF STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT

            ``1. Upon the adoption by the Congress (under section 301, 
        304, or 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) of any 
        concurrent resolution on the budget setting forth as the 
        appropriate level of the public debt for the period to which 
        such concurrent resolution relates an amount which is different 
        from the amount of the statutory limit on the public debt that 
        would otherwise be in effect for such period, the enrolling 
        clerk of the House of Representatives shall prepare and enroll 
        a joint resolution, in the form prescribed in clause 2, 
        increasing or decreasing the statutory limit on the public debt 
        by an amount equal to the difference between such limit and 
        such appropriate level. . . .

        Mr. [Barber B.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Conable: Mr. Chairman, we are now on a pro forma resolution 
    and not on the Gephardt amendment? Is that correct? We are on pro 
    forma amend

[[Page 6794]]

    ments that were offered; is that correct?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Conable) that under the rule the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute to which the gentleman refers is considered an original 
    bill, and considered as read and so the Gephardt proposal is now 
    before the Committee of the Whole. . . .
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: I have a parliamentary inquiry, 
    Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ullman: Mr. Chairman, it has been my understanding that if 
    the substitute should fail, we would go back, however, to the 
    consideration of the committee bill?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Ullman: But the substitute is before the Committee and is 
    open to amendment at this point?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

Rejection of Motion To Strike Enacting Clause

Sec. 7.45 Rejection by the Committee of the Whole or by the House of a 
    preferential motion to strike the enacting clause permits the 
    offering of proper amendments notwithstanding expiration of all 
    debate time on the bill, but only amendments which have been 
    printed in the Record may be debated for five minutes on each side.

    On July 29, 1983,(20) the proposition described above 
was demonstrated during consideration of H.R. 2957,(1) in 
the Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 129 Cong. Rec. 21675, 21676, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. The International Monetary Fund Authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Chairman: (2) The Clerk will report the 
    preferential motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Lott moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken out. . . .

        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Earlier today, Mr. Chairman, a request was made for unanimous 
    consent to limit debate to 12 o'clock. That was defeated. Later it 
    was put in the form of a motion and that carried, limiting the 
    debate to 12 o'clock today. That, therefore, closed debate past the 
    hour of 12 o'clock.
        Now, a motion to rise is being made by the minority whip. Does 
    that foreclose now the offering of further amendments should that 
    motion to rise carry?
        The Chairman: If the preferential motion to strike the enacting 
    clause carries, further amendments would not be in order. . . .

[[Page 6795]]

        Mr. [Ronald E.] Paul [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, if this motion 
    were to fail, whose amendments will be protected? Only those who 
    have amendments printed in the Record, or anybody who has an 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: Under the rule, if this motion is defeated, any 
    amendment printed in the Record could be offered and debated for 5 
    minutes on each side. Any other germane amendment could also be 
    offered but no debate would be allowed.



 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
           B. WHEN TO OFFER AMENDMENT; READING FOR AMENDMENT
 
Sec. 8. Amendments to Text Passed in the Reading

    Generally, an amendment comes too late when the Clerk has read 
beyond the section to which the amendment applies.(3) Thus, 
during the reading of a bill by sections in Committee of the Whole, it 
is not in order except by unanimous consent to return to a section that 
has been passed.(4) In the application of this principle, a 
question frequently arises as to when a section is, in fact, considered 
passed for amendment; similarly, an issue may arise as to whether 
Members have been afforded sufficient opportunity to offer amendments. 
These and related issues are discussed in ensuing sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 8.1, infra.
 4. See, in addition to those instances discussed in the following 
        sections, 105 Cong. Rec. 11789, 11790, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        June 24, 1959 (proceedings during consideration of H.R. 3 
        [Committee on the 
        Judiciary]).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Generally

Sec. 8.1 An amendment comes too late when the Clerk has read beyond the 
    section to which the amendment applies.

    On Sept. 15, 1965,(5) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 111 Cong. Rec. 23978, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., during consideration of 
        H.R. 9460 (Committee on Education and Labor). See also 108 
        Cong. Rec. 19465, 19470, 19475, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 14, 
        1962, during consideration of S. 2768 (Committee on Foreign 
        Relations), where objection was made to a unanimous-consent 
        request to return to a previous section for the purpose of 
        further amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Barratt] O'Hara of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. O'Hara of Illinois: . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on this amendment. This section has been 
    passed. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Illinois, inasmuch as this section of the bill has 
    been read and considered, that the

[[Page 6796]]

    Chair is constrained to sustain the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John A. Young (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate Begun on Next Title

Sec. 8.2 An amendment is not in order which would change a portion of a 
    bill which has been passed in the reading under the five-minute 
    rule.

    On Oct. 14, 1971,(7) The following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 117 Cong. Rec. 36194, 36211, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 10835 (Committee on Government 
        Operations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (8) Before the Committee rose on 
    yesterday, it had agreed that title II of the bill would be 
    considered as read and open to amendment at any point. There was 
    pending the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    (Mr. Moorhead) and the substitute amendment for the Moorhead 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fuqua).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For what purpose does the gentleman from California rise?
        Mr. [Chester E.] Holifield [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    move to strike out the last word.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
    minutes.
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rousselot: Page 1, strike line 5 
        and all that follow thereafter down through line 2 on page 2 
        and substitute the following: . . .

        Mr. [Frank J.] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I regret to 
    do so, but I do feel that I have to make a point of order against 
    the amendment. . . . We have passed that section of the bill. We 
    are now on section II. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. We have already 
    passed title I, and title II is under debate. The point of order of 
    the gentleman from New York is sustained.

Amending Previously Unamended Portions Passed in Reading

Sec. 8.3 While it may be in order to offer an amendment to the pending 
    portion of a bill which not only changes a provision already 
    amended but also changes an unamended pending portion of the bill, 
    it is not in order merely to amend portions of a bill that have 
    been changed by amendment or to amend unamended portions that have 
    been passed in the reading and are no longer open to amendment.

    On July 12, 1983,(9) it was demonstrated that where, 
pursuant to a special order, amendments en bloc to several titles of a 
bill have

[[Page 6797]]

been agreed to, a further amendment which would (1) amend portions of 
the amendments already agreed to en bloc or (2) amend unamended 
portions of a previous title already passed in the reading is not in 
order, the bill not being open to amendment at any point. The 
proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 129 Cong. Rec. 18771, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Steve] Bartlett [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair wishes to inquire of 
    the gentleman from Texas, is the gentleman from Texas offering 
    these amendments en bloc?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bartlett: These amendments are not offered en bloc, Mr. 
    Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: Could the gentleman from Texas identify which 
    amendment it is?
        Mr. Bartlett: The amendment begins, ``Strike out the item 
    agreed to in the amendment relating to page 50, line 3, of the 
    bill.''
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bartlett: Strike out the item 
        agreed to in the amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez relating to 
        page 50, line 3, of the bill and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following item:
            Page 50, line 3, strike out ``$729,033,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$549,949,000''.
            Strike out the item agreed to in the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Gonzalez relating to page 50, line 8, of the bill. . . .
            Strike out the item agreed to in the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Gonzalez relating to page 106, line 3, of the bill.
            Strike out the item agreed to in the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Gonzalez relating to page 106, line 8, of the bill.

        Strike out the item agreed to in the amendment offered by Mr. 
    Gonzalez relating to page 117, lines 19 through 22, of the bill.
        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        In the first place, this amendment attempts to perfect and 
    change the provisions of the bill that have already been perfected 
    under my amendment by nature of a substitute, the amendment 
    previously approved by the committee. As such I believe the 
    amendment is not in order and I raise a point of order against it.
        In addition, the amendment attempts to amend title II which has 
    already been passed in the reading and, therefore, for those two 
    basic reasons I wish to interject this point of order against the 
    pending amendment. . . .
        Mr. Bartlett: Mr. Chairman, I would comment that my amendment 
    is broader in scope than the Gonzalez amendment as it would strike 
    all of title III and strike section 231 of the bill which relates 
    to the 235 assistance, and my amendment is broader in scope than 
    merely the previously adopted Gonzalez amendment.
        The Chairman: With one exception, and that is the portion of 
    the amendment that begins on page 106 striking title III, these 
    amendments en bloc seek either to amend portions of the Gonzalez 
    amendment already agreed

[[Page 6798]]

    to en bloc or to amend unamended portions of the bill contained in 
    title I and title II which have been passed in the reading.
        Thus since the bill is not open at any point, the amendments en 
    bloc are not in order and the Chair sustains the point of order.
        Are there further amendments to title III?
        If not, the Clerk will designate title IV.

Appropriation Bills

Sec. 8.4 Amendments to a paragraph of an appropriation bill must be 
    offered immediately after the paragraph is read; it is ordinarily 
    too late to offer such amendments if the Clerk has read beyond the 
    paragraph.

    On Feb. 17, 1943,(11) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 89 Cong. Rec. 1050, 78th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 1762, the independent offices appropriation for 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: 
    Page 11, line 3, after the words ``disability fund,'' strike out 
    the balance of page 11 and all of page 12 and lines 1 to 4, 
    inclusive, of page 13.
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. We have passed that 
    paragraph. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair will remind the 
    gentleman that he will have to offer his amendment at the 
    conclusion of the reading of the paragraph that he proposes to 
    strike out. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Orville Zimmerman (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: I make the point of order that 
    the Clerk has not read beyond page 11, line 3.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from New 
    York and to the Committee that the Chair understood that while the 
    Clerk was reading fast he had read line 4 on page 13. However, in 
    order to be fair to the Members who were undertaking to listen, and 
    inasmuch as there was not good order in the Chamber, without 
    objection, the Clerk will again read the title beginning on page 
    11, line 3.

Sec. 8.5 It is too late to offer an amendment in the Committee of the 
    Whole after the paragraph to which it would have been germane has 
    been passed in the reading for amendment.

    On Jan. 31, 1938,(13) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 83 Cong. Rec. 1308, 1309, 75th Cong. 3d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 9181, the D.C. appropriation of 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Alfred N.] Phillips [Jr., of 
    Connecticut]: On page 11, line 13, after the period, insert two new 
    paragraphs, as follows: . . .
        Mr. [Vincent L.] Palmisano [of Maryland]: . . . [W]e have 
    passed that particular section and the amendment comes too late. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: (14) . . . The second ground raised by 
    the gentleman from

[[Page 6799]]

    Maryland, that the amendment comes too late, and the point of order 
    raised by the gentleman from Oklahoma, that the amendment is not 
    germane to the paragraph offered, the Chair will be forced to 
    sustain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unanimous Consent To Offer Amendment

Sec. 8.6 Unanimous consent is required to permit the offering of an 
    amendment to a section of a bill which has been passed in reading 
    under the five-minute rule, and there is no custom or tradition of 
    comity in the House which suggests that Members will always be 
    accorded that permission.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on Jan. 31, 
1984,(15) during consideration of H.R. 2878.(16) 
The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 130 Cong. Rec. 1078, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. The Library Services and Construction Act Amendments of 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George W.] Gekas [of Pennsylvania]: Madam Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment
        Mr. [Paul] Simon [of Illinois]: Madam Chairman, I reserve the 
    right to object to this amendment.
        Mr. Gekas: Madam Chairman, I was going to await the procedure 
    and ask unanimous consent to offer this amendment in that it 
    relates to a section already passed by the Clerk in the reading.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (17) The Clerk will first 
    report the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Marilyn Lloyd (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gekas: Page 5, strike out lines 3 
        through 5 and redesignate the succeeding paragraphs 
        accordingly. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
        Mr. Simon: Madam Chairman, reserving the right to object, with 
    all due respect to my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I do 
    object. This would simply result in prolonged debate, and I think 
    the amendment would clearly be defeated.
        So, Madam Chairman, I do object. . . .
        Mr. Gekas: Madam Chairman, perhaps the gentleman from Illinois 
    can enlighten me on this.
        I have never asked for this kind of consideration before, and I 
    ask the Chair and perhaps the gentleman from Illinois this 
    question: Is this not kind of a departure from the common courtesy 
    that is accorded to other Members when in a procedural matter such 
    a request is made? . . .
        Madam Chairman, the inquiry is whether or not it is a question 
    of comity among the Members to allow referral back to another 
    section by the use of the unanimous-consent request.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that any Member 
    has the right to object to a unanimous-consent request.

[[Page 6800]]

        Mr. Gekas: I understand that, Madam Chairman. What I am asking 
    is whether or not it is in violation of any rules of collegial 
    courtesy to object to that kind of request.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair knows of no such rule.

Unanimous Consent Allowing Specified Amendments to Titles Passed in 
    Reading

Sec. 8.7 Printing amendments in the Record pursuant to Rule XXIII 
    clause 6 only guarantees five minutes of debate to its proponent 
    notwithstanding a time limitation if the amendment is otherwise in 
    order, and a unanimous consent agreement to permit certain 
    designated amendments to be offered to a portion of the bill 
    already passed in the reading for amendment does not permit other 
    amendments printed in the Record to be offered.

    On Jan. 29, 1980,(18) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 4788,(19) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 126 Cong. Rec. 988, 992-4, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. The Water Resources Development Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that titles III and IV be open to amendment at 
    any point.
        The Chairman: (20) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Harsha: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we 
    have passed over title III, and without unanimous consent it is my 
    understanding that the gentleman could not offer any amendment to 
    title III. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Harsha: Further reserving the right to object, could the 
    gentleman explain to me what amendments he proposes to offer to 
    title III?
        Mr. Edgar: I would be glad to. I would hope that we could 
    protect the gentleman from Montana in offering his amendment to the 
    Libby Dam, and then I have three amendments I would like to offer, 
    amendments in title III. . . .
        Mr. Ertel: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I have 
    a parliamentary inquiry. If the amendments are printed in the 
    Record and we go back to title III and allow that time until 4:40, 
    any amendment in the Record would be entitled to an additional 5 
    minutes?
        Mr. Edgar: If the gentleman will yield, I think the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania has indicated that he does not intend, if this 
    unanimous-consent request is accepted, to go back in a dilatory way 
    on title III and offer any other amendments other than the three I 
    have asked unanimous consent for. My unanimous-consent request is 
    that the three amendments which I

[[Page 6801]]

    have offered, plus the one amendment of the gentleman from Montana, 
    plus the unanimous consent to revise and extend in title III, is 
    solely the context of my request, and this gentleman will not go 
    back to title III and offer any of the line-by-line and amendment-
    by-amendment amendments I have in the Record.
        The Chairman: In response to the gentleman's parliamentary 
    inquiry, the unanimous-consent request which was offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Edgar) will protect only those 
    amendments referred to by Mr. Edgar, and will not permit other 
    amendments printed in the Record to title III to be offered.

Effect of Rising of Committee

Sec. 8.8 In the Committee of the Whole, amendments to a section are in 
    order after the section has been read; and the fact that the 
    Committee rises after the section is read does not preclude 
    amendment when the Committee resumes its sitting.

    On June 29, 1965,(1) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 111 Cong. Rec. 15162, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be cited as the ``Housing and Urban Development Act of 
        1965''. . . .

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: We expect to read the first 
    section and then move that the Committee rise. . . .
        Mr. [William B.] Widnall [of New Jersey]: With the reading of 
    this section, does that mean that if we adjourn over until tomorrow 
    at this time there will still be the possibility of amendment of 
    this section?
        The Chairman: (2) Section 101 will be subject to 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Daniel J. Flood (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of Inserting New Title, Section or Paragraph

Sec. 8.9 A title of a bill is considered as having been passed in the 
    reading for amendment if an amendment inserting a new title is 
    agreed to.

    On Mar. 26, 1974,(3) during consideration of title I of 
a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute being read for 
amendment by titles, the Chair indicated in response to parliamentary 
inquiries that further amendment to that title would be precluded if an 
amendment inserting a new title II immediately thereafter were agreed 
to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 120 Cong. Rec. 8262, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 69, to amend and extend the Elementary and Secondary 
        Education Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (4) Are there further amendments to 
    title I? If not, the Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Melvin Price (Ill.).

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

[[Page 6802]]

        Mr. [Marvin L.] Esch [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee substitute.
        The Chairman: Has the amendment been printed in the 
    Congressional Record?
        Mr. Esch: Mr. Chairman, it is an amendment that comes at the 
    conclusion of title I, following the period in title I. So I rose 
    at this particular time to offer it.
        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        . . . In the event this amendment is read, and we begin 
    considering the amendment, would then title I be completed, and 
    there would be no way that anyone can go back to title I and offer 
    an amendment, even though printed in the Record?

        The Chairman: The Chair will answer the inquiry of the 
    gentleman from Minnesota by saying that further amendment to title 
    I would be precluded only if the amendment is agreed to.

Sec. 8.10 The Committee of the Whole having adopted an amendment 
    inserting a new title II in a committee amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute being read for amendment by titles, the Chair 
    indicated that further amendments to title I would be precluded.

    On Mar. 26, 1974,(5) during consideration of H.R. 69 (to 
amend and extend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) the Chair 
responded to a parliamentary inquiry as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 120 Cong. Rec. 8285, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Perkins: Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the vote has been 
    announced on the Esch amendment, I would like to make an inquiry as 
    to whether further amendments to title I are in order or will be in 
    order tomorrow when we take up further consideration of this bill?
        The Chairman: In view of the adoption of the Esch amendment, 
    all further action on title I is precluded.

Sec. 8.11 An amendment adding a new title to a bill having been 
    adopted, an amendment to the title of the bill pending when the 
    amendment was offered comes too late and may be offered only by 
    unanimous consent (the pending title being considered to be passed 
    in the reading for amendment).

    On May 3, 1984,(7) during consideration of H.R. 
4275,(8) in the

[[Page 6803]]

Committee of the Whole, the situation described above occurred as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 130 Cong. Rec. 10955-57, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. The Federal Reclamation Hydroelectric Powerplants Authorization 
        Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk which adds a new title III, and I will offer 
    it now if this is the appropriate time.
        The Chairman: (9) First the Chair will inquire, are 
    there further amendments to title II?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Ronnie G. Flippo (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If not, are there further amendments?
        Mr. Udall: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk adding 
    a new title III, and I offer it at this time.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: Page 27, (Union Calendar 
        No. 368), after line 11, add the following. . . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall).
        The amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. [Duncan L.] Hunter [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hunter: On page 18, immediately 
        before line 1, insert the following new subparagraph. . . .

        Mr. [John S.] McCain [of Arizona] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I have a point of order. . . .
        I believe that that amendment is to title II which we have 
    completed in the regular course of considering legislation. I 
    believe the amendment is out of order at this time. . . .
        Mr. Hunter: . . . It is true that after the amendment before 
    last, I rose. The Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona, rose also 
    and was heard and his amendment went into title III.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent--and I think the Chairman 
    would speak to this issue--I would ask unanimous consent that this 
    amendment be considered. I was on my feet and apparently was 
    overlooked, so I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be made 
    in order.
        The Chairman: An amendment adding a new title having been 
    adopted, the gentleman from California can only offer this 
    amendment by unanimous consent. Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from California?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will complete the reading of the 
    amendment.

Sec. 8.12 A section is considered passed for the purpose of amendment 
    after an amendment in the form of a new section has been adopted 
    following that section.

    On Mar. 10, 1971,(10) the Chairman (11) held 
that where a bill consisting of two sections has been read and 
committee amendments adding two new sections thereafter have been 
agreed to, an

[[Page 6804]]

amendment to the second section of the bill comes too late and is not 
in order. Under consideration was a bill (12) extending 
provisions of laws relating to interest rates and mortgage credit 
controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 117 Cong. Rec. 5856-58, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
11. George W. Andrews (Ala.).
12. H.R. 4246 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 8.13 An amendment to a section comes too late when the section has 
    been read and an amendment adding a new section to follow it has 
    been adopted.

    On Oct. 18, 1967,(13) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 113 Cong. Rec. 29312, 29313, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., during 
        consideration of H.J. Res. 888 (Committee on Appropriations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: . . . Mr. Chairman, this 
    portion of the bill had been read and approved and an amendment was 
    offered by the gentleman from Louisiana, which amendment was a 
    separate section following it. So this is decidedly untimely and 
    out of order and I make the point of order that the amendment is 
    not in order.
        The Chairman: (14) It is the opinion of the Chair 
    that since an amendment adding a new section to the bill was 
    adopted following the section that the gentleman from Virginia 
    seeks to amend now, the gentleman's amendment comes too late and 
    the point of order is well taken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Charles A. Vanik (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, on Apr. 19, 1972, (15) the following 
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 118 Cong. Rec. 13523, 13525, 13526, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 10488 (Committee on Public Works).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth J.] Gray [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gray: On page 29, after line 4, 
        add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 10. Section 6 of the John F. Kennedy Center Act, as 
        amended (72 Stat. 1968), is amended . . . .''

        The Chairman: (16) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gray).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Wayne N. Aspinall (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment applicable to the original section 9 as printed in the 
    bill. . . .
        Mr. Gray: Mr. Chairman, I regretfully rise to make a point of 
    order against the amendment. We have already passed section 9. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair . . . wishes to state that in 
    accordance with the parliamentary procedures the Gray amendment 
    added a new section 10. Because of that, of course, under the 
    procedures, section 9 has been passed and taken care of. 

Sec. 8.14 In reading a bill under the five-minute rule, a section or 
    paragraph is considered as having been passed for amendment when an

[[Page 6805]]

    amendment in the form of a new section or paragraph has been agreed 
    to.

    On Jan. 23, 1942,(17) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 88 Cong. Rec. 606, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 
        6448, the fourth supplemental national defense appropriation 
        bill of 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Tennessee Valley Authority Fund: For an additional amount 
        for the Tennessee Valley Authority fund, fiscal year 1942, for 
        (1) the construction of a hydroelectric project on the French 
        Broad River. . . .
            Amendment offered by Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: 
        Page 4, after line 9, insert:

                             ``Department of State

            ``Transportation, Foreign Service: For an additional amount 
        for Transportation, Foreign Service, fiscal year 1942 . . . 
        $800,000..

        If not, the Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 12 Section 401(e) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 
        (49 U.S.C. 1371(e)) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new paragraph:
            ``(7) Upon application of any air carrier seeking removal 
        or modification of a term, condition, or limitation attached to 
        a certificate issued under this section to engage in 
        interstate, overseas, or foreign air transportation, the Board 
        shall, within sixty days after the filing of such application, 
        set such application for oral evidentiary hearings on the 
        record. . . .

        Mr. [Glenn M.] Anderson of California (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that section 12 be considered as 
    read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from California?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Are there any amendments to section 12?
        Mr. [Allen E.] Ertel [of Penn an amendment offered as a new 
    section precludes amendment to the section pending when the 
    amendment was offered; but if the proposal for a new section is 
    voted down, amendments to such pending section are permitted.

    On June 14, 1944,(19) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 90 Cong. Rec. 5910, 5911, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 4941, extension of the Emergency Price Control and 
        Stabilization Acts of 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. August H. Andresen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent to have permission to offer an amendment.
        The Chairman: (20) Without objection, the gentleman 
    may offer his amendment. Technically the gentleman probably would 
    be entitled to offer an amendment, but when the committee goes on 
    and adopts a new section, then that would cut out other amendments 
    to the section. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George E.] Outland [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    object.
        The Chairman: The Chair holds that technically the gentleman is 
    entitled to offer the amendment. There has

[[Page 6806]]

    not been any new section adopted. If the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Wolcott] had been adopted, that would 
    be a different situation. The Chair holds that the gentleman from 
    Minnesota [Mr. August H. Andresen] is entitled to offer his 
    amendment.

--Point of Order Sustained Against Amendment Adding New Paragraph

Sec. 8.16 A point of order having been sustained against an amendment 
    proposing to insert a new paragraph, it was held in order to 
    perfect the paragraph that had been read before such amendment was 
    offered.

    On June 5, 1942,(1) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 88 Cong. Rec. 4959, 4960, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 7181, the Labor Federal Security Appropriation for 
        1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Par. 2. To provide continuance of part-time employment for 
        needy young persons in colleges and universities to enable such 
        persons to continue their education, $5,000,000.

        Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Keefe: Page 25, after paragraph 
        (2), insert a new paragraph, as follows: . . .

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is not authorized 
    by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) . . . The gentleman's amendment 
    undertakes to make another appropriation which is to be 
    administered under the Chairman of the Manpower Commission. It is 
    the opinion of the Chair that there is no authority in law for the 
    appropriation proposed in the amendment and the Chair is therefore 
    constrained to sustain the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keefe: In view of the holding of the Chair, I ask unanimous 
    consent to submit an amendment increasing the amount for student 
    aid contained in paragraph 2 on page 25 of the bill from $5,000,000 
    to $10,000,000.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Keefe]?
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, why does 
    the gentleman have to have unanimous consent to offer an amendment 
    to paragraph 2? Why may he not offer without the consent of anyone 
    an amendment increasing the amount in paragraph 2 from $5,000,000 
    to $10,000,000?
        Mr. Taber: We have already passed paragraph 2 for amendment.
        Mr. Tarver: Paragraph 2 has just been read and amendments are 
    in order. Nothing in the bill has been read after paragraph 2.
        The Chairman: Amendments may be offered at this time to 
    paragraph 2.
        Mr. Keefe: Mr. Chairman, I offer the amendment in the language 
    referred to, simply changing the amount in paragraph 2, on page 25, 
    from $5,000,000 to $10,000,000.

[[Page 6807]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Keefe) offers 
    an amendment, which the Clerk will report.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Keefe: Page 25, line 12, strike 
        out ``$5,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$10,000,000.''

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order the 
    amendment comes too late. Amendments have already been offered 
    adding additional paragraphs to the bill and under the practice, as 
    I understand it, that precludes amendments to the paragraph.
        The Chairman: The Clerk has concluded the reading of paragraph 
    2 and it was, therefore, subject to amendment. An amendment was 
    offered and ruled out on a point of order.
        The ruling of the Chair is that the section is subject to such 
    further amendments as may be properly offered by Members of the 
    House, and overrules the point of order.

When Amendment in Form of New Section May Be Offered

Sec. 8.17 An amendment in the form of a new section must be offered 
    while the section of the bill which it would follow is pending, and 
    comes too late after the next section of the bill has been read for 
    amendment.

    The procedure to be followed in offering an amendment in the form 
of a new section in the bill is indicated in the proceedings of Sept. 
21, 1978.(3) Under consideration was H.R. 12611, the Air 
Service Improvement Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 124 Cong. Rec. 30673, 30675, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (4) Are there any amendments to 
    section 11?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Benjamin S. Rosenthal (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If not, the Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 12 Section 401(e) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 
        (49 U.S.C. 1371(e)) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new paragraph:
            ``(7) Upon application of any air carrier seeking removal 
        or modification of a term, condition, or limitation attached to 
        a certificate issued under this section to engage in 
        interstate, overseas, or foreign air transportation, the Board 
        shall, within sixty days after the filing of such application, 
        set such application for oral evidentiary hearings on the 
        record. . . .

        Mr. [Glenn M.] Anderson of California (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that section 12 be considered as 
    read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from California?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Are there any amendments to section 12?
        Mr. [Allen E.] Ertel [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ertel: Page 100, before line 4, 
        insert the following new section:

[[Page 6808]]

           determination of consistency with public convenience and 
                                   necessity

            Sec. 12, Section 401(d) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 
        (49 U.S.C. 1371(d)) is further amended by adding at the end 
        thereof the following new paragraph:
            ``(9) Transportation covered by an application for a 
        certificate described in paragraph (1)(A), (2)(A), or (3)(A) of 
        this subsection shall, for the purposes of such paragraphs, be 
        deemed to be consistent with the public convenience and 
        necessity, unless the Board finds based upon clear and 
        convincing evidence that such transportation is inconsistent 
        with the public convenience and necessity.''
            Renumber the succeeding sections of the bill accordingly. . 
        .

        Mr. [Elliott] Levitas [of Georgia]: The amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania is purporting to amend page 96, 
    line 10, by inserting a new section there. According to the reading 
    of the Clerk, the Clerk had already begun to read section 12.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania wish to 
    speak to the point of order?
        Mr. Ertel: Mr. Chairman, I cannot recall whether the Clerk 
    started to read section 12 or not.
        The Chairman: Section 12 had been considered as read by 
    unanimous consent. The Chair is prepared to rule unless the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania wishes to address the matter further.
        Mr. Ertel: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that section 
    12 be treated as not read.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania?
        Mr. [Dale] Milford [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I object. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Clerk had read section 12, and in the opinion of the Chair 
    the amendment adds a new section prior to section 12 and comes too 
    late at this point and the point of order is sustained.

Amendment Affecting Earlier Section

Sec. 8.18 While the Committee of the Whole may not amend a section of a 
    bill already passed during the reading under the five-minute rule, 
    it may adopt an amendment to a later section which has the effect 
    of making more specific limitations on, or regarding, the 
    application of particular terms of the earlier section.

    On Nov. 9, 1967, in the Committee of the Whole, during 
consideration of a bill (5) comprising economic opportunity 
amendments of 1967, a section was considered which represented a 
limitation on the total amount authorized for the bill's purposes, as 
well as limitations on amounts to be made available for carrying out 
the provisions of specified titles of the bill, including title I. The 
section stated in part: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. S. 2388.
 6. 113 Cong. Rec. 31893, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 6809]]

        Sec. 2. For the purpose of carrying out programs under the 
    Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 . . . there is hereby authorized 
    to be appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, the 
    sum of $2,060,000,000, of which . . . the amounts appropriated or 
    made available by appropriation Act shall not exceed $874,000,000 
    for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of title I of such 
    Act, $1,022,000,000 for the purpose of carrying out title II.

    Subsequently, the above section having passed the stage of 
amendment, an amendment was offered to the bill (7) which 
sought to put a limit on the authorization for the Job Corps program, 
one of several programs included within the overall limit applicable to 
expenditures under title I, although no limit had been made 
specifically applicable to the Job Corps program within that title. The 
amendment stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 32253, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 13, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: On 
    page 154, after line 6, insert:

            Sec. 119. Any other provision of this Act to the contrary 
        notwithstanding, sums expended for programs authorized by this 
        part shall not exceed $200,000,000 in the fiscal year ending 
        June 30, 1968.

The following proceedings then took place:

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the gentleman's amendment is untimely. It 
    comes too late and it should have been offered to section 2. . . .
        Mr. Quie: . . . Mr. Chairman, the authorization of section 2 
    provides for the total amount of money for this act. Also, on lines 
    8 and 9 there is the figure for title I of $874,000,000.
        I offer a limitation of money only for part (a) of title I. My 
    amendment would not affect the sum of money on line 8 of page 128, 
    but only would be a further limitation within the $874,000,000 
    authorized for title I. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) . . . It would appear to the Chair 
    that this is a limitation on an entirely different subject and an 
    entirely different matter and, therefore, the amendment is in 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion To Return to Section

Sec. 8.19 In order to return to a section of a bill in the Committee of 
    the Whole in order to offer an amendment, a Member must obtain 
    unanimous consent; a motion to do so is not in order.

    On Aug. 18, 1944,(9) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 190 Cong. Rec. 7122, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 5125, the surplus property bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that we return to section 7 for the purpose of 
    offering an amendment. . . .

[[Page 6810]]

        Mr. [Carter] Manasco [of Alabama]: I object. . . .
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman can return to a 
    former section only with the unanimous consent of the Committee and 
    the Committee has not given it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. R. Ewing Thomason (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Placing Amendment on Clerk's Desk

Sec. 8.20 Members must offer their amendments from the floor at the 
    proper point in the reading of the bill, and the fact that an 
    amendment has been on the desk during such reading does not give 
    recognition.

    On Mar. 11, 1949,(11) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 95 Cong. Rec. 2307, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 1731, to extend certain provisions of the Housing and Rent 
        Act of 1947, as amended.
            See also 95 Cong. Rec. 5505, 5506, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., 
        May 3, 1949; and 95 Cong. Rec. 12258, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Aug. 25, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Isidore] Dollinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I ask for 
    consideration of an amendment which has been up at the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dollinger: On page 26, strike 
        out--

        The Chairman: (12) We have passed section 201. We 
    are now considering section 202. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Albert A. Gore (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dollinger: Mr. Chairman, that amendment has been on the 
    desk, and I had asked for the floor, but the Chair recognized 
    another Member.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman the fact 
    that an amendment has been on the desk gives no parliamentary 
    recognition at all. The gentleman may only offer an amendment when 
    he is recognized to do so.

Seeking Recognition

Sec. 8.21 A point of order that a paragraph has been passed and is 
    therefore not subject to amendment will not lie where a Member was 
    on his feet seeking recognition to offer an amendment and the Clerk 
    had continued to read.

    On Apr. 3, 1957,(13) The following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 103 Cong. Rec. 5034-36, 85th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 6287, making appropriations for the Departments of 
        Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is not in order 
    at this point in the bill, the Clerk having read down to line 2 on 
    page 33. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is ready to rule on 
    that point. The gentleman from North Carolina was on his feet while 
    the Clerk was reading. The Clerk continued to read before the gen

[[Page 6811]]

    tleman had a chance to offer his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman was entitled to recognition.

Inaudible Request for Recognition

Sec. 8.22 A point of order that an amendment to an appropriation bill 
    comes too late does not lie where the Member offering the amendment 
    was standing and seeking recognition at the time the pertinent 
    paragraph was read but the request for recognition was inaudible to 
    the Chair.

    On Oct. 27, 1971,(15) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 117 Cong. Rec. 37763, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11418 (Committee on Appropriations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elford A.] Cederberg [of Michigan]: . . . I believe the 
    amendment comes too late. . . .
        Ms. [Bella S.] Abzug [of New York]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I was 
    standing, and was seeking recognition and the microphone apparently 
    did not work at that point.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair will state that the 
    Chair did not hear the gentlewoman when she made her request at the 
    microphone; but the Chair did observe that the gentlewoman was on 
    her feet and looking at the Chair at that time, when this portion 
    of the bill was read by the Clerk. Therefore the Chair will hold 
    that the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York . . . 
    does not come too late and is in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Brock Adams (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Standing But Not Seeking Recognition

Sec. 8.23s A Member who was on his feet but not seeking recognition 
    when a paragraph of an appropriation bill was read is not entitled 
    to offer an amendment to that paragraph after a subsequent 
    paragraph has been read.

    On Dec. 8, 1971,(17) Member who had been on his feet but 
had not been seeking recognition sought to offer an amendment to a 
portion of the bill that had been passed in the reading. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 117 Cong. Rec. 45481, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 12067 (Committee on Appropriations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment to line 8 on page 2. I was standing at the time it was 
    being read.
        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, the Clerk 
    has read beyond that paragraph. I make a point of order against the 
    amendment on the basis that we have gone beyond that in the 
    reading.
        The Chairman: (18) The Clerk has gone beyond that 
    point in reading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Charles M. Price (Ill.).

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

[[Page 6812]]

Rereading Paragraph

Sec. 8.24 The Chair has on occasion directed the Clerk to reread a 
    paragraph of a bill, where, because of confusion in the Chamber a 
    question has arisen as to how far the Clerk had 
    read.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 8.4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
           B. WHEN TO OFFER AMENDMENT; READING FOR AMENDMENT
 
Sec. 9. Amendments to Text Not Yet Read; En Bloc Amendments

    An amendment which goes beyond the scope of the pending section or 
paragraph and in effect modifies a paragraph or section which has not 
yet been reached in the reading is not in order.(20) Thus, 
it is not in order to strike out a portion of a bill which has not been 
read for amendment.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 9.9, infra.
 1. See Sec. 9.6, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unanimous Consent

Sec. 9.1 An amendment to a portion of a bill not yet read for amendment 
    is in order only by unanimous consent.

    On July 13, 1967,(2) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 113 Cong. Rec. 18662, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 10595 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, is it proper to 
    offer an amendment to a provision of the bill that has not been 
    read?
        The Chairman: (3) Only by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Charles H. Wilson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.2 By unanimous consent, amendments offered to a section of a 
    bill not yet read have been considered in Committee of the Whole.

    On Sept. 19, 1961,(4) the following proceedings took 
place with respect to an amendment offered by Mr. Charles E. Bennett, 
of Florida, to a bill (5) stablishing an arms control 
agency:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 107 Cong. Rec. 20303, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. H.R. 9118 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: . . . I submit that the 
    gentleman is offering one amendment which applies to two sections 
    of the bill, one of which has not yet been read. He should offer 
    the amendment, it seems, to lines 1 and 2 and then another 
    amendment to the rest of the bill when it is read.
        Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I understand that I may do that by 
    unanimous consent, and I ask unanimous consent that these 
    amendments be considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: (6) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Florida?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Clifford David (Tenn.).

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

[[Page 6813]]

        There was no objection.

--Unanimous Consent Applicable to Specific Amendment

Sec. 9.3 A unanimous-consent request to consider an amendment to a 
    section of a bill which has not been read for amendment, where the 
    bill is being read for amendment by sections, does not permit the 
    offering of other amendments to that section of the bill; thus, 
    while perfecting amendments to the text of a bill may ordinarily be 
    offered pending a motion to strike that text, perfecting amendments 
    may not be offered to a section of a bill not yet read for 
    amendment where unanimous consent has been obtained to consider a 
    motion to strike a portion of that section.

    On Oct. 5, 1977,(7) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 8410,(8) the proceedings, described 
above, occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 123 Cong. Rec. 32523, 32524, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. The Labor Reform Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) Are there further amendments to 
    section 7? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments to sections 7 and 8, and I ask unanimous consent that 
    the amendments may be considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Illinois? . . .
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Erlenborn: Page 22, line 14, 
        strike ``(1)''; page 22, line 15, strike ``or'' the second time 
        it occurs, and all that follows through line 5, page 23. . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    wonder if it is possible parliamentarily for the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Quie) to offer an amendment to the bill at this 
    point.
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from New 
    Jersey (Mr. Thompson) that an amendment to or a substitute for the 
    motion to strike would not be in order.
        Mr. Thompson: But an amendment to the bill, rather than a 
    substitute to strike, would be in order, Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from New 
    Jersey that, as the gentleman knows, section 8 is not open for 
    amendment at this time, other than the Erlenborn amendment, and 
    perfecting amendments to that section are not yet in order.

Committee Amendment

Sec. 9.4 An amendment to a committee amendment is not in order until 
    such committee amendment is reached in the bill and read.

[[Page 6814]]

    On June 29, 1949,(10) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 95 Cong. Rec. 8660, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 4009, the Housing Act of 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: The point of order is 
    that the committee amendment which the Sasscer amendment attempts 
    to amend has never been offered or considered.
        The Chairman: (11) The point of order is well taken. 
    The gentleman from Maryland will have to withhold his amendment 
    until the committee amendment has been reached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.5 The Chair indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry 
    that committee amendments printed in a bill may not be considered 
    in Committee of the Whole until the section where they appear has 
    been read for amendment.

    On Mar. 29, 1977,(12) during consideration of H.R. 5045, 
(13) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings, 
described above, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 123 Cong. Rec. 9353, 9355, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. The Reorganization Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) There being no further requests 
    for time, the Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James M. Hanley (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H.R. 5045

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be cited as the ``Reorganization Act of 1977''. . . .

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Chairman, would the Clerk read the two 
    committee amendments and get the committee amendments adopted 
    before we go into other amendments from the floor?
        The Chairman: That portion of the bill has not yet been read.
        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill 
    be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment 
    at any point and that we take up the two committee amendments and 
    then at any point in the bill other amendments would be eligible 
    for presentation.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Texas?
        There was no objection.

Inserting New Section

Sec. 9.6 Where the first section of a bill has, by unanimous consent, 
    been considered as read and open to amendment, an amendment 
    inserting a new section at the end of that section of the bill is 
    in order.

[[Page 6815]]

    On June 26, 1972,(15) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 118 Cong. Rec. 22404, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 15507.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Mario] Biaggi [of New York]: Page 7, 
    insert after line 18 the following:

            Sec. 102. The Secretary of Transportation shall (1) conduct 
        a study. . . .

        Mr. [Earle] Cabell [of Texas]: Was this amendment to section 1, 
    which has been read? Does it apply to that?
        The Chairman: (16) It is an amendment to the first 
    section of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cabell: I believe the gentleman from Iowa himself asked 
    unanimous consent that it be open to amendment to the first 
    section.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, yes, but page 7 goes 
    beyond the first section of the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the unanimous-consent 
    request that was made by the gentleman from Iowa and that was 
    agreed to was to dispense with further reading of the first section 
    of the bill, which ends on page 7, line 18, and the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York is to the first section of 
    the bill and is therefore in order.

Striking Sections Not Yet Read

Sec. 9.7 To a bill being read for amendment by sections, an amendment 
    proposing to strike out a title consisting of several sections is 
    not in order following the reading of the first section.

    On July 25, 1973,(17) the following proceedings took 
place during consideration of a bill (18) relating to 
limitations on federal expenditures for fiscal 1974:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 119 Cong. Rec. 25829, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. As to the effect of a 
        unanimous consent request to strike portions of the bill not 
        yet read, see Sec. 9.3, supra.
18. H.R. 8480 (Committee on Rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Reuss: Strike out title II 
        (beginning on line 11, page 11, and ending on line 10, page 
        14). . . .

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment in that the amendment is 
    offered to strike the title. The title has not been read, and 
    therefore the amendment is not in order. . . .
        The Chairman: (19) A point of order has been raised 
    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Reuss) seeks to strike matter beyond the portion of the bill which 
    the Clerk has read, and there would be no way of striking anything 
    except what the Clerk has read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Dante B. Fascell (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is constrained to sustain the point of order.

Sec. 9.8 When a bill is being read for amendment in the Com

[[Page 6816]]

    mittee of the Whole by sections, an amendment to strike out both a 
    section that has been read and a section that has not been read is 
    not in order.

    On May 13, 1958,(20) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 104 Cong. Rec. 8621, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 12181, to amend further the Mutual Security Act of 1954, 
        etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Roy W.] Wier [of Minnesota]: Strike 
    out of the bill chapter I, line 1, page 2, the following: section 
    101 and section 102 on line 10. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: The gentleman's 
    amendment carries on to line 19 on page 2. . . . I make the point 
    of order that the section has not been read yet.
        The Chairman:(21) of course, the point of order is 
    well taken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Not Properly Drafted as Amendment in Nature of Substitute .

Sec. 9.9 Where only the first title of a bill had been read for 
    amendment, an amendment proposing to strike out portions of the 
    bill not yet read, and not properly drafted as an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute for the bill, was ruled out of order.

    On June 2, 1976,(22) during consideration of a bill 
(1) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair ruled on a 
point of order, described above, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 122 Cong. Rec. 16200, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. H.R. 13680, to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania] (during the reading): 
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that title I be considered as 
    read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point. . 
    . .
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Clifford R.] Allen [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Allen: That all language following 
        line 8, on page 1, shall be stricken with the exception of the 
        following, which shall be renumbered accordingly:
            Beginning with line 9, page 71, and continuing through line 
        2, page 72. . . .

        Mr. Morgan: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Morgan: Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes beyond the title. 
    The amendment amends sections of the bill that have not been read 
    yet and are not open for amendment. . . .
        Mr. Allen: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment admittedly is in 
    the form of a substitute for the bill now under consideration.

[[Page 6817]]

        It would, indeed, change the whole purport and thrust of the 
    bill from beginning to end. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, if this is not the proper time to offer a 
    substitute, I will offer it at a later time if the Chair so rules.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair informs the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Allen) that 
    because his amendment goes beyond title I, it is not in order at 
    this time.
        Therefore, the point of order of the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Morgan) is sustained.

--Repeating Paragraphs Without Change

Sec. 9.10 It is not in order, during the stage of amendment, to seek to 
    amend a paragraph not yet reached in the reading by offering a 
    substitute for several paragraphs which repeats without change a 
    number of intervening paragraphs of the bill and defers substantive 
    change to a portion of the bill not yet read.

    On July 29, 1969,(3) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 115 Cong. Rec. 21217, 21218, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 13111 (Committee on Appropriations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: On 
    page 25 strike out line 9 and all that follows on page 25 and 
    insert in lieu thereof the following: . . .
        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that the 
    paragraph which it amends has not yet been read. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, when the amendment was offered, the Clerk had 
    finished reading the paragraph which begins on line 9, page 25, and 
    concludes on line 24, page 25. . . . But the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Illinois does not change so much as a comma in that 
    paragraph; it repeats it absolutely verbatim. It is not an 
    amendment to that paragraph. It is only in subsequent paragraphs 
    that any amendment is made.
        As a matter of fact, it goes on through another paragraph 
    without any change whatsoever before it makes an amendment. The 
    amendment does not come until the paragraph beginning on line 9 of 
    page 26.
        I would make the point of order, Mr. Chairman, that the 
    gentleman from Illinois will have to wait until that paragraph is 
    read before he can offer an amendment to it. . . .
        If the Chair is going to hold that one can offer an amendment 
    at any place one wants in the bill in order to get a provision that 
    comes a page later, or two pages later, or 10 pages later--and that 
    is what he has done; he has offered an amendment here that changes 
    nothing but gets at something on the next page--and if we are going 
    to say that the precedents of this House say one can offer an 
    amendment any place and repeat some language until it gets to the 
    thing he wants to amend, we are heading for legislative chaos, Mr. 
    Chairman. . . .

[[Page 6818]]

        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    Chair is presented with a most difficult ruling at this time. He 
    has resorted to a precedent in ``Hinds' Precedents,'' volume V, 
    page 404, paragraph 5795, which reads as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            When it is proposed to offer a single substitute for 
        several paragraphs of a bill which is being considered by 
        paragraphs, the substitute may be moved to the first paragraph 
        with notice that if it be agreed to, motions will be made to 
        strike out the remaining paragraphs.

        The Chair notes that the gentleman from Illinois did not give 
    such notice. The amendment goes beyond the paragraph which has been 
    read and in effect modifies a paragraph which has not yet been 
    read.
        The Chairman, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Failure To Make Point of Order

Sec. 9.11 An amendment to a paragraph of an appropriation bill not yet 
    read by the Clerk is subject to a point of order, but if no point 
    of order is made, the amendment may be considered.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.  See 9.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.12 Although no point of order is made against an amendment 
    offered to a paragraph not yet read by the Clerk, further 
    amendments to the paragraph that has been read are not precluded.

    On Apr. 3, 1957,(6) during consideration of H.R. 6287, 
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health, Education, 
and Welfare, Mr. F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, offered an amendment 
which related, in part, to portions of the bill that had been read, 
and, in part, to portions not yet read. The language of the bill and 
proposed amendment were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 103 Cong. Rec. 5018, 5019, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Grants for hospital construction: For payments under parts 
        C and G, title VI, of the act, as amended, $121,200,000, of 
        which $99,000,000 shall be for payments for hospitals and 
        related facilities pursuant to part C, $1,200,000 shall be for 
        the purposes authorized in section 636 of the act, and 
        $21,000,000 shall be for payments for facilities pursuant to 
        part G, as follows: $6,500,000 for diagnostic or treatment 
        centers, $6,500,000 for hospitals for the chronically ill and 
        impaired, $4,000,000 for rehabilitation facilities, and 
        $4,000,000 for nursing homes: Provided, That allotments under 
        such parts C and G to the several States for the current fiscal 
        year shall be made on the basis of amounts equal to the 
        limitations specified herein.

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

[[Page 6819]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hebert: Page 25, line 6, after 
        ``as amended'', strike out ``$121,200,000'' and insert 
        ``$100,000,000''; line 7, after ``which'', strike out 
        '$99,000,000' and insert ``$77,800,000''; line 20, after the 
        words ``as amended'', strike out ``$1,450,000'' and substitute 
        ``$1,381,000.''

        Mr. Hebert: Mr. Chairman, in view of the remarks that have been 
    made on the floor during the last 7 days of debate and the 
    arguments advanced against the cutting of these sums and amounts, I 
    am now able to offer an amendment which meets the objections of 
    both sides and I am sure can well be supported because it does not 
    destroy any program; it does not reduce any salaries; it does not 
    reduce or increase any personnel. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas M.] Pelly [of Washington]: I did not understand 
    that the Clerk had read beyond line 17. May I inquire if this 
    amendment includes the figure on line 20?
        The Chairman: (7) The amendment that the gentleman 
    from Louisiana offered was addressed to the language beginning on 
    line 5 but does touch on a sum included in the next paragraph 
    beginning on line 18. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.  Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: It was my 
    understanding that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Louisiana went down to and included the language at the end of line 
    20 on page 25.
        The Chairman: The amendment does go down that far, but the 
    Clerk has not read those last three lines.
        Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that 
    further amendments cannot be offered to the language before line 20 
    on page 25, because the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Louisiana (Mr. Hebert) takes in 3 places in the bill and goes down 
    to and including the paragraph ``Salaries and expenses'' where his 
    amendment offers to cut the amount in line 20.
        The Chairman: The statement the gentleman makes is correct, but 
    the fact remains no point of order was made when the amendment was 
    read. . . .
        Mr. Pelly: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, if no 
    objection were made, would that preclude the consideration of my 
    amendment which begins on line 17, following the action on the 
    amendment of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hebert]?
        The Chairman: No.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The above proceedings, in which it was 
indicated in the circumstances that adoption of amendments to text not 
yet read would not preclude further amendments to the text that had 
been read, should be distinguished from those in which adoption of an 
amendment inserting a new section to follow the pending section would 
preclude further amendment to the pending section.

En Bloc Amendments

Sec. 9.13 Amendments to the pending title of a bill and to a subsequent 
    title may be offered en bloc only by unanimous consent.

[[Page 6820]]

    On Aug. 17, 1972,(8) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 118 Cong. Rec. 28886, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 13915 (Committee on Education and Labor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment. . . .
        [The Clerk read the amendment.]
        Mr. Fascell: Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment on the same 
    subject. . . . I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be 
    considered en bloc. . . .
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: . . . Does not the 
    rule require that the bill be read for amendment by title?
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair would advise the 
    gentleman that he is correct. However, a unanimous-consent request 
    to consider en bloc at this time an amendment in this title and an 
    amendment in a subsequent title is appropriate if there is no 
    objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Morris K. Udall (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Chairman, I object.

Sec. 9.14 Amendments affecting portions of a bill which have not yet 
    been read may be considered (en bloc) by unanimous consent only.

    On Aug. 7, 1978,(10) during consideration of H.R. 13635 
(the Defense Department appropriations) a unanimous-consent request was 
agreed to as set out below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 124 Cong. Rec. 24686, 24689, 24690, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to make a parliamentary inquiry. In the event the amendments 
    offered by the gentleman from Alabama, which probably go to . . . 
    more than one title, if they were adopted, would that preclude 
    thereafter a general 2-percent across-the-board amendment to the 
    same title?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The amendments of the gentleman from 
    Alabama go to at least four titles of the bill, and to the extent 
    that they change figures by amendment, they are not subject to 
    further amendment if adopted.
        Mr. Volkmer: Would a general 2-percent across-the-board cut, 
    which does not actually change the figure, be in order?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: That would still be in order.
        Mr. Volkmer: As far as my amendments to the bill, if the 
    gentleman from Alabama wishes to reoffer his amendments en bloc for 
    the rest of them, I would not object. . . .
        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that 
    the amendments be considered en bloc.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Alabama?

[[Page 6821]]

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

            Amendments offered by Mr. Dickinson: And on page 2, line 
        19, strike ``$6,456,450,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$6,448,150,000'';
            On page 3, line 3, strike ``$2,015,900,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$2,015,200,000'';
            On page 6, line 4, strike ``$9,097,422,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$9,115,422,000'';
            On page 6, line 15, strike ``$11,705,155,000'' and insert 
        in lieu thereof ``$11,691,755,000'';
            On page 14, line 24, strike ``$916,708,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$917,400,000''; and
            On page 56, beginning on line 1 and ending on line 4, 
        strike section 856 in its entirety and renumber all subsequent 
        sections accordingly.

        The Chairman Pro Tempore [Mr. (Richard A.) Gephardt (of 
    Missouri)]: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Alabama (Mr. Dickinson) to consider the amendments en bloc?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 9.15 To a bill being read for amendment by title, an amendment to 
    the pending title and to a subsequent title may be offered en bloc 
    only by unanimous consent.

    On Oct. 1, 1985,(11) during consideration of H.R. 2100 
(12) in the Committee of the Whole, the situation described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 131 Cong. Rec. 25418-20, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. The Food Security Act of 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (13) When the Committee of the Whole 
    rose on Thursday, September 26, title IV was open to amendment at 
    any point to amendments printed in the Congressional Record before 
    September 24, 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there amendments to title IV? . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Glickman: Title IV of H.R. 2100 is 
        amended by--
            On page 65, after line 8, striking all through ``shall'' on 
        line 11 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
            ``(2) If the Secretary determines that the availability of 
        nonrecourse loans and purchases will not have an adverse effect 
        on the program provided for in paragraph (3), the Secretary 
        may''; . . .
            Title V of H.R. 2100 is amended by--
            On page 87, after line 15, striking all through ``shall'' 
        on line 18 and inserting in lieu thereof the following: . . .

        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I believe 
    a point of order would lie against the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Glickman) because the amendment, if I 
    understand the amendment that is being offered, goes to more than 
    one title of the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Dan] Glickman [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    amends two titles of the bill. To be frank with the Chair, it was 
    submitted as one amendment, but the intention

[[Page 6822]]

    of the author of this amendment as well as the other authors was to 
    deal with the issues as they affected title IV and then title V. I 
    put it in one title of the bill, but, to be honest with the Chair, 
    the issues are divisible, they are separate. I could have amended 
    it and put it in two separate amendments. I did not because that is 
    not the way the issue came up in the Committee on Agriculture. . . 
    .
        Mr. Robert F. Smith [of Oregon]: . . . Mr. Chairman, rule III 
    of the rules provides that consideration can only be by title, not 
    by section. I think the point remains that there is no question 
    that this amendment does affect two titles. . . .
        Mr. [Arlan] Stangeland [of Minnesota]: . . . I just want to 
    make the point that the amendment was printed in two distinctly 
    separate sections. One portion of the amendment dealt with wheat 
    and target prices and marketing loans. The second section of the 
    amendment deals with title V, the feed grain section. Two 
    distinctly different amendments but introduced in the Record as, 
    unfortunately, one amendment. . . . I would just appeal to the 
    Chair that the intent of the authors was that because they were 
    handled en bloc in committee, we would run that way, but they are 
    divisible, they can be addressed to title IV and title V very 
    distinctly in the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair would state that the Chair can only look at the form 
    in which the amendment has been submitted for printing on the 
    Record. According to the rule, the substitute shall be considered 
    for amendment by title instead of by sections, and only amendments 
    to the bill which have been printed in the Record by September 24 
    may be offered.
        Therefore, the only way in which the amendment that the 
    gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Glickman) wishes to offer could be 
    considered is by unanimous consent.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 9.16 To a bill being read for amendment by sections, amendments to 
    more than one section may be considered en bloc by unanimous 
    consent only.

    On Oct. 5, 1977,(14) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 8410,(15) the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry concerning the procedure for offering amendments 
to two sections of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 123 Cong. Rec. 32523, 32524, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. The Labor Reform Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) Are there further amendments to 
    section 7? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    amendments that amend both sections 7 and 8. The amendment to 
    section 7 is technical and conforming in nature. The substance of 
    the amendments is to section 8.
        I would ask the Chairman if I might offer my amendments now, or 
    should I wait until section 8 has been read?

[[Page 6823]]

        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Erlenborn) that if the gentleman desires to offer his 
    amendments as one amendment, he will have to obtain unanimous 
    consent to do so, either now or when section 8 is read.

--Amendments Relating to Same Subject Matter Considered En Bloc

Sec. 9.17 Amendments to several portions of a title of a bill being 
    read by titles may be offered as one amendment where they relate to 
    the same subject matter, and unanimous consent is not required for 
    their consideration en bloc.

    On Oct. 5, 1978,(17) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 13471, the above-stated proposition was 
illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 124 Cong. Rec. 33799, 33810, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (18) When the Committee rose on 
    Tuesday, October 3, 1978, all time for general debate on this bill 
    had expired. Pursuant to the rule, the bill will be considered by 
    titles, and each title shall be considered as having been read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Mike McCormack (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Title I is as follows:

                                   H.R. 13471

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be cited as the ``Financial Institutions Regulatory Act 
        of 1978''. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas N.] Kindness [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Kindness: Page 3, line 12, insert 
        ``(1)'' after ``(d)'', and on page 4, immediately after line 4, 
        insert the following:
            ``(2) The United States shall pay to any member bank or 
        person who prevails in an appeal pursuant to this section a 
        reasonable attorney's fee and other reasonable litigation 
        costs, which shall be assessed by the court in the manner 
        provided by law for the assessment of costs. . . .
            Page 5, line 25, insert ``(A)'' after ``(4)'', and on page 
        6, immediately after line 14 insert the following:
            ``(B) The United States shall pay to any member bank or 
        person who prevails in an appeal pursuant to this section a 
        reasonable attorney's fee. . . .
            Page 8, line 10, insert ``(A)'' after ``(4)'', and 
        immediately after line 24, insert the following:
            ``(B) The United States shall pay to any association or 
        person who prevails in an appeal pursuant to this section a 
        reasonable attorney's fee. . . .
            Page 20, line 17, after the period insert the following: 
        ``The United States shall pay to any company or person who 
        prevails in an appeal under section 9 a reasonable attorney's 
        fee. . . .

        Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, I would make the request, if it is 
    necessary, that the amendment be considered en bloc, because it is 
    a series of identical or practically identical amendments.

[[Page 6824]]

        The Chairman: It will be considered as one amendment.

--Perfecting Amendment and Amendment Inserting New Section

Sec. 9.18 Motions to strike out and insert provisions on diverse pages 
    and lines of a bill and to insert a new section constitute separate 
    amendments which can be offered en bloc only by unanimous consent.

    On Apr. 20, 1972,(19) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 118 Cong. Rec. 13641, 13642, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 14070 (Committee on Science and Astronautics).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Les] Aspin [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments and ask unanimous consent that they be considered as 
    read. . . .
        The amendments offered by Mr. Aspin are as follows:

            Page 1, line 8, strike out ``$1,094,200,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$894,000''. . . .
            Page 11, insert the following new section after line 25 
        (and redesignate the succeeding section accordingly):
            ``Sec. 7. . . .''

        Mr. [Olin E.] Teague of Texas: Do I understand the gentleman 
    has two amendments?
        Mr. Aspin: No; they are both one amendment.
        Mr. Teague of Texas: Is it not the intention of the gentleman 
    to ask unanimous consent to have the two amendments considered 
    together?
        Mr. Aspin: I did not make such a request, but I intend for them 
    to be put together. They are on two pieces of paper, but they are 
    supposed to be one amendment.
        Mr. Teague of Texas: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has one 
    amendment and we intend to make a point of order against one of 
    them.
        Is it not the proper procedure to have the two put together and 
    be considered together?
        The Chairman: (20) the Chair has examined the 
    amendments and determines that this is indeed more than one 
    amendment and, without unanimous consent, could not be joined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Sections Open for Amendment if Amendments Rejected

Sec. 9.19 Where there was pending a unanimous-consent request that 
    several amendments to sections of the bill which had not been read 
    be considered en bloc, the Chair indicated that those sections 
    would be open for amendment as they were read if the pending 
    amendments were rejected.

    On Aug. 3, 1971,(1) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.  117 Cong. Rec. 29094, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 9910 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amend

[[Page 6825]]

    ments; and I ask unanimous consent that this series of amendments 
    may be considered en bloc. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Do I correctly 
    understand that the gentleman is requesting unanimous consent to 
    have these amendments considered en bloc, and that they refer to 
    various sections in the bill, beginning with the development loan 
    section and continuing at various points to the East Pakistan 
    refugee section?
        Mr. Dellums: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: . . . If this 
    amendment is voted down can there be further amendments then 
    offered to the money provisions of the various sections of the 
    bill?
        The Chairman: (2) If this amendment is rejected, 
    when those particular sections are open to amendment there could be 
    other amendments offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Special Rule Providing for Disposition of En Bloc Amendments Prior to 
    Floor Amendment.

Sec. 9.20 Pursuant to a special rule making in order the offering of a 
    designated amendment to a part of a bill only after the disposition 
    of three groups of committee amendments to that part, the Chair 
    indicated the third group of amendments en bloc must be disposed of 
    prior to the offering of a floor amendment to that part.

    On Aug. 3, 1977,(3) during consideration of H.R. 8444 
(the National Energy Act), the Chair responded to a parliamentary 
inquiry as indicated above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 123 Cong. Rec. 26447, 26448, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (4) . . . The Clerk will designate the 
    next ad hoc committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 193, line 11, after ``the cost of'' insert 
        ``compression,''. . . .

        The question is on the ad hoc committee amendment.
        The ad hoc committee amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Is the amendment that was made in order by the rule in order 
    now?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman from 
    Ohio that there are other ad hoc amendments.
        The Clerk will designate the next ad hoc committee amendments, 
    which under the rule are considered as read and considered en bloc.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 209, lines 3 and 4, on page 209, lines 12 through page 
        210, line 6, on page 210, line 7, on page 210, lines 16 through 
        18, on page 211, line 6, on page 211, lines 23 through 25, on 
        page 212, lines 4 through 6,

[[Page 6826]]

        and on page 212, lines 16 through 18. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (5) The question is on ad 
    hoc committee amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The ad hoc committee amendments were agreed to.

--Amendments Made in Order by Special Rule Not Offered From Floor

Sec. 9.21 Where a bill is being considered under a special rule 
    providing for consideration en bloc of certain committee amendments 
    printed in the bill, the Chair directs the Clerk to report the 
    amendments en bloc and they need not be offered from the floor.

    On July 8, 1975,(6) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 49, pursuant to a special rule, the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 121 Cong. Rec. 21630, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (7) Under the rule, it shall now be in 
    order to consider en bloc the amendments recommended by the 
    Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendments:
            Page 3, between lines 19 and 20 insert the following: 
        ``TITLE I''.
            Page 3, line 20, strike out ``That in'' and insert ``Sec. 
        101. In''. . . .

        Mr. [F. Edward] Hebert [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I will not 
    offer the amendments of the Armed Services Committee as described 
    in the rule.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from 
    Louisiana that under the rule the amendments are offered and 
    presented en bloc. They have been presented.

--Further Amendment After En Bloc Amendments Agreed To

Sec. 9.22 Where, pursuant to a special order, amendments en bloc to 
    several titles of a bill have been agreed to, a further amendment 
    which would (1) amend portions of the amendments already agreed to 
    en bloc or (2) amend unamended portions of a previous title already 
    passed in the reading is not in order, the bill not being open to 
    amendment at any point.

    On July 12, 1983,(8) it was illustrated that, while it 
may be in order to offer an amendment to the pending portion of a bill 
which not only changes a provision already amended but also changes an 
unamended pending portion of the bill, it is not in order merely

[[Page 6827]]

to amend portions of a bill that have been changed by amendment or to 
amend unamended portions that have been passed in the reading and are 
no longer open to amendment. The proceedings in the Committee of the 
Whole, acting pursuant to a special order, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 129 Cong. Rec. 18771, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Steve] Bartlett [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair wishes to inquire of the 
    gentleman from Texas, is the gentleman from Texas offering these 
    amendments en bloc?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bartlett: These amendments are not offered en bloc, Mr. 
    Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: Could the gentleman from Texas identify which 
    amendment it is?
        Mr. Bartlett: The amendment begins, ``Strike out the item 
    agreed to in the amendment relating to page 50, line 3, of the 
    bill.''
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bartlett: Strike out the item 
        agreed to in the amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez relating to 
        page 50, line 3, of the bill and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following item:
            Page 50, line 3, strike out ``$729,033,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$549,949,000''.

        Strike out the item agreed to in the amendment offered by Mr. 
    Gonzalez relating to page 50, line 8, of the bill. . . . Strike out 
    the item agreed to in the amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez 
    relating to page 106, line 3, of the bill. Strike out the item 
    agreed to in the amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez relating to page 
    106, line 8, of the bill. Strike out the item agreed to in the 
    amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez relating to page 117, lines 19 
    through 22, of the bill.
        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        In the first place, this amendment attempts to perfect and 
    change the provisions of the bill that have already been perfected 
    under my amendment by nature of a substitute, the amendment 
    previously approved by the committee. As such I believe the 
    amendment is not in order and I raise a point of order against it.
        In addition, the amendment attempts to amend title II which has 
    already been passed in the reading and, therefore, for those two 
    basic reasons I wish to interject this point of order against the 
    pending amendment. . . .
        Mr. Bartlett: Mr. Chairman, I would comment that my amendment 
    is broader in scope than the Gonzalez amendment as it would strike 
    all of title III and strike section 231 of the bill which relates 
    to the 235 assistance, and my amendment is broader in scope than 
    merely the previously adopted Gonzalez amendment.
        The Chairman: With one exception, and that is the portion of 
    the amendment that begins on page 106 striking title III, these 
    amendments en bloc seek either to amend portions of the Gonzalez 
    amendment already agreed to en bloc or to amend unamended portions 
    of the bill contained in title I and

[[Page 6828]]

    title II which have been passed in the reading.
        Thus since the bill is not open at any point, the amendments en 
    bloc are not in order and the Chair sustains the point of order.
        Are there further amendments to title III?
        If not, the Clerk will designate title IV.


 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
           B. WHEN TO OFFER AMENDMENT; READING FOR AMENDMENT
 
Sec. 10. Amendments to Bills Being Read by Title

Committee Amendments Considered First

Sec. 10.1 Where a bill is read for amendment by titles, committee 
    amendments to a pending title are first considered before the Chair 
    recognizes Members to offer additional amendments.

    On Nov. 11, 1971,(10) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration a bill (H.R. 11341) reported from the Committee on 
the District of Columbia:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 117 Cong. Rec. 40593, 40594, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) the Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   TITLE VII

                               general provisions

            Sec. 701. (a) The Commissioner of the District of Columbia 
        is authorized and empowered, in his discretion, for the best 
        interests of the District of Columbia, to sell and convey, in 
        whole or in part, to the highest bidder, at public or private 
        sale, for not less than the fair market value thereof, certain 
        real estate now owned in fee simple by the United States of 
        America. . . .

        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the first committee 
    amendment to this title.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment. On page 10, line 14, strike out ``3-
        216'' and insert in lieu thereof ``3-215''.

        Mr. [Lawrence J.] Hogan [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at page 8.
        The Chairman: The Chair would ask the gentleman whether it is 
    an amendment to the committee amendment or to the section.
        Mr. Hogan: It is to section 7, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: If the gentleman will allow the Chair to dispose 
    of all the committee amendments to the section, then the 
    gentleman's amendment will be in order at that time.

Amendment Offered to Title Not Yet Read

Sec. 10.2 When a bill is being read by titles, an amendment to a title 
    that has not been read is not in order.

    On Aug. 9, 1966,(12) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 112 Cong. Rec. 18728, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 14765 (Committee on the Judiciary).

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

[[Page 6829]]

        The Chairman: (13) As the Chair understands the 
    reading of the amendment, this is, in fact, an amendment to title 
    VIII, to add a new section, line 3, to title VIII?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles McC.] Mathias [Jr., of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, 
    this is a substitute for title VIII and renumbers the existing 
    title VIII. Page 2 of the amendment says to renumber the following 
    section accordingly.
        The Chairman: The Chair believes that it should be offered 
    after title VIII has been read.

Amendment to Title Passed in Reading

Sec. 10.3 Where a bill is being read by titles, an amendment may not be 
    offered to a title that has been passed by the Clerk's reading of 
    the following one.

    On Feb. 6, 1964,(14) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 110 Cong. Rec. 2290, 2291, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 7152 (Committee on the Judiciary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 55, line 12:

                      Title V--Commission on Civil Rights

            ``Sec. 501. Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act ----.''

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, there is a 
    committee amendment at the desk to title IV.
        The Chairman: (15) No one offered the amendment. 
    Without objection. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right 
    to object, to what title of the bill does the amendment go?
        The Chairman: Title IV. . . .
        Objection is heard.
        The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                      Title V--Commission on Civil Rights

            Sec. 501. Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (42 
        U.S.C. 1975a; 71 Stat. 634) is amended to read as follows: . . 
        .

    Parliamentarian's Note: In reading a bill for amendment under the 
five-minute rule by title, pursuant to the resolution making the bill 
in order, a title is not passed until the reading of the next title has 
begun.

Sec. 10.4 Where a bill is being read by titles, return to a previous 
    title for purposes of offering an amendment is by unanimous 
    consent.

    For an example of the application of this principle, see the 
proceedings of Feb. 6, 1964, discussed in Sec. 10.3, supra.

Sections Preceding First Title

Sec. 10.5 Where a bill, pursuant to a special order, is being read

[[Page 6830]]

    by titles for amendment and a section (the short title) precedes 
    title I, the section is considered as the first title for purpose 
    of amendment, and amendments to title I are not in order until 
    title I has actually been read.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on May 8, 
1980,(16) during consideration of S. 1309, the Food Stamp 
Amendments of 1980. The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 126 Cong. Rec. 10421, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (17) When the Committee of the Whole 
    rose on Wednesday, May 7, section 1 had been considered as having 
    been read and open to amendment at any point. It shall be in order 
    to consider an amendment to title I of said substitute printed in 
    the Congressional Record on April 30, 1980, and said amendment 
    shall not be subject to amendment except for the offering of pro 
    forma amendments for the purpose of debate. No further amendments 
    are in order which further change or affect the Internal Revenue 
    Code. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there any amendments to section 1?
        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Idaho has an amendment to 
    section 1. This is the short title of the bill.
        Mr. Symms: It is on page 24, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair doubts that that is an amendment to 
    section 1. The amendment of the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Symms) is 
    not to section 1, but to title I.
        The Clerk will read title I.

Sec. 10.6 Where a bill being read by title pursuant to a special rule 
    contains several sections preceding the first title, those sections 
    are read separately for amendment in the absence of unanimous 
    consent that they be read en bloc.

    On Oct. 9, 1975,(18) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill (19) pursuant to a special rule 
as described above, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 32575, 32576, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. H.R. 200, Marine Fisheries Conservation Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20). . . Pursuant to the rule, the 
    Clerk will now read by title the substitute committee amendment 
    printed in the reported bill as an original bill, for the purpose 
    of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                    H.R. 200

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled,

[[Page 6831]]

        Section 1. Short Title.

            This Act may be cited as the ``Marine Fisheries 
        Conservation Act of 1975''.
        Sec. 2. Congressional Findings, Policy, and Purposes.

            (a) Findings.--The Congress finds and declares the 
        following:
            (1) Coastal species of fish which inhabit the waters 
        adjacent to the United States . . . constitute an irreplaceable 
        resource which contribute to the food supply and economy of the 
        Nation as well as to the health and recreation of its people. . 
        . .

        Mr. [Leonor K.] Sullivan [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read by title, 
    printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, I merely want to understand what is meant here. 
    Title I seems to start on page 16.
        The Chairman: As I understand the request, it was as to the 
    first three sections preceding title I.
        Mr. Eckhardt: That they would be read by section?
        The Chairman: The gentlewoman is asking unanimous consent that 
    they be considered as read.
        Mr. Eckhardt: That they be considered as read and then read by 
    title?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentlewoman from Missouri?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 10.7 Where a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    being read for amendment by titles instead of sections, and title I 
    of that substitute is preceded by several sections, the Clerk reads 
    those sections separately for amendment before title I is read.

    On Aug. 17, 1972, (21) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 118 Cong. Rec. 28870, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 13915 (Committee on Education and Labor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (22) Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk 
    will now read by titles instead of by sections the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill as an 
    original bill for the purpose of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Morris K. Udall (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: Be it enacted by the Senate and 
    House of Representatives of the United States of America in 
    Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the ``Equal 
    Educational Opportunities Act of 1972''.

                               Policy and Purpose

            Sec. 2. (a) The Congress declares it to be the policy of 
        the United States that--
            (1) all children enrolled in public schools are entitled to 
        equal educational opportunity.

    A similar principle was applied in the proceedings of Aug. 2, 
1977.(23) On that date, where a

[[Page 6832]]

bill (1) was, pursuant to a special order, being considered 
for amendment by ``parts'', and several sections preceded part I, each 
of those sections was considered as a separate part for the purpose of 
the special order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. 123 Cong. Rec. 26124, 26125, 95th Cong 1st Sess.
 1. H.R. 8444, National Energy Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [T]he House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
    the bill H.R. 8444, with Mr. Boland in the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Chairman: (2) When the Committee rose on Monday, 
    August 1, 1977, all time for general debate had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered by parts and each 
    part is considered as having been read for amendment. No amendment 
    shall be in order except pro forma amendments and amendments made 
    in order pursuant to House Resolution 727, which will not be 
    subject to amendment, except amendments recommended by the ad hoc 
    Committee on Energy and amendments made in order under House 
    Resolution 727. . . .
        The Clerk will designate the part of the bill now pending for 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 9, line 1, section 2. (Section 2 reads as follows:)

               Sec. 2. Findings and Statement of Purposes. . . .

        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, so I will 
    know how we are going to proceed, are we going to go through the 
    bill section by section, with the reading of each section?
        The Chairman: The Chair will inform the gentleman that the bill 
    will be considered part by part with each part considered as read. 
    The bill will not be read section by section.
        Mr. Volkmer: So we will continue, Mr. Chairman, with the 
    reading of each section or part, then, and the title of the 
    section?
        The Chairman: The Chair will further inform the gentleman that 
    section 4 precedes part I, and after that section has been disposed 
    of, we will move to part I of the bill. We have been considering 
    the preliminary four sections as separate parts.

Sec. 10.8 Where a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    being read as an original bill for amendment by titles instead of 
    by sections, and title I of that substitute is preceded by several 
    sections, the Clerk reads those sections separately for amendment 
    before title I is read.

        On Sept. 8, 1976,(3) the Committee of the Whole 
    having under consideration H.R. 10498,(4) Mr. James T. 
    Broyhill, of North Carolina, inquired about the procedure for 
    reading for amendment the committee amendment in the na

[[Page 6833]]

    ture of a substitute. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 122 Cong. Rec. 29216, 29217, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (5) When the Committee rose on 
    Thursday, September 2, 1976, all time for general debate on the 
    bill had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk will now read by titles the 
    substitute committee amendment recommended by the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce, now printed in the reported bill 
    as an original bill, for the purpose of amendment. . . .
        Mr. Broyhill: Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding of the 
    parliamentary situation that section 1 and section 2 would be read 
    prior to the reading of title I.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. The Clerk will read 
    section 1.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled,

                       short title and table of contents

            Section 1. This Act, together with the following table of 
        contents, may be cited as the ``Clean Air Act Amendments of 
        1976''.

                               table of contents
        Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
        Sec. 2. Authorizations.

        The Chairman: Are there amendments to section 1? If not, the 
    Clerk will read section 2.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                 authorizations

            Sec. 2. (a) Section 316 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
        18571) is amended by striking out ``and $300,000,000'' and 
        inserting in lieu thereof `$300,000,000' and by striking out 
        the period at the end thereof and substituting the following: 
        ``, $175,000,000 for the fiscal year 1976.''

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under the above procedure, an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute for the entire bill would have been in order 
after section 1 was read for amendment.

Amendment in Nature of Substitute Offered After First Section Read

Sec. 10.9 Where a bill (or an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    being considered as original text) is being read by titles for 
    amendment, and several sections precede title I, an amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute may be offered after the reading of the 
    first section (which is considered a separate title).

    In the proceedings described below, which occurred on May 18, 1978, 
(6) the Committee of the Whole had under consideration House 
Resolution 39, the Alaska National Interest Conservation Lands Act of 
1978. An amendment in the nature of a substitute (the Leggett 
amendment) was of

[[Page 6834]]

fered which, pursuant to House Resolution 1186, agreed to the previous 
day, was to be read for amendment under the five-minute rule as an 
original bill by title. To such amendment, an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute (the ``Meeds amendment'') was subsequently offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 124 Cong. Rec. 14391, 14394, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute, the text of H.R. 12625.
        The Chairman: (7) The Clerk will read the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute by titles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Leggett: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled,

                       SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS

            Section 1. This Act, together with the following table of 
        contents, may be cited as the Alaska National Interest Lands 
        Conservation Act''.

                               table of contents

            Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents. . . .

        Mr. [Lloyd] Meeds [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Meeds:
            Strike all after the enacting clause and insert:
        This Act, together with the following table of contents, shall 
        be cited as the ``Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 
        Act''.

            Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.

Entire Title Read Before Amendment

Sec. 10.10 Where pursuant to a special rule a bill is being read for 
    amendment by titles instead of by sections, no amendment to the 
    pending title, including pro forma amendments, can be offered until 
    the entire title is read or its reading dispensed with by unanimous 
    consent.

    On Sept. 10, 1976,(8) During consideration of H.R. 10498 
(9) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair (10) 
responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding the offering of 
amendments as described above. The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 122 Cong. Rec. 29724, 29732, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976.
10. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: When the Committee rose on Thursday, September 9, 
    1976, the Clerk had read through line 19 on page 236.

[[Page 6835]]

        The Clerk will read title II. . . .
        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, is 
    it not a fact that no amendments can be offered to this title until 
    the entire title is read?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. . . .
        Mr. [Tim Lee] Carter [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the last word.
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman that this 
    request is not in order during the reading of the title.
        Mr. Carter: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that this 
    title be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to 
    amendment at any point.

Amendment Adding New Title

Sec. 10.11 The Chair may decline recognition to offer an amendment 
    adding a new title to a bill until all amendments to the pending 
    title have been disposed of.

    On Mar. 16, 1978,(11) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 50,(12) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 7333-36, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: On page 106 add the 
        following new title:

                                ``Title V. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Before the Chair would entertain this 
    amendment, the Chair would like to know if there are other 
    amendments to title IV?
        Mr. [Clarence] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I wish to offer 
    an amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to advise the 
    gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) if his amendment were accepted 
    at this time it would cut off the additional amendments. Would the 
    gentleman withhold? . . .
        The Chairman would like to state to the gentleman that the 
    Chair should have inquired of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Bauman) as to the nature of his amendment before extending 
    recognition.

    [Mr. Bauman withdrew his amendment by unanimous consent.]

Sec. 10.12 An amendment adding a new title to a bill being read for 
    amendment by titles may not be offered until the preceding title 
    has been read for amendment, and may not be offered after the first 
    title (or section preceding the first title) only has been read, 
    unless the proposition to add a new title is con

[[Page 6836]]

    tained in a properly drafted amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute which strikes out all after the enacting clause and 
    inserts an entirely new text for the bill.

    On May 8, 1980,(13) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration S. 1309,(14) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 126 Cong. Rec. 10421, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
14. The Food Stamp Amendments of 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (15) When the Committee of the Whole 
    rose on Wednesday, May 7, section 1 had been considered as having 
    been read and open to amendment at any point. It shall be in order 
    to consider an amendment to title I of said substitute printed in 
    the Congressional Record on April 30, 1980, and said amendment 
    shall not be subject to amendment except for the offering of pro 
    forma amendments for the purpose of debate. No further amendments 
    are in order which further change or affect the Internal Revenue 
    Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there any amendments to section 1?
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Walker: Page 39, after line 22 insert the following new title:

        Mr. Walker (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
    Record.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania?
        There was no objection. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman will suspend for just a moment. The 
    Chair is advised by the Parliamentarian that the gentleman has not 
    offered a proper amendment in the nature of a substitute here. An 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute would strike everything 
    after the enacting clause. This is an amendment adding a new title 
    III.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding that the 
    amendment was prepared in the form of a substitute.
        The Chairman: The amendment at the desk is not prepared in that 
    form, the Chair is advised. When the committee reaches title II, 
    the first part of the gentleman's amendment would be in order. The 
    Chair will rule that the amendment is not pending at this time.

--Effect of Adoption

Sec. 10.13 Adoption of an amendment adding a new title to a bill being 
    read by titles precludes further amendment to the preceding title.

    On Mar. 16, 1978,(16) during consideration of H.R. 50 
(17) in the

[[Page 6837]]

Committee of the Whole, an amendment adding a new title to the bill was 
offered which prompted an exchange as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 124 Cong. Rec. 7333-36, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
17. Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: On page 106 add the 
        following new title:

                                ``Title V. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Before the Chair would entertain this 
    amendment, the Chair would like to know if there are other 
    amendments to title IV?
        Mr. [Clarence] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I wish to offer 
    an amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to advise the 
    gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) if his amendment were accepted 
    at this time it would cut off the additional amendments. Would the 
    gentleman withhold? . . .
        Mr. Bauman: [B]efore making that judgment, the gentleman from 
    Minnesota who has a substitute for the entire bill would still be 
    in order; would he not?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct on that. . . 
    .
        Mr. Bauman: . . . I withdraw my amendment in deference to the 
    gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long).
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Without objection the gentleman from 
    Maryland (Mr. Bauman) withdraws his amendment.


 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
           B. WHEN TO OFFER AMENDMENT; READING FOR AMENDMENT
 
Sec. 11. Amendments to Bills Considered as Read and Open to Amendment

Unanimous Consent as Requirement

Sec. 11.1 The Committee of the Whole may, by unanimous consent, agree 
    that a bill being read by sections under the five-minute rule be 
    considered as read and open to amendment at any point, but a motion 
    to that effect is not in order.

    On June 26, 1972,(18) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 118 Cong. Rec. 22404, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 15507.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Earle] Cabel [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I move that the 
    bill be considered as read and printed at this point in the Record 
    and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair must rule that the 
    gentleman from Texas is not in order in making that motion at this 
    time. The Chair will entertain, however, a unanimous-consent 
    request to that effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.2 A bill may be considered as read and open to amendment at any 
    point only by unanimous consent, and a motion to that effect is not 
    in order.

[[Page 6838]]

    On June 4, 1975,(20) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 6219,(1) a unanimous-consent 
request, as described above, was objected to as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 121 Cong. Rec. 16895, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. Voting Rights Act extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: . . . Mr. Chairman, I believe 
    we have an agreement to vote on the final passage of the bill at 
    6:30 and with a time limitation on certain amendments that remain, 
    so I ask unanimous consent at this time that the bill be considered 
    as read in full and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James P.] Johnson of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        Mr. Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I so move.

        The Chairman: The motion is not in order. Only title II could 
    be closed at this time by a motion.

Sec. 11.3 On one occasion, no objection being raised, a motion was made 
    and agreed to that a bill be considered as read and open for 
    amendment at any point, following objection to a unanimous-consent 
    request for that purpose.

    On May 28, 1958,(3) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 104 Cong. Rec. 9747, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7999, to provide for the admission of the State of Alaska 
        into the Union.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Leo W.] O'Brien of New York (during the reading of the 
    bill): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
    considered as read and be open for amendment at any point. . . .
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        Mr. O'Brien of New York: Mr. Chairman, I move that the bill be 
    considered as read and be opened for amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: (4) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. O'Brien].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 11.4 During the reading of a section for amendment, that section 
    can be considered as read and open to amendment at any point only 
    by unanimous consent.

    On Aug. 17, 1972,(5) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 118 Cong. Rec. 2887, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 13915.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be cited as the ``Equal Educational Opportunities Act 
        of 1972''. . . .

        Mr. [Roman C.] Pucinski [of Illinois] (during the reading): A 
    parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. . . .

[[Page 6839]]

        Mr. Chairman, is it in order to move that the paragraph be 
    considered as read and open to amendment at any point?
        The Chairman: (6) It is not in order to make such a 
    motion at this point. It is in order to make a unanimous-consent 
    request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Morris K. Udall (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion To Dispense With Reading of Amendment

Sec. 11.5 Pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 5(b), as amended in the 97th 
    Congress, it is in order in Committee of the Whole to move to 
    dispense with the reading of an amendment which has been printed in 
    the Congressional Record and submitted to the clerk or designated 
    staff member of the reporting committee at least one day prior to 
    consideration of the amendment, and said motion is not subject to 
    debate.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on May 6, 
1981,(7) during consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 
115.(8) the proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 127 Cong. Rec. 8716, 8721, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Revising the congressional budget for fiscal year 1981 and setting 
        forth the congressional budget for fiscal years 1982, 1983, and 
        1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: (9) Has the gentleman's amendment been 
    printed in the Record?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. James M. Frost (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Latta: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it has been printed in the 
    Record.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Latta: Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:

         title i--revision of the congressional budget for the united 
               states government for the fiscal year 1981. . . .

        Mr. Latta (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
    Record. . . .
        Mr. [Theodore S.] Weiss [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, my concern really is that we have full 
    opportunity to debate the Gramm-Latta substitute resolution, and if 
    in fact we have the assurance that there will be no attempt to cut 
    off, to curtail debate, I will withdraw my reservation.
        However, if in fact this is a preliminary move then to start 
    the express train rolling, I have no choice except to object. . . .
        Mr. Latta: Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendment be 
    considered as read and printed in the Record.

[[Page 6840]]

        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 11.6 Pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 5(b), a motion to dispense with 
    the reading of an amendment in Committee of the Whole is only in 
    order if that amendment has been printed in the Record.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on July 28, 
1983,(10) during consideration of H.R. 2760. The proceedings 
in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 129 Cong. Rec. 21468, 21470, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Wright: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
        That the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1983 is 
        amended by adding at the end thereof the following new title. . 
        . .

        Mr. [James A.] Courter [of New Jersey] (during the reading): 
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
    considered as read and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: (11) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from New Jersey?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wyche] Fowler [Jr., of Georgia]: I object, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Courter: Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendment be 
    considered as read.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that would 
    not be a proper motion, since the amendment has not been printed in 
    the Record.

Clerk Designates Page and Line Number

Sec. 11.7 Where a special order provided that a bill be considered for 
    amendment by parts and that each part and the committee amendments 
    thereto be considered as having been read, the Chair directed the 
    Clerk to designate only the page and line number of the pending 
    part or committee amendment; the text of the pending part or 
    committee amendment was printed in full at that point in the 
    Congressional Record.

    On Aug. 2, 1977,(12) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill (13) pursuant to a special order 
as described above, the proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 123 Cong. Rec. 26124, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H.R. 8444, National Energy Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) When the Committee rose on 
    Monday, August 1, 1977, all time for general debate had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered by parts and each 
    part is con

[[Page 6841]]

    sidered as having been read for amendment. No amendment shall be in 
    order except pro forma amendments and amendments made in order 
    pursuant to House Resolution 727, which will not be subject to 
    amendment, except amendments recommended by the ad hoc Committee on 
    Energy and amendments made in order under House Resolution 727. . . 
    .
        The Clerk will designate the part of the bill now pending for 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 9, line 1, section 2. (Section 2 reads as follows:)

               Sec. 2. Findings and Statement of Purposes. . . .

        The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the page and line number 
    of the first ad hoc committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Ad hoc committee amendment: Page 12, strike line 9, and 
        insert the matter printed on lines 11 through 14. (The ad hoc 
        committee amendment reads as follows:)

        and

            (9) to provide incentives to increase the amount of 
        domestically produced energy in the United States for the 
        benefit and security of present and future generations.

Portions of Bill Already Passed in Reading

Sec. 11.8 During the reading of a bill for amendment an agreement that 
    the remainder of the bill be considered read and open for amendment 
    at any point does not admit an amendment to a portion of the bill 
    already passed in the reading.

    On Oct. 8, 1969,(15) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 115 Cong. Rec. 29219, 29220, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 14159.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph L.] Evins of Tennessee (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be 
    considered as read and open to amendment at any point. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: . 
        . .

        Mr. Evins of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, we have already passed 
    that item in the bill. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee just 
    made a unanimous-consent request that the bill be considered as 
    read, printed in the Record, and open for amendment at any point. I 
    would consider that under the unanimous-consent request, regardless 
    of whether we have read beyond the point, the amendment would be 
    very much in order.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Michigan that the unanimous-consent request of the 
    gentleman from Tennessee was that the remainder of the bill be 
    considered as having been read and open to amendment at any point, 
    and the Clerk had read two paragraphs beyond the paragraph to which 
    the amendment would apply. So the Chair upholds the point of order. 
    . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Wayne N. Aspinall (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.9 Where unanimous consent is granted that the re

[[Page 6842]]

    mainder of a bill be considered as read and open for amendment at 
    any point, amendments may then be offered to any portion of the 
    bill not yet read for amendment at the time the permission is 
    granted.

    On Feb. 19, 1970,(17) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 4028, 4029, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 15931.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: 
        On page 60. . . .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: If I understood 
    correctly, sections 408 and 409 have been considered and acted 
    upon, after which action was taken on section 410. It was after we 
    had passed sections 408 and 409 that unanimous consent was asked 
    the bill be opened thereafter. I raise the point that the 
    amendments come too late. We finished action on these sections, and 
    had acted on section 410.
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair will state that the 
    opening of the bill occurred on page 36, and all language 
    thereafter is open to amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provisions Previously Amended

Sec. 11.10 Where a title of a bill was open for amendment at any point 
    and an amendment was offered altering several provisions within 
    that title including a provision previously altered by amendment, a 
    point of order against the amendment was sustained and by unanimous 
    consent the amendment was altered to delete reference to that 
    portion already amended.

    On Oct. 9, 1975,(19) during consideration of H.R. 200 
(20) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings 
described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 32588-90, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Marine Fisheries Conservation Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Waggonner: Page 29, strike out 
        line 5 and all that follows thereafter down through line 2 on 
        page 32 and insert the following: . . .
            (a) Commencement of Negotiations.--
            The Secretary of State, upon the request of and in 
        cooperation with the Secretary, shall initiate and conduct 
        negotiations with any foreign nation in whose fishery 
        conservation zones, or its equivalent, vessels of the United 
        States are engaged, or wish to be engaged, in fishing, or with 
        respect to anadromous species or Continental Shelf fishery 
        resources as to which such nation asserts management authority 
        and for which vessels of the United States fish, or wish to 
        fish. . . .

        The Chairman: (21) the question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gen

[[Page 6843]]

    tleman from Louisiana (Mr. Wag- gonner).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was agreed to.
        Mrs. [Millicent H.] Fenwick [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick: . . .
            Page 30, line 6, strike out ``the'' and all that follows 
        thereafter up to and including line 8, and substitute in lieu 
        thereof the following: ``any such ships of those countries 
        deemed to be in noncompliance within the meaning of paragraphs 
        (1)(A) and (1) (B) of this subsection from continuing their 
        fishing activities''; . . .
            Page 33, line 1, strike Sec. 206.

        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order. We have already amended page 30, and this amendment 
    would purport to amend page 30. . . .
        It comes too late.

        Mrs. Fenwick: No, no; it is still germane--[including the part 
    at] page 33, line 1, striking section 206.
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentlewoman from New 
    Jersey that the part of the amendment that appears on page 30 would 
    not be in order at this time. The balance of the amendment would be 
    in order. Without objection, the amendment is modified to delete 
    reference to that portion of title II already amended.
        There was no objection.

Pending Portion of Bill Still Open to Amendment When Request Agreed To

Sec. 11.11 If unanimous consent is granted that the remainder of a bill 
    be considered as read and open to amendment at any point, the 
    portion of the bill pending when the request is agreed to remains 
    open to amendment as well.

    On June 4, 1975,(1) during consideration of a bill 
(2) in the Committee of the Whole, a unanimous-consent 
request was made and the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 16899, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. H.R. 6219, Voting Rights Act extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be 
    considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at 
    any point. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas N.] Kindness [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, if this 
    unanimous consent request is agreed to, would that affect action on 
    title II of the bill; would amendments to title II be still in 
    order?
        The Chairman: (3) Title II is still open.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    California?
        There was no objection.

Points of Order Against Bill

Sec. 11.12 When an appropriation bill is considered as read and open 
    for amendment by unanimous consent, the

[[Page 6844]]

    Chair first entertains points of order against the bill prior to 
    recognizing for amendments.

    On June 16, 1964,(4) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 110 Cong Rec. 13974, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11579.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Michael J.] Kirwan [of Ohio] (interrupting reading of the 
    bill): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
    considered as read, and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: (5) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Ohio?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Are there any points of order to be made to the 
    bill? [After pause.] Are there any further amendments? [No 
    response.]
        A motion that the Committee rise was agreed to.

Committee Amendments

Sec. 11.13 Where a bill is considered read and open to amendment, the 
    Chair directs that the Clerk report the committee amendments in the 
    order in which they appear in the bill, and the question is put on 
    each amendment as it is read; and any amendment to one of these 
    amendments must be offered while the committee amendment is 
    pending. But a Member having an amendment to a section of the bill 
    that is not amended by the committee amendments may still offer 
    such an amendment after all the committee amendments have been 
    considered.

    On June 18, 1969,(6) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 115 Cong. Rec. 16275, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6543.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia] (during the 
    reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
    considered as read and printed in the Record and open to amendment 
    at any point. . . .
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: (7) The Clerk will report the first 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Jack B. Brooks (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, if the 
    amendments are adopted that are the committee amendments to the 
    bill, then would amendments by Members be in order to those 
    sections that were amended?
        The Chairman: They would be unless they amended the committee 
    amendment.
        Mr. Adams: Mr. Chairman, that is what I was inquiring about. In 
    other words, an amendment to the committee amendment would not be 
    in order if that committee amendment were adopted.
        Therefore, we would be required to offer our amendments which 
    would go

[[Page 6845]]

    to the same section and the same language prior to the adoption of 
    the committee amendment by the Committee of the Whole?
        The Chairman: The amendments should be offered as amendments to 
    the committee amendments when submitted.

Sec. 11.14 Where the Committee of the Whole agrees that the remainder 
    of a bill be considered as read and open to amendment at any point, 
    the remaining committee amendments are first disposed of and then 
    other amendments may be considered at any point.

    On Aug. 18, 1949,(8) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 95 Cong. Rec. 11797, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 5895, the Mutual Defense Assistance Act of 1949.
            For further discussion of the proceedings, see Sec. 11.18, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: Under the unanimous-consent 
    request, in what order would the various committee amendments be 
    considered? Would they not have precedence over other amendments? . 
    . .
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair feels that the gentleman 
    is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.15 Where, by unanimous consent, a bill is considered as read 
    and open to amendment at any point, all perfecting committee 
    amendments printed in the bill are disposed of prior to 
    consideration of amendments offered from the floor.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(10) during consideration of a bill 
(11) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 11533, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. H.R. 6096, Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (12) The Clerk will report the first 
    committee amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the second committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 3, line 1, insert: The authority 
        granted by this section shall not permit or extend to any 
        action or conduct not essential to effectuate and protect the 
        evacuation referred to in this section.

        The committee amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the third committee 
    amendment.
        Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Harkin: Are we on section 4? I have an amendment to section 
    4.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that he will 
    be pro

[[Page 6846]]

    tected. The bill by unanimous consent has been deemed to be 
    considered as read in toto and is open to amendment at any point.
        The Clerk will report the third committee amendment.

Sec. 11.16 Where a bill is considered as having been read for 
    amendment, it is open to amendment at any point and all committee 
    perfecting amendments must be disposed of, regardless of their 
    place in the bill, prior to offering of amendments to the bill from 
    the floor.

    On Feb. 9, 1976,(13) H.R. 5808 (14) having 
been read and opened to amendment in the Committee of the Whole, the 
proceedings, described above, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 122 Cong. Rec. 2872, 2876, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
14. Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (15) . . . Under the rule, the bill is 
    considered as having been read and open to amendment at any point 
    under the 5-minute rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Richard H. Ichord (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the next committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 19, line 24, insert ``knowingly'' 
        immediately before ``sell''.

        The committee amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. [Charles E.] Wiggins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I now 
    offer an amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California (Mr. Wiggins) will 
    be advised that his amendment would not be in order at this time 
    under the rule. There are 2 additional committee amendments to be 
    considered. . . .
        The Chair will advise the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Wiggins) further that his amendment will be in order after the 
    consideration of the committee amendments. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment I wish to offer that comes 
    before that committee amendment on the same page. Would that 
    amendment be in order, or is it not in order until after this time?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Maryland 
    (Mr. Bauman) that his amendment would not be in order at this time 
    unless it is an amendment to this committee amendment.

--Amendments To Be Read Although Bill Open to Amendment at Any Point

Sec. 11.17 Where, under a special rule, a bill is considered as having 
    been read for amendment, committee amendments to the bill must be 
    read in full or their reading dispensed with by unanimous consent.

[[Page 6847]]

    On Feb. 9, 1976,(16) during consideration of H.R. 
5808,(17) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair stated 
that, pursuant to the rule, the bill was open to amendment. The 
proceedings occurred as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 122 Cong. Rec. 2872, 2875, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
17. Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (18) . . . Under the rule, the bill is 
    considered as having been read and open to amendment at any point 
    under the 5-minute rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Richard H. Ichord (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Wiggins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, under 
    the rule, is the first committee amendment considered to have been 
    read?
        The Chairman: There have been no requests for considering the 
    amendment as having been read, the Chair will advise the gentleman 
    from California, but the Chair will entertain such a request. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, it is my 
    understanding that the rule itself provides that the bill shall be 
    considered as read and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: Yes, that is the bill, the Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Washington, not the amendment.
        Mr. Foley (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the first committee amendment may be considered as 
    read and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Washington?
        There was no objection.

Order of Amendments

Sec. 11.18 Where the Committee of the Whole had agreed that the 
    remainder of a bill be considered as read and open to amendment at 
    any point, a subsequent unanimous-consent request authorized the 
    Clerk to call the remaining sections so that amendments could be 
    offered in order.

    On Aug. 18, 1949,(19) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 95 Cong. Rec. 11797, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 5895, the Mutual Defense Assistance Act of 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that after the committee amendments have been 
    disposed of the Clerk call the section numbers of the bill for 
    amendment, so that we may have them in order. . . .
        There was no objection.

Priority in Recognition

Sec. 11.19 Where a pending title of a bill is open to amendment and a 
    unanimous-consent request is made that the next two succeeding 
    titles also be considered as open to amendment, all three titles 
    would be open to amendment, with priority in rec

[[Page 6848]]

    ognition being given to members of the Committee reporting the 
    bill.

    On Jan. 29, 1980,(20) during consideration of H.R. 4788 
(1) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 126 Cong. Rec. 973, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. The Water Resources Development Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ray] Roberts [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that titles III and IV be considered as read and open for 
    amendment at any point. . . .
        Mr. [Allen E.] Ertel [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, am I 
    under the understanding at this point that titles II, III, and IV 
    are now open to amendment?
        The Chairman: (2) That is correct, if no objection 
    is heard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ertel: I have no objection.
        Mr. [Don H.] Clausen [of California]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, I want to make sure we are going to be 
    proceeding in an orderly manner. I am assuming we will proceed 
    through title II for the consideration of the amendment and then 
    follow on with the consideration of titles III and IV.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that if the 
    unanimous-consent request is adopted without objection, titles II, 
    III, and IV will be open for amendment at any point. Committee 
    members will, of course, have priority in recognition.

Inserting New Section

Sec. 11.20 Where the first section of a bill has, by unanimous consent, 
    been considered as read and open to amendment, an amendment 
    inserting a new section at the end of that section of the bill is 
    in order.

    On June 26, 1972,(3) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 118 Cong. Rec. 22404, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 15507.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Mario] Biaggi [of New York]: Page 7, 
    insert after line 18 the following:

            Sec. 102. The Secretary of Transportation shall (1) conduct 
        a study. . . .

        Mr. [Earle] Cabell [of Texas]: Was this amendment to section 1, 
    which has been read? Does it apply to that?
        The Chairman: (4) It is an amendment to the first 
    section of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cabell: I believe the gentleman from Iowa himself asked 
    unanimous consent that it be open to amendment to the first 
    section.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, yes, but page 7 goes 
    beyond the first section of the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the unanimous-consent 
    request that was made by the gentleman from Iowa and that was 
    agreed to was to dispense with further reading of the first section 
    of the bill, which ends on page 7, line 18, and the amendment of

[[Page 6849]]

    fered by the gentleman from New York is to the first section of the 
    bill and is therefore in order.

Effect of Adding New Section at End of Bill

Sec. 11.21 Where by unanimous consent in Committee of the Whole a bill 
    is considered as read and open to amendment at any point, adoption 
    of an amendment adding a new section at the end of the bill does 
    not preclude subsequent amendments to previous sections of the 
    bill.

    The proposition stated above was the basis for the following 
proceedings which occurred on Apr. 17, 1986, (5) during 
consideration of H.R. 281 in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 132 Cong. Rec. 7858, 7859, 7861, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) Pursuant to the rule, each section 
    of the bill is considered as having been read under the 5-minute 
    rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will designate section 1.
        Mr. [William L.] Clay [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record and open 
    to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Missouri?
        There was no objection.
        The text of H.R. 281 is as follows:

                                    H.R. 281

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be referred to as the ``Construction Industry Labor Law 
        Amendments of 1985''. . . .

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Clay: At the end of the bill, add 
        the following new section:
            Sec. 3. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the 
        amendments made by section 2 shall take effect upon the date of 
        the enactment of this Act. . . .

        Mr. Clay (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
    Record. . . .
        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, I do so for the purpose of inquiring of the 
    Chair at this point, or perhaps the author, as to whether or not 
    this is a new section 3, or whether this would preclude further 
    amendments to section 2 of the bill if this amendment is adopted?
        The Chairman: The Chair would point out to the gentleman from 
    Vermont that the bill is now open for amendment at any point, as 
    was requested by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) a little 
    while earlier.

[[Page 6850]]

Bill Considered as Read and Open for Amendment in House as in Committee 
    of the Whole

Sec. 11.22 Under current practice, when a bill is considered in the 
    House as in Committee of the Whole, general debate is dispensed 
    with, and the bill is considered as having been read and is open to 
    amendment at any point under the five-minute rule.

    On Aug. 10, 1970,(7) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 116 Cong. Rec. 28050, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 18619.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: (8) The gentleman will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, are we not operating in the House as in 
    the Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker: We are.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, has this bill been read for amendment?
        The Speaker: When the bill is being considered in the House as 
    in Committee of the Whole, it is considered as read and printed in 
    the Record.
        Amendments are in order to any part of the bill under the 5-
    minute rule.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The earlier precedents (e.g. 8 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec. 2433) requiring that a bill be read by sections for 
amendment under this procedure have been superceded by this current 
practice.

Sec. 11.23 Where a bill is by unanimous consent considered in the House 
    as in the Committee of the Whole, the bill is considered as read 
    and open to amendment at any point, despite the fact that the House 
    has previously adopted a special order providing that the bill be 
    read by title in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Feb. 9, 1977,(9) the House having previously adopted 
a special order (10) providing that H.R. 692 be read by 
title in the Committee of the Whole, a unanimous-consent request was 
agreed to to consider the bill in the House as in the Committee of the 
Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 123 Cong. Rec. 3977, 3981, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. H. Res. 270, 123 Cong. Rec. 3976, 3977, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I call up the bill H.R. 
    692 to amend the Small Business Act and the Small Business 
    Investment Act of 1958 to increase loan authorization and surety 
    bond guarantee authority; and to improve the disaster assistance, 
    certificate of competency and small business set-aside programs, 
    and ask unani

[[Page 6851]]

    mous consent that the bill be considered in the House as in the 
    Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker: (11) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Iowa?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read the bill as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled. . . .

        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Iowa have further 
    amendments?
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to title 
    III but the bill is to be read by titles.
        The Speaker: The bill is open to amendment at any point so the 
    amendment is in order.

Amendment in Nature of Substitute Made in Order by Special Rule

Sec. 11.24 An amendment in the nature of a substitute being read as an 
    original bill pursuant to a special order is read by sections for 
    amendment (unless otherwise specified in the rule), and the 
    amendment may be considered as read and open for amendment at any 
    point by unanimous consent only.

    On Mar. 20, 1978,(12) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 7700,(13) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 7558, 7559, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. The Postal Service Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) Pursuant to the rule, it shall be 
    in order to consider an amendment printed in the Congressional 
    Record of March 14, 1978, by Representative Hanley of New York if 
    offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the bill, 
    said substitute shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule 
    as an original bill, and all points of order against said 
    substitute for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 7, 
    rule XVI, are hereby waived. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Edward W. Pattison (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        At this time the Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Postal Service 
        Act of 1977''.

        Mr. [James M.] Hanley [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to 
    the rule, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute for 
    the bill.

        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment by sections.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
            That this Act may be cited as the ``Postal Service Act of 
        1978''.

        Mr. Hanley (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment in the nature of a substitute be 
    considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at 
    any point. . . .
        [Objection was heard.]
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute is to be read by sections.

[[Page 6852]]

        Are there amendments to section 1?

Sec. 11.25 Where a bill was being considered under a special rule 
    making in order the text of a designated amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute but not providing for reading of said substitute by 
    sections as an original bill, the Chair indicated that if the 
    entire amendment were considered as read and printed in the Record 
    it would automatically be open to amendment at any point.

    On Feb. 3, 1976,(15) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 9464,(16) the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry regarding the situation as described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 122 Cong. Rec. 2008, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Krueger [of Texas] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute be considered as read and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: (17) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Continuing my reservation 
    of objection, Mr. Chairman, first of all, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry. Was it the request that the amendment be considered as 
    read and open to amendment at any point?
        The Chairman: That is the pending matter. The Chair was about 
    to put the question when the gentleman rose and said he reserved 
    the right to object further.
        Mr. Dingell: I just want to be sure that I understand the 
    unanimous-consent request properly. . . .
        The Chairman: Let me say in clarification the unanimous-consent 
    request that the gentleman made was that the amendment be 
    considered as read and printed in the Record, and it automatically 
    will be open for amendment at any point.

En Bloc Amendments Affecting Diverse Portions of Bill

Sec. 11.26 Motions to strike out and insert provisions on diverse pages 
    and lines of a bill and to insert a new section constitute separate 
    amendments which can be offered en bloc only by unanimous consent, 
    even if the bill has been considered as read and open to amendment 
    at any point.

    On Sept. 16, 1981, (18) during consideration of H.R. 
4241 (19) in the Committee of the Whole, the

[[Page 6853]]

proceedings described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 127 Cong. Rec. 20735-37, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. Military construction appropriations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bo] Ginn [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the bill be considered as read and open to amendment 
    at any point. . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [M. Caldwell] Butler [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments, and I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be 
    considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: (20) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Virginia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection. . . .

            Amendments offered by Mr. Butler: Page 2, line 11, strike 
        out ``$1,029,519,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$1,009,276,400''.
            Page 3, line 6, strike out ``$1,404,883,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$1,354,096,100''. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas F.] Hartnett [of South Carolina]: . . . My inquiry 
    is: Is this amendment being offered as one amendment, and if it is, 
    would the point of order be in order that the amendment was not 
    properly drawn and that I was being precluded from voting for--I 
    would have to vote for or against all of them where, in fact, I may 
    want to vote for one or the other?
        The Chairman: The Chair will respond to the gentleman's inquiry 
    by stating that the gentleman from Virginia has already gotten 
    unanimous consent to offer his amendments en bloc. However, if a 
    point of order is sustained against those amendments or any portion 
    thereof, under the precedent the remaining amendments will have to 
    be reoffered, at which point the gentleman from Virginia will again 
    have to ask permission to have them offered en bloc. . . .
        Mr. Hartnett: Mr. Chairman, what you are telling me is, in 
    order for the gentleman from Virginia to offer a series of 
    amendments like that, the gentleman has to obtain unanimous consent 
    prior to doing that or, in fact, he would have to offer each one of 
    them individually?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. The very first action 
    the gentleman from Virginia engaged in was to ask for such 
    unanimous consent.

Effect of Limitation on Debate on Titles

Sec. 11.27 Where the Committee of the Whole has, by unanimous consent, 
    considered the remainder of a bill as read and open to amendment at 
    any point, and has then separately limited debate on each remaining 
    title and all amendments thereto to a number of hours of debate, 
    equally divided and controlled, the Chair may, through the power of 
    recognition, continue to require debate and amendments to proceed 
    title by title.

    During consideration of H.R. 2100 (1) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Oct. 3, 1985,(2) the situ

[[Page 6854]]

ation described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. The Food Security Act of 1985.
 2. 131 Cong. Rec. 25897, 25947, 25948, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kika] de la Garza [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, in order to 
    facilitate the debate for the rest of the day, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the remainder of the bill after this title be printed 
    in the Record, and open to amendment at any point. . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. de la Garza: Mr. Chairman, further to facilitate and 
    expedite the debate of today, I ask unanimous consent that all 
    debate on title VIII on peanuts, and all amendments thereto on that 
    title, be limited to 1 hour, the time to be divided equally between 
    the proponents and the opponents. . . .
        There was no objection.
        Mr. de la Garza: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
    debate on title XV and all amendments thereto, which is the food 
    stamps section, be limited to 1 hour, to be divided equally between 
    the proponents and the opponents, and further, that the debate on 
    the Petri amendment to title XXI be limited to 1 hour, the time to 
    be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents. . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. de la Garza: Mr. Chairman, under the unanimous-consent 
    agreement on the time and on opening the bill for amendment at any 
    point, does the Chair intend to proceed title by title?
        The Chairman: It is the intention of the Chair to proceed title 
    by title for amendments.


 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
           B. WHEN TO OFFER AMENDMENT; READING FOR AMENDMENT
 
Sec. 12. Amendments in Nature of Substitute for Several Paragraphs or 
    Entire Bill

    An amendment in the nature of a substitute, which is offered to the 
text of a bill, generally replaces the entire bill. The term is 
sometimes, less accurately, used to describe a motion to strike out and 
insert a substantial portion, such as an entire section or title, of a 
pending bill. It should be distinguished from a substitute amendment, 
which is merely a substitute for another amendment that has been 
offered.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. For a general description of the nature and purposes of an 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute, see Sec. 1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Frequently, as by special rule, an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute may be considered as an original text for purposes of 
amendment; in such cases, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
is not considered an ``amendment'' for purposes of the limitation 
described above (4) with

[[Page 6855]]

respect to the number of amendments that may be pending at one time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. 5, 6, supra.
            Where a rule provides for consideration of a committee 
        substitute as an original bill for amendment, such substitute 
        is read by paragraphs for amendment, at the conclusion of which 
        the question is on agreeing to the substitute or the substitute 
        as amended for the bill; if the substitute is voted down, the 
        original bill is then read for amendment. See Sec. 7.44, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment in the nature of a substitute is basically, in form, a 
motion to strike out and insert. It may, for example, propose to strike 
all after the enacting clause of a bill and insert substitute 
provisions. Thus, an amendment in the nature of a substitute for a 
pending bill may be offered after the first section is read and is then 
open to amendment in its entirety.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See 81 Cong. Rec. 6185, 6186, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., June 22, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It has also been said that when a bill is being read for amendment 
by titles pursuant to a special rule providing for its consideration, 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the whole bill may be 
offered after the first title of the original text has been read for 
amendment.(6) In fact, where a bill is being read for 
amendment by titles, an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
entire bill may be offered after the ``short title'' of the bill is 
read (which is normally a separate section of the bill preceding title 
I) or at the conclusion of the reading of the whole bill. Of course, 
where a committee amendment proposing a new title I is offered as a 
perfecting amendment to the bill immediately after the Clerk begins to 
read the bill for amendment, the offering of an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute for the whole bill must be deferred pending the vote on 
the perfecting amendment adding the new title I.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 115 Cong. Rec. 10066, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 23, 1969.
 7. See 116 Cong. Rec. 27197, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 4, 1970; and 
        116 Cong. Rec. 27476-79, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 5, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is early authority for the proposition that amendments in the 
nature of a substitute for an entire bill are in order at the beginning 
of the bill only if notice is given that, if the amendment is agreed 
to, subsequent motions to strike out the remaining sections or 
paragraphs of the bill will be offered as each section or paragraph is 
read. A review of more recent proceedings, however, indicates that the 
requirement is no longer rigidly applied; and, therefore, that when an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute is offered at the end of the 
reading of the first section of the bill, notice of motions to strike 
out subsequent sections need not be given.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See, for example, 119 Cong. Rec. 18336, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., June 
        6, 1973, proceedings relating to an amendment in the nature of 
        a substitute offered by Mr. John N. Erlenborn (Ill.) to H.R. 
        7935 (Fair Labor Standards amendments of 1973).
            See also 119 Cong. Rec. 18161, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., June 5, 
        1973, where, in response to a parliamentary inquiry the 
        Chairman indicated that an amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute for an entire bill could be offered following the 
        reading of the first section of the bill for amendment.

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

[[Page 6856]]

    An amendment in the nature of a substitute is read in its entirety 
before amendments to it are in order.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See 96 Cong. Rec. 2218, 2219, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 22, 1950 
        (proceedings relating to an amendment offered by Mr. Samuel K. 
        McConnell, Jr., [Pa.] to the Fair Employment Practices 
        Act).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When in Order

Sec. 12.1 Where a bill is being read by paragraphs, an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute for an entire bill may be offered after the 
    first paragraph has been read or after the reading of the bill for 
    amendment has concluded.

    On June 29, 1939, during consideration of the Neutrality Act of 
1939(10) an amendment was offered, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.J. Res. 306.
            See the proceedings at 84 Cong. Rec. 8288, 76th Cong. 1st 
        Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert G.] Allen of Pennsylvania: 
        Page 2, line 1, strike out all of section 1 and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following as a substitute for the joint resolution: 
        . . .

                ``repeal of neutrality acts of 1935, 1936, 1937

            ``The act of August 31, 1935 (Public Res. No. 67, 74th 
        Cong.), as amended by the act of February 29, 1936 (Public Res. 
        No. 74, 74th Cong.), and the act of May 1, 1937 (Public Res. 
        No. 27, 75th Cong.), and the act of January 8, 1937 (Public 
        Res. No. 1, 75th Cong.), are hereby repealed.''

    In response to a point of order made by Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of 
New York, that the amendment was improperly offered at that point in 
the proceedings, Mr. Allen stated:

        Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that it is in 
    parliamentary order to offer a substitute either after the first 
    paragraph of the bill has been read or after the entire bill has 
    been read. If my amendment is adopted I intend to offer amendments 
    throughout the reading of the remainder of the bill striking out 
    the various paragraphs as they are read.

The Chairman,(11) in overruling the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]he Chair invites attention to section 2905 of volume 
    VIII of Cannon's Precedents of the House which state:

[[Page 6857]]

            A substitute for an entire bill may be offered only after 
        the first paragraph has been read or after the reading of the 
        bill for amendment has been concluded.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The Allen amendment was rejected. See 84 Cong. Rec. 8311, 76th 
        Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.2 An amendment in the nature of a substitute is in order after 
    the first section of the bill has been read for amendment.

    On Mar. 20, 1978,(13) during consideration of H.R. 7700 
(14) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair stated that 
pursuant to the rule under which the bill was being considered, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute would be in order after the 
first section of the bill had been read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 124 Cong. Rec. 7558, 7559, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
14. The Postal Service Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (15) Pursuant to the rule, it shall be 
    in order to consider an amendment printed in the Congressional 
    Record of March 14, 1978, by Representative Hanley of New York if 
    offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the bill, 
    said substitute shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule 
    as an original bill, and all points of order against said 
    substitute for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 7, 
    rule XVI, are hereby waived.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Edward W. Pattison (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        At the appropriate time the Chair will recognize the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Hanley) to offer his amendment.
        At this time the Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Section 1. This Act may be cited as the Postal Service Act 
        of 1977''.

        Mr. [James M.] Hanley [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to 
    the rule, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute for 
    the bill.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment by sections.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
            That this Act may be cited as the ``Postal Service Act of 
        1978.''

Sec. 12.3 An amendment in the nature of a substitute may be offered 
    after the reading of the first section of a bill being read by 
    section for amendment, or at any time when the bill is considered 
    as having been read for amendment.

    On Mar. 29, 1977,(16) during consideration of H.R. 5045 
(17) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings, 
described above, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 123 Cong. Rec. 9353, 9355, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. The Reorganization Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (18) There being no further requests 
    for time, the Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. James M. Hanley (N.Y.).

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

[[Page 6858]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H.R. 5045

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be cited as the ``Reorganization Act of 1977''. . . .

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Chairman, would the Clerk read the two 
    committee amendments and get the committee amendments adopted 
    before we go into other amendments from the floor?
        The Chairman: That portion of the bill has not yet been read.
        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill 
    be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment 
    at any point and that we take up the two committee amendments and 
    then at any point in the bill other amendments would be eligible 
    for presentation.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Texas?
        There was no objection.

                            committee amendments

        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the committee amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendments: Page 13, line 3, strike out 
        ``903(d)'' and insert in lieu thereof ``903(c)''. . . .

        The committee amendments were agreed to.

       amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. walker

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Walker: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof, the following:
        That this Act may be cited as the ``Reorganization Act 
        Amendments of 1977''.

Sec. 12.4 An amendment in the nature of a substitute for an entire bill 
    is in order following the reading of the final section of the bill.

    On July 19, 1973,(19) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 24922, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 8860.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

             Sec. 7. This Act may be cited as the ``Agriculture and 
        Consumer Protection Act of 1973''. . . .

        Mr. [William L.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Foley: Strike out all after the enacting clause and substitute 
        the following: . . .

[[Page 6859]]

        Mr. [Charles M.] Teague of California: Mr. Chairman, is not the 
    offering of this amendment premature at this time? As I understand, 
    the gentleman from Washington has offered an entirely new bill. 
    Perhaps I misunderstood him. As I understand, he offered a 
    substitute for the present bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair would like to advise 
    the gentleman from California that the Clerk has read the final 
    section of the bill, section 7. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Washington is in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.5 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chairman 
    indicated that an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    entire bill (an appropriation measure) could be offered at the 
    conclusion of the reading of the bill for amendment.

    On Apr. 14, 1970,(21) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 116 Cong. Rec. 11649, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 16916.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I would like 
    to inquire of the Chairman on behalf of the Members who had 
    amendments which they sought to offer earlier, but were unable to 
    do so, if it is not possible for a substitute for the entire bill 
    to be offered at the completion of the reading of the bill so that 
    they could combine their amendments in that substitute if they 
    wished to do so?
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair will state that the 
    Chair is inclined to believe that a substitute is always in order 
    at the proper time unless there is a portion of the rule which 
    prohibits the substitute. And the Chair would entertain a proper 
    amendment if offered at the proper time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.6 An amendment in the nature of a substitute may be offered for 
    a bill (or for an amendment being considered as original text) 
    after the reading thereof has been completed, if another amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute has not been previously adopted.

    In the proceedings described below, which occurred on May 18, 
1978,(2) the Committee of the Whole had under consideration 
H.R. 39, the Alaska National Interest Conservation Lands Act of 1978. 
An amendment in the nature of a substitute (the Leggett amendment) was 
offered which, pursuant to House Resolution 1186, agreed to the 
previous day, was to be read for amendment under the five-minute rule 
as an original bill by title. To such amendment, an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute (the ``Meeds amendment'') was subsequently 
offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 124 Cong. Rec. 14391, 14394, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an

[[Page 6860]]

    amendment in the nature of a substitute, the text of H.R. 12625.
        The Chairman: (3) The Clerk will read the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute by titles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Leggett: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following. . . .

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: . . . The script we have 
    put together here was that when section 1 of the Leggett amendment, 
    the consensus substitute, was read, the gentleman from Washington 
    (Mr. Meeds) would offer his substitute, but that I would offer a 
    substitute for the Meeds amendment, and we would then have 
    foreclosed these nongermane things that we have been talking about. 
    But it would also be understood that both sides, the Meeds and the 
    Udall substitutes, would be open. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        At that point have we gotten into amendments in the third 
    degree, or would amendments to both the pending substitutes be in 
    order?
        The Chairman: Perfecting amendments to the Meeds amendment if 
    offered or amendments to a substitute thereto would be in order.
        Mr. Bauman: But no further amendments in the nature of a 
    substitute would be in order at that point?
        The Chairman: That is correct. . . .
        Mr. Udall: Mr. Chairman, would a unanimous-consent request be 
    in order that under the proceedings under the 5-minute rule no 
    additional substitute amendment for the entire bill would be in 
    order, unless it were germane to H.R. 39 or to the Meeds 
    substitute?
        In that case, I would not have to offer the substitute, my 
    substitute, and we can vote up or down on the Meeds amendment. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: The Chair will respond to the point raised by the 
    gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall) in his parliamentary inquiry. 
    The Chair is advised that the Committee of the Whole cannot amend 
    the rule by unanimous consent.
        Mr. [Lloyd] Meeds [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can 
    solve the dilemma by promising that I will offer my substitute at 
    the end of the reading. I can do that and I will put that in the 
    form of a parliamentary inquiry.
        At the end of all debate I can change one word and reoffer the 
    amendment as a substitute, I believe. I will put that in the form 
    of a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, 
    reserving the right to object, can the Chair advise us on the 
    suggestion of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Meeds)?
        The Chairman: That is possible if no other amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute has been adopted in the meantime.

Sec. 12.7 Where under a special rule a bill is being read for amendment 
    by titles and there is no separate section preceding title I, an 
    amendment in the nature of a sub

[[Page 6861]]

    stitute for the entire bill may be offered after the reading of 
    title I.

    On June 3, 1975,(4) during consideration of a bill 
(5) in the Committee of the Whole, an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute for the bill was offered. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 16754, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. H.R. 6219, the Voting Rights Act extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) . . . Pursuant to the rule, the 
    Clerk will now read the bill by title.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled,

                                    title i

            Sec. 101. Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act of 1985 is 
        amended by striking out ``ten'' each time it appears and 
        inserting in lieu thereof ``twenty''.
            Sec. 102. Section 201(a) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 
        is amended by--
            (1) striking out ``Prior to August 6, 1975, no'' and 
        inserting ``No'' in lieu thereof; and (2) striking out ``as to 
        which the provisions of section 4(a) of this Act are not in 
        effect by reason of determinations made under section 4(b) of 
        this Act.'' and inserting in lieu thereof a period.

        Mr. [Charles E.] Wiggins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Wiggins: In H.R. 6219 strike out all after the enacting clause 
        and insert in lieu thereof the following: That this Act may be 
        cited as ``The Voting Rights Extension Act of 1975''.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In many instances, a short title section 
(1) precedes the first title of the bill, and an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute is in order following the reading of that 
section and prior to the reading of the first title.

--Where Special Rule Makes Amendment in Order

Sec. 12.8 Where a special order makes in order the consideration of a 
    designated amendment in the nature of a substitute (in lieu of the 
    committee amendments printed in the bill), said substitute may be 
    offered after section one of the original bill is read.

    On Sept. 20, 1978,(7) during consideration of H.R. 
1,(8) in the Committee of the Whole, the situation described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 124 Cong. Rec. 30434, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. The Ethics in Government Act of 1977.

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

[[Page 6862]]

        The Chairman: (9) Pursuant to the rule, it shall be 
    in order to consider by titles as an original bill for the purpose 
    of amendment the text of H.R. 13850, in lieu of the amendments now 
    printed in the bill, if offered as an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute. No amendments to said substitute shall be in order 
    except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate and 
    amendments printed in the Congressional Record at least 1 
    legislative day prior to their consideration. . . 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, under the rule 
    and the statement of the Chair, must the committee substitute which 
    appears in the text of H.R. 1 be read first, or is the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute, H.R. 13850, in order at any point?
        The Chairman: No. The Danielson amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute will be read in lieu of the committee amendment now 
    printed in the bill as a substitute amendment for the original 
    bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Clerk will read section 1 of the original 
    bill.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be cited as the ``Ethics in Government Act of 1977''.

        Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute which is made in order 
    by House Resolution 1323, and I offer it as an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute for the committee amendment to be read by 
    titles under the 5-minute rule as an original bill.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will read by titles the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In situations like that above, if the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute is offered and adopted, the 
original bill and committee amendments printed therein are not read.

Sec. 12.9 Pursuant to a special rule making in order the text of 
    another bill as original text for amendment if offered as an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute, the amendment must be 
    offered from the floor after the first section of the original bill 
    is read.

    On July 26, 1978,(10) during consideration of H.R. 3350 
in the Committee of the Whole, the above-stated proposition was 
illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 124 Cong. Rec. 22884, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) . . . Pursuant to the rule, it 
    shall be in order to consider by titles the text of H.R. 12988, if 
    offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute, as an 
    original bill for the purpose of amendment. No amendment to title 
    IV of said substitute which would change title IV, shall be

[[Page 6863]]

    in order except amendments recommended by the Committee on Ways and 
    Means and an amendment printed in the Congressional Record of June 
    5, 1978, by Representative Stark of California, which amendments 
    shall not be subject to amendment, but it shall be in order to 
    debate said amendments and title IV by the offering of pro forma 
    amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will now read section 1 of the original bill H.R. 
    3350, and the Chair will then recognize the gentleman form 
    Louisiana (Mr. Breaux) to offer the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

        Section 1. Short Title.

            This Act may be cited as the ``Deep Seabed Hard Mineral 
        Resources Act''.

        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute, the text of which is 
    contained in the bill, H.R. 12988, a copy of which is at the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Breaux: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled:

        Section 1. Short title.

            Titles I, II, and III of this Act may be cited as the 
        ``Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act''.

--Second Section Read

Sec. 12.10 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair stated 
    that an amendment in the nature of a substitute could not be 
    offered after the reading of the second section of the bill.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(12) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the bill H.R. 6096,(13) aparliamentary 
inquiry was directed to the Chair as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 121 Cong. Rec. 11513, 11514, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 2. There is authorized to be appropriated to the 
        President for the fiscal year 1975 not to exceed $150,000,000 
        to be used, notwithstanding any other provision of law, on such 
        terms and conditions as the President may deem appropriate for 
        humanitarian assistance to and evacuation programs from South 
        Vietnam.

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Chairman, will the Chair advise whether, at 
    this juncture in the proceedings, the Eckhardt substitute amendment 
    would again be in order?
        The Chairman: Not at this point in the proceedings. The Clerk 
    has read section 2 of the bill. It is now open for amendment, and 
    an amendment is pending. The Eckhardt substitute is not in order at 
    this point.

[[Page 6864]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
for an entire bill may be offered after the reading of the first 
section or after the last section has been read, but is not in order at 
an intermediate stage.

--Where Sections Precede 
    Title I

Sec. 12.11 Where a bill (or an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    being considered as original text) is being read by titles for 
    amendment, and several sections precede title I, an amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute may be offered after the reading of the 
    first section (which is considered a separate title).

    In the proceedings described below, which occurred on May 18, 
1978,(15) the Committee of the Whole had under consideration 
H.R. 39, the Alaska National Interest Conservation Lands Act of 1978. 
An amendment in the nature of a substitute (the Leggett amendment] was 
offered which, pursuant to House Resolution 1186, agreed to the 
previous day, was to be read for amendment under the five-minute rule 
as an original bill by title. To such amendment, an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute (the ``Meeds amendment'') was subsequently 
offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 124 Cong. Rec. 14391, 14394, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute, the text of H.R. 12625.
        The Chairman: (16) The Clerk will read the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute by titles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Leggett: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled,

                       short title and table of contents

            Section 1. This Act, together with the following table of 
        contents, may be cited as the ``Alaska National Interest Lands 
        Conservation Act''.

                               table of contents

            Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents. . . .

        Mr. [Lloyd] Meeds [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Meeds:
            Strike all after the enacting clause and insert:
        This Act, together with the following table of contents, shall 
        be cited as the ``Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 
        Act''.

[[Page 6865]]

            Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.

--Where Special Rule Precludes Further Amendment Upon Adoption of 
    Committee Amendment

Sec. 12.12 Under the five-minute rule, an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a bill may ordinarily be offered either after the 
    first section has been read or at the conclusion of reading of the 
    bill; but where a bill is being considered under a special rule 
    precluding further amendment to the bill upon adoption of a 
    committee amendment at the end thereof, an amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute can only be offered after the first section is 
    read, unless the committee amendment is rejected.

    On Sept. 23, 1980,(17) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 7020,(18) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 126 Cong. Rec. 26757, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. The Hazardous Waste Containment Act of 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (19) When the Committee of the Whole 
    arose on Friday, September 19, 1980, all time for general debate 
    had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the substitute committee amendment 
    recommended by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce now 
    printed in the reported bill shall be considered as an original 
    bill for the purpose of amendment and each section shall be 
    considered as having been read. No amendments to the amendment 
    recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means printed in the bill 
    shall be in order except pro forma amendments for the purpose of 
    debate and following amendments which shall not be amendable except 
    by pro forma amendments: First, the amendments recommended by the 
    Committee on Ways and Means; second, the amendment printed on page 
    H7926 in the Congressional Record of August 25, 1980, by 
    Representative Ullman of Oregon; and third, the amendment to be 
    printed in the Congressional Record of September 5, 1980, by and if 
    offered by, Representative Florio of New Jersey. Upon the adoption 
    of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means to 
    the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and no further 
    amendment to the bill shall be in order. . . .
        Are there any amendments to section 1?. . .
        Mr. [David A.] Stockman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, under the 
    terms of the rule, would a substitute amendment to the entire bill, 
    H.R. 7020, be in order only now, at this point for this bill?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman that 
    the

[[Page 6866]]

    gentleman's statement is correct, assuming adoption of the Ways and 
    Means Committee amendment at the conclusion of the reading of the 
    bill for amendment. Under the rule, no further amendments would 
    then be in order.
        Mr. Stockman: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute.

    Parliamentarian's Note: After the first section of original text is 
read for amendment under the five-minute rule, an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute may be offered, even if a special order 
governing consideration would prohibit consideration of such an 
amendment at the end of the bill, and even if adoption of such an 
amendment would prohibit the consideration of other perfecting 
amendments specifically made in order by the special order (unless the 
special order specifically prohibits such an amendment from being 
offered at the beginning of the bill or substitute).

Perfecting Amendments to First Section Take Precedence

Sec. 12.13 An amendment in the nature of a substitute is ordinarily 
    offered after the reading of the first section of a bill being read 
    by sections, prior to committee amendments adding new sections; 
    however, where a bill consists of one section and is therefore open 
    to amendment at any point when read, committee amendments adding 
    new sections are considered perfecting amendments and are disposed 
    of prior to the offering of amendments in the nature of a 
    substitute.

    On Nov. 7, 1975,(20) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 6346,(1) the Chair ruled as 
described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 121 Cong. Rec. 35525, 35526, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. Rural Development Act amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
        subsection (a) of section 503 of the Rural Development Act of 
        1972 (7 U.S.C. 2663(a)) is amended by striking the word 
        ``and'', and changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, 
        and adding the following: ``not to exceed $5,000,000 for the 
        period July 1, 1976, through September 30, 1976, and not to 
        exceed $20,000,000 for each fiscal year thereafter.

        Mr. [Charles] Rose [of North Carolina] (during the reading): 
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered 
    as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from North Carolina?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Tom Bevill (Ala.).

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

[[Page 6867]]

        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Keith G.] Sebelius [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk.
        The Chairman: First we will have the Clerk report the committee 
    amendments.
        The Clerk will report the first committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 1, line 8, strike the word 
        ``each'' and insert in lieu thereof the word ``the'', and in 
        line 9, strike the word ``thereafter'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof the words ``ending September 30, 1977''.

        The committee amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the next committee 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. Sebelius: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that I have 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk, and that 
    that takes precedence at this time over the committee amendments.
        The Chairman: The Chair rules that the bill, consisting of one 
    section, has been read and that the committee amendments are 
    perfecting amendments and, therefore, take precedence over any 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.

    Parliamentarian's Note: With a bill consisting of several sections, 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute should be offered after the 
reading of the first section and following disposition of perfecting 
amendments to the first section; but if a committee amendment adding a 
new section two were permitted to be considered first in that context, 
its adoption would preclude offering an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute until the end of the bill (since the first section of the 
bill would no longer be subject to amendment and a new section two 
would be inserted).

Amendments Offered After Debate Concluded

Sec. 12.14 An amendment in the nature of a substitute for an entire 
    bill may be offered after the reading of the bill for amendment has 
    been concluded even though debate on all amendments to the bill has 
    been concluded.

    On Aug. 25, 1949,(3) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 95 Cong. Rec. 12258, 12269, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 6070, to amend the National Housing Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (4) On yesterday, August 24, the 
    Committee agreed that the bill be considered as read and that all 
    debate on the bill and all amendments thereto close at 3 o'clock. 
    Under that agreement, debate has been concluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Mike Mansfield (Mont.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there further amendments to the bill?
        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    committee substitute for the bill. . . .

[[Page 6868]]

        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: Can a substitute be offered 
    which was not on the Clerk's desk prior to the close of debate 
    yesterday?
        The Chairman: Yes; it can. . . .
        Mr. [Andrew J.] Biemiller [of Wisconsin]: In that event, 
    amendments to the substitute would also be in order?
        The Chairman: They would be. Of course, there will be no debate 
    on them.

Substitute Deleting or Retaining Prior Amendments

Sec. 12.15 An amendment in the nature of a substitute for an entire 
    bill may be offered after the reading of such bill for amendment 
    has been concluded and is in order, if germane, regardless of 
    whether it includes or excludes language stricken from the bill or 
    inserted when read for amendment.

    On June 30, 1939,(5) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 84 Cong. Rec. 8502-05, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.J. Res. 306, the Neutrality Act of 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: I state, Mr. Chairman, 
    that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Johnson] has offered an entirely 
    new bill after the conclusion of the consideration of the bill 
    before the committee and that this practice undoes everything the 
    committee has already done. . . . [The committee] has put in 
    certain amendments after due consideration. Those amendments are 
    taken out, as I understand the parliamentary situation, by the 
    substitute or the entirely new bill offered now by the gentleman 
    from Texas. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) . . . The gentleman from Texas 
    offered a substitute to strike out all after the enacting clause of 
    the pending resolution and insert a new provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York made a point of order against the 
    substitute. . . . The Chair feels, of course, that he is bound by 
    the precedents of the House of Representatives and the decisions 
    heretofore rendered, and upon the ground included in the decision 
    cited by the gentleman from Massachusetts, the Chair is definitely 
    of the opinion that the amendment offered here, if germane to the 
    pending resolution, is clearly in order.

Where Perfecting Amendments Have Been Adopted

Sec. 12.16 An amendment in the nature of a substitute is in order after 
    an entire bill has been read and perfecting amendments have been 
    adopted thereto, as long as such perfecting amendments have not 
    changed the bill in its entirety.

    On Sept. 29, 1977,(7) the Committee of the Whole having 
com

[[Page 6869]]

pleted general debate on H.R. 7010,(8) an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute was offered which prompted a unanimous-consent 
request to withhold such amendment pending consideration of the 
committee amendments. The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 123 Cong. Rec. 31542, 31543, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Victims of Crime Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) When the Committee rose on 
    Wednesday, September 14, 1977, all time for general debate on the 
    bill had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H.R. 7010

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, . . .

        Mr. [Thomas F.] Railsback [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Railsback: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert in 
        lieu therof the following:

                                  short title

            Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Elderly Victims 
        of Crime Act of 1977''. . . .

        Mr. [James R.] Mann [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois may withhold the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute while we consider the 
    committee amendment.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from South Carolina?
        Mr. [Mickey] Edwards of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Railsback: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Railsback: Mr. Chairman, in offering the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute, do I lose my right to offer that substitute 
    if the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mann) has the opportunity 
    to deal with the committee amendments first?
        The Chairman: No; it could be offered at the end of the bill 
    once the entire bill has been read.
        Mr. Railsback: But it could not be offered after the committee 
    amendments are dealt with?
        The Chairman: The committee amendments would not change the 
    whole bill, so an amendment in the nature of a substitute could be 
    offered.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The committee amendments on this bill began 
in section 2, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
therefore initially in order prior to consideration of any committee 
amendments.

Where Amendment Offered To Insert New Title

Sec. 12.17 An amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill being 
    read by titles is in order after the last title has

[[Page 6870]]

    been read, notwithstanding disposition of an amendment inserting a 
    new title at the end of the bill.

    On Mar. 9, 1978,(10) during consideration of H.R. 50 
(11) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry concerning the proposition described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 124 Cong. Rec. 7333-36, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: On page 106 add the 
        following new title:

                                   ``Title V

                           ``five-year authorization

            ``The provisions of this Act shall be effective for each of 
        the fiscal years through September 30, 1983 unless extended 
        beyond that date by Act of Congress.''

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Before the Chair would entertain this 
    amendment, the Chair would like to know if there are other 
    amendments to title IV?
        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I wish to 
    offer an amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to advise the 
    gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) if his amendment were accepted 
    at this time it would cut off the additional amendments. Would the 
    gentleman withhold? . . .
        Mr. Bauman: . . . [B]efore making that judgment, the gentleman 
    from Minnesota who has a substitute for the entire bill would still 
    be in order; would he not?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct on that.
        [Mr. Bauman, by unanimous consent, withdrew his amendment.]
        Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Long of Maryland: Insert at the 
        end of the bill the following new section:
            Sec. 150. (a). . . .

        So the amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: on Page 106 add the 
        following new title:

                                   ``TITLE V

                           ``five-year authorization

            ``The provisions of this Act shall be effective for each of 
        the fiscal years through September 30, 1983 unless extended 
        beyond that date by Act of Congress.''. . .

        So the amendment was rejected.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Quie: Have we reached the point where I can now offer my 
    substitute?

[[Page 6871]]

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct. The 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute is now in order.
        Mr. Quie: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Quie.

Sec. 12.18 Adoption of an amendment adding a new title to a bill being 
    read by titles precludes further amendment to the preceding title.

    On Mar. 16, 1978,(12) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 50,(13) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 7333-36, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: On page 106 add the 
        following new title:

                                ``Title V. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Before the Chair would entertain this 
    amendment, the Chair would like to know if there are other 
    amendments to title IV?
        Mr. [Clarence] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I wish to offer 
    an amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to advise the 
    gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) if his amendment were accepted 
    at this time it would cut off the additional amendments. Would the 
    gentleman withhold? . . .
        Mr. Bauman: [B]efore making that judgment, the gentleman from 
    Minnesota who has a substitute for the entire bill would still be 
    in order; would he not?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct on that. . . 
    .
        Mr. Bauman: . . . I withdraw my amendment in deference to the 
    gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long).
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Without objection the gentleman from 
    Maryland (Mr. Bauman) withdraws his amendment.

Read in Full

Sec. 12.19 An amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill 
    offered from the floor must be read in its entirety or the reading 
    dispensed with by unanimous consent and is then open to amendment 
    at any point.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on Dec. 18, 
1979,(14) during consideration of H.R. 5860, authorizing 
loan guarantees to the Chrysler Corporation. The proceedings in the 
Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 125 Cong. Rec. 36791, 36793, 36794, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will designate section 1.

[[Page 6872]]

        Section 1 reads as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled,

                                  short title

            Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Chrysler 
        Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 1979''.

        The Chairman: (15) Are there any amendments to 
    section 1?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.  Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. moorhead of 
                                pennsylvania

        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Page 14, strike out line 10 and all 
        that follows through page 32 and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following:

                                  short title

            Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Chrysler 
        Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 1979''. . . .

        Mr. [S. William] Green [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Green: Mr. Chairman, if I have an amendment to offer to 
    section 3 of the Moorhead substitute, may I ask, at what point is 
    it in order to offer it?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman's inquiry 
    is not in order until the Moorhead amendment has been read.
        The Clerk will read.
        (The Clerk continued the reading of the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute.)

Sec. 12.20 An amendment offered in the nature of a substitute is read 
    in full and is open to amendment only after it has been completely 
    read.

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(16) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 96 Cong. Rec. 2218, 2219, 81st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 4453, the Fair Employment Practice Act.
            See also 97 Cong. Rec. 9333, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 1, 
        1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Samuel K.] McConnell [Jr., of 
    Pennsylvania]: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert 
    ``That this act may be cited as the `Fair Employment Practice Act.' 
    ''. . 
        [The reading of the amendment was interrupted by parliamentary 
    inquiries:]
        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state it. . . 
    .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Colmer: Do I understand that the whole bill will be read 
    through, that is, the amendment that the Clerk is now reading, 
    before any amendments are offered? Or are amendments to be offered 
    at the end of sections as the Clerk concludes them?

[[Page 6873]]

        The Chairman: This is an amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania to the bill. The amendment will be read in its 
    entirety and then will be open for amendment.

Not Read by Sections for Amendment

Sec. 12.21 An amendment seeking to strike out all after the enacting 
    clause and insert other language is not read by sections for 
    amendment; amendments are in order to any part of the amendment.

    On Feb. 4, 1946,(18) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 836, 839, 842, 844, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 4908, relating to investigation of labor 
        disputes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike out all after the enacting clause and insert as a substitute 
    the text of the bill H.R. 5262. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Case of South Dakota moves to strike out all after the 
        enacting clause. . . .

        Mr. [Sherman] Adams [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    South Dakota [Mr. Case].
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Adams as a substitute for the Case 
        amendment:
            ``That the Congress hereby declares that the objectives of 
        this act are to avoid and diminish strikes and other forms of 
        industrial strife or unrest. . . .
            ``Sec. 2. When used in this act--
            ``(1) The term `commerce' means trade, traffic, commerce, 
        transportation, or communication among the several States, or 
        between the District of Columbia or any Territory of the United 
        States and any State or other Territory, or between any foreign 
        country and any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, 
        or within the District of Columbia or any Territory or between 
        points in the same State but through any other State or any 
        Territory or the District of Columbia or any foreign country. . 
        . .

        Mr. Adams (interrupting the reading of the substitute). Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the further reading of the 
    substitute be dispensed with.

        Mr. [F. E.] Hook [of Michigan]: I object, Mr. Chairman.
        [The Clerk concluded the reading of the substitute.]
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Are amendments to the 
    substitute also in order at this time?
        The Chairman: (19) They are. Amendments to the Case 
    amendment and to the Adams substitute are in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Emmet O'Neal (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman: Will the Case bill be read by section for 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: The Case bill has already been read.
        Mr. Hoffman: Are amendments in order at any point in the Case 
    bill?
        The Chairman: Amendments are in order to any part of the Case 
    [amendment].

[[Page 6874]]

Notice of Intention To Strike

Sec. 12.22 When it is proposed to offer a single substitute for several 
    paragraphs of a bill which is being considered by paragraphs, the 
    substitute may be moved to the first paragraph with notice that if 
    it be agreed to, motions will be made to strike out the remaining 
    paragraphs.

    On July 29, 1969,(20) by way of example, an amendment 
was offered in the following manner:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 115 Cong. Rec. 21218, 21219, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 13111.
            See also 118 Cong. Rec. 21106, 21118-22, 92d Cong. 2d 
        Sess., June 15, 1972 [H.R. 15417]; 117 Cong. Rec. 10062, 92d 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 7, 1971 [H.R. 7016].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles S.] Joelson [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the paragraph just read which is a simple 
    substitute to several paragraphs of the bill dealing with the 
    Office of Education, and I hereby give notice that after the 
    amendment is agreed to I will make a motion to strike out the 
    paragraphs appearing as follows: the paragraph on page 26, lines 1 
    through 7.

Sec. 12.23 When it is proposed to offer a single amendment--a motion to 
    strike out and insert new matter--for several paragraphs in a bill 
    which is being considered by paragraphs the amendment may be 
    offered to the first paragraph to be amended with notice that if it 
    be agreed to, motions will be made to strike out the remaining 
    paragraphs as they are read.

    On June 26, 1973,(1) an amendment was offered in the 
following manner:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 119 Cong. Rec. 21368, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. See also 116 Cong. Rec. 
        25345, 25346, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 22, 1970 [H.R. 18515], 
        where an amendment in the nature of a substitute for several 
        paragraphs of an appropriation bill was offered, and the 
        proponent of the amendment announced his intention to strike 
        several subsequent paragraphs of the bill if his amendment were 
        agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the paragraph of the bill just read which is a single 
    substitute for several paragraphs of the bill dealing with the 
    Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and related agencies, 
    and I hereby give notice that if the amendment is agreed to, I will 
    make motions to strike out the remaining paragraphs as follows: The 
    paragraph on page 8, lines 13 through 20; the paragraph on page 11, 
    lines 9 through 11.

Sec. 12.24 Where an appropriation bill is being read by paragraphs, an 
    amendment--in effect a motion to strike

[[Page 6875]]

    one paragraph of the bill and insert several consecutive paragraphs 
    in the bill--may be offered to the first paragraph modified by the 
    amendment only if notice is given that if the amendment is agreed 
    to, motions will be subsequently made to strike out the following 
    paragraphs of the bill which would be supplanted thereby.

    On July 29, 1969,(2) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 115 Cong. Rec. 21217, 21218, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 13111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: On 
    page 25 strike out line 9 and all that follows on page 25 and 
    insert in lieu thereof the following: . . .
        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, under the 
    rules of the House, when a bill is to be read by paragraph and a 
    Member wishes to amend a paragraph that has been read and several 
    succeeding paragraphs he is permitted to offer an amendment at the 
    time the first of those paragraphs is read that he wants to amend 
    and then at the same time give notice that if his amendment, which 
    goes beyond the first paragraph and into several others, is adopted 
    he will move to strike the succeeding paragraphs.
        In the first place, the gentleman from Illinois gave no such 
    notice. . . .
        The Chairman: (3) . . . The Chair is presented with 
    a most difficult ruling at this time. He has resorted to a 
    precedent in ``Hinds' Precedents,'' volume V, page 404, paragraph 
    5795, which reads as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            When it is proposed to offer a single substitute for 
        several paragraphs of a bill which is being considered by 
        paragraphs, the substitute may be moved to the first paragraph 
        with notice that if it be agreed to, motions will be made to 
        strike out the remaining paragraphs.

        The Chair notes that the gentleman from Illinois did not give 
    such notice. The amendment goes beyond the paragraph which has been 
    read and in effect modifies a paragraph which has not yet been 
    read.
        The Chairman, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Notice of Intention To Strike: Distinction Between Substitute and 
    Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 12.25 Where there is pending an amendment striking out the pending 
    and several succeeding paragraphs and inserting new matter, in a 
    bill being read by paragraphs, a substitute therefor is in order 
    and may be offered without giving notice of an intention to strike 
    subsequent paragraphs; however, such notice is required when the 
    original amendment to strike out and insert is offered, since the 
    proponent thereof must describe the parameters of his amendment.

[[Page 6876]]

    On July 29, 1969,(4) Chairman Chet Holifield, of 
California, in response to objection made to a substitute 
amendment,(5) stated that the notice described above was 
unnecessary in the circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 115 Cong. Rec. 21221, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 13111.
 5. The amendment was offered by Mr. Robert H. Michel (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted that the substitute proposed in this case 
encompassed less than the amendment in the nature of a substitute; 
hence no notice of intention to strike succeeding paragraphs was 
required. A substitute covering more paragraphs than the amendment for 
which offered would not be in order.

--Substitute Made Coextensive With Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 12.26 A substitute for an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    for several paragraphs of an appropriation bill was offered after 
    being made coextensive with the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute [that is, it did not affect more paragraphs than those 
    proposed to be changed by the original amendment], and notice was 
    given by the proponent of the substitute of his intention to strike 
    subsequent paragraphs even though such notice was not strictly 
    required.

    On Oct. 1, 1974,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill,(7) the proceedings, as 
described above, occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 120 Cong. Rec. 33352, 33355, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. H.R. 16900, supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, 
        Part A of title I ($3,695,300,000) . . . and title VII of the 
        Elementary and Secondary Education Act; sections 822 and 823 of 
        Public Law 93-380; section 417(a)(2) of the General Education 
        Provisions Act; title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 
        title III-A ($15,000,000) of the National Defense Education Act 
        of 1958, $4,264,643,000. . . .

        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the bill, and to the paragraph that was just read, and 
    which is a simple substitute for several paragraphs dealing with 
    the Office of Education. I hereby give notice that if the amendment 
    is agreed to that I will make a motion to strike certain 
    paragraphs, as follows: The paragraph which begins on page 6, line 
    12, and ending on page 7, line 18; and the paragraph beginning on 
    page 7, line 19, and ending on page 7, line 24.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Obey: Strike the paragraph 
        beginning in

[[Page 6877]]

        line 19, page 5 and ending on line 11, page 6, and insert in 
        lieu thereof.
            For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, 
        Part A of title I ($3,695,300,000) . . . and title VII of the 
        Elementary and Secondary Education Act; sections 822 and 823 of 
        Public Law 93-380; section 417[a][2] of the General Education 
        Provisions Act; title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 
        title III-A ($15,000,000) of the National Defense Education Act 
        of 1958, $4,329,643,000. . . .

        Mr. [Edward R.] Roybal [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], which is a single substitute 
    for several paragraphs in the bill dealing with the Office of 
    Education.
        I hereby give notice that if the amendment is agreed to I will 
    make a motion to strike the paragraphs appearing as follows: The 
    paragraph beginning on page 6, line 12, extending to line 18, page 
    7; the paragraph beginning on line 19, page 7, through line 24.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Roybal as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Obey: On page 5, strike out the 
        paragraph beginning on line 17 extending down through line 11 
        on page 6 and substitute in lieu thereof:
            ``For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, 
        Part A of title I ($3,743,300,000) . . . and title VII of the 
        Elementary and Secondary Education Act; sections 822 and 823 of 
        Public Law 93-380; section 417(a)(2) of the General Education 
        Provisions Act; title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 
        title III-A ($15,000,000) of the National Defense Education Act 
        of 1958, $4,264,643,000.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Roybal had originally drafted an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute for several more paragraphs 
than those sought to be changed by Mr. Obey. Mr. Obey having been 
recognized first to offer his amendment, Mr. Roybal modified his 
amendment to make it coextensive with the Obey amendment. He thus 
eliminated references to paragraphs not amended by Mr. Obey, and was 
then not required to give notice of his intention to strike subsequent 
paragraphs upon offering his amendment as a substitute.

Amendment in Nature of Substitute Being Considered as Original Bill

Sec. 12.27 An amendment in the nature of a substitute being read as an 
    original bill pursuant to a special order is read by sections for 
    amendment (unless otherwise specified in the rule), and the 
    amendment may be considered as read and open for amendment at any 
    point by unanimous consent only.

    On Mar. 20, 1978,(8) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 7700,(9) the

[[Page 6878]]

proceedings described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 124 Cong. Rec. 7558, 7559, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. The Postal Service Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (10) Pursuant to the rule, it shall be 
    in order to consider an amendment printed in the Congressional 
    Record of March 14, 1978, by Representative Hanley of New York if 
    offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the bill, 
    said substitute shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule 
    as an original bill, and all points of order against said 
    substitute for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 7, 
    rule XVI, are hereby waived. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Edward W. Pattison (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        At this time the Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Postal Service 
        Act of 1977''.

        Mr. [James M.] Hanley [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to 
    the rule, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute for 
    the bill.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment by sections.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
            That this Act may be cited as the ``Postal Service Act of 
        1978''.

        Mr. Hanley (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment in the nature of a substitute be 
    considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at 
    any point. . . .
        [Objection was heard.]
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute is to be read by sections.
        Are there amendments to section 1?

Sec. 12.28 Where a special rule provides that an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute be considered as an original bill for 
    amendment under the five-minute rule if offered, the first section 
    of the original bill is first read and the amendment, if then 
    offered from the floor, must be read by sections for amendment in 
    the absence of unanimous consent to consider it as read and open to 
    amendment at any point.

    On July 18, 1978,(11) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 1609, pursuant to a special rule, the 
proceedings, described above, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 21486, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore [Mr. Raymond F. Lederer, of 
    Pennsylvania]: Pursuant to the rule, it shall be in order to 
    consider an amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the 
    Congressional Record of June 28 by Representative Udall of Arizona, 
    if offered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment in lieu 
    of the amendments now printed in the bill.
        The Clerk will read section 1 of the original bill.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in

[[Page 6879]]

        Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the ``Coal 
        Pipeline Act of 1977.''

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the 
    Congressional Record of June 28.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Udall: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
        That this Act may be cited as the ``Coal Pipeline Act of 
        1978''.

        Mr. Udall (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent to dispense with further reading of this amendment. It is 
    printed in the Congressional Record.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Arizona?
        Mr. [Teno] Roncalio [of Wyoming]: Reserving the right to 
    object, Mr. Chairman--and I do not intend to--may I ask the 
    Chairman if he intends to rise at 5:30?
        Mr. Udall: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, as soon 
    as the amendment is read, I intend to ask unanimous consent that it 
    be open to amendment at any point, and then at that point I will 
    move that the Committee rise.
        Mr. [Joe] Skubitz [of Kansas]: Reserving the right to object, 
    Mr. Chairman, I will advise the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall) 
    that at this moment I have no objection to the substitute, but I do 
    object to his second unanimous-consent request that we amend at any 
    point. I insist that we take it up section by section.
        Mr. Udall: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the 
    gentleman is within his rights, and I renew my unanimous-consent 
    request that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with at this 
    time and considered as read. It is printed in the Congressional 
    Record.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The amendment has to be read by 
    sections. The Clerk has read section 1.
        Mr. Udall: When section 1 has been read, I will move that the 
    Committee rise, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that section 
    1 of the amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered as 
    read.
        Mr. Roncalio: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.
        Mr. Skubitz: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Arizona?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 12.29 Where a bill is being considered under a rule providing that 
    a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
    considered as an original bill, a substitute for such committee 
    amendment may be offered at the end of the first section or at the 
    end of such committee amendment.

    On Oct. 18, 1943,(12) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 89 Cong. Rec. 8450, 78th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was S. 
        1279, relating to allowances and allotments for dependents of 
        military personnel.

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

[[Page 6880]]

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Under the rule adopted 
    the other day, the original rule stated that the Senate bill would 
    be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. That rule was 
    amended by an amendment adopted by the House, by which we provided 
    for the consideration of the House committee substitute as an 
    original bill. The question I ask is whether or not any proposal to 
    offer a substitute for the committee bill would have to be offered 
    during the time that this committee substitute is being read, or 
    whether it should be offered at the conclusion of the reading of 
    the entire substitute.
        The Chairman: (13) It could have been offered at the 
    end of the first section, of the substitute, or it may be offered 
    at the end of the reading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Procedure Upon Conclusion of Reading for Amendment

Sec. 12.30 Upon conclusion of the reading of a committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute for amendment in Committee of the Whole, 
    the pending question is on adoption of the substitute as amended, 
    and if the substitute is rejected the original bill is read by 
    sections for amendment. If the committee amendment is agreed to it 
    is reported to the House and voted on.

    On July 10, 1941,(14) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 87 Cong. Rec. 5962, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was S. 
        1524, relating to deferment of men by age groups under the 
        Selective Training and Service Act of 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [R. Ewing] Thomason [of Texas]: Am I correct in 
    understanding that the substitute offered by the House committee to 
    the Senate bill will now be read and will be subject to amendment 
    by sections?
        The Chairman: (15) That is correct. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Schuyler Otis Bland (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Thomason: Assuming that after the committee substitute has 
    been amended and is submitted to the Committee for a vote, the 
    committee substitute is voted down, would the Senate bill then be 
    read for amendment?
        The Chairman: Then the Senate bill would be considered section 
    by section, subject to amendment. . . .
        If [the substitute] is agreed to by the Committee, it will be 
    reported back to the House as an amendment, and a vote in the House 
    may be had on that amendment.

    Similarly, on June 13, 1939,(16) the following exchange 
took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 84 Cong. Rec. 7108, 7109, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: As I understand the 
    situation now, the entire Senate bill has been stricken out and the 
    House bill inserted as an amendment, so at the completion of the 
    consideration under the 5-minute rule the vote will come on

[[Page 6881]]

    adopting the House bill as an amendment. . . .
        The Speaker: (17) As the Chair understands the 
    parliamentary situation, under the rule the House substitute 
    amendment for the Senate bill will be considered by sections as an 
    original bill, open to germane amendment. At the conclusion of the 
    reading for amendment the question will be put on agreeing to the 
    substitute, or the substitute as amended, for the Senate bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: If that is voted down, as I understand it, the 
    original Senate bill will be before the House.
        The Speaker: If the committee substitute amendment is voted 
    down, that will leave the Senate bill before the Committee of the 
    Whole for consideration.

Effect of Rejection

Sec. 12.31 The Chair indicated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, 
    that if a pending amendment striking out several succeeding 
    paragraphs and inserting new matter in an appropriation bill were 
    defeated, the reading of the bill for amendment, by paragraph, 
    would then continue and each paragraph would be subject to 
    amendment when read.

    On July 29, 1969,(18) an amendment was under 
consideration as described above. The following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 115 Cong. Rec. 21218, 21219, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 13111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, if the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Joelson), 
    the entire package, is defeated, would it then be in order to amend 
    different sections in this area, in this whole part?
        The Chairman: (19) the Chair will state that if the 
    amendment is defeated, why, of course, we would be right back where 
    we started. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The paragraphs would be read, and they would be open to 
    amendment.

Incorporating Adopted Perfecting Amendments in Substitute Text

Sec. 12.32 The last paragraph of a bill to draft nurses for service 
    having been read for amendment, the Committee of the Whole adopted 
    an amendment striking out all after the enacting clause and 
    reinserting the language, as amended, as an amendment to the 
    Selective Training and Service Act of 1940.

    On Mar. 7, 1945,(20) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 91 Cong. Rec. 1875, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 2277, to insure adequate nursing care for members of the 
        armed forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute for the bill.

[[Page 6882]]

        May I make the explanation that this substitute is the bill as 
    agreed upon in the Committee of the Whole. It contains every 
    amendment that has been adopted, and it merely makes the bill, as 
    completed by all of the several amendments, title II to the 
    Selective Training and Service Act.
        The purpose of that, first of all, is to bring about an orderly 
    procedure in legislative dealings by making it a part of the act 
    relating to induction for military service. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) the Clerk will report the 
    substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Stephen Pace (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
           B. WHEN TO OFFER AMENDMENT; READING FOR AMENDMENT
 
Sec. 13. Time Yielded for Amendment or Other Purposes

Time Yielded for Debate

Sec. 13.1 An amendment may not be offered in time yielded for debate 
    only.

    On Feb. 2, 1955,(2) the House had under consideration a 
resolution, debate proceeding under the hour rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 101 Cong. Rec. 1076-79, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ray J.] Madden [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up a resolution (H. Res. 63) and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, acting 
        as a whole or by subcommittee, is authorized and directed to 
        conduct an inspection of the Veterans' Administration with a 
        particular view to determining the efficiency of the 
        administration and operation of Veterans' Administration 
        installations. . . .

        Mr. Madden: Mr. Speaker, this resolution calls for the 
    continuation of the investigation which the Congress authorized in 
    the last session. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I now yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
    Oregon [Mr. Mathew H. Ellsworth]. . . .
        Mr. Ellsworth: . . . Mr. Speaker, referring now to the pending 
    resolution, House Resolution 63, it authorizes the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs, acting as a whole or by subcommittee, to conduct 
    full and complete investigations and studies of certain programs 
    enumerated in the resolution itself. . . . Mr. Speaker, I yield the 
    gentlewoman from Massachusetts 3 minutes.
        Mrs. [Edith N.] Rogers of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, if the 
    resolution can be amended I should like to offer an amendment, on 
    page 3, line 15, to strike out the sentence reading:

            The committee shall not undertake any investigation of any 
        matter which is under investigation by another committee of the 
        House.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) Does the gentleman from 
    Indiana yield for that purpose?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Robert C. Byrd (W. Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Madden: Mr. Speaker, I believe that not only the chairman 
    of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs but the chairman of the 
    Committee on Rules have stated the position in regard to this 
    resolution, that it very fully covers

[[Page 6883]]

    the objection the gentlewoman from Massachusetts has set out, and I 
    do not feel that I should yield for an amendment.
        Mrs. Rogers of Massachusetts: Is there any way to place such an 
    amendment in the resolution? Is there any prohibition against it? 
    Under the rules of the House, if there is not, I will offer that 
    amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair wishes to state that the 
    gentlewoman does not have that right in the time yielded her for 
    debate.

Time Yielded for Inquiry

Sec. 13.2 An amendment may not be offered during time that has been 
    yielded for a parliamentary inquiry.

    It is well established that a Member recognized to propound a 
parliamentary inquiry may not, having secured the floor for such 
limited purpose, offer an amendment. The Chair (4) referred 
to that principle in the following exchange of Mar. 12, 1964: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
 5. 110 Cong. Rec. 5140, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 8986 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [August E.] Johansen [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield to me so that I may make a parliamentary inquiry? . 
    . . [Time was yielded.] I direct this inquiry to the Chair as to 
    whether it will be in order if I secure recognition to offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio.
        The Chairman: Of course the gentleman, if he is recognized, may 
    offer an amendment.
        Mr. [James H.] Morrison [of Louisiana]: A parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman secured recognition first and 
    asked the parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman has not been recognized, except for 
    a parliamentary inquiry.

Manager of House Resolution Controls Purposes for Which He Yields

Sec. 13.3 In the House, during consideration of a resolution reported 
    from the Committee on House Administration, an amendment thereto 
    may be offered only by the Member having the floor unless he yields 
    for that purpose; and it is within the discretion of the Member in 
    charge whether, and to whom, he will yield.

    On Jan. 29, 1959,(6) during proceedings relating to a 
resolution providing for a clerk for the NATO Parliamentary Conference, 
the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 105 Cong. Rec. 1405, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel N.] Friedel [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the

[[Page 6884]]

    Committee on House Administration, I offer a privileged resolution 
    (H. Res. 36) and ask for its immediate consideration. . . .
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Am I privileged to offer an 
    amendment to this resolution?
        The Speaker: (7) The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
    Friedel] has the floor. If he does not yield for that purpose, the 
    gentleman may not offer the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Subsequently, on the same day,(8) during 
    consideration of a resolution (9) reported from the 
    Committee on House Administration providing for operating funds for 
    the Committee on Un-American Activities, the following exchange 
    took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 105 Cong. Rec. 1408, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. H. Res. 137.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Omar T.] Burleson [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, the Chair 
    indicated earlier that the manager of a bill in the House, in this 
    instance the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Friedel], may exercise 
    his discretion as to the reason for yielding to another Member; is 
    it correct that it is the gentleman's prerogative to inquire from 
    the Member requesting that he yield, the purpose for which the 
    Member makes the request? In other words, in the immediate case, 
    the gentleman from Maryland has the right to predetermine the 
    intent of those who wish him to yield. If to yield is for the 
    purpose of offering an amendment to the pending bill, the gentleman 
    may decline to yield for that purpose?
        The Speaker: The gentleman has entire discretion as to whether 
    he will yield or not and for any purpose.

Amendment to Amendment

Sec. 13.4 The Speaker held that a pending amendment to a resolution 
    under debate in the House prior to the adoption of the rules was 
    not subject to further amendment unless the proponent of the 
    amendment yielded for that purpose or the previous question on the 
    pending amendment was voted down.

    On Jan. 3, 1969,(10) prior to the adoption of the rules, 
during consideration of a resolution (11) authorizing the 
Speaker to administer the oath of office to Adam Clayton Powell, of New 
York, an inquiry was made as to the propriety of offering an amendment 
as indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 115 Cong. Rec. 28, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
11. H. Res. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, is the Celler 
    resolution as proposed, if amended by the MacGregor amendment, 
    subject to substitution at this point?
        The Speaker: (12) Does the gentleman inquire whether 
    or not it is in order to offer an amendment to the MacGregor 
    amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Whether it is in order to offer a substitute, Mr. 
    Speaker, for the Celler resolution and the pending amendment.

[[Page 6885]]

        The Speaker: The Chair will state that such an amendment is not 
    in order at this time unless the [proponent of the amendment] 
    yields for that purpose, or unless the previous question is 
    defeated.

Authority of Manager To Yield for Amendment

Sec. 13.5 A member of the Committee on Rules calling up a privileged 
    resolution reported by that committee does not normally yield for 
    an amendment unless authorized to do so by the committee.

    On May 1, 1968,(13) a member of the Committee on Rules 
called up a privileged resolution (14) and then entered into 
discussion with the Speaker Pro Tempore, (15) as to the 
possibility of yielding for an amendment to the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 114 Cong. Rec. 11304-06, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
14. H. Res. 1150 (Committee on Rules) providing for consideration of 
        H.R. 16729, extending the higher education student loan 
        program.
15. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Claude D.] Pepper [of Florida]: Would it be permissible 
    for a Member on the floor, without convening the Rules Committee, 
    to offer an amendment to the rule? I believe that perhaps I, as the 
    Member handling the rule, has a right to yield to a Member, only to 
    whom I wish to yield, to offer an amendment. Would it be 
    permissible for me to yield to the gentleman from Kentucky to offer 
    that amendment to the rule, so as to provide, on page 2, after the 
    period, I would presume, in the second line, ``and points of order 
    shall be waived with respect to one amendment to be offered by the 
    chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor''?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: May the Chair inquire of the gentleman 
    whether he has instructions from the Committee on Rules to offer 
    such an amendment?
        Mr. Pepper: I have no specific instructions for yielding for 
    the offering of that amendment, from the Committee on Rules, except 
    it was within the intendment, I understood, of the Committee on 
    Rules that this amendment would be admissible. I do not propose to 
    act by the authority of the Committee on Rules if I should yield 
    for such an amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman, of course, would be 
    doing it on his own responsibility, then, and not subject to the 
    order of the Committee on Rules.
        The Chair will add, the only other way an amendment could be 
    offered to the rule would be under the rules of the House. . . .
        Mr. Pepper: Mr. Speaker, I have not offered any such amendment. 
    I do not propose to yield for the purpose of offering such an 
    amendment, since I do not have authority to do so from the 
    Committee on Rules. I simply present the rule as it is written to 
    the House for its consideration.

Amendment to Committee Amendment

Sec. 13.6 A committee amendment printed in a resolution being

[[Page 6886]]

    considered in the House is not subject to amendment unless the 
    Member controlling the resolution yields for that purpose or the 
    previous question is voted down on the amendment.

    On Nov. 15, 1973,(16) a resolution 17 as 
under consideration to provide additional funds for investigations by 
the Committee on the Judiciary. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 119 Cong. Rec. 37141-44, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
17. H. Res. 702 (Committee on House Administration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Wiggins [of California]: . . . Mr. Speaker, 
    was the committee amendment agreed to? . . .
        The Speaker: (18) The committee amendment was 
    reported. It was not agreed to. The Chair had started to put the 
    question. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Will the gentleman yield for an amendment to the committee 
    amendment?
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not 
    yield for an amendment to the committee amendment.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman move the previous question on 
    the committee amendment?
        Mr. Hays: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    committee amendment.

Recognition Under Five-Minute Rule

Sec. 13.7 A Member recognized under the five-minute rule in Committee 
    of the Whole may not yield to another Member to offer an amendment; 
    a Member wishing to offer an amendment under the five-minute rule 
    must seek recognition from the Chair and may not be yielded the 
    floor for that purpose by another Member.

    This principle was demonstrated in the proceedings of Dec. 12, 
1973.(19) Mr. Robert C. Eckhardt, of Texas, sought 
unsuccessfully to withdraw an amendment and to yield to another Member 
to offer a different amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 41170, 41171, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 11450, the Energy Emergency Act.
            For a discussion of the five-minute rule, see Rule XXIII 
        clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 (101st Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
    this amendment at this time in order to permit the Rodino amendment 
    to be considered.
        The Chairman: (20) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Bolling (Mo.).

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

[[Page 6887]]

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    object. . . .
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
    the amendment at this time.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Texas?
        Mr. [Harold V.] Froehlich [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Derwinski).
        Mr. Derwinski: Mr. Chairman, I merely want to make this 
    observation:
        Here we are in the consideration of the first major amendment 
    to this bill. We have an amendment to an amendment to that offered, 
    and now we have had an attempt to withdraw that amendment because 
    our constitutional lawyers on the Committee of the Judiciary are 
    going to lift a new amendment out of the clear blue sky. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Seiberling).
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: I yield to the gentleman 
    from Texas.
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my colleagues 
    to vote against this amendment, since I have not been permitted to 
    withdraw it, because I do want the Rodino amendment to be before 
    the body, and I shall offer it as soon as I have an opportunity so 
    to do and yield to the gentleman from New Jersey the distinguished 
    chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
        Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, I wish to commend the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) not only for his magnanimous gesture but 
    especially for his initiative in trying to clean up this simply 
    terrible antitrust exemption in this bill. . . .
        I want to say that the amendment to be offered by the gentleman 
    from New Jersey has been approved by the Federal Trade Commission 
    and by the Justice Department. The gentleman from New Jersey is not 
    only the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, but he 
    is also the chairman of the Subcommittee on Antitrust. I am a 
    member of his subcommittee, and I think the Members can rest 
    assured that the amendment addresses itself to the problem in a 
    comprehensive way. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) to the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
    Staggers).
        The amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    was rejected.
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas 
    (Mr. Eckhardt) rise?
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield to the gentleman 
    from New Jersey (Mr. Rodino).
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman for that 
    purpose.

Sec. 13.8 The proponent of an amendment in Committee of the Whole is 
    entitled to five minutes of debate in favor of the amendment before 
    a perfecting amendment may be

[[Page 6888]]

    offered thereto, and he may not yield to another to offer an 
    amendment.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on May 31, 
1984,(1) during consideration of H.R. 5167, the Department 
of Defense authorization bill. The proceedings in the Committee of the 
Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 130 Cong. Rec. 14648, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dickinson: At the end of this bill 
        insert the following new section. . . .

        Mr. Dickinson (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and 
    printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Alabama?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield to me?
        Mr. Dickinson: I am very pleased to yield to the chairman of 
    the committee.
        Mr. Price: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer a perfecting 
    amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama. 
    The amendment is at the desk.
        The Chairman: The Chair will make the observation that the 
    gentleman has not yet discussed his amendment. At the conclusion of 
    that discussion, it will then be in order for the gentleman to 
    offer an amendment.



 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
           B. WHEN TO OFFER AMENDMENT; READING FOR AMENDMENT
 
Sec. 14. Effect of Previous Question; Expiration of Time for Debate

Amendments Cut Off by Previous Question

Sec. 14.1 The demand for the previous question cuts off further 
    amendments unless the previous question is rejected.

    On June 12, 1961,(3) during consideration, in the House 
as in Committee of the Whole, of a bill (4) relating to 
admission of certain evidence in the District of Columbia courts, the 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 107 Cong. Rec. 10080, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
            For further application of the principle that a resolution 
        before the House is subject to amendment if the motion for the 
        previous question is voted down, see 95 Cong. Rec. 10, 81st 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1949.
 4. H.R. 7053 (Committee on the District of Columbia).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John L.] McMillan [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    the previous question. . . .
        Mr. [William C.] Cramer [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I have 
    previously announced I would offer an amend

[[Page 6889]]

    ment to make it applicable nationwide in conformance with a bill 
    reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. Could the Chair advise 
    me as to when and if such an amendment is in order and under what 
    circumstances?

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The Chair will state 
    that the amendment can be offered only if the previous question is 
    voted down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. W. Homer Thornberry (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 14.2 An amendment to the body of a resolution reported by the 
    Committee on Rules should be offered before the previous question 
    is moved.

    On Feb. 28, 1949,(6) the House having under 
consideration a resolution reported by the Committee on Rules which 
contained authority to spend money from the contingent fund of the 
House, a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on House 
Administration, struck out such authority by an amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 95 Cong. Rec. 1617, 1619, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Lyle [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    House Resolution 44 and ask for its immediate consideration. . . .

            Resolved, That the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
        Fisheries or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof is 
        authorized to make a full and complete study. . . .

        Mr. Lyle: At what time would an amendment be proper? Now, or 
    after the previous question has been ordered?
        The Speaker: (7) An amendment to the body of the 
    resolution should be offered now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Lyle: I offer an amendment, Mr. Speaker, which I send to 
    the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lyle:
            On page 3, line 6, after the word ``oaths'' and the 
        semicolon, insert the word ``and.''
            On page 3, line 7, after the word ``testimony'', strike out 
        the semicolon and the words ``and to make such expenditures as 
        it deems advisable.''
            Page 3, line 8, after the word ``advisable'', strike out 
        the period and the remainder of the paragraph down to and 
        including the word ``administration'' in line 14.

        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the amendments.
        The amendments were agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the resolution as 
    amended.
        The resolution as amended was agreed to.
        Mr. Lyle: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lyle: Page 1, strike out the 
        preamble of the resolution.

        The amendment was agreed to.

Sec. 14.3 Where the previous question is ordered in the House on a 
    pending resolution and the amendment thereto, the vote immediately 
    recurs on the adoption of the

[[Page 6890]]

    resolution after the disposition of the amendment, and no 
    intervening amendment is in order.

    On Jan. 3, 1969,(8) during consideration of a resolution 
(9) authorizing Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
to administer the oath of office to Adam Clayton Powell, of New York, 
the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 115 Cong. Rec. 27-29, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. H. Res. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clark] MacGregor [of Minnesota]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I now 
    move the previous question on the amendment and the resolution.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Minnesota moves the previous 
    question on the amendment and the resolution. The question is on 
    ordering the previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the substitute amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. MacGregor). . . .
        So the substitute amendment was rejected. . . .
        The Speaker: The question recurs on the adoption of the 
    resolution offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Celler).
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker . . . I have a 
    substitute at the Clerk's desk.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the previous question 
    has been ordered not only on the amendment but also on the 
    resolution. Therefore, a substitute is not in order at this time.
        The question is on the resolution offered by the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Celler).

Effect of Previous Question on Amendments to Motion To Recommit

Sec. 14.4 A straight motion to recommit a bill is not amendable unless 
    the previous question is voted down on that motion.

    On Feb. 5, 1974,(10) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 120 Cong. Rec. 2079-81, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11221, amending the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (11) The Clerk will report the motion 
    to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Stephens: 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.
        Mr. Stephens: In other words, in order to give me a chance, we 
    will have to vote down the previous question. . . .

[[Page 6891]]

        The Speaker: The question is on ordering the previous question. 
    . . .
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    11, noes 259, answered ``present'' 24, not voting 24. . . .
        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.

Reconsideration of Vote Whereby Previous Question Was Ordered

Sec. 14.5 Where the previous question had been ordered on a resolution 
    creating an investigating committee, the vote whereby the previous 
    question was ordered was reconsidered and the motion for the 
    previous question rejected, so that the Member in charge could 
    yield to another for the purpose of offering an amendment to the 
    resolution.

    On Mar. 27, 1945,(12) during consideration of House 
Resolution 195, creating a select committee to investigate supplies and 
shortages of food, the previous question was moved on the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See 91 Cong. Rec. 2861, 2862, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (13) The unfinished business is the 
    further consideration of House Resolution 195, on which there are 2 
    minutes of debate remaining.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Cox).
        Mr. [Edward E.] Cox: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question 
    on the resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
        The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the 
    ``ayes'' appeared to have it.
        Mr. [John W.] Flannagan [Jr., of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    demand a division.
        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to vacate the 
    proceedings by which the previous question was ordered.
        Mr. Flannagan: I object, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Keefe: Mr. Speaker, this scenery is moving so fast here I 
    just do not understand the procedure. As I understand, we had under 
    consideration a resolution from the Committee on Rules and there 
    were 2 minutes of debate remaining. I had a very distinct 
    understanding yesterday with the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
    Anderson], and with the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox], that 
    before this resolution was voted on an amendment to the resolution 
    would be offered, and that the gentleman from Georgia would yield 
    for the purpose of offering that amendment.
        Mr. Cox: The gentleman is correct.

[[Page 6892]]

        Mr. Keefe: Mr. Speaker, I should hesitate very much to see this 
    thing move so very rapidly before that agreement is consummated. . 
    . .
        Mr. Speaker, may I ask what the situation is which now 
    confronts us?
        The Speaker: The situation at present is that the previous 
    question has been ordered on the resolution.
        Mr. Keefe: Then, in view of that situation, if the gentleman 
    from Georgia, in charge of the resolution, yields, is the 
    resolution subject to amendment?
        The Speaker: The gentleman does not have the right to yield 
    since the previous question has been ordered.
        Mr. Anderson of New Mexico: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Anderson of New Mexico: Mr. Speaker, if the previous 
    question is voted down, will the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] 
    then have the right to yield to me for the purpose of offering an 
    amendment?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the previous question 
    has already been ordered. The motion for the previous question 
    offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] has already been 
    agreed to.
        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House reconsider the vote 
    by which the previous question was ordered. I am compelled to make 
    that motion because of the agreement that the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin [Mr. Keefe] has stated was made between himself and the 
    gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Anderson]. . . .
        The Speaker: That question has not been decided.
        A motion to reconsider is in order and the Chair must recognize 
    the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] who made the motion to 
    reconsider the vote by which the previous question was ordered, 
    which the Chair has done.
        Mr. Flannagan: Mr. Speaker, is such a motion in order after the 
    vote on the resolution has been ordered?
        The Speaker: Certainly, at any time.
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as 
    a misunderstanding has evidently occurred, I ask unanimous consent 
    that all proceedings beyond the motion for the previous question be 
    vacated and that the question on ordering the previous question 
    again be put by the Speaker.
        Mr. Flannagan: Mr. Speaker, I object. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion of the gentleman 
    from Georgia [Mr. Cox] to reconsider the vote by which the previous 
    question was ordered.
        The motion was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on ordering the previous question.
        The motion for the previous question was rejected.
        Mr. Anderson of New Mexico: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
    from Georgia [Mr. Cox] yield?
        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico 
    [Mr. Anderson].
        Mr. Michener: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a 
    parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Anderson of New Mexico: I yield.
        Mr. Michener: Mr. Speaker, the acting chairman of the Committee 
    on Rules having yielded for the offering of an amendment, as I 
    understand the

[[Page 6893]]

    rule, the gentleman from New Mexico now has 1 hour, and the 
    gentleman from Georgia has lost the floor.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.

Amendment Offered and Previous Question Moved on Amendment and 
    Resolution

Sec. 14.6 Where a member of the Committee on Rules calling up a 
    resolution reported by that committee offered an amendment after 
    debate on the resolution had concluded, and then immediately moved 
    the previous question on the amendment and the resolution, the 
    Speaker ruled that the amendment was proper, but indicated that the 
    amendment would be debatable only if the previous question were 
    rejected.

    On Mar. 11, 1941,(14) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 87 Cong. Rec. 2182, 2189, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H. Res. 120, relating to an investigation of national 
        defense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward E.] Cox [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I call up House 
    Resolution 120, which I send to the desk and ask to have read. . . 
    .
        Mr. Speaker, I have stated that the language proposed by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth] is an improvement to this 
    bill, and I offer it as an amendment to the bill, and Mr. Speaker, 
    I move the previous question on the amendment and the resolution.
        Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the resolution is not subject to amendment 
    until the previous question has been disposed of. . . .
        The Speaker: (15) It is in order for the gentleman 
    from Georgia [Mr. Cox] to offer the amendment. The Clerk will 
    report the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cox: On page 2, line 20, after 
        section 2, strike out section 3 and insert the following:
            ``Sec. 3. The committee may withhold from publication such 
        information obtained by it as in its judgment should be 
        withheld in the public interest.''

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] moves the 
    previous question on the amendment and the resolution.
        Mr. May: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. May: Mr. Speaker, I desire to inquire whether or not the 
    amendment as offered is debatable before the previous question is 
    voted upon.
        The Speaker: The previous question has been moved. If the 
    previous question is voted down, the amendment would be subject to 
    debate.

Sec. 14.7 When an amendment is offered to a pending resolution and the 
    previous ques

[[Page 6894]]

    tion is immediately moved on the resolution and on the amendment, 
    the 40 minutes of debate under clause 3 of Rule XXVII 
    (16) does not apply if the main question has been 
    debated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. House Rules and Manual Sec. 907 (101st Cong.). The rule provides 
        for 40 minutes of debate when the previous question has been 
        ordered ``on any proposition on which there has been no 
        debate.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See Sec. 14.6, supra, wherein the Chair did not allow debate on an 
amendment on which the previous question had been moved.

Amendment to Motion To Refer Presidential Message

Sec. 14.8 An amendment to a motion to refer a message of the President 
    to a committee is in order only when the motion for the previous 
    question is rejected or the Member making the original motion 
    yields for that purpose.

    On June 3, 1937,(17) he following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec.  5297, 5298, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    move that the message of the President be referred to the Committee 
    on Flood Control and ordered to be printed. . . .
        Mr. [Joseph J.] Mansfield [of Texas]: Would it be in order for 
    me as chairman of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors to move, as a 
    substitute for the motion of the gentleman from Mississippi, that 
    the message be referred to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors? . . 
    .
        The Speaker: (18) The gentleman from Texas propounds 
    a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair as to whether the gentleman 
    would be entitled to offer as a substitute for the motion made by 
    the gentleman from Mississippi a motion to refer the President's 
    message to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair, anticipating that this question might arise, has 
    looked rather fully into the precedents in reference thereto and 
    finds that on April 4, 1933, when Mr. Rainey was Speaker of the 
    House, this identical proposition was presented.
        At that time it will be recalled that a bill was pending with 
    reference to the refinancing of farm-mortgage indebtedness. Two 
    committees claimed jurisdiction of the subject matter of that bill, 
    the Committee on Banking and Currency and the Committee on 
    Agriculture.
        When the President's message was read the chairman of the 
    Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Jones], 
    moved that the President's message be referred to the Committee on 
    Agriculture. Thereupon the specific inquiry now propounded by the 
    gentleman from Texas [Mr. Mansfield] was made.
        The Chair reads the query and the answer of the Speaker:

            Mr. Steagall: Mr. Speaker, I desire at the proper time to 
        submit a

[[Page 6895]]

        substitute motion that the message be referred to the Committee 
        on Banking and Currency.

        Mr. Jones said:

            Mr. Speaker, I do not yield for that purpose.

        The Speaker stated:

            The gentleman from Texas does not yield. It is necessary to 
        vote down the previous question before that motion will be in 
        order.

        The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whittington] is entitled to 
    1 hour, and the Chair understands he has perfected an arrangement 
    with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Mansfield] by which he will 
    yield to the gentleman from Texas one-half of that time. At the 
    conclusion of the debate of 1 hour the Chair assumes the gentleman 
    from Mississippi will move the previous question on the motion 
    referring the message to the Committee on Flood Control. If the 
    previous question should be voted down, then the gentleman from 
    Texas [Mr. Mansfield] would have the right and privilege of 
    offering an amendment to the motion to refer the message.

Amendments Offered After Expiration of All Debate Time

Sec. 14.9 In the Committee of the Whole, where all time for debate on a 
    section of a bill and amendments thereto has expired, amendments 
    may still be offered to the section but are voted on without 
    debate, except in certain cases where a Member has caused an 
    amendment to be printed in the Record (19) pursuant to 
    the House rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Rule XXIII clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 874 (101st 
        Cong.), permitting 10 minutes debate on an amendment which has 
        been printed in the Congressional Record even though debate has 
        been closed by the Committee of the Whole. The same rule 
        provides for amendments to be offered without debate even after 
        the Committee of the Whole has voted to close debate on a 
        section or paragraph, or amendments thereto, of a bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(20) before clause 6 of Rule XXIII was 
amended as noted above, the following proceedings took place during 
consideration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec.  6097, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. H.R. 2362.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Goodell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: May I have an 
    explanation of the amendment just read? Is there any way I can have 
    it explained?
        The Chairman: (2) All debate has been closed, by 
    order of the Committee, on this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cleveland: No matter what the amendment is, all debate is 
    closed off?
        The Chairman: The gentleman must be aware of the rules with 
    respect to this.

[[Page 6896]]

    On Nov. 15, 1967,(3) in another application of the 
principle, the Chairman (4) responded to an inquiry as to 
the effect of an order extending the time fixed for debate and 
allocating such extra time to specified Members. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 113 Cong. Rec. 32691-94, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was S. 2388 (Committee on Labor and Public Welfare).
 4. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the order limiting the time to 8:05 p.m. be vacated 
    and that all time on this section be closed at 8:45 p.m.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma?
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Under the unanimous-consent 
    request of the gentleman from Oklahoma, the previous order was 
    vacated. Does that mean the allocation of time under that was also 
    vacated?
        The Chairman: Yes. The Chair then allocated the additional 30 
    minutes among the Members on the list he had before him. . . .
        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: If a Member has an 
    amendment at the desk but his name is not on the list, he will not 
    be precluded from offering his amendment; is that correct?
        The Chairman: No. There is no question about that. If a 
    Member's name is not on the list, he will not have any time, but 
    his amendment will be voted on.

Sec. 14.10 The expiration of a limitation on debate under the five-
    minute rule in Committee of the Whole does not prohibit the 
    offering of further amendments, but such amendments are not subject 
    to debate (if not printed in the Congressional Record).

    On June 14, 1979,(5) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 4388,(6) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 125 Cong. Rec. 14993, 14994, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. The Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bill for fiscal year 
        1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment, as amended. . . .
        Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, on the amendment, 
    as amended, I ask for a rollcall vote.
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair has not yet put the 
    question on the amendment, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bevill: I ask for a vote then.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I happen to have an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: The Chair had recognized the gentleman from 
    Michigan and asked him for what purpose he sought recognition. The 
    gentleman indicated that he had an amendment.
        Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.

[[Page 6897]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman from Alabama, 
    the chairman of the subcommittee, requested an agreement to end 
    debate, there was no objection on the amendment and amendments 
    thereto. At that point the vote was put.
        I suggest to the Chair that it is in order now to vote on the 
    amendment.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment I desire to 
    offer as a substitute at this time.
        The Chairman: The Chair will indicate to the gentleman from 
    Washington that we are operating under a time limit; however, that 
    does not exclude the possibility of offering an amendment as a 
    substitute, though no debate will be in order in the absence of a 
    unanimous-consent request.
        Therefore, the Clerk will read the amendment.

Sec. 14.11 While a perfecting amendment may be offered pending a motion 
    to strike out a title, it is not debatable, except by unanimous 
    consent, if offered after expiration of all debate time under a 
    limitation unless printed in the Record.

    On July 29, 1983,(8) during consideration of H.R. 2957 
(9) in the Committee of the Whole, debate had been 
terminated by motion on the bill and all amendments thereto. Only 
amendments protected by Rule XXIII clause 6 were still subject debate 
under the five-minute rule. An amendment was offered, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 129 Cong. Rec. 21678, 21679, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. International Monetary Fund Authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William N.] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (10) Is the amendment printed in the 
    Record?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Patman: Yes, it is.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Patman: Strike line 13 on page 18 
        and all that follows through line 8 on page 28. . . .

        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    perfecting amendment to title III at the desk which I offer.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez: On line 18, 
        page 19, strike out ``6,310.8 million Special Drawing Right'' 
        and insert in lieu thereof ``1,750 million Special Drawing 
        Rights''. . . .

        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, this is a perfecting amendment to 
    the Patman amendment which strikes title III.
        The Chairman: The Chair would inquire of the gentleman from 
    Texas whether this perfecting amendment has been printed in the 
    Record.
        Mr. Gonzalez: No, Mr. Chairman, it has not been printed in the 
    Record.
        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: I have a point 
    of order,

[[Page 6898]]

    Mr. Chairman. I think that the amendment is not in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair would state that the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] is a perfecting 
    amendment to title III. As such, it takes precedence over a motion 
    to strike. It is in order. . . .
        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, is it not the 
    case that when a Member offers a perfecting amendment to an 
    amendment such as is the case before us now, he should be 
    recognized for 5 minutes to explain his amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the rules do not 
    provide for any debate after a limitation of time on any amendment 
    which has not been previously printed in the Record.
        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
    be permitted to explain my amendment.
        Mr. [Doug] Barnard Jr., [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I object.

Adoption of Motion Closing Debate

Sec. 14.12 Pursuant to House rules,(11) amendments not 
    printed in the Record may be offered to a bill and voted on without 
    debate, although all five-minute debate on the bill has been closed 
    by motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Rule XXIII clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 874 (101st Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Aug. 3, 1972,(12) n inquiry arose regarding the 
effect of a motion to limit debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 118 Cong. Rec. 26622, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 15989 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (13) As the Chair 
    understands the motion, the gentleman from Texas moves that all 
    debate on this bill cease in 10 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam M. Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: That is correct.
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Yates: Does that mean that all Members will be precluded 
    from offering amendments after the expiration of the 10 minutes?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: No; the Members just have 10 minutes 
    in which to complete the debate.

Rejection of Motion To Strike Enacting Clause

Sec. 14.13 Rejection by the Committee of the Whole or by the House of a 
    preferential motion to recommend striking, or to strike, the 
    enacting clause, permits the offering of proper amendments 
    notwithstanding expiration of all debate time on the bill, but only 
    amendments which have been printed in the Record may be debated for 
    five minutes on each side.

    On July 29, 1983,(14) the proposition described above 
was dem

[[Page 6899]]

onstrated during consideration of H.R. 2957,(15) in the 
Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 129 Cong. Rec. 21675, 21676, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. The International Monetary Fund Authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Chairman: (16) The Clerk will report the 
    preferential motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Lott moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken out. . . .

        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Earlier today, Mr. Chairman, a request was made for unanimous 
    consent to limit debate to 12 o'clock. That was defeated. Later it 
    was put in the form of a motion and that carried, limiting the 
    debate to 12 o'clock today. That, therefore, closed debate past the 
    hour of 12 o'clock.
        Now, a motion to rise is being made by the minority whip. Does 
    that foreclose now the offering of further amendments should that 
    motion to rise carry?
        The Chairman: If the preferential motion to strike the enacting 
    clause carries, further amendments would not be in order. . . .
        Mr. [Ronald E.] Paul [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, if this motion 
    were to fail, whose amendments will be protected? Only those who 
    have amendments printed in the Record, or anybody who has an 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: Under the rule, if this motion is defeated, any 
    amendment printed in the Record could be offered and debated for 5 
    minutes on each side. Any other germane amendment could also be 
    offered but no debate would be allowed.

Offering of Amendments Printed in Record Precluded

Sec. 14.14 Where debate has been closed on a pending amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute and all amendments thereto, adoption of that 
    amendment would cause the stage of amendment to be passed and 
    amendments, even though printed in the Record, could not thereafter 
    be offered to the bill.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(17) uring consideration of a bill 
(18) n the Committee of the Whole, an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute was offered and the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 11491, 11499, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. H.R. 6096, Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Edgar:

[[Page 6900]]

        Strike out everything after the enacting clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:

        That this Act may be cited as the ``Vietnam Humanitarian 
    Assistance and Evacuation Act of 1975''.

            Sec. 2. The President is directed to evacuate from South 
        Vietnam within ten days of the enactment of this Act the 
        following categories of persons:
            (1) United States citizens;
            (2) dependents of United States citizens and of permanent 
        residents of the United States; and
            (3) Vietnamese nationals eligible for immigration to the 
        United States by reason of their relationships to United States 
        citizens. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on this substitute amendment and all amendments 
    thereto close at 4 p.m.
        The Chairman: (19) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania would 
    preclude many of us from offering amendments which had heretofore 
    been dropped into the hopper and printed in today's Record in 
    compliance with the rules, will we be granted the set-aside 5 
    minutes to present our amendments inasmuch as the substitute 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Edgar] 
    would extinguish our right to offer an amendment at that point?
        The Chairman: If the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Edgar] is agreed 
    to, the stage of amendment would have been passed and no further 
    amendments would be in order to the bill.

Effect of Special Order

Sec. 14.15 When the Committee of the Whole is operating under a special 
    order limiting consideration of all amendments to a number of hours 
    of consideration, and the Committee rises during that time 
    immediately following the offering of an amendment, that amendment 
    remains pending when the Committee resumes its sitting and 
    subsequent amendments may be offered only after its disposition and 
    during the time remaining for consideration of all amendments; no 
    amendments may be offered thereafter, since the special order 
    terminates consideration and overrides Rule XXIII clause 6, which 
    would otherwise guarantee additional time for amendments printed in 
    the Record.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on Apr. 9, 
1986,(20) during consideration of H.R. 4332 (the Firearms 
Law Re

[[Page 6901]]

form Act). The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 132 Cong. Rec. 6896, 6897, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hughes to the amendment, as 
        amended, offered by Mr. Volkmer as a substitute for the 
        Judiciary Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
        amended: Page 7, line 10, strike out ``shall not apply'' and 
        all that follows through ``firearms)'' in line 2 on page 8, and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following: ``shall not apply to the 
        sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a 
        State other than a State in which the licensee's place of 
        business is located. . . .

        Mr. [William J.] Hughes [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I yield 
    the balance of my time, and move that the Committee do now rise.
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman yields back the 
    balance of his time and moves that the Committee rise. . . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Charles B. Rangel (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles] Roemer [of Louisiana]: Is it the position of the 
    House, Mr. Chairman, that when we rise and meet tomorrow, the 
    Hughes amendment pending now would begin the debate?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Louisiana is exactly correct.
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Volkmer: When we come in tomorrow and the Committee begins 
    to act on the bill, we will have only the time left under the 5 
    hours for amendments, is that not correct?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Volkmer: Which right now is approximately 1 hour?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Volkmer: And then the rest of the amendments, are they cut 
    off? Or do we go ahead for those that are in the Record and vote on 
    them after 5 minutes each?
        The Chairman: There will not be any amendments that would be in 
    order after the conclusion of the 5-hour consideration.

Recognition for Amendments Before and After Expiration of Debate Time

Sec. 14.16 The Committee of the Whole having agreed to a limitation on 
    debate under the five-minute rule on a section of a bill and all 
    amendments thereto, distribution of the time under the limitation 
    is within the discretion of the Chair, who may recognize under the 
    limitation first those Members offering amendments which have not 
    been printed in the Congressional Record, and Members speaking in 
    opposition to such amendments, and then recognize after the 
    limitation has expired those Members with amendments printed in the 
    Record, since such are debatable for 10 minutes not

[[Page 6902]]

    withstanding the expiration of the limitation.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on June 26, 
1979,(2) during consideration of H.R. 3930 (3) in 
the Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 125 Cong. Rec. 16677, 16678, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on section 3 and all amendments thereto cease at 
    6:40 p.m.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Rousselot) there were--ayes 43, noes 33. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) . . . The Committee has just voted 
    to end all debate on section 3 and all amendments thereto at 6:40. 
    The Chair in a moment is going to ask those Members wishing to 
    speak between now and then to stand. The Chair will advise Members 
    that he will attempt, once that list is determined, to recognize 
    first those Members on the list with amendments which are not 
    protected by having been printed in the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would ask those Members wishing to be recognized in 
    the remaining 20 minutes to stand. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, did I understand 
    the Chair correctly that Members who are protected by having their 
    amendments printed in the Record will not be recognized until the 
    time has run so that those Members will only have 5 minutes to 
    present their amendments, but that other Members will be recognized 
    first for the amendments which are not printed in the Record?
        The Chairman: Those Members who are recognized prior to the 
    expiration of time have approximately 20 seconds to present their 
    amendments. Those Members whose amendments are printed in the 
    Record will have a guaranteed 5 minutes after time has expired. . . 
    .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: In what way does that protect Members by 
    having their amendments then printed in the Record? It would seem 
    to me they are penalized by having their time limited to 5 minutes 
    and the other time goes ahead and runs in terms of general debate.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that Members 
    do not need and are not required to seek their protection for 
    debate on the amendment under the rules, but if they do not they 
    will be recognized for at most 20 seconds instead of 5 minutes. . . 
    .
        The Chair will now recognize those Members who wish to offer 
    amendments which have not been printed in the Record.
        The Chair will advise Members he will recognize listed Members 
    in opposition to the amendments also for 20 seconds.
        Mr. [Richard] Kelly [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Kelly: Mr. Chairman, is it not regular order that the 
    Members of the

[[Page 6903]]

    Committee with amendments be given preference and recognition?
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman once the 
    limitation of time has been agreed to and time divided, that 
    priority of recognition is within the complete discretion of the 
    Chair.

Pro Forma Amendments

Sec. 14.17 When the time for debate on a bill is limited by unanimous 
    consent prior to the conclusion of the reading thereof, and time 
    for debate then expires, the remainder of the bill is read but pro 
    forma amendments are not then in order.

    On Sept. 12, 1968,(5) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 114 Cong. Rec. 26566, 26574, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 18707 (Committee on Appropriations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that all debate on this bill and all amendments thereto 
    close in 30 minutes. . . .
        There was no objection.

    Following debate, the proceedings continued as indicated below:

        The Chairman: (6) All time has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk concluded the reading of the bill.
        Mr. [John E.] Moss Jr., [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike the last word.
        The Chairman: The parliamentary situation is such that the 
    gentleman cannot be recognized for that purpose since all debate 
    has been concluded.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This procedure was by unanimous consent 
only, as the Chair does not normally entertain a request to limit 
debate on an entire bill until reading thereof has been completed or 
dispensed with.

Sec. 14.18 After time set for debate on a bill and all amendments 
    thereto had expired, no pro forma amendments were allowed, although 
    further amendments could be offered but not debated.

    A motion to strike the last word is not in order after all time for 
debate on a bill has expired. The following proceedings, which took 
place on July 18, 1968,(7) are an illustration of the 
application of this principle:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 114 Cong. Rec. 22110, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 15263 (Committee on Foreign Affairs), the Foreign 
        Assistance Act of 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [E. Ross] Adair [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    strike the requisite number of words.

[[Page 6904]]

        The Chairman: (8) Under the unanimous-consent 
    agreement, (9) all time for debate has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
 9. See Sec. 14.12, infra, for discussion of an instance where five-
        minute debate was closed by motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment. Do I correctly understand I cannot discuss it?

    The amendment was read.

        Mr. Hays: Do I correctly understand that all time to explain 
    amendments has expired?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Special provision is made in Rule XXIII 
clause 6 (as amended in 1971), House Rules and Manual Sec. 874 (101st 
Cong.), for debate on any amendment which a Member has caused to be 
printed in the Record.



 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
 C. OFFERING PARTICULAR KINDS OF AMENDMENTS; PRECEDENCE AND PRIORITIES
 
Sec. 15. Introductory; Perfecting Amendments, Generally

    The broader principles governing the order in which amendments are 
considered during the process of reading a bill for amendment have been 
discussed in prior sections.(10) Similarly, the general 
rules governing the number and forms of amendments that may be under 
consideration at any one time have been treated 
elsewhere.(11) The purpose of this and ensuing sections is 
to consider procedures applicable in offering specific kinds of 
amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See, for example, Sec. 7-10, supra.
11. See, Sec. 5, 6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted at the beginning that a motion to strike out the 
enacting words of a bill, being a device used for purposes of rejecting 
the bill, has precedence over a motion to amend the 
bill.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule XXIII clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 875 (101st Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, the House follows the principle expressed in Jefferson's 
Manual that language should be perfected before taking other action on 
it. Thus, a perfecting amendment to the text of a bill is in order and 
takes precedence over a pending motion to strike out the 
text.(13) The term ``perfecting amendment,'' of course, 
includes amendments or motions to strike out and insert.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 15.3, infra.
14. See, generally, Sec. 16, infra.

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

[[Page 6905]]

        When a motion to strike out is pending, it is not in order to 
    offer a substitute therefor; but a perfecting amendment to the text 
    proposed to be stricken may be offered at such time.(15) 
    And while it is not in order to further amend an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute for several paragraphs which has been agreed 
    to, a perfecting amendment to a paragraph of the bill proposed to 
    be stricken out (in conformity with the purpose of the adopted 
    substitute) may be offered while the motion to strike out is 
    pending, and the perfecting amendment is first voted 
    upon.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 18.9, infra.
16. See Sec. 2.16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To illustrate further, where a paragraph (or section) of a bill is 
under consideration, there may be pending at one time the following 
separate motions to amend if offered in the order indicated:
    (1) to strike out the paragraph (or section) in its entirety;
    (2) to strike out the paragraph (or section) and insert;
    (3) to insert, strike out and insert, or strike out a portion of 
the paragraph (or section)--a perfecting amendment to the paragraph or 
section.
    However, if the perfecting amendment (3) is offered first, the 
motions to strike out the paragraph and insert new language (2) or to 
strike out the paragraph (1) may not be offered until the perfecting 
amendments are disposed of. The above motions to amend are voted on in 
the reverse order listed above, under the principle that language 
should first be perfected before changed in its entirety or stricken 
out. With the exception that (2) above may be amended by a perfecting 
amendment before it is voted upon, it is generally the rule that the 
above motions may not be offered as amendments to or substitutes for 
one another.                          -------------------

Generally; Precedence Over Motion To Strike

Sec. 15.1 To a paragraph of a bill, there may be pending at one time 
    the following separate motions to amend: (1) to insert; (2) to 
    strike out the paragraph and insert; and (3) to strike out the 
    paragraph. These motions are voted on separately in the order 
    listed; they may not be offered as amendments to or substitutes for 
    one another, and they need not be offered in the order in which 
    they are voted on.

    An illustration of the procedures described above is found in the 
proceedings of July 12, 1951,(17) during consideration of a

[[Page 6906]]

bill (18) to amend the Defense Production Act of 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 97 Cong. Rec. 8073, 8077, 8084, 8090, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
18. H.R. 3871.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Howard H. Buffett (of Nebraska): Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Buffett: Page 8, line 25, strike 
        out all of subsection (e). . . .

        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wolcott as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Buffett: Page 8, line 25, strike out 
        subsection (e) and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            ``(e) When in his judgment it will aid the national 
        defense, the President is authorized to install additional 
        equipment facilities, processes, or improvements to plants, 
        factories, and other industrial facilities owned by the United 
        States Government, and to install Government-owned equipment in 
        plants, factories, and other industrial facilities owned by 
        private persons.''. . .

        Mr. [Jacob K.] Javits [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment perfecting the language sought to be stricken by the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Buffett].
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Javits: On page 9, line 1, after 
        the word ``defense'', insert ``and upon the certification of 
        the Director of Defense Mobilization that it is required for 
        the national defense and is not otherwise obtainable.''. . .

        The Chairman: (19) The gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
    Buffett] has moved to strike certain language from the bill 
    beginning with line 25 on page 8 through line 20, page 9. The 
    gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Wolcott] has offered a motion which he 
    labeled a substitute, but which in reality is a motion to strike 
    out and insert. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Javits] has 
    offered a perfecting amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the rules the perfecting amendment will be voted upon 
    first; the motion to strike out and insert will be voted upon next; 
    and, should the amendment by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
    Wolcott] be adopted, the motion made by the gentleman from Nebraska 
    [Mr. Buffett] would fall.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: Is the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Javits] an amendment to the Wolcott substitute or to the 
    Buffett amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Javits] has 
    offered a perfecting amendment to the text of the bill; it is not 
    an amendment to the Wolcott amendment.
        Mr. Javits: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    amendments may be read before they are voted on.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New York?
        There was no objection.

[[Page 6907]]

        The Chairman: The Clerk will read the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Javits].
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Javits: Page 9, line 1, after the 
        word ``defense'', insert ``and upon certification of the 
        Director of Defense Mobilization that it is required for the 
        national defense and is not otherwise obtainable.''

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question recurs on the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Wolcott], which the Clerk under 
    the unanimous-consent agreement will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wolcott as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Buffett: Page 8, line 25, strike out 
        subsection (e) and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            ``(e) When in his judgment it will aid the national 
        defense, the President is authorized to install additional 
        equipment facilities, processes, or improvements to plants, 
        factories, and other industrial facilities owned by the United 
        States Government, and to install Government-owned equipment in 
        plants, factories, and other industrial facilities owned by 
        private persons.''

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Wolcott) there were--ayes 125, noes 116. . . .
        So the amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Accordingly the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Buffett] falls.

Sec. 15.2 While a motion to strike out is pending, it is in order to 
    offer an amendment to perfect the language proposed to be stricken 
    out; such a perfecting amendment (which is in the first degree) may 
    be amended by a substitute (also in the first degree), and 
    amendments to the substitute are then in the second degree and in 
    order.

    On Oct. 19, 1983,(20) during consideration of H.R. 
3231,(1) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings 
described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 129 Cong. Rec. 28274, 28282, 28283, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. Export Administration Act Amendments of 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      amendment offered by mr. courter

        Mr. [James A.] Courter [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Courter: Page 14, line 4, strike 
        out ``If'' and all that follows through ``involved.'' on line 
        8.
            Page 16, line 18, strike out ``If'' and all that follows 
        through ``involved.'' on line 22. . . .

                 perfecting amendment offered by mr. bonker

        Mr. [Don] Bonker [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Bonker: Page 14, line 
        4, strike

[[Page 6908]]

        out ``If '' and all that follows through ``involved.'' on line 
        8 and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``If, within 6 
        months after the President's determination, the foreign 
        availability has not been eliminated, the Secretary may not, 
        after the end of that 6-month period, require a validated 
        license for the export of the goods or technology involved.''. 
        . .

    amendment offered by mr. solomon as a substitute for the perfecting 
                      amendment offered by mr. bonker

        Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon as a substitute for the 
        perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Bonker: Page 14, line 8, 
        insert the following immediately after the first period: ``The 
        President may extend the 6-month period described in the 
        preceding sentence for an additional period of one year if the 
        President determines that the absence of the export control 
        involved would prove detrimental to the national security of 
        the United States.''. . .

      amendment offered by mr. hunter to the amendment offered by mr. 
    solomon as a substitute for the perfecting amendment offered by mr. 
                                   bonker

        Mr. [Duncan L.] Hunter [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hunter to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Solomon as a substitute for the perfecting amendment 
        offered by Mr. Bonker: At the end of the Solomon amendment add 
        the following new sentence: ``If at the end of said year, 
        foreign availability remains, and the President determines that 
        transfer of the subject technology by the United States would 
        damage national security, the Secretary shall require a license 
        as a prerequisite to transfer.''. . .

        Mr. Bonker: Mr. Chairman, I have offered an amendment to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute but as I understand it the 
    gentleman from New Jersey simply strikes. So my amendment would be 
    to the text of the bill.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman is correct. His 
    amendment is in the first degree as a perfecting amendment to the 
    provision which the gentleman from New Jersey would strike out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  2. John F. Seiberling (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bonker: The amendment that has been offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), is that in the form of an 
    amendment to my substitute or in the form of an amendment to my 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: As the Chair understands it, it is an amendment 
    to the substitute offered by the gentleman from New York. It is an 
    amendment to the Solomon substitute for the Bonker perfecting 
    amendment.
        Mr. Bonker: Is that an amendment in the third degree?
        The Chairman: No, it is not. The Solomon amendment is a 
    substitute and this is an amendment to the substitute for the 
    Bonker amendment.
        Mr. Bonker: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

[[Page 6909]]

Sec. 15.3 A perfecting amendment to the text of a bill is in order and 
    takes precedence over a pending motion to strike out the text.

    On Oct. 3, 1969,(3) The following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  3. 115 Cong. Rec. 28454, 28455, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 14000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Motion offered by Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: 
        On page 16, line 9, strike all of Title V. . . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana] 
        to title V: On page 17, immediately after line 13 insert the 
        following:

        ``Sec. 505. (a) The Comptroller General of the United States 
    (hereinafter in this section referred to as the `Comptroller 
    General') is authorized. . . .''
        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, is 
    this an amendment to the amendment or is this another amendment?
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair will state that this is 
    an amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana to title V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rivers: Mr. Chairman, I submit that this amendment is not 
    germane because the amendment before embodied is to strike the 
    section. How can you have an amendment to a section that is to be 
    stricken? . . .
        The Chairman: . . . Perfecting amendments to a title in a bill 
    may be offered while there is pending a motion to strike out such 
    title. . . . The Chair will state that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana is to title V; a perfecting amendment, and 
    it is in order to offer perfecting amendments when a motion to 
    strike is pending. . . .
        Mr. (Frank E.) Evans of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, if the 
    amendment of the gentleman from Indiana passes, and thereafter the 
    motion of the gentleman from New York passes, what is the status of 
    the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana?
        The Chairman: If the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Indiana is agreed to and the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    New York to strike the whole title is agreed to, then the amendment 
    will be stricken.

Sec. 15.4 A perfecting amendment may be offered while a motion to 
    strike out is pending and the perfecting amendment is first acted 
    upon.

    On Aug. 14, 1963,(5) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 109 Cong. Rec. 14987, 14988, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 6143.
            See also 109 Cong. Rec. 2462, 2488, 2489, 88th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Feb. 7, 1963, for a further ruling that a perfecting 
        amendment may be offered while a motion to strike out is 
        pending.
            And see 96 Cong. Rec. 4518, 4521, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 
        31, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) The Clerk will report the 
    committee amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. W. Homer Thornberry (Tex.).

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

[[Page 6910]]

                              Committee Amendments

            Page 7, line 4, insert ``State'' immediately before 
        ``commission''. . . .
            Page 15, beginning with line 5, strike out everything down 
        through line 16 on page 16.
            Page 23, beginning in line 5, strike out ``, 
        notwithstanding the provisions of any other law,''.
            Page 23, line 7, strike out ``may be'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``are''.
            Page 26, line 7, after ``divinity'' insert the following: 
        ``(For the purposes of this subparagraph, the term `school or 
        department of divinity' means an institution, or a department 
        or branch of an institution, whose program is specifically for 
        the education of students to prepare them to become ministers 
        of religion. . . .

        Mr. [John B.] Anderson [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment to the text of the bill which the committee 
    amendment proposes to strike out on page 15, line 9.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Anderson as a perfecting amendment 
        to the text of the bill: On page 15, beginning with line 9, 
        strike out everything down through line 21 on page 16 and 
        insert the following:
            ``(b)(1) The Commissioner's approval or disapproval of an 
        application for a grant under title I or loan under title III 
        shall be effected by an order which shall be conclusive except 
        as otherwise provided in this subsection. Notice of such order 
        shall be published in the Federal Register and shall contain 
        such information as the Commissioner deems necessary to 
        effectuate the purposes of this subsection. . . .

        Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]: Mr. Chairman, is not the 
    effect of the gentleman's amendment to wipe out all of the 
    committee amendments, not just the one to which he refers? And 
    secondly, Mr. Chairman, would it not therefore be in order for the 
    gentleman to withdraw his amendment at this time and offer it 
    afresh after the adoption of the committee amendments?
        The Chairman: In answer to the parliamentary inquiry of the 
    gentleman from California, the gentleman from Illinois can offer 
    the amendment at this time if he so desires. . . .
        The Chair will state that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Anderson] is offering a perfecting amendment to the text of the 
    bill which the committee amendment proposes to strike out and the 
    gentleman's amendment does not affect the other committee 
    amendments except this particular amendment. The gentleman's 
    amendment takes precedence over just this one committee amendment.

Sec. 15.5 A perfecting amendment to a paragraph may be offered while a 
    motion to strike out the paragraph is pending, and the perfecting 
    amendment is voted on first.

    On June 24, 1975,(7) The Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill,(8) an amendment was offered and 
proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  7. 121 Cong. Rec. 20569, 20570, 20573, 20574, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
  8. H.R. 8070, Department of Urban Development appropriations, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Leo J.] Ryan [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 6911]]

        The portion of the bill to which the amendment relates is as 
    follows:

                            Selective Service System

                             salaries and expenses

            For expenses necessary for the Selective Service System, 
        including expenses of attendance at meetings and of training 
        for uniformed personnel assigned to the Selective Service 
        System, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 4101-4118) for civilian 
        employees; and not to exceed $1,000 for official reception and 
        representation expenses: $40,000,000: . . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ryan: Page 26, strike out line 18 
        and all that follows thereafter through page 27, line 13.

        Mr. [Robert F.] Drinan [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a perfecting amendment to the paragraph of the bill which the Ryan 
    amendment seeks to strike.

        The Chairman: (9) The Clerk will report the 
    perfecting amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  9. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Drinan to the paragraph 
        which the Ryan amendment seeks to strike: On page 27, line 1, 
        strike out ``$40,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$17,672,000.''

        On page 27, line 11, strike out ``$8,300,000'' and insert in 
    lieu thereof ``$3,272,000.''. . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the perfecting amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Drinan). . . .
        [T]he perfecting amendment was rejected.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Ryan).
        The amendment was rejected.

Sec. 15.6 While an amendment to strike out a section of a bill is 
    pending, a perfecting amendment to that section (to strike out a 
    portion of that section and insert new language) may be offered.

    On July 26, 1973,(10) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 26201-05, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 9360.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: 
        Strike out everything after line 13, page 41, through line 7, 
        page 47.

        Mr. Passman: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, as I 
    mentioned earlier, this item was not requested in the budget; it 
    was not submitted to the Committee on Appropriations; and we have 
    not had hearings on it.
        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Fascell: On page 42, 
        strike out lines 13 through 18 and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following: . . .

        The Chairman: (11) The question is on the perfecting 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fascell).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The perfecting amendment was agreed to. . . .

[[Page 6912]]

        Mr. Passman: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to belabor this 
    discussion any longer. What will the vote be on? Will it be on my 
    own amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman's amendment is the pending 
    amendment.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Louisiana (Mr. Passman).

Sec. 15.7 A perfecting amendment to the text of a bill (inserting new 
    words) is in order and takes precedence over a pending motion to 
    strike out that portion of the text of the bill.

    On Mar. 19, 1970,(12) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 116 Cong. Rec. 8188-91, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [David W.] Dennis [of Indiana]): . . .

            Page 304, strike out lines 1 through 21 in their entirety, 
        thus striking out all of subsection (b) of section 907A of the 
        bill. . . .

        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Amendment offered by Mr. Harsha: On page 304, line 7, after the 
    word ``burglary'' insert ``in the first degree''. . . .
        Mr. Dennis: Mr. Chairman, there is a motion here to strike that 
    is pending. I query whether this amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Ohio is in order under those circumstances. Only a motion to 
    strike is before the committee.
        The Chairman: (13) The motion of the gentleman from 
    Indiana is to strike the section. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio is a perfecting amendment in that language that 
    is moved to be stricken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. James C. Corman (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dennis: Pardon me, Mr. Chairman. I think it is a perfecting 
    amendment in connection with the bill but not as to my amendment. I 
    raise a point of order against it.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio is in the nature of a 
    perfecting amendment that falls within that section of the bill 
    that the gentleman from Indiana would strike by his amendment. 
    Therefore it is in order.

Sec. 15.8 Where a motion to strike out is pending, perfecting 
    amendments may be offered and acted on before consideration of the 
    motion to strike; and if the motion to strike is rejected, further 
    perfecting amendments to the pending text are in order.

    On Oct. 3, 1977,(14) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 3816,(15) the proceedings described 
above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 123 Cong. Rec. 32013, 32017, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. A bill to amend the Federal Trade Commission Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Krueger [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 6913]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Krueger: On page 35, strike line 
        14 and all that follows through line 5 on page 44, and 
        redesignate the following sections accordingly. . . .

        Mrs. [Millicent] Fenwick [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick:

        Page 37, strike out the period in line 12 and insert in lieu 
    thereof a semicolon and the following: ``except that in the case of 
    an action commenced under subparagraph (B) of such subsection, the 
    court may grant such relief only if the plaintiff in such action 
    satisfies the court that the act . . . is one which a reasonable 
    man would have known under the circumstances was . . . 
    fraudulent.''
        Mr. [Charles E.] Wiggins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        . . . [P]ending before the committee is an amendment to the 
    bill striking section 7 in its entirety. The gentlewoman from New 
    Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick) has offered what she characterizes as a 
    perfecting amendment to an amendment to strike which amends a 
    portion of section 7.
        It is my view, Mr. Chairman, that that amendment is not in 
    order since section 7 is to be stricken entirely if the original 
    amendment carries. The second amendment, the perfecting amendment, 
    is inconsistent with the original amendment in its entirety, and 
    for that reason it is out of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The perfecting amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New 
    Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick) is not an amendment to the amendment to 
    strike. It is an amendment in the nature of a perfecting amendment 
    to the bill.
        Perfecting amendments to the text of the bill are in order and 
    take precedence over a pending motion or amendment to strike the 
    pending portion of the bill.
        Therefore, the Chair respectfully overrules the point of order. 
    . . .
        Mr. Wiggins: Mr. Chairman, several of us have amendments which 
    will be offered if the motion to strike does not carry. Will those 
    perfecting amendments be in order after the vote on the motion to 
    strike?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that if the amendment or 
    motion to strike does not carry, those amendments will be in order.

Sec. 15.9 Where an amendment striking out a section is first offered, 
    an amendment to change a portion of the section proposed to be 
    stricken is then offered as a perfecting amendment (in the first 
    degree) to the bill and not as an amendment to the motion to 
    strike; the perfecting amendment is voted on first and remains part 
    of the bill if the motion to strike is then rejected.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on Sept. 18, 
1986,(17) during consideration

[[Page 6914]]

of H.R. 1426.(18) The proceedings in the Committee of the 
Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 132 Cong. Rec. 24120-22, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. Indian Health Care amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard C.] Nielson of Utah: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Nielson of Utah: Page 12, strike 
        line 1 and all that follows through page 14, line 20 (and 
        redesignate the subsequent sections of title II of the bill 
        accordingly). . . .

        Mr. [John S.] McCain [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Chairman: (19) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Beryl F. Anthony, Jr. (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. McCain. Section 201 is 
        amended by striking:
            ``(h) There are authorized to be appropriated for the 
        purposes of carrying out the provisions of this section--
            ``(1) $28,000,000 for fiscal year 1988. . . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the perfecting amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. McCain) to title II.
        The perfecting amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Utah (Mr. Nielson).
        The amendment was rejected.
        The Chairman: Are there other amendments to title II? . . .
        Mr. Nielson of Utah: Mr. Chairman, on the perfecting amendment 
    of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. McCain), that amendment passed 
    but my amendment failed. That means that his amendment went down 
    with mine; is that correct?
        The Chairman: The perfecting amendment of the gentleman from 
    Arizona prevailed to the bill, not to the gentleman's amendment, 
    and at the present it is the prevailing amendment.
        Mr. Nielson of Utah: It is part of the bill, then?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. Yes; it is part of the 
    bill.

Sec. 15.10 The Chair indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry 
    that an amendment to add words to a paragraph, offered while a 
    motion to strike that paragraph was pending, was a preferential 
    perfecting amendment and not a substitute for the motion to strike.

    On Feb. 24, 1977,(20) the Chair, responding to a 
parliamentary inquiry, indicated that where it was proposed to strike 
out a paragraph of a bill (1) and an amendment was offered 
perfecting the text of the bill, such amendment was a preferential 
amendment and not a substitute for the mo

[[Page 6915]]

tion to strike. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 123 Cong. Rec. 5321, 5323, 5325, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. H.R. 11, Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act 
        amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sam] Gibbons [of Florida]: Madam Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

            Page 2, strike out line 23 and all that follows down 
        through and including line 7 on page 3. . . .

        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Madam Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Harsha: Page 3, line 7, 
        after the first period insert the following:
            ``This subsection shall not apply in any case where the 
        Secretary determines it to be inconsistent with the public 
        interest, or the cost to be unreasonable. . . .

        Mr. Gibbons: Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I 
    only take the floor for the purpose of asking the gentleman from 
    Ohio to clarify his amendment. As I understand it, his amendment is 
    a substitute for my amendment. If the gentleman's amendment is 
    adopted, my amendment would be wiped out and his would, in effect, 
    be reaffirmation of the existing buy American law. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair would say to the 
    gentleman from Florida that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Ohio is a perfecting amendment to the text of the bill, and it 
    will be voted on first because of its precedence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert A.] Roe [of New Jersey]: Madam Chairman, would the 
    Chair explain the parliamentary situation?
        The Chairman: The parliamentary situation is this:
        The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons) offered an amendment 
    to strike a paragraph from the bill. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Harsha) offered an amendment which is a perfecting amendment to the 
    original bill and which, if it is adopted, would be a part of the 
    original text which the gentleman from Florida proposes to strike.
        The question would then occur on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons). If the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Florida were adopted, then the language which 
    had been included as a perfecting amendment would also be stricken, 
    along with the rest of the paragraph.
        The question is on the perfecting amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha).
        The perfecting amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons).
        The amendment was rejected.

Debate on Motion To Strike May Precede Offering of Perfecting Amendment

Sec. 15.11 While a motion to strike a pending portion of a bill will be 
    held in abeyance until perfecting amendments to that portion are 
    disposed of, a Member who has been recognized to debate his motion 
    to strike may not be deprived of the floor by an

[[Page 6916]]

    other Member who seeks to offer a perfecting amendment; after the 
    Member so recognized has completed his five minutes in support of 
    his motion to strike, but before the question is put on the motion 
    to strike, the perfecting amendment may be offered and voted upon.

    On Oct. 31, 1975,(3) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill,(4) the proceedings, described 
above, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 121 Cong. Rec. 34564, 34565, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. H.R. 10024, Depository Institutions Amendments of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rousselot: Beginning on page 10, 
        line 18, strike all that follows through page 188, line 10. . . 
        .

        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: I believe that 
    under the rules of the House since this amendment involves a motion 
    to strike the title, that perfecting amendments that are at the 
    desk take precedence over such a motion to strike a title. Is that 
    not correct?
        The Chairman: (5) That is true, if any are offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Spark M. Matsunaga (Hawaii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. St Germain: I believe there are amendments pending.
        Mr. [John Joseph] Moakley [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    might state that I was standing when the Chairman recognized the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot), and I have a perfecting 
    amendment at the desk.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from California, Mr. Rousselot, is pending now, 
    and that the gentleman from California has been recognized. The 
    gentleman may offer his perfecting amendment after the gentleman 
    from California has completed his five minutes in support of his 
    amendment to strike.

En Bloc Amendment Striking Text

Sec. 15.12 Where by unanimous consent, several committee amendments are 
    being considered en bloc, an amendment to perfect text proposed to 
    be stricken by one of the en bloc amendments is in order; it takes 
    precedence over that particular committee amendment, and is first 
    acted upon.

    On Aug. 14, 1963,(6) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 109 Cong. Rec. 14987, 14988, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 6143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the committee amendments be considered en 
    bloc. . . .

[[Page 6917]]

        There was no objection. . . .
        [The Clerk here read several committee amendments, one of which 
    follows:]

                             [Committee Amendments]

            Page 15, beginning with line 5, strike out everything down 
        through line 16 on page 16. . . .

        Mr. [John B.] Anderson [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment to the text of the bill which the committee 
    amendment proposes to strike out on page 15, line 9.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Anderson as a perfecting amendment 
        to the text of the bill: . . .

    In response to parliamentary inquiries as to the propriety of the 
amendment, the Chairman (7) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. W. Homer Thornberry (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will state that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Anderson] is offering a perfecting amendment to the text of the 
    bill which the committee amendment proposes to strike out and the 
    gentleman's amendment does not affect the other committee 
    amendments except this particular amendment. The gentleman's 
    amendment takes precedence over just this one committee amendment.

Perfecting Amendment Not Offered to Motion To Strike

Sec. 15.13 When a motion to strike out a pending portion of a bill is 
    pending, perfecting amendments are in order to the text proposed to 
    be stricken--not to the motion to strike.

    On Aug. 4, 1966,(8) the following proceedings took place 
after a unanimous-consent request had been made that, when the 
Committee of the Whole resumed consideration of the bill, there would 
be thirty minutes of debate followed by a vote on the pending motion to 
strike a title of the bill, and, if that motion were defeated, the 
Committee would then continue to consider the title:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 112 Cong. Rec. 18207, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 14765.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: . . . [T]he Chair 
    repeatedly ruled in the last 2 weeks of debate, if you will recall, 
    that perfecting amendments must be heard to the Moore amendment 
    before you called for a vote and then thereafter there will be 
    additional votes on title IV. This was thoroughly understood.
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman from Missouri must 
    have misheard the Chair, because there have been and there are and 
    there could be no perfecting amendments to the Moore motion to 
    strike. The perfecting amendments are to the title, and the title 
    must be perfected prior to a vote on the Moore amendment unless 
    this

[[Page 6918]]

    unanimous-consent agreement is entered into.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Construed as Offered to Bill

Sec. 15.14 Since a perfecting amendment to strike out and insert takes 
    precedence over a motion to strike out, the Chair may examine the 
    effect of an amendment proposed to a pending motion to strike to 
    determine whether it is properly a perfecting amendment in the 
    first degree to that portion of the bill proposed to be stricken.

    On July 18, 1979,(10) while a motion to strike out 
certain words in a bill was pending, the Chair interpreted another 
amendment, imprecisely drafted as an amendment to that amendment 
reinserting with one change all the words proposed to be stricken, as 
in reality a perfecting amendment to the bill which merely changed some 
of the language proposed to be stricken. The proceedings, during 
consideration of H.R. 4473, foreign assistance appropriations for 
fiscal 1980, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 19310-12, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

           contribution to the international development association

            For payment to the International Development Association by 
        the Secretary of the Treasury $292,000,000 for the United 
        States contribution to the fourth replenishment as authorized 
        by the Act of August 14, 1974 (Public Law 93-373), to remain 
        available until expended. . . .

        Mr. [C. W. Bill] Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Florida: On page 4, line 
        4, after the comma, strike the remainder of line 4 and lines 5 
        through 7.

        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment by Mr. Obey to the amendment offered by Mr. Young 
        of Florida: Restore the matter stricken by said amendment, 
        changing the sum named in such matter to ``$286,160,000''. . . 
        .

        Mr. Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order 
    that this amendment is not in proper form. It is not germane to the 
    amendment it seeks to amend. To the contrary, it would seek to 
    amend the bill.
        The gentleman's amendment mentions a dollar figure. There is no 
    dollar figure mentioned in the Young amendment which it seeks to 
    amend. The Young amendment simply is an amendment to strike 
    language from the bill. It neither substitutes nor replaces, it 
    merely strikes. I submit that this amendment is not in proper form 
    and is not germane to the amend
    ment. . . .

[[Page 6919]]

        The Chairman: (11) The Chair has looked at the 
    amendment, and the Chair would say that the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Florida strikes a part of the bill, that the 
    amendment sent up by the gentleman from Wisconsin is, in fact, a 
    perfecting amendment to the bill, which is one of the exceptions of 
    having two amendments pending at the same time. The amendment of 
    the gentleman from Wisconsin only changes the figure that is part 
    of the text of the bill which the gentleman from Florida seeks to 
    strike altogether, and therefore the Chair will respectfully 
    overrule the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments Disposed of Seriatim; Perfecting Amendment Striking Smaller 
    Portion of Text

Sec. 15.15 Perfecting amendments to a paragraph may be offered (one at 
    a time) while a motion to strike out the paragraph is pending, and 
    such perfecting amendments are first disposed of.

    On Mar. 29, 1966,(12) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 112 Cong. Rec. 7104-06, 7118, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 14012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: On page 
        4, strike out lines 6 through 22, inclusive. . . .

        Mr. [Leonard] Farbstein [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Farbstein: On page 4, line 14, 
        strike out ``$12,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$30,000,000''.

        Mr. [Joseph L.] Evins of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York since the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
    [Mr. Bow] is pending.
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York is a 
    perfecting amendment to the paragraph, which the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Ohio would completely strike out. Since the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York is a perfecting 
    amendment, it is in order. . . .
        The amendment was rejected.
        Mr. [William F.] Ryan [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ryan: On page 4, strike out lines 
        15 through 22.

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York.
        The amendment was rejected.
        The Chairman: The question now occurs on the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow].

[[Page 6920]]

Perfecting Amendments Where Motion To Strike Being Considered by 
    Unanimous Consent

Sec. 15.16 A unanimous-consent request to consider an amendment to a 
    section of a bill which has not been read for amendment, where the 
    bill is being read for amendment by sections, does not permit the 
    offering of other amendments to that section of the bill; thus, 
    while perfecting amendments to the text of a bill may ordinarily be 
    offered pending a motion to strike that text, perfecting amendments 
    may not be offered to one portion of a section of a bill not yet 
    read for amendment where unanimous consent has been obtained to 
    consider a motion to strike another portion of that section.

    On Oct. 5, 1977,(14) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 8410,(15) the proceedings, 
described above, occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 123 Cong. Rec. 32523, 32524, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. The Labor Reform Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) Are there further amendments to 
    section 7? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments to sections 7 and 8, and I ask unanimous consent that 
    the amendments may be considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Illinois? . . .
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Erlenborn: Page 22, line 14, 
        strike ``(1)''; page 22, line 15, strike ``or'' the second time 
        it occurs, and all that follows through line 5, page 23. . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    wonder if it is possible parliamentarily for the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Quie) to offer an amendment to the bill at this 
    point.
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from New 
    Jersey (Mr. Thompson) that an amendment to or a substitute for the 
    motion to strike would not be in order.
        Mr. Thompson: But an amendment to the bill, rather than a 
    substitute to strike, would be in order, Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from New 
    Jersey that, as the gentleman knows, section 8 is not open for 
    amendment at this time, other than the Erlenborn amendment, and 
    perfecting amendments to that section are not yet in order.

Amendment Striking Lesser Portion of Text

Sec. 15.17 Where it is proposed to strike out certain words in a

[[Page 6921]]

    bill, it is in order to perfect the words before acting on the 
    motion to strike; and the perfecting amendment may take the form of 
    a motion to strike out a lesser portion of the words encompassed in 
    the pending motion to strike.

    On Oct. 3, 1969,(17) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 115 Cong. Rec. 28454, 28455, 28459, 28460, 28463, 28464, 91st Cong. 
        1st Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 14000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Motion offered by Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: 
        On page 16, line 9, strike all of Title V. . . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana] 
        to title V: On page 17, immediately after line 13 insert the 
        following:
            Sec. 505. (a) The Comptroller General of the United States 
        (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``Comptroller 
        General'') is authorized and directed, as soon as practicable 
        after the date of enactment of this section, to conduct a study 
        and review on a selective basis of the profits made by 
        contractors and subcontractors on contracts on which there is 
        no formally advertised competitive bidding entered into by the 
        Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, the 
        Department of the Air Force, the Coast Guard, and the National 
        Aeronautics and Space Administration under the authority of 
        chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, and on contracts 
        entered into by the Atomic Energy Commission to meet 
        requirements of the Department of Defense. . . .

     Substitute Amendment Offered by Mr. Anderson of Illinois for the 
                 Amendment to Title v Offered by Mr. Jacobs

        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment to title V.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Anderson of Illinois: On page 16, 
        line 13, after the period, strike out the balance of the 
        language of title V which appears on pages 16 down to the 
        period on line 24, and add a new section 502 which reads as 
        follows:
            Sec. 502 (a) The Secretary of Defense, in cooperation with 
        the Comptroller General, shall develop a reporting system for 
        major acquisition programs managed by the Department of 
        Defense, any department or agency thereof, or any armed service 
        of the United States, for the acquisition of any weapons system 
        or other need of the United States.
            ``(b) The Secretary of Defense shall cause a review to be 
        made of each major acquisition program as specified in 
        subsection (a). . .''.

        The Chairman: (18) . . . Does the gentleman from 
    Illinois offer this amendment as a substitute for the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Jacobs)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Anderson of Illinois. Yes. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the substitute amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson) for the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Jacobs). . . .
        So the substitute amendment was rejected. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Jacobs). . . .

[[Page 6922]]

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. [William F.] Ryan [of New York]: 
        On page 16, after the period on line 13, strike out the 
        remainder of line 13. . . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Ryan).
        The amendment was rejected.
        The Chairman: . . . The question is on the motion to strike 
    offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton).
        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 15.18 Where there is pending a motion to strike an entire title of 
    a bill, it is in order to offer, as a perfecting amendment to that 
    title, a motion to strike out a lesser portion of the title, and 
    that perfecting amendment is voted on first.

    On June 11, 1975,(19) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 6860,(20) motion to strike out a 
title of the bill was offered. The proceedings, described above, were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 18435, 18437, 18438, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Energy Conservation and Conversion Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Alexander: Strike out title II 
        (relating to energy conservation taxes), beginning on line 1 of 
        page 29, and ending on line 24 of page 57. . . .

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment to 
    strike will not be voted on until there is opportunity to vote on 
    all of the perfecting amendments to title II?
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fortney H.] Stark [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    several amendments, and ask unanimous consent that they be 
    considered en bloc.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Stark:
            Page 30, strike out line 1 and all that follows down 
        through line 5 on page 31.
            Page 32, strike out line 20 and all that follows down 
        through line 25. . . .

        Mr. Ullman: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California has 
    offered an amendment which would strike part B. The gentleman from 
    Arkansas has offered an amendment which would strike the whole 
    title.
        I would assume, after part B is perfected, as the gentleman's 
    amendment to strike part B asks, it would come before the amendment 
    to strike the whole title. Am I correct?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the chairman of 
    the committee that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Stark) is a perfecting amendment and will be voted 
    on first.

    Parliamentarian's Note: When title II of the bill was read, an 
amendment was offered to strike

[[Page 6923]]

out the entire title (no one sought recognition at that point with a 
perfecting amendment). Perfecting amendments to the text of the bill 
proposed to be stricken were in order although the motion to strike 
itself was not amendable. The first such perfecting amendment offered 
was to strike out a portion of the title. The Committee on Ways and 
Means sought to consider amendments to modify that portion prior to the 
consideration of a motion to strike that portion, but since only one 
perfecting amendment could be pending at a time and there is no degree 
of preference as between perfecting amendments, unanimous consent was 
required to withdraw the perfecting amendment to strike; objection to 
that request precluded the offering of other perfecting amendments at 
that time.

Member Offering Motion To Strike as Precluded From Offering Perfecting 
    Amendment

Sec. 15.19 A Member who has offered a motion to strike a section of a 
    bill may not thereafter offer a perfecting amendment to that 
    section while his motion to strike is pending.

    On Sept. 29, 1975,(2) during consideration of a bill 
(3) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to 
parliamentary inquiries as described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.  Cong. Rec. 30772, 30773, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. H.R. 8630, Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I will 
    try to propound a proper parliamentary inquiry. . . .

    . . . My original amendment was to strike section 2 in its 
entirety. We have just accepted striking from line 20, section 2, 
through line 6 on page 13. Is an amendment in order at this point to 
strike the remainder of that section?

        The Chairman: (4) the Chair will respond to the 
    gentleman by saying that an amendment would be in order to strike 
    so much of the section that was not amended by the gentleman from 
    Arkansas' amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Derwinski: But obviously I am precluded at this point from 
    offering an amendment to strike beginning on line 20, page 12.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Illinois that other Members would not be precluded from offering 
    such an amendment.

Amendment Striking Out Title

Sec. 15.20 Where there was pending an amendment to strike

[[Page 6924]]

    out a title of a bill, the Chairman indicated that a perfecting 
    amendment inserting a new section within that title could be 
    offered.

    On Nov. 4, 1971,(5) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 117 Cong. Rec. 39287, 39288, 39290, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 7248.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Edith S.] Green of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Green of Oregon: Beginning with 
        line 7 on page 256, strike out everything down through line 25 
        on page 262.

        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, is an 
    amendment in order at this point which would amend that title as it 
    now stands, when we have an amendment to strike the title now 
    pending?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (6) the Chair will state 
    to the gentleman that an amendment to the title would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion To Strike Precluded

Sec. 15.21 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair indicated 
    (1) that the pendency of a perfecting amendment to a title of a 
    bill would preclude the offering of an amendment to strike out the 
    title; but (2) that the motion to strike could be offered following 
    disposition of the perfecting amendment.

    On Sept. 9, 1971,(7) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 117 Cong. Rec. 31132, 31133, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 9727.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne N.] Aspinall [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I have the 
    following inquiry of the Chairman: If a member of the committee 
    should offer a perfecting amendment to title III, would that 
    prevent the Member now speaking from offering his amendment to 
    strike?
        The Chairman: (8) If a perfecting amendment were 
    pending, a motion to strike would not at that time be in order. The 
    gentleman's motion could, however, be made at a subsequent time. . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Aspinall: I understood the Chair to say that after a motion 
    to perfect had been made by a member of the committee, then my 
    motion to strike the section as perfected would be in order. Is 
    that correct?
        The Chairman: After the perfecting amendment is disposed of the 
    motion to strike would be in order at that time.

Motion To Strike Not in Order as Substitute

Sec. 15.22 Where a perfecting amendment to a section of a bill was 
    pending in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair indicated that an

[[Page 6925]]

    amendment to strike out that entire section would not be in order 
    as a substitute for the pending amendment.

    On Aug. 16, 1972,(9) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 118 Cong. Rec. 28400, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 16071.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: 
        Page 38, strike out lines 23 and 24 and insert in lieu thereof 
        the following: . . .

        Mr. [Marion G.] Snyder [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I should 
    like to ask if an amendment to strike the entire section is in 
    order as a substitute to this kind of amendment.
        The Chairman: (10) the Chair will advise the 
    gentleman that it is not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John Slack (W. Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 15.23 An amendment proposing to strike out a section is not a 
    proper substitute for a perfecting amendment to that section (to 
    strike out and insert), but where no point of order is raised 
    against the substitute, the Chair nevertheless has followed the 
    principle that the pending text should first be perfected before 
    the vote recurs on striking it out.

    On July 22, 1976,(11) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 13777, the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act of 1976, the proceedings described above occurred as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 122 Cong. Rec. 23457, 23459, 23460, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: On page 41, 
    strike line 10 and all that follows through line 7 on page 43. 
    Insert in lieu thereof the following:
        Sec. 210(a)(1) The Secretary with respect to the commercial 
    grazing of livestock on the public lands under the Taylor Grazing 
    Act . . . shall charge, commencing with the calendar year 1980, an 
    annual fee or fees per animal unit month for such grazing which 
    shall be the approximate fair market value of the forage provided. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Yates as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Eckhardt: Page 41, strike out line 10 
        on page 41 and all lines thereafter on page 41. . . .

        The Chairman: (12) The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) is a perfecting amendment to 
    section 210. The ``substitute'' offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Yates) is, in effect, a motion to strike the entire 
    section against which no point of order was raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The first vote will be on the perfecting amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt).

Vote on Motion To Strike

Sec. 15.24 Whether or not preferential perfecting amend

[[Page 6926]]

    ments to the pending text, offered pending a motion to strike that 
    text, are adopted or rejected, a vote still must be taken on the 
    motion to strike (assuming that the perfecting amendments do not 
    change the entire text pending).

    On Oct. 3, 1977,(13) during consideration of H.R. 
3816,(14) in the Committee of the Whole, a perfecting 
amendment was offered to a section of a bill while there was pending a 
motion to strike out that section. The proceedings were as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 123 Cong. Rec. 32013, 32017, 32019, 32020, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. A bill to amend the Federal Trade Commission Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Krueger [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Krueger: On page 35, strike line 
        14 and all that follows through line 5 on page 44, and 
        redesignate the following sections accordingly. . . .

        Mrs. [Millicent] Fenwick [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick:
            Page 37, strike out the period in line 12 and insert in 
        lieu thereof a semicolon and the following: ``except that in 
        the case of an action commenced under subparagraph (B) of such 
        subsection, the court may grant such relief only if the 
        plaintiff in such action satisfies the court that the act . . . 
        is one which a reasonable man would have known under the 
        circumstances was . . . fraudulent.''. . .

        Mr. [Matthew J.] Rinaldo [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, am I 
    correct in my understanding if there were a vote now, the vote 
    would be on the Fenwick amendment and regardless whether it passes 
    or fails, there would still be a vote on the Krueger amendment to 
    strike the entire section?
        The Chairman:(15) That is correct. All perfecting 
    amendments will be in order before a vote on the Krueger amendment. 
    The Krueger amendment will still be pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adoption of Perfecting Amendment Coextensive With Motion To Strike

Sec. 15.25 The motion to strike out and insert takes precedence as a 
    perfecting amendment over a motion to strike out, and if the 
    perfecting amendment is agreed to, and is coextensive with the 
    material proposed to be stricken, the motion to strike out the 
    amended text falls and is not acted on.

    On Dec. 17, 1970,(16) during consideration of H.R. 
19446, the Emergency School Aid Act of

[[Page 6927]]

1970, an amendment was offered by Mrs. Patsy T. Mink, of Hawaii:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 116 Cong. Rec. 42227, 42230, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Mink: Amend section 3c on page 20 
        of the bill to read as follows:
            ``(c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of this 
        section and commencing with fiscal year 1972, no funds are 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out the provisions of 
        this Act where any funds appropriated for the preceding fiscal 
        year for any authorized program administered by the Office of 
        Education are withheld from expenditure by the Department 
        except as allowed by law.''

        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentlewoman yield for a further parliamentary inquiry?
        Mrs. Mink: I yield.
        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: May I inquire of the Chair as to 
    whether or not, if the Mink amendment presently before the 
    committee is adopted an amendment would be in order to strike that 
    section?
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman that the Mink amendment proposes to strike subsection (c) 
    and insert new language. If that amendment is adopted it would not 
    then be in order to strike subsection (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. James C. Corman (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. Mink: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute 
    amendment for the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin as a 
        substitute for the amendment offered by Mrs. Mink: On page 20, 
        strike out lines 11 through 16.

        The Chairman: The Chair would like to state the parliamentary 
    situation before putting the question on the pending amendments.
        The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii is a 
    motion to strike out the subsection and insert new language. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin is a motion to 
    strike out the subsection. The precedents indicate that in this 
    situation the proponents of the subsection should be given a chance 
    to perfect it before the vote is taken on striking it from the 
    bill.
        If the Mink amendment is agreed to, the motion to strike out 
    then falls and is not voted on. If the amendment of the gentlewoman 
    from Hawaii is defeated, then the vote will recur on the motion to 
    strike.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In this instance, without objection, a 
motion to strike out was permitted to be offered as a substitute for a 
motion to strike out and insert, although under the precedents such an 
amendment is not in order as a substitute. (See Rule XVI clause 7, 
House Rules and Manual Sec. 793 (101st Cong.), stating that a motion to 
strike out and insert is not divisible.)

Amendments After Vote on Motion To Strike

Sec. 15.26 Where a motion to strike out is pending, per

[[Page 6928]]

    fecting amendments may be offered, seriatim, and acted on before 
    consideration of the motion to strike; and if the motion to strike 
    out is ultimately defeated, further perfecting amendments to the 
    pending text are yet in order.

    On Aug. 3, 1966,(18) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 18136, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 14765.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William C.] Cramer [of Florida]: Did I understand the 
    Chair to say that all amendments have to be disposed of to this 
    title before the Moore motion to strike is taken up?
        The Chairman: (19) As it has been indicated, the 
    title will be open to perfecting amendments before the vote on the 
    motion of the gentleman from West Virginia. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cramer: It is my understanding that action could be taken 
    on the Moore amendment to strike and if that did not prevail, then 
    further amendments to the title would be in order?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

Sec. 15.27 While a perfecting amendment has precedence over an 
    amendment to strike out, the rejection of the motion to strike does 
    not preclude perfecting amendments.

    On July 26, 1939,(20) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 84 Cong. Rec. 10107, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        S. 2009, the Transportation Act of 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Lindsay C.] Warren [of North 
    Carolina]: On page 266, line 17, strike out ``2'' and insert ``3''.
        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this amendment comes too late. Perfecting 
    amendments should be offered before a motion to strike out the 
    section. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is of the opinion that 
    while the gentleman had the privilege of offering this amendment 
    before a vote was taken on the motion to strike, the action taken 
    on the motion to strike does not preclude the offering of a 
    perfecting amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will read section 7 of rule XVI, as follows:

            A motion to strike out and insert is indivisible, but a 
        motion to strike out being lost shall neither preclude 
        amendment nor motion to strike out and insert.

Amendments to Amendment and to Substitute; Order of Voting

Sec. 15.28 Perfecting amendments to an amendment are offered and voted 
    on before a perfecting amendment pending to the substitute is voted 
    on;

[[Page 6929]]

    but disposition of the perfecting amendment to the substitute does 
    not preclude the offering of further amendments to the amendment.

    On May 15, 1979,(2) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 39,(3) the above-stated proposition 
was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 125 Cong. Rec. 11180, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: I would ask the Chair, is 
    it appropriate now that we consider voting on the Seiberling 
    amendment?
        The Chairman:(4) The Chair will put the question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don] Young of Alaska: Mr Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Young of Alaska: There is an additional amendment to the 
    Breaux-Dingell bill by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Swift). 
    Is that not what is before the House right now?
        The Chairman: The Chair would make clear that voting on the 
    Seiberling amendment does not preclude further amendments to the 
    Merchant Marine and Fisheries amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling) to the substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall).
        The amendments to the substitute were agreed to.

Sec. 15.29 Where there is pending an amendment to the text and a 
    substitute for such amendment, amendments are in order to any part 
    of the amendment and the substitute, and after the amendments are 
    perfected, the substitute is voted on first.

    On Feb. 4, 1946,(5) during consideration of a bill 
relating to the investigation of labor disputes,(6) a motion 
was made, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 92 Cong. Rec. 836, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. H.R. 4908.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike out all after the enacting clause and insert as a substitute 
    the text of the bill H.R. 5262. . . .
        Subsequently, the following proceedings took place: 
    (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 92 Cong. Rec. 839, 844, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sherman] Adams [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    South Dakota [Mr. Case].
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Adams as a substitute for the Case 
        amendment:
            ``That the Congress hereby declares that the objectives of 
        this act

[[Page 6930]]

        are to avoid and diminish strikes and other forms of industrial 
        strife or unrest, which have the intent or the necessary effect 
        of burdening, or obstructing commerce, and to aid in attaining 
        increased prosperity by achieving the highest degree of 
        production at wages assuring a steadily advancing standard of 
        living, by encouraging the acceptance of collective bargaining 
        and voluntary conciliation, mediation, and arbitration 
        agreements, thereby disposing of controversies between labor 
        and management by peaceful means and discouraging avoidable 
        strife through strikes and lock-outs.
            ``Sec. 2. When used in this act--
            ``(1) The term `commerce' means trade, traffic, commerce, 
        transportation, or communication among the several States . . .

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Are amendments to the 
    substitute also in order at this time?
        The Chairman: (8) They are. Amendments to the Case 
    amendment and to the Adams substitute are in order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Emmet O'Neal (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: May I ask, so that it will be clear 
    to everybody, that the Chair state the order in which amendments 
    will be voted upon?
        The Chairman: Amendments to the Case bill are in order, 
    amendments to the substitute are in order and when those two are 
    perfected, one or the other, the substitute will be voted on first, 
    the Case bill second.

Sec. 15.30 Once a perfecting amendment to an amendment is disposed of, 
    the original amendment, as amended or not, remains open to further 
    perfecting amendment, and all such amendments are disposed of prior 
    to voting on substitutes for the original amendment and amendments 
    thereto.

    The proposition stated above was the basis of the following 
proceedings, which occurred on July 26, 1984,(9) during 
consideration of H.R. 11 (10) in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 130 Cong. Rec. 21231, 21241, 21242, 21251, 21253, 98th Cong. 2d 
        Sess.
10. The education amendments of 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Indiana (Mr. Coats).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Coats: Page 91, after line 14, 
        insert the following new section (and redesignate the 
        succeeding sections accordingly):

                            Voluntary School Prayer

            Sec. 806. Part B of the General Education Provisions Act is 
        amended by inserting after section 420 (20 U.S.C. 1228) the 
        following new section: . . .

        Mr. [Steven] Gunderson [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        Mr. [Dan R.] Coats [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order on the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gunderson to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Coats:
            In Section 420A of the General Education Provisions Act (as 
        pro

[[Page 6931]]

        posed to be added by the amendment of the amendment of the 
        gentleman from Indiana) strike out the first sentence and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following: 'No State or local 
        educational agency shall deny individuals in public schools the 
        opportunity to participate in moments of silent prayer.''. . .

        Mr. [Duncan L.] Hunter [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hunter as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Coats: In lieu of the matter proposed 
        to be inserted, insert the following:

                            Voluntary School Prayer

            Sec. 806. Part B of the General Education Provisions Act is 
        amended by inserting after section 420 (20 U.S.C. 1228) the 
        following new section: . . .

        Mr. [Don] Bonker [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, we have a 
    fairly complex parliamentary procedure. I wonder if the Chair would 
    explain to the Members the various motions as they would occur.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (11) The first vote will 
    be on the Gunderson amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coats. If no 
    further amendments are offered to the Coats amendment, then the 
    vote will occur on the substitute amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) if no amendments are offered 
    to his substitute amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bonker: As amended?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: As amended or not.
        Mr. Bonker: Possibly by Gunderson, if that amendment is 
    adopted?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Or possibly by another Member . . .
        Mr. [Charles E.] Schumer [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I was 
    confused by that explanation; could the Chair go over it once 
    again?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: . . . The first vote will be on the 
    Gunderson amendment to the Coats amendment. If no other amendments 
    are offered, then the next vote will be on the Hunter amendment, 
    which is a substitute for the Coats amendment. Any amendment to the 
    Hunter substitute would have to be offered before the vote on the 
    Hunter substitute. Then after the Hunter substitute is voted on, 
    the Coats amendment will be voted on.

Point of Order Against Amendment to Substitute Does Not Lie Even Where 
    Identical to Original Amendment

Sec. 15.31 A point of order against an amendment to a substitute does 
    not lie merely because its adoption would have the same effect as 
    the adoption of a pending amendment to the original amendment and 
    would render the substitute as amended identical to the original 
    amendment as amended.

    Where there was pending an amendment to a joint resolution to 
insert text (A), an amendment

[[Page 6932]]

to said amendment to insert instead text (B), and a substitute for the 
amendment to insert text (A) and (B) together, the Chair overruled a 
point of order against an amendment to the substitute to delete text 
(A), since there is no precedent which would preclude the offering of 
an amendment to a substitute merely because it is similar to or 
achieves the same effect as an amendment to the original amendment. The 
proceedings of May 4, 1983,(12) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 129 Cong. Rec. 11046, 11052, 11056, 11059, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lungren: On page 5 at line 19, 
        insert ``(a)'' after ``2.'', and after line 23 add the 
        following:
            ``(b) Consistent with the treaty-making powers of the 
        President under the Constitution, nothing in this resolution 
        shall be construed to be binding on the President or his 
        negotiators in the formulation of strategy, instructions or 
        positions in the conduct of the strategic arms reduction talks 
        (START).''.

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Lungren: In the text of the matter proposed to be added 
        to the resolution by the Lungren amendment, strike out all that 
        follows ``(b)'' through ``(START)'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        the following:
            Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to supersede 
        the treaty-making powers of the President under the 
        Constitution.

        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Zablocki) is recognized for 15 minutes in support of his amendment, 
    for purposes of debate only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James A.] Courter [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Courter as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Lungren: In lieu of the matter 
        proposed by said amendment, insert the following:
            On page 5, line 19, insert ``(a)'' after ``2.'', and after 
        line 23 add the following:
            ``(b) Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to 
        supercede the treaty-making powers of the President under the 
        Constitution, and therefore nothing in this resolution shall be 
        construed to be binding on the President or his negotiators in 
        the formulation of strategy, instructions or positions in the 
        conduct of the Strategic Arms Reductions Talks (START).''. . .

        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
    amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Courter as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. 
        Lungren:

[[Page 6933]]

        In proposed new subsection (b), strike out all that follows 
        ``Constitution'' through ``(START)'' . . .

        Mr. Courter: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order against the 
    amendment to the substitute.
        Mr. Chairman, I have had a chance to look very briefly at the 
    amendment to the substitute and it is simply a restatement of the 
    gentleman's amendment to the amendment and as such is improper at 
    the present time, the purpose of which is dilatory only and the 
    purpose of which is not obviously to legitimately amend a 
    substitute. . . .
        Mr. Zablocki: . . . The gentleman from New Jersey marries, so 
    to speak, the two amendments, the amendment of the gentleman from 
    California and the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin as a 
    substitute.
        All the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin does is amend 
    the substitute, divorcing, or at least, deleting the latter part of 
    the gentleman's amendment so that we can have an up and down vote 
    on the two proposals.
        And I believe an amendment to a substitute is in order whether 
    it takes away or adds on to the language of a substitute.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair rules that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) to the substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from New Jersey, is germane to the substitute. There is 
    no precedent which would preclude the offering of that amendment to 
    the substitute merely because it is similar or the same in effect 
    as the amendment offered to the original amendment.
        Therefore, the point of order is rejected.

Amendments to Original Text While Amendment in Nature of Substitute 
    Pending; Order of Voting

Sec. 15.32 A perfecting amendment to the first section of a bill may be 
    offered while an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    entire bill is pending.

    On Apr. 10, 1962,(14) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 108 Cong. Rec. 6167-69, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 10788.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis of Missouri: 
        Page 1, line 1, strike out all after the enacting clause and 
        insert: ``That section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956 is 
        hereby repealed.''

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, if I may submit a 
    parliamentary inquiry, does the Chair wish to dispose of the 
    pending amendment first? I have an amendment to offer.
        The Chairman: (15) Is the gentleman's amendment a 
    perfecting amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Clark W. Thompson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: No; it is an amendment to the bill.
        The Chairman: That would be a perfecting amendment, the Chair 
    will state.

[[Page 6934]]

        [The amendment was offered and rejected.]

Sec. 15.33 A perfecting amendment to a pending paragraph of an 
    appropriation bill is in order and is not precluded by the 
    intervention of an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    paragraph and several of those following.

    On July 29, 1969,(16) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 115 Cong. Rec. 21218, 21219, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 13111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles S.] Joelson [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the paragraph just read which is a simple 
    substitute to several paragraphs of the bill dealing with the 
    Office of Education, and I hereby give notice that after the 
    amendment is agreed to I will make a motion to strike out the 
    paragraphs appearing as follows: . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Joelson: On page 25 strike out 
        lines 9 through 24 and substitute in lieu thereof the following 
        paragraph: . . .

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, the entire 
    substitute, as I understand, is open to amendment at any point, but 
    insofar as the bill is concerned is the paragraph on page 25 which 
    was read by the Clerk also open to amendment?
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 15.34 While there is pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute to a bill, perfecting amendments to the bill may be 
    offered to that portion (usually only the first section) of the 
    text of the bill which has been read and is open to amendment.

    On Nov. 24, 1970,(18) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 116 Cong. Rec. 38704, 38705, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 16785.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Am I correct in 
    understanding that the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman 
    from Kentucky was to end debate on the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, H.R. 19200, and any amendments thereto at 2:15 p.m.?
        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: That is correct, only on 
    the substitute. We hope that the committee bill will prevail, and 
    that we will then proceed to the amendment process on the committee 
    bill. . . .
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: As I understand the rule and 
    the procedure, amendments can be offered to the committee bill at 
    the present time; is that correct? . . .
        The Chairman: (19) Amendments may be offered to the 
    substitute until 2:15. All debate on the substitute and any 
    amendments to the substitute will be terminated at that time. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. James C. Corman (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, may I more specifically 
    define my parliamentary inquiry: Is the Chair

[[Page 6935]]

    ruling that there can be no amendments offered between now and 2:15 
    to the committee bill?
        The Chairman: Only to that portion of the committee bill which 
    has been read.

Sec. 15.35 Where a perfecting amendment to the first section of a bill 
    is offered and rejected, a second perfecting amendment may be 
    offered prior to the vote on a pending amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for the entire bill.

    On Apr. 10, 1962,(20) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 108 Cong. Rec. 6167-69, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 10788.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Thomas B.) Curtis of Missouri: 
        Page 1, line 1, strike out all after the enacting clause and 
        insert: ``That section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956 is 
        hereby repealed.''. . .

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: . . . I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gross: On page 1, line 12, strike 
        out the period and quotation marks and insert a colon and add 
        the following: . . .

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Gross) there were--ayes 46, noes 76.
        So the amendment was rejected.
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On page 1, line 12, after 
        the word ``agreement'' strike out the period and insert a colon 
        and the following: . . . .

        The amendment was rejected.
        The Chairman: (1) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Curtis].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Clark W. Thompson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was rejected.

Sec. 15.36 Where there is pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and a substitute therefor, it is in order to offer a 
    perfecting amendment to the pending portion of original text, and 
    the perfecting amendment is first voted upon.

    On May 1, 1975,(2) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Concurrent Resolution 218,(3) the 
proceedings described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 121 Cong. Rec. 12765, 12771, 12776, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. Setting forth the congressional budget on an aggregate basis for 
        fiscal 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, 
    I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        O'Neill:
            Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:

[[Page 6936]]

            ``That the Congress hereby determines and declares, 
        pursuant to section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
        1974, that for the fiscal year beginning on July 1, 1975''--
            ``(1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $295,181,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Latta as a substitute for the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. O'Neill: 
        Strike out all after the resolving clause in House Concurrent 
        Resolution 218 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            ``That the Congress hereby determines and declares, 
        pursuant to section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
        1974, that for the fiscal year beginning on July 1, 1975--
            ``(1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $296,400,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [Phil M.] Landrum [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    series of amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Landrum: Page 1, line 11, strike 
        out ``$395,600,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$387,486,000,000''.
            Page 2 line 2, strike out ``$368,200,000,000'' and insert 
        in lieu thereof ``$361,012,000,000''. . . .

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rousselot: Is this an amendment to the substitute offered 
    by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta)?
        The Chairman: The Chair understands that it is perfecting 
    amendment to the original resolution.
        Mr. Rousselot: Is it in order, then, at this time?
        The Chairman: It is, the Chair will state.

    After further proceedings, the following exchange occurred:

        Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington]: . . . It is my understanding 
    that there is presently pending the O'Neill amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute to the original text, a Latta substitute to the 
    O'Neill amendment, a perfecting amendment by Mr. Reuss to the 
    O'Neill amendment, a perfecting amendment by Mr. Rousselot to the 
    Latta substitute, and an amendment to the original text by Mr. 
    Landrum.
        I intend to oppose the Landrum amendment, the Latta substitute, 
    and the Rousselot amendment, and I would like to know which one 
    will be first voted on by the body, so that I can address myself to 
    that one.
        The Chairman: The Chair will respond to the gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. Adams) that the first vote will occur on the 
    Landrum perfecting amendment to the concurrent resolution.

Sec. 15.37 While an amendment in the nature of a substitute is pending 
    to a proposition which is open to amendment at any point, a 
    perfecting amendment to the original

[[Page 6937]]

    text may be offered, and a perfecting amendment to the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute may be offered; but the perfecting 
    amendment to the original text is voted on first.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on May 3, 
1979,(5) during consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 
107 (6) in the Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 125 Cong. Rec. 9654, 9660, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. The first concurrent resolution on the Budget, fiscal 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Rousselot: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
            That the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant 
        to section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that 
        for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1979--
            (1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $515,000,000,000, and the amount by which the aggregate level 
        of Federal revenues should be decreased is $10,000,000,000. . . 
        .

        Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment to the text of the concurrent resolution (H. 
    Con. Res. 107).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Wylie: Strike out 
        sections 1 through 5 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            That the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant 
        to section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that 
        for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1979. . . .

        Mr. [Charles E.] Grassley [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Grassley to the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Rousselot:
            In the matter relating to the appropriate level of total 
        new budget authority reduce the amount by $1,100,000,000. . . .

        Mr. Wylie: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman from Ohio will state 
    his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wylie: The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Grassley) is offering 
    an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered 
    by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot) as I understand 
    it.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Wylie: That would be voted on before my perfecting 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: No. The perfecting amendment offered by the 
    gentleman

[[Page 6938]]

    from Ohio (Mr. Wylie) to the concurrent resolution would be voted 
    on first.
        Mr. Wylie: That was my understanding Mr. Chairman. My amendment 
    includes the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
    Grassley).
        Mr. Grassley: Mr. Chairman, I am offering the perfecting 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot).
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Grassley) is 
    offering the perfecting amendment to the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Rousselot). The perfecting amendment to the main resolution offered 
    by the gentleman from Ohio would be voted on first.

Sec. 15.38 Pending the vote on a perfecting amendment to an amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute (to a proposition open for amendment 
    at any point), a perfecting amendment to the original text may be 
    offered and must be voted on first.

    On May 3, 1979,(8) during consideration of House 
Concurrent Resolution 107 (9) in the Committee of the Whole, 
the proceedings described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 125 Cong. Rec. 9664, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. The first concurrent resolution on the Budget, fiscal 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to 
    the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot).
        Mr. Solarz: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Solarz: Mr. Chairman, if I were to withdraw my request to 
    speak at this particular time on the Rousselot amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute, would a vote then be in order on the 
    Grassley amendment to the Rousselot amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk which I think would precede the vote on the 
    Rousselot amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: Is the gentleman's amendment a perfecting 
    amendment to the resolution?
        Mr. Solomon: To the basic resolution, yes, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment.

    The Clerk read the perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Solomon and, 
following brief debate, the Chair put the question thereon.

Sec. 15.39 During consideration of a bill pursuant to a special

[[Page 6939]]

    rule permitting the majority and minority leaders to offer 
    amendments not printed in the Record but permitting all other 
    Members to offer only amendments to the bill which have been 
    printed in the Record, the majority leader was allowed to offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute not printed in the Record, 
    but while the substitute was pending, another Member was permitted 
    to offer to the bill a perfecting amendment printed in the Record.

    During the proceedings of July 28, 1983,(11) in the 
Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that, pending an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute for an entire bill, perfecting amendments 
to the pending portion of the bill could still be offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 129 Cong. Rec. 21468-70, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Wright: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
            That the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
        1983 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        title. . . .

        Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: I have an amendment that was 
    printed in the Record. Will I be given an opportunity to offer it?
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman that a printed perfecting amendment to the bill can be 
    offered before the vote on the Wright amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Consisting of One Section

Sec. 15.40 An amendment in the nature of a substitute is ordinarily 
    offered after the reading of the first section of a bill being read 
    by sections, prior to committee amendments adding new sections; 
    however, where a bill consists of one section and is therefore open 
    to amendment at any point when read, committee amendments adding 
    new sections are considered perfecting amendments and are disposed 
    of prior to the offering of amendments in the nature of a 
    substitute.

    On Nov. 7, 1975,(13) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 6346,(14) the

[[Page 6940]]

Chair ruled as described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 35525, 35526, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. Rural Development Act amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
        subsection (a) of section 503 of the Rural Development Act of 
        1972 (7 U.S.C. 2663(a)) is amended by striking the word 
        ``and'', and changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, 
        and adding the following: ``not to exceed $5,000,000 for the 
        period July 1, 1976, through September 30, 1976, and not to 
        exceed $20,000,000 for each fiscal year thereafter''.

        Mr. [Charles] Rose [of North Carolina] (during the reading): 
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered 
    as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: (15) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from North Carolina?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Tom Bevill (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Keith G.] Sebelius [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk.
        The Chairman: First we will have the Clerk report the committee 
    amendments.

                            committee amendments

        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the first committee 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 1, line 8, strike the word 
        ``each'' and insert in lieu thereof the word ``the'', and in 
        line 9, strike the word ``thereafter'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof the words ``ending September 30, 1977''.

        The committee amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the next committee 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. Sebelius: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that I have 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk, and that 
    that takes precedence at this time over the committee amendments.
        The Chairman: The Chair rules that the bill, consisting of one 
    section, has been read and that the committee amendments are 
    perfecting amendments and, therefore, take precedence over any 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.

    Parliamentarian's Note: With a bill consisting of several sections, 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute should be offered after the 
reading of the first section and following disposition of perfecting 
amendments to the first section; but if a committee amendment adding a 
new section two were permitted to be considered first in that context, 
its adoption would preclude offering an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute until the end of the bill (since the first section of the 
bill would no longer be subject to amendment, a new section having been 
inserted).


 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
 C. OFFERING PARTICULAR KINDS OF AMENDMENTS; PRECEDENCE AND PRIORITIES
 
Sec. 16. Motions To Strike Out and Insert

[[Page 6941]]



    A motion to strike out and insert is usually a perfecting 
amendment.(16) As a perfecting amendment, it takes 
precedence over a pending motion to strike out; it may be offered while 
the motion to strike out is pending and is first acted upon. 
Furthermore, if a motion to strike out an entire paragraph and insert 
new language is agreed to, a pending amendment proposing to strike out 
the paragraph falls and is not voted upon (17) under the 
theory that the House cannot change the precise text inserted by 
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 16.1, infra.
17. See Sec. 31.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A rule (18) provides that, ``a motion to strike out and 
insert is indivisible, but a motion to strike out being lost shall 
neither preclude amendment nor motion to strike out and insert.'' The 
indivisibility of a motion to strike out and insert and the principle 
that a motion to strike out should not have precedence (should not be 
voted on first) over a motion to insert, underlie the well-established 
rule that a motion to strike out is not in order as a substitute for a 
pending motion to strike out and insert.(19) Of course, a 
motion to strike out a section may be offered if a pending amendment to 
strike out the section and insert new language is 
rejected.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Rule XVI clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 793 (101st Cong.).
19. See Sec. 17.18, infra.
20. See Sec. 17.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While it is not in order to strike out an amendment already agreed 
to, it is in order to strike out a larger portion of the paragraph 
which includes the amendment and insert a new paragraph of different 
meaning.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 30.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, it is in order to propose as a substitute for a section, 
by way of a motion to strike out and insert, an amendment inserting the 
same section with modifications and omitting amendments to the section 
previously agreed to.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 81 Cong. Rec. 4805, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., May 19, 
        1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Perfecting Amendment

Sec. 16.1 An amendment to strike out and insert is a perfecting 
    amendment.

    On July 7, 1949,(3) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 95 Cong. Rec. 9064, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was S. 
        1008, to confine the application of the Federal Trade 
        Commission Act and the Clayton Act to certain pricing 
        practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John A.] Carroll [of Colorado]: Do I understand the 
    parliamen

[[Page 6942]]

    tary situation is that the committee has offered an amendment 
    striking out certain words which are contained in the parentheses?
        The Chairman: (4) Yes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. George H. Mahon (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Carroll: Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment to 
    strike out those words and insert other words to be contained in 
    that parenthetical expression. . . .
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that it is a substitute amendment and not a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair holds that this is a perfecting 
    amendment to the text and is in order at this time.

Perfecting a Substitute

Sec. 16.2 A substitute may be amended by a motion to strike out all 
    after the first clause and insert new text. Such a motion is 
    properly classed as an amendment to the substitute and not a 
    substitute.

    On Mar. 22, 1960,(5) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 106 Cong. Rec. 6288, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 8601.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [George] Meader [of Michigan] to 
        the amendment offered by Mr. Celler as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. McCulloch: On page 1 of the Celler 
        substitute strike out ``(a) Add the following as subsection 
        (e)'' and all that follows down through the last page of the 
        McCulloch substitute, and insert in lieu thereof the following: 
        . . .

        Mr. [Emanuel) Celler [of New York]: The amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Michigan is a substitute to the Celler 
    amendment. So we have a substitute to a substitute to the McCulloch 
    amendment. Therefore, I make the point of order that the amendment 
    is not in order because it is a substitute.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan strikes only a 
    part of the substitute offered by the gentleman from New York as a 
    substitute to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    McCulloch). This is clearly in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Precedence Over Motion To Strike Out

Sec. 16.3 A perfecting amendment, in the form of a motion to strike out 
    and insert, offered to the text of a bill, is in order and takes 
    precedence over a pending motion to strike out the text, and is 
    first acted upon.

    On Feb. 7, 1964,(7) during consideration of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1963 (H.R. 7152), a motion to strike a portion of text 
was offered by Mr. Basil L. Whitener, of North Carolina:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 110 Cong. Rec. 2462, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 6943]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Whitener: Strike out all language 
        commencing with line 1 on page 62 through and including line 15 
        on page 63, said language being that included under title VI.

        (Mr. Whitener asked and was given permission to proceed for 10 
    additional minutes.)

    Subsequently,(8) a perfecting amendment was offered by 
Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at pp. 2488, 2489.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Harris: On page 62, line 3, after 
        ``Sec. 601'' strike out all language through and including line 
        15 on page 63 and insert the following:
            ``Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in any law 
        of the United States providing or authorizing direct or 
        indirect financial assistance for or in connection with any 
        program or activity by way of grant, contract, loan, insurance, 
        guaranty, or otherwise, no such law shall be interpreted as 
        requiring that such financial assistance shall be furnished in 
        circumstances under which individuals participating in or 
        benefiting from the program or activity are discriminated 
        against on the ground of race, color, religion or national 
        origin or are denied participation or benefits therein on the 
        ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. All 
        contracts made in connection with any such program or activity 
        shall contain such provisions as the President may prescribe 
        for the purpose of assuring that there shall be no 
        discrimination in employment by any contractor or subcontractor 
        on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.''

    A point of order was made against the amendment: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 2489.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Arkansas is not a perfecting amendment but is an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute, and therefore is out of order as a 
    substitute to the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina, 
    which would strike out the entire title.
        The Chairman [Mr. Eugene J. Keogh of New York]: The Chair 
    points out to the gentleman from New York that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Arkansas undertakes to strike out 
    part of the language contained in title VI and to insert new 
    language; and that therefore it is in fact a perfecting amendment. 
    The point of order is overruled and the gentleman from Arkansas is 
    recognized.

    The Harris amendment was subsequently voted on and 
rejected,(10) after which a perfecting amendment was offered 
by Mr. George Meader, of Michigan, and subsequently 
rejected.(11) The Chair then stated that the question 
recurred on the Whitener motion to strike out the title. The Whitener 
amendment was rejected.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 2492.
11. Id. at p. 2497.
12. Id. at p. 2498.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Effect of Agreeing to Perfecting Amendment

Sec. 16.4 The motion to strike out and insert takes precedence

[[Page 6944]]

    as a perfecting amendment over a motion to strike out, and if the 
    perfecting amendment is agreed to, and is coextensive with the 
    motion to strike, the motion to strike out the amended text fails 
    and is not acted on.

    On Dec. 17, 1970,(13) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 42227, 42230, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 19446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

             Amendment offered by Mrs. [Patsy T.] Mink [of Hawaii]: 
        Amend section 3c on page 20 of the bill to read as follows:
            ``(c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b). . . .''

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin 
        as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mrs. Mink: On page 
        20, strike out lines 11 through 16. . . .

        The Chairman: (14) . . . The amendment offered by 
    the gentlewoman from Hawaii is a motion to strike out the 
    subsection and insert new language. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin is a motion to strike out the subsection. 
    The precedents indicate that in this situation the proponents of 
    the subsection should be given a chance to perfect it before the 
    vote is taken on striking it from the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James C. Corman (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If the Mink amendment is agreed to, the motion to strike out 
    then fails and is not voted on. If the amendment of the gentlewoman 
    from Hawaii is defeated, then the vote will recur on the motion to 
    strike.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Steiger amendment was not a proper 
substitute for the Mink amendment, but when no point of order was 
raised, the Chair properly treated the Steiger amendment as a 
perfecting amendment to the text and put the question first thereon.

Sec. 16.5 Where there is pending a motion to strike out language in a 
    bill and a preferential perfecting amendment (to strike the same 
    language and insert new language) is then offered and agreed to, 
    the motion to strike out falls and is not voted on.

    The principle stated above was the basis for the following 
proceedings which occurred on Aug. 5, 1986,(15) during 
consideration of H.R. 4428 in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 132 Cong. Rec. 19056, 19058, 19059, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Stratton to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Nichols: Strike out section 101(c) (page 14, lines 4 
        through 12). . . .

[[Page 6945]]

        Mr. [Ike] Skelton [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Skelton to the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Nichols: Page 14, strike out lines 4 
        through 12 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            (c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
        President and the Secretary of Defense may assign missions, 
        roles, and functions to the military departments . . . and 
        other elements of the Department of Defense. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (16) Does any Member rise 
    in opposition to the perfecting amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If not, the question is on the perfecting amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Nichols).
        The perfecting amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Stratton amendment to strike will 
    not be voted on, under the precedents, the text proposed to be 
    stricken having been completely amended.

Sec. 16.6 A perfecting amendment may be offered while a motion to 
    strike out is pending, and if the perfecting amendment changes all 
    the words proposed to be stricken out, the motion to strike 
    necessarily falls and is not voted on.

    On Apr. 9, 1979,(17) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 3324,(18) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 125 Cong. Rec. 7753, 7755, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. The International Development Cooperation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas B.] Evans [Jr.] of Delaware: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Evans of Delaware: Page 22, strike 
        out all of lines 13 through 20 and renumber each succeeding 
        paragraph accordingly. . . .

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki: Page 22, 
        strike out lines 13 through 20 and insert:
            ``(2) It is the sense of Congress that funds made available 
        under this chapter for countries in the Middle East are 
        designed to promote progress toward a comprehensive peace 
        settlement in the Middle East and that Syria and Jordan, to 
        continue to receive funds under this chapter, should act in 
        good faith to achieve further progress toward a comprehensive 
        peace settlement and that the expenditure of the funds will 
        serve the process of peace in the Middle East. . . .

        The Chairman: (19) The question is on the perfecting 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The perfecting amendment was agreed to.

[[Page 6946]]

        The Chairman: The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Delaware (Mr. Evans) will not be voted upon, because it is in the 
    nature of a motion to strike.

Sec. 16.7 A motion to strike out and insert language may be offered as 
    a perfecting amendment to a pending section of a bill, and is voted 
    on before a pending motion to strike that section; but, even if 
    agreed to, the perfected language is subject to being eliminated by 
    subsequent adoption of the motion to strike out in cases where the 
    perfecting amendment has not so changed the text as to render the 
    original motion to strike meaningless. Thus, agreement to a 
    perfecting amendment reducing the amount of an authorization does 
    not foreclose a vote on a pending motion to strike the 
    authorization altogether.

    On July 16, 1981,(20) during consideration of H.R. 3519 
(1) in the Committee of the Whole, an amendment was offered 
striking an amount authorized for assistance in staging a bicentennial 
celebration of the Battle of Yorktown. A subsequent amendment to the 
bill proposed to reduce the amount authorized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 127 Cong. Rec. 16057-59, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. The Department of Defense Authorization for fiscal year 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: On 
    page 59, strike lines 20 through 24 and on page 60, strike lines 1 
    through 17.
        Mr. Volkmer: Mr. Chairman, as I reviewed this bill last week 
    and came to the very end of it, the last bit of it, I find herein 
    an assistance to the Yorktown Bicentennial Celebration which will 
    take place on or about October 19, for the 200-year celebration of 
    the Battle of Yorktown. . . .
        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Peyser: Page 60, line 
        13, strike out ``$1,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$750,000''.

        The Chairman: (2) The question is on the perfecting 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Peyser).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The perfecting amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Volkmer).
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it. . . .
        Mr. [Abraham] Kazen [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    committee has had an amendment before it offered by the gentleman 
    from Missouri (Mr. Volkmer).
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

[[Page 6947]]

        Mr. Kazen: Then, Mr. Chairman, there was another amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Peyser). Was that 
    amendment a substitute amendment?
        The Chairman: It was a perfecting amendment to the bill. It was 
    not an amendment to the amendment. A motion to strike cannot be 
    amended by a substitute. . . .
        The Peyser amendment was agreed to. The net effect is that 
    there is $750,000 that is approved for the Yorktown celebration.
        Mr. Kazen: I thank the Chair.
        The Chairman: For what reason does the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Ertel) seek recognition?
        Mr. [Allen E.] Ertel: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet at the time we voted on the 
    Volkmer amendment. Have we voted for the Volkmer amendment at this 
    time to eliminate the funds for the Yorktown exposition altogether?
        The Chairman: No; the Chair will state that we are in the 
    situation where the committee adopted the Peyser amendment 
    authorizing $750,000, and then rejected the Volkmer motion to 
    strike on a voice vote.
        Mr. Ertel: Mr. Chairman, what is the effect of the Volkmer 
    amendment at this point?

        The Chairman: There was no request for a recorded vote.
        For what reason does the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Volkmer) 
    rise?
        Mr. Volkmer: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        My parliamentary inquiry is this: Has the Chair announced the 
    result of the vote on the motion to strike, which was my amendment?
        The Chairman: Yes.
        Mr. Ertel: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a division on the Volkmer 
    amendment at this point. I was on my feet at the time the vote was 
    announced.
        The Chairman: The Chair did not see the gentleman, but the 
    Chair will take the gentleman's word that he was seeking 
    recognition before the voice vote was finally announced.
        Mr. Peyser: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Peyser: Mr. Chairman, I want to be sure that I understand 
    what the situation is on the voting right now. The perfecting 
    amendment that I offered, as I understand it, was accepted and 
    passed?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Peyser: So, Mr. Chairman, now if we vote for the Volkmer 
    amendment, what are we then accomplishing? Are we then supporting 
    the moneys in the amount of $750,000 for the celebration, or are we 
    knocking out everything?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the perfected section 
    would be stricken.
        Mr. Peyser: So if we support the Volkmer amendment, everything 
    is out and if we vote no, the $750,000 is in, is that correct?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Peyser: I thank the Chair.
        The Chairman: A division has been requested on the Volkmer 
    amendment.
        Mr. Stratton: I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

[[Page 6948]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, I have a copy of the Peyser 
    amendment. It is an amendment to H.R. 3519, and it says:

            On page 60, line 13, strike out ``$1,000,000'' and insert 
        in lieu thereof ``$750,000.''

        So the Peyser amendment is an amendment to the bill and not a 
    perfecting amendment to the Volkmer amendment?
        The Chairman: It is a perfecting amendment to the bill. That 
    was the statement of the Chair.
        Mr. Stratton: And it was accepted; was it not?
        The Chairman: That amendment was accepted. But if the Volkmer 
    amendment by a vote on division should be approved, then that would 
    be eliminated. Everything would be eliminated.
        A division has been demanded on the Volkmer amendment.
        On a division (demanded by Mr. Ertel) there were--ayes 33, noes 
    60.
        So the amendment was rejected.

Sec. 16.8 While a committee amendment striking out a subsection is 
    pending, another amendment perfecting the text by striking and 
    inserting a new subsection may be offered and is voted on first, 
    and if agreed to, the amendment striking the subsection falls and 
    is not voted on, as the subsection has been amended in its 
    entirety.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on Nov. 3, 
1983,(3) during consideration of H.R. 2867, the Hazardous 
Waste Control and Enforcement Act of 1983. The proceedings in the 
Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 129 Cong. Rec. 30805, 30816, 30818, 30819, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       judiciary committee amendments

        The Clerk will report the second committee amendment 
    recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary.
        The Clerk read as follows:

             Judiciary Committee amendment: Page 33, strike out line 1 
        and all that follows through line 12, page 34.

        Mr. [William J.] Hughes [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the last word. . . .

     perfecting amendment to the judiciary committee amendment offered 
                               by mr. hughes

        Mr. Hughes: Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            . . . amendment offered by Mr. Hughes: Page 33, strike out 
        1 and all that follows down through line 12 on page 34 and 
        substitute:
            (e) Law Enforcement Authority.--(3) The Attorney General 
        shall, at the request of the Administrator [and on the basis of 
        a showing of need,] deputize qualified employees of the 
        Environmental Protection Agency to serve as Special Deputy 
        United States Marshals in criminal investigations with respect 
        to viola

[[Page 6949]]

        tions of the criminal provisions of this Act. . . .

        The Chairman: (4) The question is on the perfecting 
    amendment to the Judiciary Committee amendment offered by Mr. 
    Hughes. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Doug Barnard, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the perfecting amendment . . . was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the Judiciary Committee amendment 
    to strike subsection 11(e) falls and is not voted on, since the 
    subsection has been amended in its entirety.

Motion as Perfecting Amendment to Text, Not Substitute for Motion To 
    Strike

Sec. 16.9 A motion to strike out and insert is not in order as a 
    substitute for a simple motion to strike out.

    On May 9, 1968,(5) the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 114 Cong. Rec. 12606, 12608, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 15951, providing for uniform annual 
        observances of certain legal holidays on Mondays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Basil L.] Whitener [of North 
        Carolina]: On page 1, line 10, strike out ``Memorial Day, the 
        last Monday in May.''. . .

        Mr. [John H.] Kyl [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute 
    amendment for the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
    Carolina.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Kyl as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Whitener: On page 1, line 10, after 
        the comma, strike the remainder of the sentence and insert 
        ``May 30.''. . .

        Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, this 
    constitutes an amendment to the Whitener amendment, and the 
    Whitener amendment is to strike the whole line. Therefore you 
    cannot offer a substitute when you change it in the manner in which 
    the gentleman does.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman from Colorado makes 
    the point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    North Carolina is to strike out. The Chair feels that the proposed 
    substitute of the gentleman from Iowa to the motion to strike out 
    offered by the gentleman from North Carolina is not in order as a 
    proper substitute.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
 7. The motion to strike out and insert could, however, be offered as a 
        perfecting amendment to the text of the bill (see Sec. 16.10, 
        infra), and in that case would take precedence over the motion 
        to strike out the text and be first acted upon (see Sec. 16.3, 
        supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.10 When a motion to strike out one title of a bill being read 
    by titles is pending, a motion to strike out and insert may not be 
    offered as a substitute for the pending motion, but may be offered 
    as a perfecting amendment to the title.

[[Page 6950]]

    On Feb. 7, 1964,(8) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 110 Cong. Rec. 2462, 2488, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 7152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Basil L.] Whitener [of North 
        Carolina]: Strike out all language commencing with line 1 on 
        page 62 through and including line 5 on page 63, said language 
        being that included under title VI. . . .

        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        Mr. [George] Meader [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Meader: Is it in order to offer an amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute to the motion by the gentleman from North Carolina 
    (Mr. Whitener) to strike title VI?
        The Chairman: The answer is ``No''. . . .
        The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Harris] has offered a 
    perfecting amendment, which is in order at this time. . . .

        Amendment offered by Mr. Harris: On page 62, line 3, after 
    ``Sec. 601'' strike out all language through and including line 15 
    on page 63 and insert the following: . . .

Motion To Strike Out and Insert as Indivisible

Sec. 16.11 A motion to strike out and insert is indivisible.

    On Oct. 19, 1945,(10) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 91 Cong. Rec. 9859, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 4407, reducing certain appropriations and contract 
        authorizations available for fiscal year 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a 
    division of the question. The amendment is to strike out and insert 
    and I ask that the question be divided so that the Committee may 
    first vote on the part of the amendment which provides for striking 
    out the language included in the bill.
        The Chairman: (11) As the Chair recalls the rule, a 
    motion to strike out is not divisible. Clause 7 of the rule XVI 
    reads as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            A motion to strike out and insert is indivisible.

Defeat of Motion To Strike

Sec. 16.12 Defeat of a motion to strike out a paragraph does not 
    preclude amendments nor motions to strike out and insert.

    On May 19, 1937,(12) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 81 Cong. Rec. 4797, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6958, Interior Department appropriation for 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: This is a perfecting amendment, 
    and the committee having voted on a motion to strike out the 
    paragraph, a perfecting amendment is not in order.

[[Page 6951]]

        The Chairman: (13) The Chair invites attention to 
    clause 7 of rule 16, which provides as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            A motion to strike out and insert is indivisible, but a 
        motion to strike out being lost shall neither preclude 
        amendment nor motion to strike out and insert.

        On the basis of the rule just quoted, the point of order is 
    overruled.

Sec. 16.13 An amendment proposing to strike out a section of a bill 
    having been defeated, the proponent of such amendment may offer an 
    amendment to strike out the section and insert new language.

    On June 6, 1944,(14) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 90 Cong. Rec. 5412, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: 
    Beginning on page 2, line 6, strike out section 2 and insert. . . .
        Mr. [Dewey] Short [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it strikes out section 2, the 
    very thing that we just voted on. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) . . . This amendment . . . 
    differed from the first amendment in that this not only seeks to 
    strike out section 2 but inserts new wording for section 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.  Graham A. Barden (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Motion To Strike Out and Insert After Text Perfected by Amendment

Sec. 16.14 After a section has been perfected by amendments, it may be 
    in order to move to strike out such section as amended and insert a 
    new one therefor.

    On May 19, 1937,(16) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 81 Cong. Rec. 4805, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6958, Interior Department appropriation for 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Luce [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a 
    point of order. . . .
        This section reverses the action just taken by the Committee 
    and my point is that that cannot be accomplished except by a motion 
    to reconsider. . . .
        The Chairman: (17) . . . The gentleman from 
    Mississippi [Mr. Ford] has offered an amendment striking out the 
    entire paragraph and inserting new language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair cited (from 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2904 and 
2905) the following principles in overruling the point of order:

        A substitute offered after the reading of a bill has been 
    concluded is in order regardless of whether it includes language 
    stricken from the bill or inserted in the bill when read for 
    amendment. . . .
        It is in order to propose as a substitute for a section an 
    amendment in

[[Page 6952]]

    serting the same section with modifications and omitting amendments 
    to the section previously agreed to by the Committee of the Whole.

Not in Order as Substitute in Some Cases

Sec. 16.15 For an amendment inserting new text in a bill, a proposition 
    not only inserting similar language but also striking out original 
    text of the bill may not be in order as a substitute, where the 
    portion striking original text has the effect of broadening the 
    scope of the amendment to which it is offered and therefore 
    violating the germaneness rule.

    On Sept. 8, 1976,(18) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 10498, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 122 Cong. Rec. 29225, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 108. (a) Title I of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 and 
    following), as amended by section 107 of this Act, is further 
    amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subtitle: . 
    . .

    Amendments were offered, as follows: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at pp. 29234, 29237.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers: Page 216, after line 23, 
    insert:
        (f) The Clean Air Act, as amended by sections 306, 201, 304, 
    312, 313, 108, and 211 of this Act, is further amended by adding 
    the following new section at the end thereof:

                    ``national commission on air quality

        ``Sec 325. (a) There is established a National Commission on 
    Air Quality which shall study and report to the Congress. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Chappell [Jr., of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rogers).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Chappell as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Rogers: Page 198, line 5, after 
        section 108, strike out everything following Sec. 108 and 
        insert the following:
            Sec. 108. The Clean Air Act is amended by inserting a new 
        section 315 and renumbering succeeding sections accordingly:

                      ``national commission on air quality

            ``Sec. 315(a) There is established a National Commission on 
        Air Quality which shall study and report to the Congress on:
            ``(1) the effects of any existing or proposed policy or 
        prohibiting deterioration of air quality in areas identified as 
        having air quality better than that required under existing or 
        proposed national ambient standards on employment . . . the 
        relationship of such policy to the protection of the public 
        health and welfare as well as other national priorities such as 
        economic growth and national defense and its other social and 
        environmental effects. . . .

        Mr. [Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment offered as a substitute for my 
    amendment.

[[Page 6953]]

        The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman from Florida 
    (Mr. Rogers) wish to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rogers: Mr. Chairman, I would insist that at this time . . 
    . we should vote on my amendment and the amendment of the gentleman 
    from New Jersey first and then allow the gentleman from Florida to 
    offer his amendment as a substitute for the section.
        May I say the reason why this is not simply an amendment to the 
    Rogers amendment, or a substitute for it; rather, it goes far 
    beyond striking the Rogers amendment. It strikes the whole section 
    of the bill and simply adds the same amendment, so I would think it 
    is not germane at this time. . . .
        Mr. Chappell: Mr. Chairman, as I see the situation, the Rogers 
    amendment seeks to add a provision to section 108.
        Mr. Chairman, as I see my amendment, it is in substitute to 
    that and seeks to strike the wording of section 108 which it is 
    attempting to amend, so I think it is clearly a proper substitute 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Kentucky wish to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. [Tim Lee] Carter [of Kentucky]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I agree with the distinguished gentleman from 
    Florida (Mr. Rogers). My good friend, the chairman of the 
    subcommittee, stated that the amendment was to his amendment. His 
    amendment has not been accepted, and of course the Chappell 
    amendment does not amend it. It is an original amendment, Mr. 
    Chairman, of a substitute to section 108 of the bill. Therefore, I 
    should think it would be in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rogers) correctly stated the 
    situation. His amendment calls for a study and inserts a new 
    subsection in section 108. The Chappell amendment is much broader, 
    and does deal with the standards which are set out in this 
    particular section of the bill, while the Rogers amendment merely 
    adds the study.
        The Chair would, in support of the ruling the Chair is about to 
    make, refer to Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, 
    page 457, section 2880, wherein it is stated:

            An amendment striking out language other than in the 
        pending amendment is not in order as a substitute for an 
        amendment inserting language.

        The Chair would further point to a ruling set out on page 456 
    of the same volume, in section 2879, entitled ``A decision as to 
    what constitutes a substitute'':

            To qualify as substitute an amendment must treat in the 
        same manner the same subject matter carried by the text for 
        which proposed.

        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order, and would 
    advise the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Chappell) that his amendment 
    might be in order after the Rogers amendment and the amendment 
    thereto have been disposed of.

[[Page 6954]]



                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
 C. OFFERING PARTICULAR KINDS OF AMENDMENTS; PRECEDENCE AND PRIORITIES
 
Sec. 17. Motions To Strike

    Amendments proposing to strike out a section of a bill are in order 
after perfecting amendments to the section are disposed 
of.(1) Moreover, a perfecting amendment may be offered while 
a motion to strike out is pending, and the perfecting amendment is 
first acted upon.(2) And a motion to strike out a paragraph 
may not be offered as a substitute for a pending motion to perfect the 
paragraph.(3) Thus, where an amendment proposes to add new 
language in a paragraph, an amendment proposing to strike out that 
portion of the paragraph sought to be amended along with additional 
language of such paragraph is not a proper substitute 
therefor.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 17.3, infra.
            If a motion to strike out a section or paragraph and insert 
        new language is agreed to, a pending amendment proposing to 
        strike out the section or paragraph falls and is not voted 
        upon. See Sec. 31.1, infra.
 2. See Sec. 15.4, supra.
            While it is not in order to further amend an amendment in 
        the nature of a substitute for several paragraphs which has 
        been agreed to, a perfecting amendment to a paragraph of the 
        bill proposed to be stricken out (in conformity with the 
        purpose of the adopted substitute) may be offered while the 
        motion to strike out is pending, and the perfecting amendment 
        is first voted upon. See Sec. 32.16, infra.
            A motion to strike out the enacting words, of course, is a 
        special case, being used as a device for rejecting a bill; such 
        motion takes precedence over motions to amend. Rule XXIII 
        clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 875 (101st Cong.).
 3. See the Chair's ruling at Sec. 17.1, infra.
 4 See Sec. 18.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although a perfecting amendment may be offered when a motion to 
strike out is pending, a substitute for a motion to strike out is not 
in order.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 18.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A rule (6) rovides that, ``a motion to strike out and 
insert is indivisible, but a motion to strike out being lost shall 
neither preclude amendment nor motion to strike out and insert.'' The 
indivisibility of a motion to strike out and insert, and the concept 
that a motion to strike out should not have precedence and be voted on 
before a motion to insert, are the principles which underlie the 
prohibition against offering a motion to strike out as a substitute for 
a pending motion to strike out and insert.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Rule XVI clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 793 (101st Cong.).
 7. See Sec. 17.18, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note: Further examples of the principles discussed in this section

[[Page 6955]]

may be found in other sections of this chapter. See, e.g., Sec. Sec. 15 
and 16, supra.                          -------------------

When To Offer

Sec. 17.1 A motion to strike out a paragraph is not in order while a 
    perfecting amendment is pending.

    On Dec. 16, 1963,(8) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 109 Cong. Rec. 24753, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 9499.
            Compare the proceedings on May 29, 1973, relating to H.R. 
        6912 (see 119 Cong. Rec. 16987, 16990, 16992, 93d Cong. 1st 
        Sess.), where, without objection, a motion to strike out a 
        subsection of a bill was permitted to be offered while a 
        perfecting amendment to that subsection was pending; 
        nevertheless, the Chairman put the question on the perfecting 
        amendment before putting the question on the motion to strike 
        out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Glenard P.] Lipscomb [of 
        California]: Page 21, line 6, after ``in'' insert ``Title I 
        of''. . . .

        Mr. [William S.] Broomfield [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    would like to offer a substitute amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Broomfield as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Lipscomb: On page 21, strike out lines 
        6 through 10, inclusive.

        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman's amendment is not a 
    substitute amendment. The gentleman's amendment is to delete 
    language. We must act first on the Lipscomb amendment, and then the 
    gentleman's amendment would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.2 While perfecting amendments to a section are pending, a 
    motion to strike out the section may not be offered.

    On June 5, 1974,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 14747, to amend the Sugar Act of 1948. An amendment 
was pending which sought to insert an additional labor standard to 
those contained in a section of the bill. A motion to strike out the 
entire section was offered as a substitute for the pending amendment, 
but was ruled out as not a proper substitute for the perfecting 
amendment, and, furthermore, as not germane, in that it went beyond the 
scope of the perfecting amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 120 Cong. Rec. 17868, 17869, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. O'Hara: Page 18, after line 5, 
        insert:

[[Page 6956]]

            (5) That the producer who compensates workers on a piece-
        rate basis shall have paid, at a minimum, the established 
        minimum hourly wage.

        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Symms as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. O'Hara: In lieu of the amendment 
        offered by the gentleman from Michigan insert the following: 
        ``Section 11 of the bill, page 15, strike out all of line 11 
        through line 6 of page 17 and renumber the `(3)' on line 7, 
        page 17 as `(1)', and strike out line 15 on page 17 through 
        line 5 on page 18.''. . .

        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment in that it is not germane to the provisions of my 
    amendment. It deals with different parts of section 11. . . .
        Mr. Symms: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment is germane to the 
    gentleman's amendment. It strikes it and all the labor provisions 
    from the bill.
        The Chairman (Mr. [James J.] Burke of Massachusetts): It is the 
    ruling of the Chair that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Idaho (Mr. Symms) as a substitute for the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara) is not a proper 
    substitute. The substitute would strike portions of section 11 not 
    affected by the pending amendment. And, the substitute is broader 
    in scope than the amendment to which offered and is not germane 
    thereto. The Chair sustains the point of order.

--Perfecting Amendments Considered First

Sec. 17.3 Amendments proposing to strike out a section of a bill are in 
    order after perfecting amendments to the section are disposed of.

    On Apr. 17, 1946,(11) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 92 Cong. Rec. 3898, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6042, the Emergency Price Control Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute for the pending amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rich as a substitute for the 
        Wolcott amendment: Strike out section 5 beginning on page 5, 
        striking out all subsidies.

        The Chairman: (12) The Chair would point out that 
    the gentleman's amendment is not a substitute for the Wolcott 
    amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Wolcott] has offered an 
    amendment to strike out certain provisions of the bill and to 
    insert something in place of it. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania seeks to amend the provisions already 
    in the bill by striking them out. . . .
        Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: . . . Is it not 
    true that the pending amendment is a perfecting amendment and after 
    this and other perfecting amendments are voted on it will then be 
    in order to move to strike out the entire section?

[[Page 6957]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Sec. 17.4 A motion to strike out a section is not in order until the 
    pending perfecting amendment has been acted upon.

    On Aug. 12, 1963,(13) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 109 Cong. Rec. 14757, 14758, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 7525.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: On 
        page 17, line 12, strike out ``death by electrocution'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``life imprisonment''; and on page 17, 
        line 13, strike out ``life imprisonment''. . . .

        Mr. [Joel T.] Broyhill [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute amendment for the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Ohio [Mr. Harsha]. . . .
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    language of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
    provides for certain changes with respect to the bill before us, as 
    to section 808. The substitute amendment simply moves to strike out 
    all of that language. It would seem to me, that that would properly 
    be a substitute.
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair would advise the 
    gentleman that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio is 
    a perfecting amendment. Before a section of the bill can be 
    stricken from the bill, the perfecting amendments must be acted 
    upon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Ross Bass (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Harsha: Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Ohio 
    rise?
        Mr. Harsha: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
    my amendment.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Ohio?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
    [Mr. Harsha] is withdrawn.
        The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Virginia [Mr. Broyhill].
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Broyhill of Virginia: On page 17, 
        line 5, strike out section 501.

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Broyhill].
        The amendment was agreed to.

Sec. 17.5 A motion to strike out a paragraph may be offered following 
    disposition of a pending perfecting amendment.

    The proceedings of Dec. 16, 1963, during which the above issue was 
raised, are discussed in Sec. 17.1, supra.

Sec. 17.6 Where a motion to strike out is pending, perfecting 
    amendments may be offered and acted on before consid

[[Page 6958]]

    eration of the motion to strike; and if the motion to strike is 
    rejected, further perfecting amendments to the pending text are in 
    order.

    On Oct. 3, 1977,(15) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 3816, (16) the proceedings 
described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 32013, 32017, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. A bill to amend the Federal Trade Commission Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Krueger [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Krueger: On page 35, strike line 
        14 and all that follows through line 5 on page 44, and 
        redesignate the following sections accordingly. . . .

        Mrs. [Millicent] Fenwick [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick:
            Page 37, strike out the period in line 12 and insert in 
        lieu thereof a semicolon and the following: ``except that in 
        the case of an action commenced under subparagraph (B) of such 
        subsection, the court may grant such relief only if the 
        plaintiff in such action satisfies the court that the act . . . 
        is one which a reasonable man would have known under the 
        circumstances was . . . fraudulent.''

        Mr. [Charles E.] Wiggins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        . . . [P]ending before the committee is an amendment to the 
    bill striking section 7 in its entirety. The gentlewoman from New 
    Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick) has offered what she characterizes as a 
    perfecting amendment to an amendment to strike which amends a 
    portion of section 7.
        It is my view, Mr. Chairman, that that amendment is not in 
    order since section 7 is to be stricken entirely if the original 
    amendment carries. The second amendment, the perfecting amendment, 
    is inconsistent with the original amendment in its entirety, and 
    for that reason it is out of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The perfecting amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New 
    Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick) is not an amendment to the amendment to 
    strike. It is an amendment in the nature of a perfecting amendment 
    to the bill.
        Perfecting amendments to the text of the bill are in order and 
    take precedence over a pending motion or amendment to strike the 
    pending portion of the bill.
        Therefore, the Chair respectfully overrules the point of order. 
    . . .
        Mr. Wiggins: Mr. Chairman, several of us have amendments which 
    will be offered if the motion to strike does not carry. Will those 
    perfecting amendments be in order after the vote on the motion to 
    strike?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that if the amendment or 
    motion to strike does not carry, those amendments will be in order.

[[Page 6959]]

Sec. 17.7 Where an amendment striking out a section is first offered, 
    an amendment to change a portion of the section proposed to be 
    stricken is then offered as a perfecting amendment (in the first 
    degree) to the bill and not as an amendment to the motion to 
    strike, and the perfecting amendment is voted on first and remains 
    part of the bill if the motion to strike is then rejected.

    On Sept. 18, 1986,(18) during consideration of H.R. 1426 
(19) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings 
described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 132 Cong. Rec. 24120-22, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Indian Health Care amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard C.] Nielson [of Utah]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Nielson of Utah: Page 12, strike 
        line 1 and all that follows through page 14, line 20 (and 
        redesignate the subsequent sections of title II of the bill 
        accordingly). . . .

        Mr. [John S.] McCain [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Chairman: (20) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Beryl F. Anthony, Jr. (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. McCain. Section 201 is 
        amended by striking:
            ``(h) There are authorized to be appropriated for the 
        purposes of carrying out the provisions of this section--
            ``(1) $28,000,000 for fiscal year 1988. . . .''

        The Chairman: The question is on the perfecting amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. McCain] to title II.
        The perfecting amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Utah (Mr. Nielson).
        The amendment was rejected.
        The Chairman: Are there other amendments to title II? . . .
        Mr. Nielson of Utah: Mr. Chairman, on the perfecting amendment 
    of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. McCain), that amendment passed 
    but my amendment failed. That means that his amendment went down 
    with mine; is that correct?
        The Chairman: The perfecting amendment of the gentleman from 
    Arizona prevailed to the bill, not to the gentleman's amendment, 
    and at the present it is the prevailing amendment.
        Mr. Nielson of Utah: It is part of the bill, then?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. Yes; it is part of the 
    bill.

--Successive Perfecting Amendments Take Precedence

Sec. 17.8 A perfecting amendment to a portion of a section having been 
    adopted while a motion to strike out the section

[[Page 6960]]

    was pending, another perfecting amendment (to strike out the 
    remainder of the section not yet perfected) could be offered and 
    voted on prior to the motion to strike the section.

    On Sept. 29, 1975,(1) during consideration of a bill 
(2) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to 
parliamentary inquiries as described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 30772, 30773, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. H.R. 8630, Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I will 
    try to propound a proper parliamentary inquiry. . . . My original 
    amendment was to strike section 2 in its entirety. We have just 
    accepted striking from line 20, section 2, through line 6 on page 
    13. Is an amendment in order at this point to strike the remainder 
    of that section?
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair will respond to the 
    gentleman by saying that an amendment would be in order to strike 
    so much of the section that was not amended by the gentleman from 
    Arkansas' amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Hanley [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, just a point 
    of information to clarify this vote for the benefit of all Members, 
    the understanding is that the adoption of the Derwinski amendment 
    would have the effect of nullifying the Alexander amendment, and in 
    so doing reverting back to present law; am I correct?
        The Chairman: The motion of the gentleman from Illinois would 
    strike the entire section, including that section as amended by the 
    gentleman from Arkansas.

    Parliamentarian's Note: If the perfecting amendments that were the 
subject of Mr. Derwinski's inquiries were both adopted, the section 
would have been amended in its entirety, and the motion to strike would 
then fall.

Unanimous Consent To Consider Specific Motion To Strike

Sec. 17.9 A unanimous-consent request to consider an amendment to a 
    section of a bill which has not been read for amendment, where the 
    bill is being read for amendment by sections, does not permit the 
    offering of other amendments to that section of the bill; thus, 
    while perfecting amendments to the text of a bill may ordinarily be 
    offered pending a motion to strike that text, perfecting amendments 
    may not be offered to a section of a bill not yet read for 
    amendment where unanimous consent has been obtained to consider a 
    motion to strike a portion of that section.

[[Page 6961]]

    On Oct. 5, 1977,(4) The Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 8410,(5) the proceedings described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 123 Cong. Rec. 32523, 32524, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. Labor Reform Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) Are there further amendments to 
    section 7? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments to sections 7 and 8, and I ask unanimous consent that 
    the amendments may be considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Illinois? . . .
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Erlenborn: Page 22, line 14, 
        strike ``(1)''; page 22, line 15, strike ``or'' the second time 
        it occurs, and all that follows through line 5, page 23. . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Thompson Jr., [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    wonder if it is possible parliamentarily for the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Quie) to offer an amendment to the bill at this 
    point.
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from New 
    Jersey (Mr. Thompson) that an amendment to or a substitute for the 
    motion to strike would not be in order.
        Mr. Thompson: But an amendment to the bill, rather than a 
    substitute to strike, would be in order, Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from New 
    Jersey that, as the gentleman knows, section 8 is not open for 
    amendment at this time, other than the Erlenborn amendment, and 
    perfecting amendments to that section are not yet in order.

Rejection of Motion To Strike Out and Insert

Sec. 17.10 After a negative vote on a motion to strike out certain 
    words and insert others, it is in order to move to strike out a 
    portion of such words.

    On Feb. 6, 1946,(7) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 92 Cong. Rec. 994, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 
        4908, relating to an investigation of labor disputes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I reserved 
    the point of order against the amendment because it occurred to me 
    that this matter had been considered yesterday in the vote upon the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoffman). 
    This language here involved was proposed to be stricken by the 
    amendment then offered. The amendment was voted upon and defeated. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: (8) . . . Yesterday the gentleman from 
    Michigan offered an amendment striking out that part of the bill 
    which the gentleman from Maine now attempts to strike out, as well 
    as language in addition thereto and to insert other language. The

[[Page 6962]]

    amendment was defeated. Therefore, the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Maine which proposes to strike out a portion of the 
    language, is appropriate at this time. The Chair overrules the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Emmet O'Neal (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.11 A motion to strike out a section may be offered if a pending 
    committee amendment to strike out the section and insert new 
    language is rejected.

    On Nov. 11, 1971,(9) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 117 Cong. Rec. 40594, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 1134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Committee amendment: On page 15, strike out lines 12 through 18 
    and insert in lieu thereof the following:
        Sec. 708. . . .
        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: As I understand it, the 
    Chairman is opposing the committee amendment, which rewrites the 
    provision that is found in the bill, but it would still leave the 
    old provision in the bill. My question is, if the committee 
    amendment is turned down, would it be in order to consider at this 
    point a further amendment to strike the old language so there is no 
    reference to this particular piece of property in the bill?
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair will inform the 
    gentleman that a motion to strike would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Voting on Motion To Strike After Consideration of Perfecting Amendment

Sec. 17.12 Whether or not preferential perfecting amendments to the 
    pending text, offered pending a motion to strike that text, are 
    adopted or rejected, a vote still must be taken on the motion to 
    strike (assuming that the perfecting amendments do not change the 
    entire text pending).

    On Oct. 3, 1977,(11) during consideration of H.R. 
3816,(12) in the Committee of the Whole, a perfecting 
amendment was offered to a section of a bill while there was pending a 
motion to strike out that section. The proceedings were as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 32013, 32017, 32019, 32020, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. A bill to amend the Federal Trade Commission Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Krueger [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Krueger: On page 35, strike line 
        14 and all that follows through line 5 on page 44, and 
        redesignate the following sections accordingly. . . .

        Mrs. [Millicent] Fenwick [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 6963]]

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick:
            Page 37, strike out the period in line 12 and insert in 
        lieu thereof a semicolon and the following: ``except that in 
        the case of an action commenced under subparagraph (B) of such 
        subsection, the court may grant such relief only if the 
        plaintiff in such action satisfies the court that the act . . . 
        is one which a reasonable man would have known under the 
        circumstances was . . . fraudulent.'' . . .

        Mr. [Matthew J.] Rinaldo [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, am I 
    correct in my understanding if there were a vote now, the vote 
    would be on the Fenwick amendment and regardless whether it passes 
    or fails, there would still be a vote on the Krueger amendment to 
    strike the entire section?
        The Chairman: (13) That is correct. All perfecting 
    amendments will be in order before a vote on the Krueger amendment. 
    The Krueger amendment will still be pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: A motion to strike out and insert language 
may be offered as a perfecting amendment to a pending section of a 
bill, and is voted on before a pending motion to strike that section; 
but, even if agreed to, the perfected language is subject to being 
eliminated by subsequent adoption of the motion to strike out in cases 
where the perfecting amendment has not so changed the text as to render 
the original motion to strike meaningless. For further discussion, see 
Sec. s16, supra.

Sec. 17.13 Where there is pending a motion to strike out language in a 
    bill, and a preferential perfecting amendment (to strike the same 
    language and insert new language) is then offered and agreed to, 
    the motion to strike out falls and is not voted on.

    The principle stated above was the basis for the following 
proceedings which occurred on Aug. 5, 1986,(14) during 
consideration of H.R. 4428 in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 132 Cong. Rec. 19056, 19058, 19059, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Stratton to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Nichols: Strike out section 101(c) (page 14, lines 4 
        through 12). . . .

        Mr. [Ike] Skelton [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Skelton to the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Nichols: Page 14, strike out lines 4 
        through 12 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            (c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
        President and the Secretary of Defense may assign missions, 
        roles, and functions to the military departments . . . and 
        other elements of the Department of Defense. . . .

[[Page 6964]]

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (15) Does any Member rise 
    in opposition to the perfecting amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If not, the question is on the perfecting amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Nichols).
        The perfecting amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Stratton amendment to strike will 
    not be voted on, under the precedents, the text proposed to be 
    stricken having been completely amended.

Offering Motion To Strike Title After Consideration of Motions To 
    Strike and Insert

Sec. 17.14 A motion to strike out a title contained in a bill was held 
    to be in order notwithstanding the fact that the Committee of the 
    Whole had previously considered two motions to strike out such 
    title and insert other language.

    On July 25, 1957,(16) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 103 Cong. Rec. 12744, 85th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 1, to authorize federal assistance to the states and local 
        communities in financing an expanded program of school 
        construction so as to eliminate the national shortage of 
        classrooms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        Mr. [Stewart L.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, we 
    considered earlier today two amendments, one offered by the 
    gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Scrivner] and one by the gentleman from 
    Connecticut [Mr. May]. The purpose of both these amendments was to 
    strike out title I. Both amendments were considered. One was voted 
    down and one was knocked out on a point of order. I make the point 
    of order, Mr. Chairman, that this motion has been made and has been 
    considered and voted down by the Committee of the Whole.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair calls the attention of 
    the gentleman to the fact that the motions heretofore made were to 
    strike and insert. This is the first time a motion has been made to 
    strike out the entire title. Therefore, the point of order is 
    overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not in Order as Substitute

Sec. 17.15 A motion to strike out an entire section of a bill is not in 
    order as a substitute for an amendment to strike out certain 
    provisions in the section and insert new language, since a section 
    must be perfected before the question is put on striking it out.

[[Page 6965]]

    On Aug. 16, 1972,(18) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 118 Cong. Rec. 28400, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 16071.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [James C.] Wright [of Texas]: Page 
        38, strike out lines 23 and 24 and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following: . . .

        Mr. [Marion G.] Snyder [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I should 
    like to ask if an amendment to strike the entire section is in 
    order as a substitute to this kind of amendment.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman that it is not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John Slack (W. Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.16 To a motion to strike certain words and insert others, a 
    simple motion to strike out the words may not be offered as a 
    substitute; but if the motion to strike out and insert is rejected, 
    the simple motion to strike out is in order.

    On June 29, 1939,(20) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 84 Cong. Rec. 8282-88, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.J. Res. 306, the Neutrality Act of 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Committee amendment: Strike out all of lines 5 and 6 on page 2 
    and insert: ``and that it is necessary to promote the security or 
    preserve the peace of the United States or to protect the lives of 
    citizens of the United States.'' . . .
        Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota as a 
    substitute for the committee amendment: On page 2, strike out lines 
    5 and 6. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair reads the following from 
    the rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            To a motion to strike certain words and insert others, a 
        simple motion to strike out the words may not be offered as a 
        substitute. . . .

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: As I understand the Chair, the Chair 
    ruled that a substitute to the committee amendment was not in 
    order. May I ask, however, if the committee amendment should be 
    voted down, then would it not be in order for me to offer an 
    amendment to strike out the two lines that are proposed to be 
    stricken by the committee amendment?
        The Chairman: It would.

Sec. 17.17 A motion to strike out a paragraph may not be offered as a 
    substitute for a pending motion to perfect the paragraph.

    The proceedings of Dec. 16, 1963, during which the above issue was 
raised, are discussed in Sec. 17.1, supra.

Sec. 17.18 A motion to strike out is not in order as a substitute for a 
    pending motion to strike out and insert.

    On Oct. 14, 1966,(2) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 112 Cong. Rec. 26966, 26967, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was S. 3708.

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

[[Page 6966]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: 
        Strike out page 99, line 21, and all that follows down through 
        page 100, line 11, and insert in lieu thereof the following: . 
        . .

        Mrs. [Florence P.] Dwyer [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Dwyer as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Ashley: Strike out section 701 
        beginning on page 99, line 20, and ending on page 100, line 11, 
        and renumber the succeeding sections accordingly. . . .

        The Chairman: (3) The Chair advises the gentlewoman 
    from New Jersey that this is obviously a motion to strike out and 
    cannot be submitted at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Daniel J. Flood (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Similarly, on June 4, 1968,(4) the following 
    proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 114 Cong. Rec. 15889, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 17268.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            On page 3, line 17, after ``section'' insert ``, recommend 
        such legislation as he may deem appropriate to permit the 
        promulgation of rules and regulations in implementation of the 
        standards developed under this section''.

        Mr. [Porter] Hardy Jr., [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. Would it be in order at this point to offer 
    a substitute for the committee amendment to strike out the entire 
    language beginning at line 7 through line 20?
        The Chairman: (5) Not until we have disposed of the 
    committee amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hardy: Will the committee amendment--is it not in order to 
    offer a substitute for the committee amendment?
        The Chairman: After we dispose of the pending committee 
    amendment a motion to strike out the section would be in order.

Sec. 17.19 To a motion to strike out and insert language in a bill, a 
    simple motion to strike out a part of the language sought to be 
    amended is not in order as a substitute for the original motion.

    On Apr. 17, 1946,(6) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 92 Cong. Rec. 3898, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6042, the Emergency Price Control Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania] 
        as a substitute for the Wolcott amendment: Strike out section 5 
        beginning on page 5, striking out all subsidies.

        The Chairman: (7) The Chair would point out that the 
    gentleman's amendment is not a substitute for the Wolcott 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rich: It strikes out part of the subsidies. I want to 
    strike them all out. So it takes in his amendment and more.

[[Page 6967]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Wolcott] has 
    offered an amendment to strike out certain provisions of the bill 
    and to insert something in place of it. The amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania seeks to amend the provisions 
    already in the bill by striking them out.

Sec. 17.20 For a perfecting amendment striking out a figure and 
    inserting a new amount, a proposal to strike out the entire 
    paragraph containing that figure may not be offered as a 
    substitute.

    On June 25, 1974,(8) during consideration of a bill in 
the Committee of the Whole, the Chair ruled that perfecting amendments 
to a paragraph are disposed of prior to amendments to strike out the 
paragraph:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 120 Cong. Rec. 21038, 21039, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 15544, Treasury Department, Postal Service, and 
        Executive Office appropriations, fiscal 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John T.] Myers [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Myers: On page 14, lines 16 and 
        17, strike $1,000,000 and substitute $250,000.

        Mr. [C.W.] Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Young of Florida for the amendment offered by Mr. Myers:
            Page 14, lines 10 through 17, strike lines 10 through 17 
        and renumber the following lines.

        The Chairman: (9) The Chair states that this is not 
    a proper substitute for the amendment now pending. Once the pending 
    perfecting amendment has been disposed of, then the gentleman's 
    amendment to strike out the paragraph would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. B.F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.21 A motion to strike out an entire subsection of a bill is not 
    a proper substitute for a perfecting amendment to the subsection, 
    since it is broader in scope, but may be offered after disposition 
    of the perfecting amendment.

    On Sept. 23, 1982,(10) it was demonstrated that, for a 
perfecting amendment to a subsection striking out one activity from 
those covered by a provision of existing law, a substitute striking out 
the entire subsection, thereby eliminating the applicability of 
existing law to a number of activities, was not in order. The 
proceedings in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of H.R. 
5540 (11) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 128 Cong. Rec. 24963, 24964, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. Defense Industrial Base Revitalization Act.

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

[[Page 6968]]

        Mr. [Bruce F.] Vento [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Vento:
            Page 41, line 24, strike out ``, or the installation of 
        equipment,''.
            Page 42, beginning on line 15, strike out ``, or the 
        installation of equipment,''.

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Erlenborn as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Vento: Beginning on page 41, line 22, 
        strike all of subsection (m) through page 43, line 2.

        Mr. Vento: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment offered as a substitute by the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Erlenborn). . . .
        [T]he substitute offered by the gentleman is clearly not in 
    order. Under rule 19, Cannon's Procedure VIII, section 2879, the 
    precedents provide that ``to qualify as a substitute an amendment 
    must treat in the same manner the same subject carried by the 
    amendment for which it is offered.''
        My amendment would remove language from the committee bill and 
    limit the applicability of the Davis-Bacon Act in terms of one type 
    of activity. The gentleman's substitute would strike the entire 
    section of the committee bill which my amendment seeks to perfect 
    and thereby eliminate the Davis-Bacon provisions of this 
    legislation.
        In this case, the amendment offered by the gentleman clearly 
    does not treat the subject in the same manner which my amendment 
    does. Also, under Deschler's Procedure, chapter 27, section 14.1, 
    decisions made by the Chair on August 12, 1963, December 16, 1963, 
    and June 5, 1974, a motion to strike out a section of paragraph is 
    not in order while a perfecting amendment is pending. In addition, 
    the decisions of the Chair of December 16, 1963, and June 5, 1974, 
    and contained in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 27, section 14.4, 
    provides that a provision must be perfected before the question is 
    put on striking it out. A motion to strike out a paragraph or 
    section may not be offered as a substitute for pending motion to 
    perfect a paragraph or section by a motion to strike and insert. 
    The gentleman's amendment attempts to accomplish indirectly 
    something that he is precluded from doing directly. . . .
        Mr. Erlenborn: . . . The language to which both amendments are 
    directed is language in the bill that is applying the Davis-Bacon 
    Act to activities under the bill in question. The amendment offered 
    by the gentleman is reducing the extent of that coverage by taking 
    out the installation of equipment.
        My substitute also reduces that by eliminating the language so 
    there would be no extension of Davis-Bacon to the activities beyond 
    the present coverage of Davis-Bacon.
        So the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Vento) is affecting Davis-Bacon by reducing its 
    coverage. Mine also would affect the reduction of Davis-Bacon, only 
    in a broader man

[[Page 6969]]

    ner; and I, therefore, believe the amendment is in order.
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Wyche Fowler, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Vento) for the reasons advocated by the gentleman 
    from Minnesota that the substitute is too broad in its scope in its 
    striking the whole of subsection (m).
        The Chair would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Erlenborn) it would be appropriate as a separate amendment but it 
    is not in order as a substitute because of the scope of the 
    amendment.
        The point of order of the gentleman from Minnesota is 
    sustained.

--No Point of Order Raised Against Substitute .

Sec. 17.22 An amendment proposing to strike out a section is not a 
    proper substitute for a perfecting amendment to that section (to 
    strike out and insert), but where no point of order is raised 
    against the substitute, the Chair nevertheless follows the 
    principle that the pending text should first be perfected before 
    the vote recurs on striking it out.

    On July 22, 1976,(13) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 13777, the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act of 1976, the proceedings described above occurred as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 122 Cong. Rec. 23457, 23459, 23460, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: On page 41, 
    strike line 10 and all that follows through line 7 on page 43. 
    Insert in lieu thereof the following:
        Sec. 210(a)(1) The Secretary with respect to the commercial 
    grazing of livestock on the public lands under the Taylor Grazing 
    Act . . . shall charge, commencing with the calendar year 1980, an 
    annual fee or fees per animal unit month for such grazing which 
    shall be the approximate fair market value of the forage provided. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Yates as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Eckhardt: Page 41, strike out line 10 
        on page 41 and all lines thereafter on page 41. . . .

        The Chairman: (14) The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) is a perfecting amendment to 
    section 210. The ``substitute'' offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Yates) is, in effect, a motion to strike the entire 
    section against which no point of order was raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The first vote will be on the perfecting amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt).

Not in Order as Amendment to Perfecting Amendment

Sec. 17.23 To an amendment striking out a title and inserting

[[Page 6970]]

    new language, a motion to strike out that title is not in order as 
    an amendment.

    On July 25, 1974,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the bill H.R. 11500, the Surface Mining 
Control and Reclamation Act of 1974, a motion to strike out, as 
described above, was held not in order. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 120 Cong. Rec. 25240, 25241, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Udall to the committee amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute: Strike page 268, line 19, 
        through page 271, line 24, and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following:
            Sec. 601. (a) With respect to Federal lands within any 
        State, the Secretary of Interior may, and if so requested by 
        the Governor of such State, shall review any area within such 
        lands to assess whether it may be unsuitable for mining 
        operations. . . .

        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I do 
    have an amendment to the amendment. It would merely strike out 
    title VI.
        The Chairman: (16) Does the gentleman seek 
    recognition?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hosmer: Yes. I seek recognition for an amendment to the 
    Udall amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from 
    California that his amendment to strike title VI is not in order as 
    an amendment to the Udall amendment.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Arizona (Mr. Udall) to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        So the amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where an amendment striking out text and 
inserting new language has been offered, a simple motion to strike out 
all that text may not be offered as an amendment to such amendment, 
because it would have the effect of dividing the motion to strike out 
and insert which is prohibited by Rule XVI clause 7.(17) n 
the above instance, only upon rejection of the amendment striking title 
VI and inserting new text would Mr. Hosmer's motion to strike out the 
title have been in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 793 (101st Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amending Text Proposed To Be Stricken

Sec. 17.24 Where a motion to strike out is pending, a motion to amend 
    part of the text proposed to be stricken is in order.

[[Page 6971]]

    On Apr. 24, 1963 (18) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 6879, 6880, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Samuel L.] Devine [of Ohio]: On 
        page 19 strike out line 13 and all that follows down to line 24 
        on page 27. . . .

        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Harris: On page 20, line 13, 
        strike out ``and'', and immediately below line 13 insert the 
        following: . . .

        Mr. [Harold R.] Collier [of Illinois]: Is this a perfecting 
    amendment? . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is of the opinion that 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas is a 
    perfecting amendment to the text of the pending bill. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Collier: This is a perfecting amendment to the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio.
        The Chairman: No, it is not.
        Mr. Collier: Then how does it get precedence over the pending 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: Because it is a perfecting amendment to the text 
    of the bill to which the gentleman from Ohio offers his amendment. 
    The vote will come first on the perfecting amendment before the 
    vote is had on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio.

Sec. 17.25 Where there is pending a motion to strike out a section of a 
    bill, an amendment to insert words within the section proposed to 
    be stricken is in order as a perfecting amendment.

    On Oct. 5, 1972,(20) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 118 Cong. Rec. 34130, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 16656.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Ms. [Bella S.] Abzug [of New York]: 
        Page 107, line 12, through page 108, line 5: Strike all of 
        section 139. Renumber the succeeding sections accordingly. . . 
        .

        Mr. [Joel T.] Broyhill of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Broyhill of Virginia: 
        Page 107 line 13 after ``Sec. 139.'' insert ``(a)''.
            Page 108 after line 5 insert the following:
            ``(b) This section shall take effect upon the final 
        determination of the route of Interstate Highway I-66 from its 
        present terminus in Virginia at I-495 to its connection with a 
        bridge or bridges (presently constructed or to be constructed) 
        across the Potomac River.''

        Mr. Don H. Clausen [of California]: . . . Is this in effect an 
    amendment to the amendment rather than a perfecting amendment? . . 
    .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair will state from a quick 
    study of the amend

[[Page 6972]]

    ment that it appears to be a perfecting amendment to the section 
    which is proposed to be stricken by the amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from New York. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Morris K. Udall (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: . . . I ask the Chair in what 
    order or sequence will the votes come on the several proposals.
        The Chairman: The vote would come first, the Chair will state, 
    on the perfecting amendment of the gentleman from Virginia. 
    Following that the principal amendment to strike out the section 
    would be put to the committee.

--Striking Portion of Section

Sec. 17.26 A preferential perfecting amendment to strike out only a 
    portion of the language of a section may be offered before a 
    pending motion to strike out the entire section.

    On June 18, 1959,(2) The following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 105 Cong. Rec. 11301, 11303-05, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 7500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Ross] Adair [of Indiana]: On page 
        11, strike out line 18 and all that follows down through line 6 
        on page 12, and reletter the following subsections accordingly. 
        . . .

        Mr. [Harris B.] McDowell Jr., [of Delaware]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer a perfecting amendment to the bill.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McDowell as a perfecting amendment 
        to the bill: On page 12, lines 1 and 2, strike out ``and the 
        sixth sentence of section 202(b)'', and on line 4, of page 12, 
        strike out ``II, III,'' and insert in lieu thereof ``III.''. . 
        .

        The Chairman: (3) The question is on the perfecting 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. McDowell].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: In this context a motion to strike can 
itself be a perfecting amendment.

Amendment To Strike Additional Words

Sec. 17.27 When it is proposed to strike out certain words in a 
    section, it is not in order to amend that amendment by proposing 
    that additional words of that section be stricken.

    On June 2, 1976,(4) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 13680,(5) the Chair ruled on a 
point of order as described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 122 Cong. Rec. 16208-10, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. A bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.

[[Page 6973]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Derwinski: At page 68, strike line 
        4 through page 69, line 4. . . .

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

         amendment offered by mr. zablocki to the amendment offered by 
                                 mr. derwinski

            Strike the words ``page 69, line 4'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``page 69, line 10''. . . .

        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser of Minnesota]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order against the Zablocki amendment to the 
    amendment on the grounds that it is an effort to amend a perfecting 
    amendment. It deals with a different part of the bill, and since 
    the bill is open to amendment by titles, the perfecting amendment, 
    so-called, offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski), 
    as I understand, only strikes section 413 down through line 4 on 
    page 69. This is an effort to strike a different part of the title, 
    and therefore would not be in order as an amendment to the 
    Derwinski amendment. . . .
        Mr. Zablocki: . . . Mr. Chairman, the Derwinski amendment 
    strikes section 413 to line 4 on page 69. All my amendment does is 
    continue striking section 413 by striking the words, ``page 69, 
    line 4,'' and substituting in lieu thereof, ``page 69, line 10.''
        So, it is an amendment in order to an amendment that was 
    recognized in order.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Frank E. Evans (Co.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Derwinski) strikes . . . section 413, beginning with line 5, page 
    68, through line 4, page 69. The amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) to that amendment would increase the 
    portion of section 413 that is stricken, expanding the area 
    stricken down through line 10, page 69.
        Under Cannon's Precedents in the House of Representatives, on 
    page 13, in middle of the page, under the heading ``amending a 
    motion'':
        When it is proposed to strike out certain words, it is not in 
    order to amend by adding to the words of the paragraph, but it is 
    in order to amend by striking out a portion of the words specified.
        Since the question has come before the House before, in Hinds' 
    Precedents of the House of Representatives, volume V, 1907, page 
    389, section 5768, the Chair will quote from that decision as 
    follows:

            5768: When it is proposed to strike out certain words in a 
        paragraph, it is not in order to amend by adding to them other 
        words of the paragraph.--On April 3, 1902, the bill (S. 1025) 
        to promote the efficiency of the Revenue-Cutter Service was 
        under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the 
        state of the Union, when the following paragraph was read:
            Sec. 8. That when any commissioned officer is retired from 
        active service, the next officer in rank shall be promoted 
        according to the established rules of the service, and the same 
        rule of promotion shall be applied successively to the 
        vacancies consequent upon such retirement.
            Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, moved to strike out the 
        words ``ac

[[Page 6974]]

        cording to the established rules of the service.''
            Mr. John F. Lacy, of Iowa, moved to amend the amendment by 
        adding to the words proposed to be stricken out other words in 
        the context of the paragraph.

        The Chairman held that the amendment of Mr. Lacey should be 
    offered as an independent amendment rather than as an amendment to 
    the amendment.
        For the reasons stated, the point of order of the gentleman 
    from Minnesota is sustained.

Sec. 17.28 Where there is pending an amendment striking out a portion 
    of a pending text, an amendment to strike out additional language 
    of the text should be offered as a separate amendment to the text 
    and not as an amendment to the first amendment.

    The proceedings of June 2, 1976, are discussed in Sec. 17.27, 
supra.

Offering Amendment To Strike Section Which Has Been Perfected

Sec. 17.29 An amendment proposing to strike out a section which has 
    been perfected, but not changed in its entirety, is in order.

    On July 25, 1946,(7) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 92 Cong. Rec. 10097, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was S. 
        2177, the legislative reorganization bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Ellsworth B.] Buck [of New York]: On 
    page 93, line 13, strike out section 601, paragraphs (a) and (b). . 
    . .
        Mr. [Emmet] O'Neal [(of Kentucky]: It is my understanding that 
    the language in the bill has been amended. The amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New York is to strike out the original language, 
    which has been amended. Therefore, the language of the amendment is 
    not in proper form.
        The Chairman: (8) The amendment is to strike out the 
    section as amended. The point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of Adopting Motion To Strike Perfected Title

Sec. 17.30 If the pending title of a bill is perfected by an amendment 
    adding a new section thereto, and the Committee of the Whole 
    thereafter agrees to a motion to strike out the entire title, the 
    words added by the perfecting amendment are eliminated along with 
    the rest of the title.

    On Oct. 3, 1969,(9) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 115 Cong. Rec. 28454, 28455, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 14000.
            For further discussion of the proceedings, see Sec. 15.3, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 6975]]

            Motion offered by Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: 
        On page 16, line 9, strike all of Title V. . . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana] 
        to title V: On page 17, immediately after line 13 insert the 
        following:
            ``Sec. 505. (a) The Comptroller General of the United 
        States. . . .''
            Mr. [Frank E.]) Evans of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, if the 
        amendment of the gentleman from Indiana passes, and thereafter 
        the motion of the gentleman from New York passes, what is the 
        status of the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana?

        The Chairman: (10) If the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana is agreed to and the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from New York to strike the whole title is agreed to, 
    then the amendment will be stricken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. L. Mendel Rivers (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Striking Amendment Already Agreed To

Sec. 17.31 While it is not in order to strike out an amendment already 
    agreed to, it is in order by way of amendment to strike out a 
    greater part of a paragraph which includes the amendment agreed to.

    On Mar. 9, 1942,(11) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 88 Cong. Rec. 2139, 2140, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 6709, the agriculture appropriation bill for 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: The Reed amendment was in 
    the form of an additional proviso. The gentleman moves to strike 
    out the first proviso, the one already in the bill, but I take the 
    position that he cannot now move to strike out the additional 
    proviso added by the Reed amendment.
        The Chairman: (12) In answer to the parliamentary 
    inquiry the Chair holds that it is in order to strike out the 
    language of the Reed amendment together with the other language 
    already in the bill, because it is simply an amendment to the 
    language of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Robert Ramspeck (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.32 It is not in order to strike out an amendment already agreed 
    to, but a part of the paragraph which includes the amendment may be 
    stricken to insert language of a different meaning.

    On July 28, 1953,(13) bill (14) was under 
consideration which related to an emergency immigration program. The 
phrase ``two hundred and thirty-six thousand'' referring to the number 
of special visas to be issued under the immigration laws had been 
amended by striking out the words ``thirty-six'' and inserting 
``thirteen.'' Subsequently, an amendment striking out the entire phrase 
``two hundred and thirty-six thousand'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
``two hundred and forty-six thousand'' was

[[Page 6976]]

ruled in order as striking out language ``comprehending the amendment 
formerly adopted'' and inserting new language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 99 Cong. Rec. 10195, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
14. H.R. 6481.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.33 It is not in order to offer an amendment merely striking out 
    an amendment previously agreed to.

    On Aug. 1, 1975, (15) during consideration of a bill 
(16) in the Committee of the Whole, a point of order against 
an amendment was sustained as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 26945-47, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. H.R. 7014, Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: Strike out Title 
        III, as amended, and reinsert all except for Section 301, as 
        amended. . . .

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of 
    order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (17) the gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Eckhardt: . . . [A]lthough it may have been appropriate to 
    offer a substitute for all of title III, this amendment does not 
    restate the language which should have been contained in such 
    substitute. If the gentleman has attempted to offer a substitute 
    which comprised the language adopted by this committee in sections 
    302, 303, 304, 305, 306, and 307, it would have been incumbent upon 
    him to reduce the same to writing and to introduce it in such a 
    manner that we would have had a complete amendment before us 
    instead of in effect offering at this late date, after a new 
    section 301 was adopted, a motion to strike that section 301. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan): . . . In pressing the 
    point of order, I must commend my colleague, the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Brown), for a most masterful piece of draftsmanship. 
    Nevertheless, his draftsmanship and his display of rare talent to 
    the contrary notwithstanding, the gentleman's draftsmanship does 
    violate the rules. What the gentleman attempts to do here is simply 
    to undo an amendment which was previously agreed to by the House. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I will say that 
    this does not place before the House the same question that existed 
    prior to the vote on the Staggers amendment. This places before the 
    House the question of whether this title, with all the amendments 
    taken together as they have been added to the title, except the 
    Staggers amendment, should now be accepted. It does in fact raise a 
    different question. . . .
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, the posture is this: The bill 
    contained section 301, stricken by the Wilson amendment, at which 
    point the Krueger amendment was offered as an amendment to 
    reinstate section 301. The Staggers amendment was then offered as a 
    substitute to replace the Krueger amendment.
        Therefore, we completed 301, we acted upon 301, and had a 
    complete body of law on 301.

[[Page 6977]]

        It was at that time that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) 
    might have attacked the Staggers amendment and sought to defeat it 
    or, actually, the Krueger amendment, as amended by the Staggers 
    amendment. He did not do so, other than to merely vote against it. 
    Of course, that was the proper way to attack it, but what he is 
    attempting to do now is merely to come in at this late point and 
    seek to strike an amendment which was adopted by the House. Section 
    301 was at that time completed.
        Mr. Chairman, he is not offering here a substitute in any 
    proper form. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I would like to cite from page 
    351 of Deschler's Procedure in the House of Representatives, 
    section 28.9, as follows:
        After agreeing to several amendments to section 1 of a bill, 
    the Committee of the Whole agreed to a motion to strike out and 
    insert a new section which included some of the amendments agreed 
    to, but omitted one of them. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The fact of the matter is that the original section 301 has 
    been stricken from the bill and replaced by another section 301, 
    and the amendment in effect deletes the new 301. The gentleman's 
    amendment makes no change in the original text of title III. Under 
    the rules and the practice of the House of Representatives, it is 
    not in order to strike out an amendment that has been adopted or to 
    offer an amendment in the form of the pending amendment which 
    accomplishes solely that result--Cannon's VIII, Sec. 851-54.

    Therefore, the Chair sustains the points of order.

Striking More Than Insertion

Sec. 17.34 Although it is not in order to propose to strike out an 
    amendment already agreed to, an amendment striking out not only an 
    amendment previously agreed to but also additional portions of the 
    bill is in order.

    Where the first section of a title of a bill being read by titles 
was modified by striking that section and inserting new language, an 
amendment to strike that section and two additional sections of that 
title not so altered was held in order. The proceedings on Aug. 1, 
1975, (18) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 26947, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7014, Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: Strike out sections 
        301, 302, 303.

        Renumber the succeeding sections of title III accordingly. . . 
    .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman . . . I renew 
    simply the point of order that I had made earlier against the prior 
    amendment

[[Page 6978]]

    by observing that this is again an attempt to undo actions taken 
    already by the House, as the Chair well noted when it ruled just 
    now on the prior attempt to remove section 301, which failed. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not 
    stand on the same point that the previous amendment stood on. This 
    amendment strikes two additional sections, sections 302 and 303. 
    The present section 303 in the title has not been touched by 
    amendment during the amending process, the prohibition on pricing 
    facts being sent to the President, and is a section which has not 
    been amended by the Committee of the Whole during consideration of 
    title III. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I believe the 
    gentleman from Ohio misconceives the basis of the original point of 
    order, since this amendment includes the striking of a section of 
    the bill that has been completed, and has been amended and 
    completed and includes another section of the bill that has been 
    amended and completed. It is for those reasons subject to a point 
    of order. The fact that it may include other matter that has not 
    been amended and completed does not free it from the objection 
    raised on the first point of order.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As to the argument on the amendment by the gentleman from 
    Texas, the Chair feels that it will disagree with that.
        The Chair now refers to volume 8, page 446, section 2855 of 
    Cannon's Precedents. It states that while an amendment which has 
    been agreed to may not be modified, a proposition to strike that 
    language from the bill with other language of the original text is 
    in order.
        Some language of the original text remains in section 303. 
    Therefore the point of order raised by the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Dingell) is not good, and the Chair overrules the point of 
    order.

Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 17.35 Where an amendment in the nature of a substitute for several 
    paragraphs of an appropriation bill has been offered, with notice 
    that if it is agreed to motions will then be made to strike out the 
    following paragraphs as they are read, such paragraphs are subject 
    to perfecting amendment, as well as to the motion to strike, when 
    read.

    In the 91st Congress, an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
for several paragraphs of an appropriation bill (20) as 
offered (1) by Mr. Charles S. Joelson, of New Jersey, in the 
manner described above. A substitute amendment therefor was offered by 
Mr. Robert H. Michel, of Illinois. (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 13111.
 1. 115 Cong. Rec. 21218, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., July 29, 1969.
 2. Id. at p. 21221.

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

[[Page 6979]]

        Subsequently, the following exchange took place:
        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: If the substitute 
    amendment of the gentleman from Illinois prevails, is the remainder 
    of the title still open to amendment, which would have been amended 
    if the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
    Joelson) had prevailed?
        The Chairman: (3) If the substitute amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois is agreed to and the Joelson 
    amendment as thereby amended is agreed to, then there are some 
    remaining paragraphs which have not been read and they would be 
    next for consideration and subject to amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Joelson: If the gentleman's amendment should carry, what 
    would he move to delete?
        The Chairman: If action is taken on the Michel substitute 
    amendment and it is agreed to, and then the Joelson amendment is 
    agreed to, then we would proceed to read the succeeding paragraphs 
    which have not been read and amendments of various kinds may be 
    made to those paragraphs.

Striking Part of Section After Rejection of Motion To Strike Entire 
    Section

Sec. 17.36 A motion to strike out a part of a section is in order 
    notwithstanding defeat of a previous motion to strike out the 
    entire section.

    On July 20, 1956,(4) bill (5) was under 
consideration to provide means of further securing and protecting the 
civil rights of persons within the jurisdiction of the United States. A 
point of order having been made against an amendment to the bill, the 
proponent of the amendment stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See the proceedings at 102 Cong. Rec. 13732, 13736, 84th Cong. 2d 
        Sess.
 5. H.R. 627.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard H.] Poff [of Virginia]: . . . [A]s I understand 
    the rules of the House, a point of order would not lie inasmuch as 
    the amendment which was just offered went to the whole section 
    titled 121 and, having been rejected by the committee, my amendment 
    which goes only to a portion of that title would be in order.
        The Chairman (6) overruled the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Striking Language That Has Been Ruled Out of Order

Sec. 17.37 After language in an appropriation bill has been ruled out 
    as legislation, an amendment to strike out that same language 
    cannot be entertained.

    On Feb. 5, 1957,(7) bill (8) was under 
consideration comprising

[[Page 6980]]

urgent deficiency appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 103 Cong. Rec. 1550, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. H.R. 4249.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment was offered, as follows:

        Substitute amendment offered by Mr. [Gordon L.] McDonough [of 
    California]: On page 5, line 7, strike out all after the semicolon.

    The Chairman (9) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That is not a substitute amendment, because that language has 
    been stricken out on the point of order raised by the gentlewoman 
    from Oregon and sustained by the Chair. That language is not in the 
    bill at the moment.


 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
 C. OFFERING PARTICULAR KINDS OF AMENDMENTS; PRECEDENCE AND PRIORITIES
 
Sec. 18. Substitute Amendments

    A ``substitute'' is a substitute for an amendment, and not a 
substitute for the original text. Of course, substitute amendments are 
amendments and as such are themselves subject to 
amendment.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See, for example, Sec. 15.29, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A substitute for a motion to strike out is not in 
order.(11) or is a motion to strike out in order as a 
substitute for a pending motion to strike out and 
insert,(12) or for a perfecting amendment to text 
generally.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 8.8, infra.
12. See Sec. 17.18, supra.
13. See Sec. 17.17, supra.
            If a motion to strike out and insert is rejected, the 
        simple motion to strike out is then in order. See Sec. 17.16, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Defined

Sec. 18.1 A ``substitute'' is a substitute for an amendment and not a 
    substitute for the original text.

    On July 26, 1955,(14) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 101 Cong. Rec. 11565, 84th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7474, to amend and supplement the Federal Aid Road Act, as 
        amended, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. Harry] McGregor [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. I make a point of order that the substitute amendment is not 
    in order. It is a substitute to the substitute.
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Ohio that it is offered as a substitute to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dondero).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McGregor: Then, if I understand the gentleman correctly, 
    the gentleman from Michigan did not offer a substitute, but offered 
    an amendment; is that correct?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dondero] offered 
    a motion to strike out and insert, which is . . . an original 
    amendment.

When To Offer

Sec. 18.2 In the Committee of the Whole, the proper time to offer a 
    substitute for an

[[Page 6981]]

    amendment is after the amendment has been read and the Member 
    offering it has been permitted to debate it under the five-minute 
    rule.

    On Aug. 3, 1966,(16) during consideration of H.R. 14765, 
the Civil Rights Act of 1966, Mr. Charles M. Mathias, Jr., of Maryland, 
sought to offer an amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 112 Cong. Rec. 18114, 18115, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mathias: Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment.
        The Chairman: (17) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clark] MacGregor [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. MacGregor: Mr. Chairman, when will it be in order for me to 
    seek recognition for the purpose of offering an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute to the Mathias perfecting amendment?
        The Chairman: It will be in order for the gentleman from 
    Minnesota to offer such an amendment after the gentleman from 
    Maryland has concluded his remarks on his amendment.
        [Several parliamentary inquiries here intervened.]
        Mr. Mathias: Was I not recognized, Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman: The Clerk has not yet reported the amendment. The 
    Clerk will report the amendment. . . .
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: Will the gentlemen who desire to make 
    parliamentary inquiries allow the Clerk to report the amendment?
        The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mathias: On page 65, after line 
        14, insert the following:
            ``(e) Nothing in this section shall prohibit, or be 
        construed to prohibit, a real estate broker, agent, or 
        salesman, or employee or agent of any real estate broker, 
        agent, or salesman from complying with the express written 
        instruction of any person not in the business of building, 
        developing, selling, renting, or leasing dwellings, or 
        otherwise not subject to the prohibitions of this section 
        pursuant to subsection (b) or (c) hereof, with respect to the 
        sale, rental, or lease of a dwelling owned by such person, if 
        such instruction was not encouraged, solicited, or induced by 
        such broker, agent, or salesman, or any employee or agent 
        thereof.''

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Iowa.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, is a moving of the previous question 
    on the Moore amendment in order at this time?
        The Chairman: The motion is not in order in the Committee of 
    the Whole.
        The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mathias] is recognized for 5 
    minutes.

Sec. 18.3 As long as the Chair has not put the question on an 
    amendment, a substitute is in order therefor, notwithstanding the 
    expiration of debate time.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on June

[[Page 6982]]

14, 1979, (18) during consideration of H.R. 4388 
(19) in the Committee of the Whole. The Committee had agreed 
to limit debate on an amendment, as amended, and the Chair had 
announced the expiration of all time for debate. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 125 Cong. Rec. 14993, 14994, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. The Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bill for fiscal year 
        1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment, as amended. . . .
        Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, on the amendment, 
    as amended, I ask for a rollcall vote.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair has not yet put the 
    question on the amendment, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bevill: I ask for a vote then.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I happen to have an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: The Chair had recognized the gentleman from 
    Michigan and asked him for what purpose he sought recognition. The 
    gentleman indicated that he had an amendment.
        Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman from Alabama, 
    the chairman of the subcommittee, requested an agreement to end 
    debate, there was no objection on the amendment and amendments 
    thereto. At that point the vote was put.
        I suggest to the Chair that it is in order now to vote on the 
    amendment.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment I desire to 
    offer as a substitute at this time.
        The Chairman: The Chair will indicate to the gentleman from 
    Washington that we are operating under a time limit; however, that 
    does not exclude the possibility of offering an amendment as a 
    substitute, though no debate will be in order in the absence of a 
    unanimous-consent request.
        Therefore, the Clerk will read the amendment.

Sec. 18.4 While there is pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and an amendment thereto, a substitute for the original 
    amendment may be offered.

    On Dec. 18, 1979,(1) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 5860,(2) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 125 Cong. Rec. 36794, 36801, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. Authorizing loan guarantees to the Chrysler Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brademas to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: 
        Strike line 7, page 5, through line 7, page 9,

[[Page 6983]]

        (section 4(a)(4) through section 4(d)) and replace with the 
        following:
            (4) the Corporation has submitted to the Board a 
        satisfactory financing plan which meets the financing needs of 
        the Corporation as reflected in the operating plan for the 
        period covered by such operating plan, and which includes, in 
        accordance with the provisions of subsection (c), an aggregate 
        amount of nonfederally guaranteed assistance of not less than 
        $1,930,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: If the gentleman 
    from Indiana (Mr. Quayle) should decide to offer his substitute to 
    the Moorhead-McKinney amendment before the vote on the Brademas 
    amendment, it would be in order, would it not?
        The Chairman: (3) It would be in order to offer it. 
    . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     amendment offered by mr. quayle as a substitute for the amendment 
         in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. moorhead of 
                                pennsylvania

        Mr. [Dan] Quayle [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.

What Is a Proper Substitute--Amendment Perfecting Another Portion of 
    Section

Sec. 18.5 For a perfecting amendment to a section of a bill, an 
    amendment to perfect another portion of the section may not be 
    offered as a substitute, but should be offered separately after the 
    first perfecting amendment is disposed of.

    On Oct. 10, 1974, (4) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill, (5) the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 120 Cong. Rec. 35177, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. H.R. 17027, to amend the National Visitor Center Facilities Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 2. The National Visitor Center Facilities Act of 1968, 
        as amended, is further amended by revising section 102(a)(3) to 
        read as follows:
            ``(3) The Company, in consultation with the Secretary, 
        shall construct all or part of a parking facility. . . .
            Sec. 3. Section 102(c) of the National Visitor Center 
        Facilities Act of 1969 is amended by striking out 
        ``$8,680,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``$21,580,000''.

        Mr. [Kenneth J.] Gray [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment which is a technical amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gray: Page 2, line 9, strike out 
        ``1969'' and insert in lieu thereof ``1968.'' . . .

        Mr. Gray: Mr. Chairman, I will explain the amendment. It only 
    changes the date which is a typographical error on the part of the 
    printer. In referring to the National Visitors Center Facilities 
    Act the printer inserted ``1969'' instead of ``1968.'' It is a 
    technical error.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment 
    as substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 6984]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gross as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Gray: On page 2, line 10, strike out 
        $21,580,000' and insert in lieu thereof ``$8,780,000''.

        The Chairman: (6) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Iowa the amendment is not in order as a substitute, 
    but the gentleman can offer it separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Gray).
        The amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I now offer my amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gross: On page 2, line 10, strike 
        out ``$21,580,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$8,780,000''.

--Substitute Broadening Scope of Amendment to Which Offered

Sec. 18.6 For an amendment inserting new text in a bill, a proposition 
    not only inserting similar language but also striking out original 
    text of the bill may not be in order as a substitute, where the 
    portion striking original text has the effect of broadening the 
    scope of the amendment to which it is offered and therefore 
    violating the germaneness rule.

    On Sept. 8, 1976, (7) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 10498, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 122 Cong. Rec. 29225, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 108. (a) Title I of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 and 
    following), as amended by section 107 of this Act, is further 
    amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subtitle: . 
    . .

    Amendments were offered, as follows: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at pp. 29234, 29237.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers: Page 216, after line 23, 
    insert:
        (f) The Clean Air Act, as amended by sections 306, 201, 304, 
    312, 313, 108, and 211 of this Act, is further amended by adding 
    the following new section at the end thereof:

                    ``national commission on air quality

        ``Sec. 325. (a) There is established a National Commission on 
    Air Quality which shall study and report to the Congress. . . .

    Mr. [Bill] Chappell [Jr., of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
amendment as a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Rogers).

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Chappell as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Rogers: Page 198, line 5, after 
        section 108, strike out everything following Sec. 108 and 
        insert the following:

[[Page 6985]]

        ``Sec. 108. The Clean Air Act is amended by inserting a new 
    section 315 and renumbering succeeding sections accordingly:

                      ``national commission on air quality

        ``Sec. 315(a) There is established a National Commission on Air 
    Quality which shall study and report to the Congress on:
        ``(1) the effects of any existing or proposed policy on 
    prohibiting deterioration of air quality in areas identified as 
    having air quality better than that required under existing or 
    proposed national ambient standards on employment . . . the 
    relationship of such policy to the protection of the public health 
    and welfare as well as other national priorities such as economic 
    growth and national defense and its other social and environmental 
    effects. . . .
        Mr. [Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment offered as a substitute for my 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (9) Does the gentleman from Florida 
    (Mr. Rogers) wish to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rogers: Mr. Chairman, I would insist that at this time, not 
    that I would object to the unanimous-consent request, but probably 
    we should vote on my amendment and the amendment of the gentleman 
    from New Jersey first and then allow the gentleman from Florida to 
    offer h0, 1999 -Subformat:

        Mr. [Chauncey W.] Reed of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania. . . .
        Amendment offered by Mr. Reed of Illinois: On page 72, line 8, 
    strike out all of lines 8, 9, 10, and 11.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair would inform the 
    gentleman that is not a proper substitute for the pending 
    amendment. The gentleman may offer this amendment later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl T. Curtis (Nebr.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.12 A motion to strike out a portion of a section is not in 
    order as a substitute for a perfecting amendment to that section.

    On June 5, 1974,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 14747, to amend the Sugar Act of 1948. An amendment 
was pending which sought to insert an additional labor standard to 
those contained in a section of the bill. A motion to strike out a 
portion of the section was offered as a substitute for the pending 
amendment, but was ruled out as not a proper substitute for the 
perfecting amendment, and, furthermore, as not germane, in that it went 
beyond the scope of the perfecting amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 120 Cong. Rec. 17868, 17869, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. ChairI22The Chairman: 
    The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rogers) correctly stated the 
    situation. His amendment calls for a study and inserts a new 
    subsection in section

[[Page 6986]]

    108. The Chappell amendment is much broader, and does deal with the 
    standards which are set out in this particular section of the bill, 
    while the Rogers amendment merely adds the study.
        The Chair would, in support of the ruling the Chair is about to 
    make, refer to Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, 
    page 457, section 2880, wherein it is stated:

            An amendment striking out language other than in the 
        pending amendment is not in order as a substitute for an 
        amendment inserting language.

        The Chair would further point to a ruling set out on page 456 
    of the same volume, in section 2879, entitled ``A decision as to 
    what constitutes a substitute'':

            To qualify as substitute an amendment must treat in the 
        same manner the same subject matter carried by the text for 
        which proposed.

        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order, and would 
    advise the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Chappell) that his amendment 
    might be in order after the Rogers amendment and the amendment 
    thereto have been disposed of.

--Amendment Making Perfecting Changes in Bill Rather Than Amendment to 
    Which Offered

Sec. 18.7 To an amendment adding a new section to a bill, an amendment 
    making perfecting changes in the bill rather than in the amendment 
    is not a proper perfecting amendment, but, if germane, may be 
    offered as a substitute for the original amendment.

    On Apr. 26, 1984,(10) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 5172, (11) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 130 Cong. Rec. 10212, 10213, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. National Bureau of Standards Authorization Bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: On page 9, following line 
        17, add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 205. Of the sums authorized pursuant to this title, 
        each such sum is hereby reduced by 6.2 percent.'' . . .

    Mr. [Judd] Gregg [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
perfecting amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker). . . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Gregg to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Walker:
            On page 4, line 21, strike ``$57,948,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following, ``$52,030,000''. . . .

        Mr. [Don] Fuqua [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment that 
    I un

[[Page 6987]]

    derstand the gentleman offers as an amendment and a perfecting 
    amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker), the Walker amendment, as I read it, adds 
    a new section.
        Therefore, this perfecting amendment would not be in order to 
    the Walker amendment as a perfecting amendment.
        It appears to be a substitute for the Walker amendment, but it 
    is being offered as a perfecting amendment to the Walker amendment.
        The Chairman: (12) Does the gentleman from New 
    Hampshire offer his amendment as a substitute or as a perfecting 
    amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. William B. Richardson (N. Mex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gregg: Mr. Chairman, I will offer the amendment as a 
    substitute.

--Substitute for Motion To Strike

Sec. 18.8 A substitute for a motion to strike out is not in order.

    On Jan. 21, 1964, (13) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 110 Cong. Rec. 757, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 4879.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: On 
        page 3, strike out lines 8 through 16. . . .

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute.
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Minnesota that his amendment is not in order at this 
    time. We will have to vote on the pending amendment first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William S. Moorhead (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.9 When a motion to strike out is pending, it is not in order to 
    offer a substitute therefor; but a perfecting amendment to the text 
    may be offered.

    On Mar. 13, 1958, (15) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 104 Cong. Rec. 4325-27, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 376, to amend the Commodity Exchange Act to prohibit 
        trading in onion futures in commodity exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Victor L.] Anfuso [of New York]: On 
    page 2, strike out section 2.
        Mr. [Clifford G.] McIntire [of Maine]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    substitute amendment at the Clerk's desk for the Anfuso amendment.
        The Chairman: (16) It is not in order to offer a 
    substitute for a motion to strike out. The gentleman may offer his 
    amendment as a perfecting amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Wayne N. Aspinall (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.10 A substitute for a motion to strike out is not in order, but 
    a perfecting amendment may be offered when a motion to strike out 
    certain language is pending.

    On Apr. 3, 1957,(17) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 103 Cong. Rec. 5027, 5029, 85th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 6287, making appropriations for the Departments of 
        Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare, etc.

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

[[Page 6988]]

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Lee] Metcalf [of Montana]: On page 
    27, line 19, after ``June 30, 1959:'', strike out the remainder of 
    line 19 and all of line 20 and change the semicolon to a period.
        Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute amendment.
        The Chairman: (18) A substitute is not in order to a 
    motion to strike out. The gentleman can offer a perfecting 
    amendment to the paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Motion To Strike Out Not Proper Substitute

Sec. 18.11 To an amendment proposing to add new language in a 
    paragraph, an amendment proposing to strike out the portion of the 
    paragraph sought to be amended along with additional language of 
    such paragraph is not a proper substitute.

    On Mar. 5, 1948, (19) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 94 Cong. Rec. 2243, 2244, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 5607, the State, Justice, Commerce, and Judiciary 
        Appropriation Bill for 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: 
    On page 72, line 10, after ``referee'', insert ``appointed,'' and 
    after ``place'' where it first appears in line 10 insert ``created 
    since June 23, 1946.''

        Mr. [Chauncey W.] Reed of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania. . . .
        Amendment offered by Mr. Reed of Illinois: On page 72, line 8, 
    strike out all of lines 8, 9, 10, and 11.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair would inform the 
    gentleman that is not a proper substitute for the pending 
    amendment. The gentleman may offer this amendment later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl T. Curtis (Nebr.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.12 A motion to strike out a portion of a section is not in 
    order as a substitute for a perfecting amendment to that section.

    On June 5, 1974,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 14747, to amend the Sugar Act of 1948. An amendment 
was pending which sought to insert an additional labor standard to 
those contained in a section of the bill. A motion to strike out a 
portion of the section was offered as a substitute for the pending 
amendment, but was ruled out as not a proper substitute for the 
perfecting amendment, and, furthermore, as not germane, in that it went 
beyond the scope of the perfecting amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 120 Cong. Rec. 17868, 17869, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 6989]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. O'Hara: Page 18, after line 5, 
        insert:
            (5) That the producer who compensates workers on a piece-
        rate basis shall have paid, at a minimum, the established 
        minimum hourly wage.

        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Symms as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. O'Hara: In lieu of the amendment 
        offered by the gentleman from Michigan insert the following: 
        ``Section 11 of the bill, page 15, strike out all of line 11 
        through line 6 of page 17 and renumber the `(3)' on line 7, 
        page 17 as `(1)', and strike out line 15 on page 17 through 
        line 5 on page 18.'' . . .

        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment in that it is not germane to the provisions of my 
    amendment. It deals with different parts of section 11. . . .
        Mr. Symms: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment is germane to the 
    gentleman's amendment. It strikes it and all the labor provisions 
    from the bill.
        The Chairman (Mr. [James J.] Burke of Massachusetts]: It is the 
    ruling of the Chair that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Idaho (Mr. Symms) as a substitute for the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara) is not a proper 
    substitute. The substitute would strike portions of section 11 not 
    affected by the pending amendment. And, the substitute is broader 
    in scope than the amendment to which offered and is not germane 
    thereto. The Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 18.13 A motion to strike out an entire subsection of a bill is not 
    a proper substitute for a perfecting amendment to the subsection, 
    since it is broader in scope, but may be offered after disposition 
    of the perfecting amendment.

    On Sept. 23, 1982,(2) it was demonstrated that, for a 
perfecting amendment to a subsection striking out one activity from 
those covered by a provision of existing law, a substitute striking out 
the entire subsection, thereby eliminating the applicability of 
existing law to a number of activities, was not in order. The 
proceedings in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of H.R. 
5540 (3) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 128 Cong. Rec. 24963, 24964, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. Defense Industrial Base Revitalization Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bruce F.] Vento [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Vento: Page 41, line 24, strike 
        out ``, or the installation of equipment,''.
            Page 42, beginning on line 15, strike out ``, or the 
        installation of equipment,''.

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amend

[[Page 6990]]

    ment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Erlenborn as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Vento: Beginning on page 41, line 22, 
        strike all of subsection (m) through page 43, line 2.

        Mr. Vento: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment offered as a substitute by the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Erlenborn). . . .
        [T]he substitute offered by the gentleman is clearly not in 
    order. Under rule 19, Cannon's Procedure VIII, section 2879, the 
    precedents provide that ``to qualify as a substitute an amendment 
    must treat in the same manner the same subject carried by the 
    amendment for which it is offered.''
        My amendment would remove language from the committee bill and 
    limit the applicability of the Davis-Bacon Act in terms of one type 
    of activity. The gentleman's substitute would strike the entire 
    section of the committee bill which my amendment seeks to perfect 
    and thereby eliminate the Davis-Bacon provisions of this 
    legislation.
        In this case, the amendment offered by the gentleman clearly 
    does not treat the subject in the same manner which my amendment 
    does. Also, under Deschler's Procedure, chapter 27, section 14.1, 
    decisions made by the Chair on August 12, 1963, December 16, 1963, 
    and June 5, 1974, a motion to strike out a section of paragraph is 
    not in order while a perfecting amendment is pending. In addition, 
    the decisions of the Chair of December 16, 1963, and June 5, 1974, 
    and contained in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 27, section 14.4, 
    provides that a provision must be perfected before the question is 
    put on striking it out. A motion to strike out a paragraph or 
    section may not be offered as a substitute for pending motion to 
    perfect a paragraph or section by a motion to strike and insert. 
    The gentleman's amendment attempts to accomplish indirectly 
    something that he is precluded from doing directly. . . .
        Mr. Erlenborn: . . . The language to which both amendments are 
    directed is language in the bill that is applying the Davis-Bacon 
    Act to activities under the bill in question. The amendment offered 
    by the gentleman is reducing the extent of that coverage by taking 
    out the installation of equipment.
        My substitute also reduces that by eliminating the language so 
    there would be no extension of Davis-Bacon to the activities beyond 
    the present coverage of Davis-Bacon.
        So the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Vento) is affecting Davis-Bacon by reducing its 
    coverage. Mine also would affect the reduction of Davis-Bacon, only 
    in a broader manner; and I, therefore, believe the amendment is in 
    order.
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Wyche Fowler, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Vento) for the reasons advocated by the gentleman 
    from Minnesota that the substitute is too broad in its scope in its 
    striking the whole of subsection (m).

[[Page 6991]]

        The Chair would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Erlenborn) it would be appropriate as a separate amendment but it 
    is not in order as a substitute because of the scope of the 
    amendment.
        The point of order of the gentleman from Minnesota is 
    sustained.

Sec. 18.14 An amendment proposing to strike out a section is not a 
    proper substitute for a perfecting amendment to that section (to 
    strike out and insert), but where no point of order is raised 
    against the substitute, the Chair has nevertheless followed the 
    principle that the pending text should first be perfected before 
    the vote recurs on striking it out.

    On July 22, 1976,(5) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 13777, the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act of 1976, the proceedings described above occurred as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 122 Cong. Rec. 23457, 23459, 23460, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: On page 41, 
    strike line 10 and all that follows through line 7 on page 43. 
    Insert in lieu thereof the following:
        Sec. 210(a)(1) The Secretary with respect to the commercial 
    grazing of livestock on the public lands under the Taylor Grazing 
    Act . . . shall charge, commencing with the calendar year 1980, an 
    annual fee or fees per animal unit month for such grazing which 
    shall be the approximate fair market value of the forage provided. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Yates as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Eckhardt: Page 41, strike out line 10 
        on page 41 and all lines thereafter on page 41. . . .

        The Chairman: (6) The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) is a perfecting amendment to 
    section 210. The ``substitute'' offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Yates) is, in effect, a motion to strike the entire 
    section against which no point of order was raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The first vote will be on the perfecting amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt).

--Substitute Similar to Original Text

Sec. 18.15 For an amendment proposing to strike out an entire section 
    of a proposition and insert new language, an amendment proposing to 
    strike out that section and insert language similar but not 
    identical to the original section was held in order as a proper 
    substitute.

    In a ruling on July 22, 1974,(7) the Chair applied the 
principle

[[Page 6992]]

that a substitute for an amendment is in order so long as it is germane 
thereto and proposes to make some change in the original language being 
amended. Under consideration was an amendment to H.R. 11500, the 
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 120 Cong. Rec. 24450, 24451, 24453, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer my 
    amendment No. 15, according to rule XXIII, clause 6, to the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hosmer to the committee amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute: Page 145, line 21. Strike out 
        ``Sec. 201.'' and insert a ``Sec. 201.'' to read as follows: . 
        . .

        Mrs. [Patsy T.] Mink [of Hawaii]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Hosmer) to the committee amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Mink as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Hosmer to the committee amendment in 
        the nature of a substitute: Page 145, line 21, strike the 
        entire section 201 and insert the following new section 201: . 
        . .

        Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment, in that this is nothing more than a retread of the 
    language that is already in the section 201 of [H.R.] 11500. This 
    has only eight small changes in the total text, each of which could 
    be handled by an amendment, and no doubt even those amendments 
    could be offered en bloc.
        Yet we have here a subterfuge in order to blank out my original 
    amendment through offering this as a substitute. Then there will be 
    an up or down swoop on it from that standpoint.
        Further than that, it would then preclude the offering of any 
    further amendments on the language.
        So, in essence, Mr. Chairman, this is a closure motion to take 
    this with these minor amendments, and to take it or else. If this 
    passes, there will be no further amendments in order to section 201 
    except those specific amendments selected by the gentlewoman to put 
    into this substitute. . . .
        Mrs. Mink: . . . We have made changes to section 201, and 
    unlike the comments that have been made in support of the point of 
    order, further amendments would be possible on this substitute, as 
    I understand it; so it is not the intention of the author or of 
    this substitute to foreclose debate, but in an orderly way to 
    consider all those that pertain to section 201 at this point in the 
    debate, so that, for instance, title II is open for debate at any 
    point. The use of a substitute will enable us to look at this one 
    section and dispose of it. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) . . . The Chair is prepared to 
    rule on the point of order. The Chair has examined the substitute, 
    and no point of germaneness has been raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As long as it is germane, the gentlewoman from Hawaii is 
    entitled to offer her amendment as a substitute if she desires to 
    do so.

[[Page 6993]]

        The Chair overrules the point of order.

--Amendment Perfecting Lesser Portion of Text as Substitute

Sec. 18.16 For an amendment perfecting a bill, an amendment germane to 
    such amendment and perfecting a lesser portion of the same text is 
    in order as a substitute.

    On Feb. 1, 1978,(9) during consideration of H.R. 1614 
(10) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a 
point of order against an amendment to an amendment as described above. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 124 Cong. Rec. 1816-18, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
10. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fish: Page 192, lines 15 and 16, 
        strike out ``, the Secretary of Labor,''.
            Page 193, line 10, strike out ``achievable'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``feasible''.
            Page 193, line 15, strike out ``(1)''.
            Page 193, strike out lines 16 through 22, and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``of this section, the Secretary of the Department 
        in which the Coast Guard is operating shall promulgate 
        regulations or standards applying to diving activities in the 
        waters above the outer Continental Shelf, and to other 
        unregulated hazardous working conditions for which he 
        determines such''.
            Page 194, strike out lines 3 through 10.
            Page 197, line --, strike out ``Secretary of Labor'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``Secretary of the Department in which 
        the Coast Guard is operating. . . .

        Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Murphy of New York as a substitute 
        for the amendment offered by Mr. Fish: On page 193, strike 
        lines 15 to 24 and on page 194 strike lines 1 to 3 and insert: 
        ``(c) Notwithstanding section 4(b)(1) of the Occupa-''. . . .

        Mr. Fish: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
    amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) Does the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Fish) insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fish: Yes, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        Mr. Murphy of New York: . . . Mr. Chairman, I would say that 
    the substitute strikes a portion of the language; that the 
    amendment of the gentleman clearly strikes a much larger area and, 
    accordingly, would be in order. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. In the opinion of the 
    Chair, the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Murphy) deals with a lesser portion of the bill than the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Fish) desires to perfect, and

[[Page 6994]]

    as conceded by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fish) in a more 
    restricted fashion. The Murphy substitute deals only with interim 
    regulations, while the Fish amendment deals with OSHA's role in 
    promulgating both interim and final regulations.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order and holds the 
    substitute to be in order.

Sec. 18.17 A substitute for a pending amendment may be offered to 
    change a different or lesser portion of the pending section if it 
    relates to the same subject matter as the amendment.

    On Aug. 1, 1978,(12) where a perfecting amendment 
offered to H.R. 12514 (foreign aid authorization for fiscal 1979) 
sought to make several changes in a pending section, a substitute 
adding language at the end of the section rather than striking and 
inserting within the section was held in order since relating to the 
same subject as the amendment. The substitute was offered, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 23732, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Derwinski as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Stratton: Page 18, immediately after 
        line 4, insert the following new subsection:
            (e) It is the sense of the Congress that further withdrawal 
        of ground forces of the United States from the Republic of 
        Korea may seriously risk upsetting the military balance in that 
        region and requires full advance consultation with the 
        Congress. . . .

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, do I understand that the 
    gentleman's amendment is a substitute for my amendment.
        The Chairman: That is correct. It is a substitute for the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, unless I am mistaken, the gentleman 
    has not bothered to look at my amendment. My amendment makes 
    specific changes in the text in section 19. I am not clear where 
    the gentleman's amendment would come in section 19. He cannot 
    substitute a straight wording, as I understand it, for something 
    that has a series of changes in 3 pages of a particular section.
        Mr. Derwinski: Mr. Chairman, my amendment would come at the end 
    of section 19.
        The Chairman: The Chair might inform the gentleman from New 
    York that it is a proper substitute amendment. Both the proposed 
    amendment and the substitute are perfecting amendments to the 
    section and deal with the same subject.

Amending Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 18.18 An amendment in the nature of a substitute for

[[Page 6995]]

    several paragraphs of an appropriation bill is subject to amendment 
    by a substitute therefor.

    On July 29, 1969,(14) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 115 Cong. Rec. 21218, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 13111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles S.] Joelson [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the paragraph just read which is a simple 
    substitute to several paragraphs of the bill dealing with the 
    Office of Education, and I hereby give notice that after the 
    amendment is agreed to I will make a motion to strike out the 
    paragraphs appearing as follows: the paragraph on page 26. . . .
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: A substitute for the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Joelson) 
    would be in order if offered by someone?
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair will state that a 
    substitute for the amendment would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.19 Where a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    pending and is open to amendment at any point, it is subject to a 
    substitute therefor even after perfecting amendments have been 
    adopted.

    On Aug. 11, 1969,(16) the Chairman (17) 
responded to a parliamentary inquiry propounded by Mr. Brock Adams, of 
Washington:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 115 Cong. Rec. 23126-29, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 12982.
17. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Adams: Is the [amendment in the nature of a] substitute 
    which was passed by the committee, for the entire bill, presently 
    pending before the House?
        The Chairman: The substitute amendment is presently pending 
    before the House, and that substitute has been subsequently amended 
    by the gentleman from South Carolina in one area.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
        Mr. Adams: Mr. Chairman, I offer . . . a substitute for the 
    committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Adams as a substitute for the 
        committee amendment: . . .

Motion To Strike All After Enacting Clause and Insert Other Language 
    Not a Substitute

Sec. 18.20 A proposition, offered before other amendments are pending, 
    which proposes to strike out all after the enacting clause and 
    insert other language is an original amendment and not a sub

[[Page 6996]]

    stitute and as such may be amended by a substitute.

    On Apr. 29, 1949,(18) The following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 95 Cong. Rec. 5335, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 2032, the National Labor Relations Act of 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the Wood amendment was offered as a substitute 
    amendment, and that the gentleman from New York may not offer a 
    substitute for the substitute. . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Wood amendment is an original 
    amendment in that it seeks to strike out and insert. The pending 
    amendment is offered as a substitute for the Wood amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Addressed to Different Part of Section and Not Germane

Sec. 18.21 To an amendment to one part of a section of a bill, an 
    amendment to another part of such section, on a different page, was 
    ruled not in order as a substitute.

    On Mar. 31, 1948,(20) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 94 Cong. Rec. 3834, 3837, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was S. 2202, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                    bilateral and multilateral undertakings

            Sec. 115. (a) The Secretary of State, after consultation 
        with the Administrator, is authorized to conclude, with 
        individual participating countries or any number of such 
        countries or with an organization representing any such 
        countries, agreements in furtherance of the purposes of this 
        title. . . .
            (b) The provision of assistance under this title results 
        from the multilateral pledges of the participating countries to 
        use all their efforts to accomplish a joint-recovery program 
        based upon self-help and mutual cooperation as embodied in the 
        report of the Committee of European Economic Cooperation signed 
        at Paris on September 22, 1947, and is contingent upon 
        continuous effort of the participating countries to accomplish 
        a joint-recovery program through multilateral undertakings and 
        the establishment of a continuing organization for this 
        purpose. In addition to continued mutual cooperation of the 
        participating countries in such a program, each such country 
        shall conclude an agreement with the United States in order for 
        such country to be eligible to receive assistance under this 
        title. Such agreement shall provide for the adherence of such 
        country to the purposes of this title and shall, where 
        applicable, make appropriate provision, among others, for . . .
            (4) making efficient and practical use, within the 
        framework of a joint program for European recovery, of the 
        resources of such participating country, including any 
        commodities, facilities, or services furnished under this 
        title, which use shall include, to the extent practicable, 
        taking measures to locate and control, in furtherance of such 
        program, assets, and earnings therefrom, which belong to the 
        citizens of such country and which are situated within the 
        United

[[Page 6997]]

        States, its Territories and possessions; . . .

        Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Vorys: Page 86, line 25, delete 
        the word ``control'' and substitute the word ``identify.''

        Mr. Vorys: Mr. Chairman, this is an agreed committee amendment 
    to make it clear that we do not insist on other countries 
    controlling the assets of their citizens, but that they identify 
    them so that they may proceed along the principles set forth in 
    other parts of this section.
        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keating: I have an amendment to this section which I desire 
    to offer as a substitute for the committee amendment. Is it proper 
    to offer it at this time?
        The Chairman: If the gentleman has an amendment, he may offer 
    it as a substitute when the gentleman from Ohio has concluded.
        If the amendment of the gentleman from New York is a substitute 
    for the amendment which the gentleman from Ohio has offered, it 
    should be offered before the first amendment is disposed of.
        Mr. Keating: My purpose in offering it as a substitute for the 
    committee amendment is that my amendment tends to strengthen rather 
    than weaken section 4. My analysis of what the gentleman from Ohio 
    seeks to do in changing the word ``control'' to ``identify'' is 
    that that is rather to weaken it. Therefore, it seems to me it is 
    appropriate to offer this amendment as a substitute for the 
    committee amendment.
        Mr. Vorys: Mr. Chairman, I of course cannot discuss the 
    gentleman's amendment until I know what it is, but may I state to 
    the Committee of the Whole that our committee has worried and 
    fretted over this section and we are all somewhat dissatisfied with 
    it, as to whether it should be strengthened or weakened, and how 
    much, but one thing that we could agree upon was that we did not 
    want to authorize control. We thought that identification of the 
    assets in this country was a sound principle. Therefore, all I am 
    in a position to do now is to urge the adoption of the committee 
    amendment.
        Mr. Keating: Mr. Chairman, I offer my amendment as a substitute 
    for the Vorys amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Keating as a substitute for the 
        Vorys amendment: On page 87, line 4, strike out the semicolon 
        [at the end of subparagraph (4)], insert a comma, and add the 
        following: ``including but not limited to the establishment of 
        satisfactory conditions for guaranteeing that identifiable 
        assets of nationals of such country located in the United 
        States, its Territories and possessions, may be held by the 
        United States as security against any governmental credits from 
        the United States to such country.''

        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from New York 
    that the amendment as read obviously

[[Page 6998]]

    is not a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Ohio, which is on page 86. The gentleman's amendment is on page 87.

Member's Substitute for Own Amendment

Sec. 18.22 A Member may not offer a substitute for his own amendment to 
    a bill.

    On June 13, 1947,(2) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 93 Cong. Rec. 6989, 6990, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 3342, relating to a cultural relations program of the 
        State Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: I ask unanimous 
    consent, Mr. Chairman, to modify my amendment. . . .
        Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: I object. . . .
        Mr. Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute amendment.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman cannot do that at 
    this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Thomas A. Jenkins (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of Rejection: Reoffering Part of Substitute

Sec. 18.23 A substitute amendment having been rejected, a proposition 
    contained therein may nevertheless be offered as an amendment to an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.

    On Mar. 11, 1958,(4) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 104 Cong. Rec. 3981, 3984, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was S. 497, authorizing the construction, repair, and 
        preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors for 
        navigation, etc., and an amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute offered by Mr. John A. Blatnik (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Russell V.] Mack of Washington as 
        a substitute for the Blatnik amendment: Strike out all after 
        the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

                         ``title i--rivers and harbors

            ``Sec. 101. That the following works of improvement of 
        rivers and harbors and other waterways for navigation, flood 
        control, and other purposes are hereby adopted and authorized 
        to be prosecuted under the direction of the Secretary of the 
        Army and supervision of the Chief of Engineers, in accordance 
        with the plans and subject to the conditions recommended by the 
        Chief of Engineers in the respective reports hereinafter 
        designated . . . .
            ``The project for flood control and improvement of the 
        lower Mississippi River adopted by the act approved May 15, 
        1928, as amended by subsequent acts, is hereby modified and 
        expanded to include the following items and the authorization 
        for said project is increased accordingly. . . .
            ``(b) Modification and extension of plans of improvement in 
        the Boeuf and Tensas Rivers and Bayou Macon Basin, Ark., 
        substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the 
        Chief of Engineers in House Doc

[[Page 6999]]

        ument of No. 108, 85th Congress, at an estimated cost of 
        $631,000: Provided, That, in addition to the requirements for 
        local cooperation recommended in the report of the Chief of 
        Engineers, local interests agree to contribute 48 percent of 
        the cost of providing major drainage in cash or equivalent 
        work, to furnish without cost to the United States all lands, 
        easements and rights-of-way necessary for construction of the 
        project, and to hold and save the United States free from 
        damages due to the construction works.''

    The Mack substitute for the Blatnik amendment having been rejected, 
Mr. Mack offered an amendment: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 104 Cong. Rec. 4011, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mack of Washington: Page 31, line 
        12, strike out ``$1,212,000'' and substitute the following: 
        ``$631,000: Provided, That, in addition to the requirements for 
        local cooperation recommended in the report of the Chief of 
        Engineers, local interests agree to contribute 48 percent of 
        the cost of providing major drainage in cash or equivalent 
        work, to furnish without cost to the United States all lands, 
        easements and rights-of-way necessary for construction of the 
        project. . . .''

        Mr. [Robert E.] Jones [Jr.] of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order. As I understand, the amendment is in the same language as 
    the Mack substitute. Therefore the proposition has already been 
    decided by the Committee and the amendment has been rejected.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman is correct, except 
    that it is now offered as a specific proposition, and under the 
    ruling previously made (7) the point of order is 
    overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Carl Albert (Okla.).
 7. The Chair had previously overruled, without comment, a similar 
        point of order made by Mr. Frank E. Smith, of Mississippi, 
        against another amendment offered by Mr. Mack. See the 
        proceedings of the same day, at page 4010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of Rejection: Offering Another Substitute

Sec. 18.24 Where there was pending to a bill an amendment in the form 
    of a new section, a substitute therefor, and an amendment to the 
    substitute, the Chair indicated that the defeat of the amendment to 
    the substitute and of the substitute would not preclude the 
    offering of another germane substitute.

    On July 27, 1970,(8) in the circumstances described 
above, the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 25811, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 17654.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhart [of Texas]: . . . As I understand the 
    Smith amendment as it is sought to be amended by the Hays 
    amendment, all it would do is say that in addition to providing a 
    manually recorded type of vote by the method that is provided in 
    the O'Neill amendment, it would also provide an electronic record 
    type of vote. Now, if I am correct in that as

[[Page 7000]]

    sumption, would it not be in order, if we should vote down the Hays 
    amendment to the Smith amendment, to offer this as an additional 
    provision subsequent to the passage of the O'Neill amendment?
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair would like to inform the 
    gentleman in answer to his parliamentary inquiry that if the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hays) is voted 
    down and the substitute offered by the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Smith) is voted down, then another germane substitute would be 
    in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of Rejection: Proposition Reoffered as Amendment to Text

Sec. 18.25 Where a proposed substitute for an amendment is itself 
    amended and then agreed to as amended, the rejection of the 
    original amendment as amended by the substitute does not preclude 
    reoffering, as an amendment to text, a proposition essentially the 
    same as that initially contained in the substitute.

    In the 86th Congress, during the consideration of H.R. 8601, a bill 
to enforce voting rights, Mr. William M. McCulloch, of Ohio, offered 
the provisions of H.R. 11160 as a substitute for the amendment of Mr. 
John V. Lindsay, of New York, which contained the provisions of H.R. 
10035, made in order under a special rule (H. Res. 359). Mr. 
McCulloch's substitute, which provided for the court appointment of 
voting referees, was amended by the amendment of Mr. Robert W. 
Kastenmeier, of Wisconsin, to provide for Presidential appointment of 
enrollment officers. The substitute, as amended, was then agreed to; 
the amendment, as amended by the substitute, was rejected. Mr. 
McCulloch then offered, as a new title to the bill, the language of 
H.R. 11160.

        The proceedings were as follows: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 106 Cong. Rec. 5482, 5483, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 14, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lindsay: On page 12, immediately 
        following line 7, insert the following:

                                   ``title vi

            ``Sec. 601. That section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 
        U.S.C. 1971), as amended by section 131 of the Civil Rights Act 
        of 1957 (71 Stat. 637), is amended as follows:
            ``(a) Add the following as subsection (e) and designate the 
        present subsection (e) subsection `(f)':
            `` `In any proceeding instituted pursuant to subsection (c) 
        of this section, in the event the court finds that under color 
        of law or by State action any person or persons have been 
        deprived on account of race or color of

[[Page 7001]]

        any right or privilege secured by subsection (a) or (b) of this 
        section, and that such deprivation was or is pursuant to a 
        pattern or practice, the court may appoint one or more persons 
        (to be known as voting referees) to receive applications from 
        any person claiming such deprivation as the right to register 
        or otherwise to qualify to vote at any election and to take 
        evidence and report to the court findings as to whether such 
        applicants or any of them (1) are qualified to vote at any 
        election, and (2) have been (a) deprived of the opportunity to 
        register to vote or otherwise to qualify to vote at any 
        election, or (b) found by State election officials not 
        qualified to register to vote or to vote at any election.
            `` `Any report of any person or persons appointed pursuant 
        to this subsection shall be reviewed by the court and the court 
        shall accept the findings contained in such report unless 
        clearly erroneous. . . .

        Mr. Lindsay: This is H.R. 10035 verbatim, as originally 
    introduced, the voting referee bill.
        Mr. Chairman, may I say that the parliamentary situation is 
    such under the rule that the only voting referee measure at this 
    point that may be offered is the text of H.R. 10035. This is the 
    bill which provides for voting referees under the auspices and 
    supervision of the Federal courts. . . .
        If the court should find a pattern or practice of voting 
    denials, referees may then be appointed by the court in order to 
    receive applications from persons of like color who claim that they 
    also have been denied the right to vote. The point to bear in mind 
    about this amendment, and also about the substitute amendment that 
    will be offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch], for the 
    purpose of clarifying the amendment that I now offer, is this: that 
    in any area where there has been found by the court to exist a 
    pattern or practice of denials of the right to vote on 
    constitutional grounds, the matter from then on is resolved by the 
    court. A referee may be appointed by the Federal judge in order to 
    perform the normal functions that he would perform but obviously 
    cannot perform because of the burdens that would be placed upon 
    him. It is designed to keep the matter in local hands, a local 
    Federal judge, and local Federal referees appointed by the Court. . 
    . .
        I shall say a word about the differences between this amendment 
    and the proposed substitute. They are of procedure only. The 
    substitute will ensure, by specific language, that any local, State 
    registrar who takes exception to the action of a voting referee 
    will have an opportunity to have a full judicial hearing by the 
    court if he presents a genuine issue of fact. He is given plenty of 
    notice. The Deputy Attorney General testified that even under the 
    original bill, which I have introduced by way of amendment, due 
    process would require an opportunity for a hearing. The substitute 
    will spell this out in specific language. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) The Clerk will report the 
    substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
    McCulloch].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McCulloch as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Lindsay: On page 12, immediately below 
        line 7, in lieu of the text proposed to be

[[Page 7002]]

        added by the Lindsay amendment insert the following:

                                   ``title vi

                                ``Voting rights

            ``Sec. 601. Section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 
        1971), as amended by section 131 of the Civil Rights Act of 
        1957 (71 Stat. 637), is amended as follows:
            `` `(a) Add the following as subsection (e) and designate 
        the present subsection (e) as subsection ``(f)'':
            ``In any proceeding instituted pursuant to subsection (c), 
        in the event the court finds that any person has been deprived 
        on account of race or color of any right or privilege secured 
        by subsection (a), the court shall upon request of the Attorney 
        General, and after each party has been given notice and the 
        opportunity to be heard, make a finding whether such 
        deprivation was or is pursuant to a pattern or practice. If the 
        court finds such pattern or practice, any person of such race 
        or color resident within the affected area shall, for one year 
        and thereafter until the court subsequently finds that such 
        pattern or practice has ceased, be entitled, upon his 
        application therefor, to an order declaring him qualified to 
        vote. . . .
            `` `The court may appoint one or more persons who are 
        qualified voters in the judicial district, to be known as 
        voting referees, to serve for such period as the court shall 
        determine, to receive such applications and to take evidence 
        and report to the court findings as to whether or not at any 
        election or elections (1) any such applicant is qualified under 
        State law to vote, and (2) he has since the finding by the 
        court heretofore specified been (a) deprived of or denied under 
        color of law the opportunity to register to vote or otherwise 
        to qualify to vote, or (b) found not qualified to vote by any 
        person acting under color of law. . . .

    On the following day,(12) an amendment was offered to 
the substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 106 Cong. Rec. 5644, 5645, 5655-58, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 15, 
        1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert W.] Kastenmeier [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment to the substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Kastenmeier: On page 1, line 8 of 
        the McCulloch substitute, before the word ``In'', insert 
        ``(e)(1)(A)'' and on page 1 of the McCulloch substitute strike 
        out ``that any person has been deprived'' on line 9 and all 
        that follows down through the last page of such substitute, and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following: ``that, under color of 
        law or by State action, a voting registrar or other State or 
        local official has deprived persons in any locality or area of 
        registration, of the opportunity of registration, for elections 
        because of their race or color, the Attorney General shall 
        notify the President of the United States of such finding.
            ``(B) Whenever the Commission on Civil Rights . . . finds 
        that, under color of law or by State action, a voting registrar 
        or other State or local official has deprived persons in any 
        locality or area of registration of the opportunity of 
        registration, for election because of their race or color, the 
        Commission shall notify the President of the United States of 
        such finding.
            ``(2) Upon any notification of a finding pursuant to 
        paragraph (1) of this subsection, the President is authorized 
        to establish a Federal Enrollment Office in each registration 
        district that includes the locality or area for which such 
        finding has been made and to appoint one or more Federal 
        Enrollment Officers for such

[[Page 7003]]

        district from among officers or employees of the United States 
        who are qualified voters within such 
        district. . . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kastenmeier]. . . .
        So the amendment to the substitute amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the substitute amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch], as amended. . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, if I understand 
    the situation correctly, and I wish the Chair would explain what 
    the situation is, the Committee is now voting on the substitute 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch] to the 
    bill H.R. 10035.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, as the gentleman well knows, it 
    was made in order to consider the text of the bill H.R. 10035, as 
    an amendment to the bill H.R. 8601. The amendment was offered by 
    the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lindsay] and a substitute for that 
    amendment was offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch]. 
    The substitute amendment has been amended and the Committee is 
    about to vote upon the substitute amendment, as amended.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: In other words, we are voting on the 
    substitute amendment, and if that should be defeated, then the so-
    called Lindsay amendment will still be in order.
        The Chairman: If the substitute amendment is defeated, then the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lindsay] is 
    still before the Committee for further consideration.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: I thank the Chairman.
        The Chairman: The question is on the substitute amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch], as amended.

        The Committee divided, and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 179, noes 116.
        So the substitute amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question recurs on the Lindsay amendment as 
    amended by the McCulloch substitute.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Celler) there were--ayes 195, noes 155.
        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Celler and Mr. McCulloch.
        The Committee again divided and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 143, noes 170.
        So the amendment was rejected.
        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McCulloch: On page 12, immediately 
        below line 7, insert the following:

                                   ``title vi

            Sec. 601. That section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 
        U.S.C. 1971), as amended by section 131 of the Civil Rights Act 
        of 1957 (71 Stat. 637), is amended as follows:
            ``(a) Add the following as subsection (e) and designate the 
        present subsection (e) as subsection `(f)':
            ``In any proceeding instituted pursuant to subsection (c) 
        in the event

[[Page 7004]]

        the court finds that any person has been deprived on account of 
        race or color of any right or privilege secured by subsection 
        (a), the court shall upon request of the Attorney General and 
        after each party has been given notice and the opportunity to 
        be heard make a finding whether such deprivation was or is 
        pursuant to a pattern or practice. If the court finds such 
        pattern or practice, any person of such race or color resident 
        within the affected area shall, for one year and thereafter 
        until the court subsequently finds that such pattern or 
        practice has ceased, be entitled, upon his application 
        therefor, to an order declaring him qualified to vote. . . .
            `` `The court may appoint one or more persons who are 
        qualified voters in the judicial district, to be known as 
        voting referees, to serve for such period as the court shall 
        determine, to receive such applications and to take evidence 
        and report to the court findings as to whether or not at any 
        election or elections (1) any such applicant is qualified under 
        state law to vote, and (2) he has since the finding by the 
        court heretofore specified been (a) deprived of or denied under 
        color of law the opportunity to register to vote or otherwise 
        to qualify to vote, or (b) found not qualified to vote by any 
        person acting under color of law. . . .

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against this amendment for several reasons. One is that 
    the rule under which we are operating gives protection only to H.R. 
    10035 and to no other substitute proposal. In other words, the 
    original bill, the Lindsay amendment, which has already been 
    defeated, was a bill that the rule makes in order. We have already 
    voted upon this bill within the last 30 minutes. The only 
    difference between this bill and the bill we just voted down is two 
    or three very minor corrections; very minor; so minor that many of 
    us are greatly disappointed.
        Mr. Chairman, the matter has been passed upon. The House has 
    voted upon it within the last 30 minutes. I make the point of order 
    that it cannot be reintroduced. . . .
        Mr. [Edwin E.] Willis [of Louisiana]: I want to understand very 
    clearly the bill or the proposal that the gentleman has offered. 
    This is a very simple question. Am I correct that the proposal now 
    on the desk is identical to the bill H.R. 11160 except for the 
    deletion of the language appearing on page 5, lines 9 through 13?
        Mr. McCulloch: The answer is ``Yes.''. . .
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: . . . I make the . . . point of order 
    that this amendment has been once defeated. . . .
        The Chairman: May the Chair call the gentleman's attention to 
    the fact that this has never been voted on. The language contained 
    in this amendment was a substitute for another amendment.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: It was a substitute for that and it was 
    offered yesterday afternoon by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
    McCulloch] and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: But, I should like to remind the gentleman, as a 
    substitute for the bill made in order under the rule.

    After some further discussion of this and other points of order, 
the Chairman allowed the amendment.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Whether a proposition contained in a

[[Page 7005]]

substitute may be reoffered in a different form after it has failed of 
approval depends on the circumstances. Clearly, where the actual 
proposition was never voted on because of changes made through the 
amendment process (as where a substitute for an amendment is itself 
amended, then rejected in a vote on the amendment), the proposition may 
be offered again as, for example, an amendment to text. But even actual 
rejection of the proposition contained in the substitute should not 
necessarily preclude its being offered as an amendment to text. For 
example, where an amendment is offered, and then a substitute for that 
amendment, the consideration of that substitute necessarily proceeds 
with reference only to the particular amendment to which offered. This 
may present a different question from that which would arise if the 
language of the substitute were considered with reference to the text 
of the bill. For further discussion of when a proposition that has been 
rejected may be reoffered in different form, see 8 Cannon's Precedents 
Sec. 2843.
    On the other hand, it may happen that reoffering the language of 
the substitute presents precisely the same question that has already 
been voted on. Thus, if a substitute for an amendment is agreed to (in 
effect becoming an amendment to text by supplanting the original 
amendment), and then the amendment as amended by the substitute is 
rejected, the
proposition contained in the substitute may not be reoffered to that 
text. In this case, the question presented by reoffering the language 
as an amendment to text would be exactly the same as that already 
disposed of.

Amendment to Substitute Having Same Effect as Amendment to Original 
    Amendment

Sec. 18.26 A point of order against an amendment to a substitute does 
    not lie merely because its adoption would have the same effect as 
    the adoption of a pending amendment to the original amendment and 
    would render the substitute as amended identical to the original 
    amendment as amended.

    Where there was pending an amendment to a joint resolution to 
insert text (A), an amendment to said amendment to insert instead text 
(B), and a substitute for the amendment to insert text (A) and (B) 
together, the Chair overruled a point of order against an amendment to 
the substitute to

[[Page 7006]]

delete text (A), since there is no precedent which would preclude the 
offering of an amendment to a substitute merely because it is similar 
to or achieves the same effect as an amendment to the original 
amendment. The proceedings of May 4, 1983,(13) were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 129 Cong. Rec. 11046, 11052, 11056, 11059, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lungren: On page 5 at line 19, 
        insert ``(a)'' after ``2.'', and after line 23 add the 
        following:
            ``(b) Consistent with the treaty-making powers of the 
        President under the Constitution, nothing in this resolution 
        shall be construed to be binding on the President or his 
        negotiators in the formulation of strategy, instructions or 
        positions in the conduct of the strategic arms reduction talks 
        (START).''. . .

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Lungren: In the text of the matter proposed to be added 
        to the resolution by the Lungren amendment, strike out all that 
        follows ``(b)'' through ``(START)'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        the following:
            Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to supersede 
        the treaty-making powers of the President under the 
        Constitution.

        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Zablocki) is recognized for 15 minutes in support of his amendment, 
    for purposes of debate only. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James A.] Courter [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Courter as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Lungren: In lieu of the matter 
        proposed by said amendment, insert the following:
            On page 5, line 19, insert ``(a)'' after ``2.'', and after 
        line 23 add the following:
            ``(b) Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to 
        supercede the treaty-making powers of the President under the 
        Constitution, and therefore nothing in this resolution shall be 
        construed to be binding on the President or his negotiators in 
        the formulation of strategy, instructions or positions in the 
        conduct of the Strategic Arms Reductions Talks (START).''. . .
            Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
        amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment.

        The Clerk read as follows:
        Amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki to the amendment offered by 
    Mr. Courter as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. 
    Lungren: In proposed new subsection (b), strike out all that 
    follows ``Constitution'' through ``(START)''. . . .
        Mr. Courter: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order against the 
    amendment to the substitute.
        Mr. Chairman, I have had a chance to look very briefly at the 
    amendment to the substitute and it is simply a restatement of the 
    gentleman's amendment to the amendment and as such is

[[Page 7007]]

    improper at the present time, the purpose of which is dilatory only 
    and the purpose of which is not obviously to legitimately amend a 
    substitute. . . .
        Mr. Zablocki: . . . The gentleman from New Jersey marries, so 
    to speak, the two amendments, the amendment of the gentleman from 
    California and the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin as a 
    substitute.
        All the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin does is amend 
    the substitute, divorcing, or at least, deleting the latter part of 
    the gentleman's amendment so that we can have an up and down vote 
    on the two proposals.
        And I believe an amendment to a substitute is in order whether 
    it takes away or adds on to the language of a substitute.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair rules that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) to the substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from New Jersey, is germane to the substitute. There is 
    no precedent which would preclude the offering of that amendment to 
    the substitute merely because it is similar or the same in effect 
    as the amendment offered to the original amendment.
        Therefore, the point of order is rejected.

Substitute Made in Order by Special Rule--Effect of Ruling Out Primary 
    Amendment

Sec. 18.27 Where one committee's germane amendment printed in a 
    reported bill has been made in order by a special rule as a 
    substitute for another committee's amendment, and the primary 
    amendment is ruled out on a point of order, the committee amendment 
    made in order as a substitute retains the status of an amendment to 
    the bill as it was recommended by the reporting committee and is 
    reported by the Clerk.

    On Sept. 23, 1977, (15) he Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3, Medicare-Medicaid Antifraud and Abuse Amendments of 
1977. An amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means had 
been ruled out of order as not germane to the bill. An amendment 
recommended by another committee and made in order, by special rule, as 
a substitute for the amendment now ruled out of order, was ordered to 
be reported: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 30534, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. The rule, it should be noted, did not indicate that the amendment 
        made in order was to be considered only as a substitute 
        amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (17) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment recommended by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce, now printed begin

[[Page 7008]]

    ning on page 70, line 6, through page 72, line 16, in the reported 
    bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
 C. OFFERING PARTICULAR KINDS OF AMENDMENTS; PRECEDENCE AND PRIORITIES
 
Sec. 19. Amendments to Titles and Preambles

Title Amendments; When Considered

Sec. 19.1 Amendments to the title of a bill are not in order until 
    after passage of the bill, and are then voted upon without debate 
    (see Rule XIX).

    On Dec. 2, 1975, (18) the Committee of the Whole having 
agreed to an amendment in the nature of a substitute, a further 
amendment was offered to the bill (19) and proceedings 
occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 38193, 38194, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. H.R 10481, Intergovernmental Emergency Assistance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20) The question is on the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute, as amended, offered by the gentleman 
    from Ohio (Mr. J. William Stanton).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Bauman) there were--ayes 71, nays 31.
        So the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was 
    agreed to.
        Mr. J. William Stanton: Mr. Chairman, I offer a technical 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Ohio 
    that inasmuch as the amendment in the nature of a substitute has 
    been agreed to, no further amendments are in order at this time. 
    The amendment sent to the desk by the gentleman from Ohio would be 
    in order in the House after the committee has risen. . . .
        Under the rule, the Committee rises.
        Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. O'Hara, 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. 10481) to authorize emergency 
    guarantees of obligations of States and political subdivisions 
    thereof. . . .
        The Speaker: (1) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 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.
        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 question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I object to 
    the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.

[[Page 7009]]

        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    213, nays 203, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 16, as follows: . 
    . .
        So the bill was passed.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        Mr. J. William Stanton: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to 
    the title.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. J. William Stanton to the title: 
        Amend the title so as to read: `A bill to authorize the 
        Secretary of the Treasury to provide seasonal financing for the 
        City of New York.''

        The title amendment was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Sec. 19.2 Amendments to the title of a bill may be considered in the 
    House after the passage of the bill.

    A rule (2) provides that, ``amendments to the title of a 
bill or a resolution shall not be in order until after its passage, and 
shall be decided without debate.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Rule XIX, House Rules and Manual Sec. 822 (101st Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Jan. 21, 1964, (3) The following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 110 Cong. Rec. 759, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 4879.
            See, as a further example, 108 Cong. Rec. 1183, 1184, 87th 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 30, 1962 (proceedings relating to H.R. 
        8900 and an amendment to the title thereof offered by Mrs. 
        Edith S. Green [Oreg.]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. [Peter H. B.] Frelinghuysen (Jr., 
        of New Jersey): On page 1, amend the title of the bill by 
        striking out the period after ``libraries'' and inserting in 
        lieu thereof ``in rural areas.'' . . .

        The Chairman: (4) The Chair will have to advise the 
    gentleman from New Jersey, the author of the amendments, that the 
    first two lines of the amendments attempting to amend the title are 
    not in order, because an amendment to a title is not in order until 
    after the passage of the bill. So the question will occur on the 
    balance of the amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William S. Moorhead (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 19.3 Amendments to titles of bills are properly presented after 
    the bill is passed and are not debatable.

    On Dec. 11, 1947 (5) The following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 93 Cong. Rec. 11307, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 4604, to promote world peace and the national interest and 
        foreign policy of the United States by providing aid to certain 
        foreign countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles J.] Kersten of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I have an 
    amendment to change the title of the bill, which I understand is 
    proper.
        The Speaker: (6) That will come after the passage of 
    the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).

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

[[Page 7010]]

        Mr. Kersten of Wisconsin: I should like to inform the 
    membership that this is an important amendment and I should like to 
    speak on it.
        The Speaker: It is not debatable.

Sec. 19.4 Pursuant to Rule XIX, the title of a bill can only be amended 
    after the bill has been passed, and an amendment in Committee of 
    the Whole proposing inter alia an amendment to the title is not in 
    order; accordingly, where a Member offers an amendment under the 
    five-minute rule which includes an amendment to the title, the 
    Chair may direct the Clerk to disregard that portion of the 
    amendment and report only the amendment to the text of the bill.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on Jan. 29, 
1986,(7) during consideration of House Resolution 364:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 132 Cong. Rec. 680, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. (Bill) Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair would remind the 
    gentleman from Minnesota that the first part of his amendment 
    amends the title of the bill, and the title cannot be amended in 
    the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Doug Barnard, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Frenzel: I thank the Chair for pointing that out.
        The Chairman: If the gentleman wishes to strike the first part 
    of the amendment, the amendment could be considered.
        Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    language of my amendment referring to the title of the bill be 
    deleted from my amendment, and that the amendment be considered.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will disregard that portion referring 
    to the title and will report the amendment.

Sec. 19.5 Where a Member attempts to offer an amendment to the title of 
    a bill in Committee of the Whole under the five-minute rule, the 
    Chair may rule it out of order under Rule XIX on his own initiative 
    and need not rule on the germaneness of the amendment to the bill 
    under Rule XVI clause 7.

    On Jan. 29, 1986,(9) it was demonstrated that, where a 
point of order is raised against the germaneness of an amendment 
offered in Committee of the Whole to the title of a bill, the Chair may 
nevertheless rule it out of order under Rule XIX rather than rule on 
the germaneness of the subject of the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 132 Cong. Rec. 682, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 7011]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Frenzel: On page 1, after the word 
        ``for'' in the title, insert the following: ``for Presidential 
        primary dates on which there is more than one State conducting 
        its primary election and'' . . .

        Mr. [Al] Swift [of Washington]: . . . I make a point of order 
    against the amendment on the grounds that it is in violation of 
    clause 7 of rule XVI, the germaneness rule. I would say in 
    particular ``Deschler's Procedure,'' chapter 28, section 7, to the 
    effect that ``one individual proposition is not germane to another 
    individual proposition.'' This bill deals exclusively with 
    Presidential general elections. The amendment deals with 
    Presidential primary elections and I make the point of order that 
    it is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Chairman, I have had this done to me before on 
    a very similar point of order which was sustained by the Chair a 
    number of years ago. I suspect that the precedents are not with me 
    on it; nevertheless I think any rational reading of our rules and 
    of our precedents in a philosophical way and any presentation to a 
    body of Americans who can read or write would result in the 
    amendment being declared germane. . . .
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Doug Barnard, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In this case the matter of germaneness need not be decided, 
    inasmuch as the amendment clearly violates rule XIX because it only 
    amends the title of the bill and the title of the bill can only be 
    amended after the bill is passed; so the Chair sustains the point 
    of order.

Amending Committee Amendments to Title

Sec. 19.6 Under Rule XIX, stating that amendments to the title of a 
    bill are considered in the House after passage of the bill, 
    committee amendments to the title of a bill are automatically 
    reported by the Clerk after passage of the bill, but an amendment 
    to a committee amendment to the title may be offered from the floor 
    and is voted on without debate.

    An illustration of the procedure described above is found in the 
proceedings of Sept. 23, 1977,(11) during consideration of 
H.R. 5383, Age Discrimination in Employment Act Amendments of 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 30573, 30574, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the bill was passed.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              title amendment

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) The Clerk will report 
    the title amendment to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard Nolan (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Title amendment: Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to 
        amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to 
        provide that Federal employees who are 40 years of age or older 
        shall be protected by the provi

[[Page 7012]]

        sions of section 15 of such Act, and for other purposes.''.

          amendment offered by mr. hawkins to the title amendment

        Mr. [Augustus F.] Hawkins [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    an amendment to the title amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hawkins to the title amendment: 
        Page 7, strike out the matter following line 5 and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
            Amend the title so as to read as follows: ``A bill to amend 
        the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to extend the 
        age group of employees who are protected by the provisions of 
        such Act, and for other purposes.''.

        The amendment to the title amendment was agreed to.
        The title amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Preamble Amendments; When Considered

Sec. 19.7 Amendments to the preamble of a joint resolution are 
    considered in the Committee of the Whole following disposition of 
    any amendments to the text following the resolving clause.

    On Mar. 22, 1967, an illustration of this procedure took place. The 
proceedings were as follows: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 113 Cong. Rec. 7679-83, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.J. Res. 428.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        Congress recommends, in support of the concept of a Latin 
        American Common Market. . . .

        The Chairman: (14) The Clerk will report the 
    committee amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert the 
        following:
            ``That the Congress supports the concept of a Latin 
        American Common Market and, after appropriate steps have been 
        taken. . . .''

        The Chairman: Are there any amendments to the committee 
    amendment? If not, the question is on the committee amendment.
        The committee amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will read the preamble.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                 H.J. Res. 428

            Whereas it has been an historic policy of the United States 
        to work in close harmony with our sister American Republics. . 
        . . 

        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the first committee 
    amendment to the preamble.

Sec. 19.8 Amendments to the preamble of a joint resolution

[[Page 7013]]

    are considered in the Committee of the Whole following the 
    disposition of any amendments to the body of the resolution.

    On Mar. 9, 1967, (15) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 113 Cong. Rec. 6032-34, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.J. Res. 267.
            See also 93 Cong. Rec. 2416, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 21, 
        1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                 H.J. Res. 267

            Whereas the Congress has declared it to be the policy of 
        the United States to combat hunger and malnutrition and to 
        encourage economic development in the developing countries; and 
        . . .
            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        Congress approves the participation of the United States. . . .

        The Chairman: (16) The Clerk will report the first 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John S. Monagan (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            On page 2, lines 7 and 8, strike the word ``Agricultural''. 
         . . .

        The committee amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, there are two 
    additional committee amendments to the preamble.
        The Chairman: The Chair will inform the gentleman they cannot 
    be considered until the body of the resolution has been perfected, 
    at which time they will be considered.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On page 3, after line 2, 
        add the following paragraph: . . .

        The amendment was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendments to the 
    preamble.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            In the second paragraph of the preamble strike the word 
        ``Indian''.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Clerk normally does not read the 
preamble for amendment, but merely reports amendments thereto.

Sec. 19.9 Amendments to the preamble of a joint resolution are 
    considered in the Committee of the Whole following the disposition 
    of any amendments to the body of the resolution; and, in the House, 
    amendments to the preamble of a joint resolution reported from 
    Committee of the Whole are considered following engrossment and 
    prior to third reading of the resolution.

    On Oct. 29, 1975, (17) the Committee of the Whole 
amended the preamble of a joint resolution (18)

[[Page 7014]]

and the House later concurred in its recommendation. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 34282, 34283, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. H.J. Res. 92, economic and social census statistics relating to 
        Americans of Spanish origin or descent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (19) Are there further amendments to 
    the bill? If not, the Clerk will report the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William J. Randall (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Whereas more than twelve million Americans identify 
        themselves as being of Spanish-speaking background and trace 
        their origin or descent from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Central 
        and South America, and other Spanish-speaking countries. . . .

        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the committee amendment to 
    the preamble.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Amend the preamble by striking out 
        ``Western Hemisphere''.

        The committee amendment to the preamble was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the committee rises.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Randall, 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. 92) 
    relating to the publication of economic and social statistics for 
    Americans of Spanish origin or descent, pursuant to House 
    Resolution 799, he reported the joint resolution back to the House 
    with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker: (20) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair 
    will put them en gross.
        The amendments were agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment of the joint 
    resolution.
        The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the amendment to the 
    preamble.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amend the preamble by striking out ``Western Hemisphere''.

        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment to the preamble.
        The amendment to the preamble was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the third reading of the joint 
    resolution.
        The joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, and 
    was read the third time.

Sec. 19.10 The preamble of a joint resolution is properly amended in 
    the House after the engrossment and pending the third reading of 
    the resolution.

    On Oct. 7, 1966, (1) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 112 Cong. Rec. 25684, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.J. Res. 1163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (2) The question is on the engrossment 
    and third reading of the House joint resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The House joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed. . . .

[[Page 7015]]

                      Amendments Offered by Mr. Celler

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    number of amendments to the preamble and ask unanimous consent that 
    they be considered en bloc.
        The Clerk read the amendments as follows:
        On page 2, strike out ``and'' after the first complete 
    ``Whereas'' clause. . . .
        The amendments were agreed to. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on the third reading of the House 
    joint resolution.

--Concurrent Resolution

Sec. 19.11 Amendments to the preamble of a concurrent resolution are 
    considered and voted on in the Committee of the Whole after 
    amendments to the body of the resolution; and amendments to the 
    preamble of such a resolution are voted on in the House after the 
    resolution has been adopted.

    On Oct. 30, 1945, (3) the following proceedings took 
place in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 91 Cong. Rec. 10202, 10203, 10205, 10206, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
            Under consideration was H. Con. Res. 80, relating to the 
        composition of the post-war Navy.
            Parliamentarian's Note: In reading a concurrent resolution 
        with a preamble for amendment the Clerk reads the preamble 
        first and then reads the body of the resolution although 
        amendments to the preamble in the Committee of the Whole are 
        considered after amendments to the body of the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I ask that the 
    resolution be read for amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Whereas under the Constitution of the United States the 
        Congress is charged with the responsibility of providing and 
        maintaining a Navy; and . . .
            Whereas it is necessary for the Congress to determine the 
        size of the immediate postwar Navy giving due consideration to 
        the security of the United States and its Territories and 
        insular possessions . . . and
            Whereas such immediate postwar Navy will require an 
        adequate fleet and supporting aircraft, personnel, bases, and 
        establishments: Therefore be it
            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the Navy of 
        the United States should consist of ships of the following 
        types and numbers:
            1. Three large aircraft carriers (42,000 tons), 24 aircraft 
        carriers (27,000 tons) . . . 367 destroyers, 296 escort 
        destroyers, and 200 submarines.
            2. That sufficient aircraft, auxilliary vessels . . . and 
        drydocks should be maintained to support the above-enumerated 
        fleet. . . .

        Mr. Vinson (interrupting reading of the bill): Mr. Chairman, I 
    ask unanimous consent to dispense with further reading of the bill, 
    that it be printed in the Record, and that it be in order to 
    consider all the committee amendments en bloc.

[[Page 7016]]

        The Chairman: (4) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Georgia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Butler B. Hare (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Committee amendment:

        Page 2, line 3, after the word ``of'', insert ``not less 
    than.''

            Page 2, line 5, strike out ``forty-two thousand tons'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof: ``total tonnage approximately one 
        hundred and thirty-five thousand.''. . .

        Page 3, line 7, after the word ``submarines'', insert ``(total 
    tonnage approximately three hundred and fourteen thousand), 
    aggregate tonnage, all types, approximately four million six 
    hundred and ninety-eight thousand nine hundred.''

            Page 3, line 14, after the word ``facilities'', insert 
        ``including bases.''
            Page 3, line 21, strike out ``unit for unit.''
            In the preamble, page 1, fourth paragraph, strike out 
        ``giving due consideration to the security of the United States 
        and its Territories and insular possessions, the protection of 
        our commerce, and the necessity for cooperating with other 
        world powers in the maintenance of peace; and'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``in order to insure our national integrity, 
        support our national policies, guard the continental United 
        States and our overseas possessions, give protection to our 
        commerce and citizens abroad, and to cooperate with other world 
        powers in the maintenance of peace; and.''. . .

        Mr. [W. Sterling] Cole of New York: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if 
    we are going to consider the amendments to the preamble first?
        The Chairman: The amendments to the preamble are considered 
    after amendments to the body of the resolution. . . .
        The question is on the committee amendment.
        The committee amendment was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. Vinson: . . . Mr. Chairman, I ask for a vote on the 
    committee amendment to the preamble.
        The Chairman: The question is on the committee amendment to the 
    preamble.

        The amendment was agreed to.

    After the Committee rose:

        The Speaker: (5) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair 
    will put them en gross.
        The amendments were agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the adoption of the resolution. 
    [The resolution was adopted.]
        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment to the preamble.
        The amendment to the preamble was agreed to.

Sec. 19.12 Amendments to the preamble of a concurrent resolution are 
    disposed of following adoption of the concurrent resolution in the 
    House.

    On May 18, 1978, (6) following the adoption of House 
Concurrent

[[Page 7017]]

Resolution 624 (7) in the House, an amendment was offered to 
the preamble. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 124 Cong. Rec. 14391, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. Stating the sense of Congress promoting the Helsinki Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                         amendment to the preamble

        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment to the preamble of the concurrent resolution.
        The Clerk read the preamble of the concurrent resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) The Clerk will report 
    the amendment to the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment to the preamble: Strike out the paragraph on page 
        4, lines 3 through 8, and insert the following:
            Whereas Yuri Orlov, the leader and founding member of the 
        Moscow Group, was convicted this week in the Soviet Capital for 
        such activities and sentenced to seven years in prison camp and 
        five years in internal exile. . . .

        The amendment to the preamble was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

--Simple Resolution

Sec. 19.13 In the House, an amendment to the preamble of a simple 
    resolution is considered after the adoption of the resolution.

    On June 8, 1970,(9) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 116 Cong. Rec. 18656-71, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H. Res. 976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hugh L.] Carey [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, at what point 
    did the Speaker put the committee amendment which appears on page 1 
    to strike out the preamble?
        The Speaker: (10) That question will come after the 
    adoption of the resolution. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the resolution was agreed to. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) The Clerk will report 
    the committee amendment to the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: On page 1, strike out the preamble. . 
        . .

        So the committee amendment to the preamble was agreed to.

--Following Adoption of Committee Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 19.14 The preamble of a joint resolution may be amended in the 
    Committee of the Whole following the adoption of a committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute for the body of the joint 
    resolution.

[[Page 7018]]

    On Aug. 18, 1972, (12) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 118 Cong. Rec. 29126, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.J. Res. 1227.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (13) The question is on the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Dominick V. Daniels (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
    agreed to.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will read the preamble.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the committee amendment to 
    the preamble.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Strike out the preamble.

Motion To Strike Out Preamble

Sec. 19.15 A motion to strike all after the resolving clause of a 
    concurrent resolution does not affect the preamble thereof; and a 
    motion to strike out the preamble is properly offered in the House 
    after the resolution has been agreed to.

    On Feb. 21, 1966,(14) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 112 Cong. Rec. 3473, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was S. 
        Con. Res. 68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Arch A.] Moore [Jr., of West 
        Virginia]: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert 
        the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 552 as passed.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) Is the purpose of the 
    gentleman from West Virginia to strike out the preamble?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Moore: My amendment would strike out the language of the 
    Senate concurrent resolution and substitute in lieu thereof the 
    language of the concurrent resolution just passed by the House.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Would the amendment of the gentleman 
    from West Virginia strike out the preamble or all after the 
    enacting clause and substitute the language of the House concurrent 
    resolution just passed?
        Mr. Moore: It would strike out all after the enacting clause.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That would not eliminate the preamble.
        Mr. Moore: Then, Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the preamble.
        The Senate concurrent resolution was agreed to and a motion to 
    reconsider was laid on the table.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the amendment of 
    the gentleman from West Virginia.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Moore moves to strike out the preamble.

        The amendment was agreed to.

    Similarly, on Dec. 4, 1973,(16) the following 
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 119 Cong. Rec. 39337, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        S. Con. Res. 11.

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

[[Page 7019]]

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Dingell moves to strike out all after the resolving 
        clause of Senate Concurrent Resolution 11, and insert in lieu 
        thereof the language of House Concurrent Resolution 173, as 
        agreed to by the House.

        The motion was agreed to.
        [The Senate concurrent resolution as amended was agreed to.]

                       Motion offered by Mr. Dingell

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Dingell moves to strike out the preamble of Senate 
        Concurrent Resolution 11, and insert in lieu thereof the 
        language of the preamble of House Concurrent Resolution 173, as 
        agreed to by the House.

        The motion was agreed to.


 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
               D. WITHDRAWAL OR MODIFICATION OF AMENDMENT
 
Sec. 20. Withdrawal


    An ordinary or substitute amendment may be withdrawn in the House 
or in the ``House as in Committee of the Whole'' before a decision is 
rendered thereon,(17) but it may not be withdrawn or 
modified in Committee of the Whole except by unanimous 
consent.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Rule XVI clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 776 (101st 
        Cong.).
18. See Rule XIX, House Rules and Manual Sec. 822, 824 (101st Cong.).
            Rule XXIII clause 5 (a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 
        (101st Cong.) provides that, ``neither an amendment nor an 
        amendment to an amendment shall be withdrawn by the mover 
        thereof unless by the unanimous consent'' of the Committee of 
        the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon reintroduction of an amendment that has, by unanimous consent, 
been withdrawn in the Committee of the Whole, the Member is entitled to 
debate his amendment for a second five-minute period.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 28.50, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Unanimous Consent Requirement

Sec. 20.1 In the Committee of the Whole an amendment may not be 
    withdrawn except by unanimous consent.

    On Oct. 1, 1965,(1) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 111 Cong. Rec. 25794, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6519.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: 
        On page 2, line 2 . . . add the following proviso: . . .

[[Page 7020]]

        Mr. Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great interest 
    to the words of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Jones]. His 
    eloquence persuades me that I was in error in offering the 
    amendment. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Minnesota?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.  Charles L. Weltner (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert W.] Watson [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    object.

    The proceedings of July 28, 1970,(3) are a further 
illustration of the principle that an amendment pending in Committee of 
the Whole may be withdrawn by unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 26046, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 17654.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Lloyd] Meeds [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Arizona (Mr. Steiger) and amended by unanimous consent, be 
    withdrawn with the understanding that it will be offered later.
        Mr. [Leslie C.] Arends [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair would like to inform the 
    gentleman from Washington that he has the right to make the request 
    that the amendment be withdrawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Washington?

Sec. 20.2 A substitute amendment may be withdrawn in the Committee of 
    the Whole by unanimous consent.

    On Apr. 18, 1962,(5) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 108 Cong. Rec. 6913, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11289.
            See also 104 Cong. Rec. 11641-43, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., June 
        18, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: In view of the ruling 
    of the Chair, and as I understand it, the Chair ruled that my 
    substitute amendment would still be in order, I will be glad to 
    withdraw my amendment and will support the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Michigan.
        However, my impression is that we do not have the votes.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair will state that in his 
    opinion the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Stratton], would be in order only in the event that the Cederberg 
    amendment, which is now pending, is voted down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stratton: That was my understanding of the ruling, Mr. 
    Chairman, and with that assurance I ask unanimous consent that the 
    substitute amendment be withdrawn.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New York?
        There was no objection.

    The proceedings of June 18, 1958,(7) are a further 
illustration

[[Page 7021]]

of the principle that a substitute amendment once offered may not be 
withdrawn or modified except by unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 104 Cong. Rec. 11641-43, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 12858, making appropriations for civil functions 
        administered by the Department of the Army and certain agencies 
        of the Department of the Interior, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert] Hale [of Maine] as a 
        substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. [Clarence] Cannon 
        [of Missouri]: . . .

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment because it provides for items that are 
    not authorized by law.

    In response to inquiries by Mr. Hale as to how he should proceed, 
the Chairman (8) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman can ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
    substitute and offer an amendment.

    Mr. Hale subsequently made such request.

Sec. 20.3 Unanimous consent is required to withdraw an amendment 
    offered in Committee of the Whole.

    On Sept. 2, 1976,(9) during consideration of a bill 
(10) in the Committee of the Whole, objection was made to a 
unanimous-consent request to withdraw an amendment. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 122 Cong. Rec. 28939, 28941, 28942, 28957, 28958, 94th Cong. 2d 
        Sess.
10. H.R. 13636, extension of the Law Enforcement Assistance 
        Administration Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wiggins: On page 16, line 2, 
        strike ``(a)'' and on lines 10 through 24, and on page 17, 
        lines 1 through 5, strike the whole of section 108 (b) and (c). 
        . . .

        The Chairman: (11) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Wiggins). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Benjamin S. Rosenthal (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [T]he amendment was agreed to. . . .
        Mrs. [Millicent] Fenwick [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick: On page 16, line 16, 
        strike ``and'' following ``physical'' and on page 16, line 17, 
        strike out ``services'' and on page 17, line 3, following 
        ``physical'' strike out ``and services''. . . .

        Mr. [Charles E.] Wiggins [of California]: . . . [T]he 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey is offering to amend a section of the 
    bill which has been deleted by an earlier amendment.
        If, in fact, that is the amendment, it is rather late for me to 
    make a point of order with respect to it, but we are amending 
    something which is not in the bill to be amended.
        The Chairman: The Chair has examined the Wiggins amendment, 
    which struck out, on page 16, lines 10 to 24, down through line 5 
    on page 17.

[[Page 7022]]

    For that reason, in response to the gentleman's parliamentary 
    inquiry, the gentlewoman's amendment would have no effect.
        Mrs. Fenwick: Mr. Chairman, I should have included in my 
    amendment the restoration of the original phraseology, omitting 
    only those three or four words.
        The Chairman: Would the gentlewoman perhaps seek unanimous 
    consent to withdraw her amendment, and at her leisure and 
    prerogative redraft the amendment consistent with the situation the 
    bill is in as of now?
        Mrs. Fenwick: Mr. Chairman, I do so.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey? . . .
        Mr. [Robert] McClory [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
    from New Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick).

Sec. 20.4 Where a Member has been recognized by the Chair to offer an 
    amendment and the amendment has been reported by the Clerk, 
    unanimous consent is required to withdraw the amendment in 
    Committee of the Whole.

    On Mar. 16, 1978,(12) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 50,(13) this proposition was 
illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 7333-36, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: On page 106 add the 
        following new title:

                              ``Title V . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Before the Chair would entertain this 
    amendment, the Chair would like to know if there are other 
    amendments to title IV?
        Mr. [Clarence] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I wish to offer 
    an amendment. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: . . . [T]he amendment has been laid before the 
    House and unless it is withdrawn the gentleman from Maryland has a 
    right to press the amendment, does he not?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chairman would like to state to 
    the gentleman that the Chair should have inquired of the gentleman 
    from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) as to the nature of his amendment before 
    extending recognition. The Chair would hope the gentleman would 
    withhold his amendment at this time. . . . If the gentleman from 
    Maryland insists, the Chair will present his amendment.
        Mr. Bauman: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not insist and I withdraw my 
    amendment in deference to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long).
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Without objection the gentleman from 
    Maryland (Mr. Bauman) withdraws his amendment.

[[Page 7023]]

Sec. 20.5 Unanimous consent is not required to ``withdraw'' an 
    amendment which is at the Clerk's desk but which has not been 
    offered by the Member.

    On Sept. 30, 1971,(14) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 117 Cong. Rec. 34337, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 10351.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Floyd D.] Spence [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment which is at the desk 
    which is identical to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Kentucky (Mr. Perkins) and which was adopted.
        The Chairman: (15) It is not necessary to do that 
    since the amendment has not been offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unanimous-Consent Request Disposed of Before Point of Order Against 
    Amendment

Sec. 20.6 The Chair only rules on points of order when required to do 
    so, and will permit withdrawal of an amendment (by unanimous 
    consent in Committee of the Whole) prior to ruling on a point of 
    order.

    As demonstrated in the proceedings of June 7, 1983,(16) 
where a point of order is made or reserved against an amendment and a 
unanimous-consent request is then made for the withdrawal of the 
amendment, the Chair will first dispose of the unanimous consent 
request before ruling on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 129 Cong. Rec. 14656, 14657, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bob] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Edgar: On page 8, after line 2, 
        add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 104. Within funds available in the construction 
        general account, including but not limited to funds deferred, 
        the Corps of Engineers is directed to complete the navigation 
        and related features of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway at a 
        total additional Federal cost of $202,000,000. Section 206 of 
        the Inland Waterways Revenue Act of 1978 is amended by adding 
        at the end thereof the following: `(27) Tennessee-Tombigbee 
        Waterway: From the Pickwick Pool on the Tennessee River at RM 
        215 to Demopolis, Alabama, on the Tombigbee River at RM 215.4.' 
        ''.

        Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
    of order on this amendment.
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
    Bevill) reserves a point of order against the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ronnie G.] Flippo [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I also make 
    a point of order against the gentleman's amendment on the grounds 
    that it violates paragraph (b), clause 5, rule XXI of the rules of 
    the House.

[[Page 7024]]

        The Chairman: Would the gentleman suspend.
        Mr. Flippo: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman reserves a point of order. . . .
        Mr. Edgar: . . . I would like to ask unanimous consent to 
    withdraw my amendment at this time.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania?
        Mr. Flippo: Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object to the 
    unanimous-consent request.
        I wish to make a point of order against the amendment because 
    the amendment violates paragraph (b), clause 5, rule XXI of the 
    Rules of the House of Representatives.
        The Chairman: If the gentleman would suspend a moment, proper 
    procedure is for the gentleman to object to the unanimous-consent 
    request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, to withdraw his 
    amendment and then to make a point of order.
        Mr. Flippo: I do object to the unanimous-consent request.
        Mr. Edgar: Will the gentleman reserve the right to object?
        Mr. Flippo: I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Edgar: Before the gentleman makes his objection, the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania is attempting to remove the impediment 
    that the gentleman wants to call a point of order against, simply 
    because the gentleman has made the assurances.
        Mr. Flippo: Mr. Chairman, I do not object to the gentleman's 
    request and I withdraw my reservation of objection.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania to withdraw the amendment?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 20.7 Although a point of order is pending against a substitute for 
    an amendment, the Chairman of a Committee of the Whole may 
    entertain a unanimous-consent request to withdraw the substitute 
    and offer an amendment to the amendment.

    On June 18, 1958,(18) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 104 Cong. Rec. 11642, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 12858, making appropriations for civil functions 
        administered by the Department of the Army, certain agencies of 
        the Department of the Interior, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (19) . . . If the gentleman desires to 
    ask unanimous consent to withdraw the proposed substitute and offer 
    an amendment to the amendment, then the gentleman may proceed in 
    that order, if he so desires. A point of order is pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, can a unanimous-
    consent request be propounded while a point of order is pending 
    before the committee?
        The Chairman: The Chair would entertain such a unanimous-
    consent request.

Effect of Objection to Withdrawal

Sec. 20.8 Where objection is made to a unanimous-consent re

[[Page 7025]]

    quest that an amendment pending before the Committee of the Whole 
    be withdrawn, the Chairman puts the question on the amendment.

    On July 11, 1962,(20) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 108 Cong. Rec. 13149, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11921.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas M.] Pelly [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, in view of 
    the uncertainty as to the effect of my amendment, I ask unanimous 
    consent to withdraw the amendment.
        The Chairman: (1) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Washington?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: I would have to object to that, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Washington [Mr. Pelly].
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Gross), there were--ayes 32, noes 81.
        So the amendment was rejected.

Withdrawal of Substitute--Effect on Amendment to Substitute

Sec. 20.9 Where a substitute amendment is withdrawn by unanimous 
    consent, an amendment to the substitute is also withdrawn.

    On Mar. 17, 1975,(2) amendments were offered during 
consideration of H.R. 25, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 
Act of 1975, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 121 Cong. Rec. 6797-99, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Mark] Andrews of North Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Andrews of North Dakota: Page 194, 
        line 15, after the word ``less'' on line 15, strike out the 
        period and insert a comma and add the following words: ``except 
        that this reclamation fee for lignite coal shall be at a rate 
        of 5 percentum of the value of the coal at the mine, or 35 
        cents, whichever is less.'' . . .

        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Andrews).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Seiberling as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Andrews of North Dakota: page 194, 
        line 9, adopt the sentence starting on line 9, but change 
        ``35'' to ``50''. . . .

        Mr. [Philip E.] Ruppe [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the substitute amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ruppe to the substitute amendment 
        offered by Mr. Seiberling: On page 194, line 11, amend the 
        substitute by striking ``50'' and inserting the word ``ten.'' . 
        . .

        Mr. Seiberling: . . . Mr. Chairman, the Chair informs me that 
    the manner

[[Page 7026]]

    in which my amendment was offered would, in effect, wipe out Mr. 
    Andrews' amendment, and that was not my intention.
        I am perfectly willing to debate the issues of what the fee 
    should be with the gentleman from Michigan by offering a separate 
    amendment.
        Therefore, I would ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
    substitute amendment.
        The Chairman: (3) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The substitute of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Seiberling) is withdrawn, and the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ruppe) to the substitute is therefore 
    withdrawn.

Reoffering Substitute After Withdrawal

Sec. 20.10 The withdrawal of a substitute by unanimous consent does not 
    preclude its being reoffered at the same stage of the proceedings, 
    and unanimous consent is not required to reoffer the substitute if 
    otherwise in order.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on Dec. 18, 
1979,(4) during consideration of H.R. 5860 (authorizing loan 
guarantees to the Chrysler Corporation). The proceedings in the 
Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 125 Cong. Rec. 36794, 36801, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brademas to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: 
        Strike line 7, page 5, through line 7, page 9, (section 4(a)(4) 
        through section 4(d)) and replace with the following. . . .

        Mr. [Dan] Quayle [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Peyser: Mr. Chairman, in the procedure we are now, with the 
    gentleman in the well, that gentleman had offered his amendment and 
    then asked unanimous consent to withdraw his amendment. That 
    request was granted. Within the same section can the gentleman 
    again offer the same amendment without unanimous consent to 
    reintroduce that amendment?
        The Chairman: The amendment may be offered.
        The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Quayle as a substitute for the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Moorhead 
        of Pennsylvania.

[[Page 7027]]

Amendment to Senate Bill in House

Sec. 20.11 A Senate bill was called up by unanimous consent in the 
    House with an amendment by the House Committee on Public Works but, 
    by unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.

    On Oct. 2, 1964,(6) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 110 Cong. Rec. 23698, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        S. 2968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Fallon [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (S. 
    2968) to amend subsection 120(f) of title 23, United States Code; 
    and I also ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment 
    thereto be withdrawn. . . .
        The Speaker: (7) Without objection, the committee 
    amendment is withdrawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

House as in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 20.12 An amendment may be withdrawn at any time before action has 
    been had thereon during the consideration of a bill ``in the House 
    as in Committee of the Whole.''

    On Feb. 11, 1937,(8) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 1175, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was S. 
        1439, to provide for loans made necessary by floods or other 
        catastrophes in the year 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) Without objection, the 
    amendment will be withdrawn. [After a pause.] The Chair hears no 
    objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Edith Nourse] Rogers of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I 
    reserve the right to object. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: With all due deference to the lady, 
    the Chair thinks her objection comes too late. . . . In further 
    answer, we are in the House as in Committee of the Whole, and it 
    would be in order for the gentleman to withdraw his amendment in 
    any event as a matter of right.



 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
               D. WITHDRAWAL OR MODIFICATION OF AMENDMENT
 
Sec. 21. Modification of Amendment by Proponent or Others

    A Member may not offer an amendment to his own amendment to a 
bill.(10) Accordingly, in the Committee of the Whole or in 
the House, an amendment once offered may not be modified by its 
proponent except by unanimous consent.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 18.22, supra.
11. See Sec. 21.1, infra. See also the proceedings at 118 Cong. Rec. 
        2180-82, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 2, 1972, relating to H.R. 
        7987; and at 118 Cong. Rec. 29582, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 6, 
        1972, relating to H.R. 13514.

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

[[Page 7028]]

                          -------------------Unanimous Consent 
    Requirement

Sec. 21.1 The proponent of an amendment may amend his own amendment 
    only by unanimous consent.

    On July 19, 1967,(12) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 19416, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 421.
            See also 90 Cong. Rec. 1188, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 3, 
        1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edwin E.] Willis [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words.

        Mr. Chairman, let me read again the principal amendment of the 
    gentleman from California:

            Nothing in this section shall circumscribe or hinder the 
        objectives of organized labor in a bona fide labor dispute in 
        urging strikes.

        It seems to me that there could be some criticism of the word 
    ``objectives.'' We have the term ``bona fide'' before the words 
    ``labor dispute,'' which modifies those words, but if there is no 
    adjective before ``objectives,'' there may be a problem. I wonder 
    if my friend, the gentleman from California, would accede to an 
    amendment, to add before the word ``objectives'' the word 
    ``legitimate''? . . .
        Mr. [Chet] Holifield [of California]: Yes. I accept the 
    amendment of the gentleman to my amendment. I ask unanimous consent 
    that that be done, that the amendment be amended by adding the word 
    ``legitimate'' before the word ``objectives.''. . .
        The Chairman: (13) . . . The Chair will state, we 
    have an amendment moved by Mr. Holifield, and an amendment has been 
    made by Mr. Holifield to amend his own amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Joseph L. Evins (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fletcher] Thompson of Georgia: Is it in order to offer an 
    amendment to the original amendment when we already have an 
    amendment to the amendment under consideration?
        The Chairman: By unanimous consent it may be 
    considered.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Compare 116 Cong. Rec. 19753, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., June 15, 1970 
        [proceedings relating to H.R. 15361], where a Member proposing 
        an amendment later offered an amendment to that amendment--and, 
        since no objection was raised, the Chair put the question on 
        the latter amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 21.2 The text of an amendment may not be changed by the mover in 
    the Committee of the Whole unless by unanimous consent of the 
    Committee.

    On Feb. 8, 1941, (15) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 87 Cong. Rec. 793, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 1776, to promote the defense of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Vorys of Ohio: I understood, Mr. Chairman, that 
    in the

[[Page 7029]]

    Committee of the Whole the author of an amendment does not have to 
    secure unanimous consent to change the text of an amendment.
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman is incorrect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Substitute Offered for Amendment

Sec. 21.3 A Member may not offer a substitute for his own amendment to 
    a bill.

    On June 13, 1947, (17) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 93 Cong. Rec. 6989, 6990, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 3342, relating to a cultural relations program under 
        the State Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: I ask unanimous 
    consent, Mr. Chairman, to modify my amendment.

    Objection was made, whereupon the following exchange took place:

        Mr. Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute amendment.
        The Chairman: (18) The gentleman cannot do that at 
    this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas A. Jenkins (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offering Amendment to Substitute for Own Amendment

Sec. 21.4 Where there is pending an amendment and a substitute 
    therefor, the Member who offered the original amendment may also 
    offer an amendment to the substitute, as he is not thereby 
    attempting to amend his own amendment.

    On May 22, 1974, (19) during consideration of H.R. 14592 
(military procurement authorization, fiscal 1975), the Chair responded 
to a parliamentary inquiry as set out below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 120 Cong. Rec. 16112, 16149, 16151, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Leggett: On page 10, line 3, 
        delete ``$1,400,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$900,000,000.''. . .

        Mr. [F. Edward] Hebert [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute amendment for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Substitute amendment offered by Mr. Hebert for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Leggett: On page 10, lines 3 and 4, 
        delete ``$1,400,000,000'' and substitute ``$1,126,000,000''.

        Mr. Leggett: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
    substitute amendment for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Leggett to the substitute 
        amendment offered by Mr. Hebert for the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Leggett: On page 10, strike on line 3 ``$1,126,000,000'' 
        and substitute ``$1,000,000''.

        Mr. Hebert: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. . . .

[[Page 7030]]

        The gentleman from California has one amendment pending, and I 
    offered a substitute. In a parliamentary procedure, can he offer 
    another amendment to a substitute for his own amendment for 
    consideration?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (20) The Chair will state 
    the gentleman from Louisiana offered a substitute amendment for the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from California. The gentleman 
    from California in turn is now offering an amendment to the 
    substitute amendment, which would be in order. The gentleman from 
    California is not attempting to amend his own amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

En Bloc Amendments

Sec. 21.5 Where a Member has, by unanimous consent, been permitted to 
    offer several amendments en bloc, and then desires to modify one of 
    the amendments, the Clerk may rereport a portion of the amendment 
    the Member seeks to modify.

    On Sept. 6, 1972, (1) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 118 Cong. Rec. 29582, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 13514.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Leonor K.] Sullivan [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    the remaining amendments at the desk and I ask unanimous consent 
    that they be considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: (2) The Clerk will report the 
    amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request . . . that the 
    amendments be considered en bloc?
        There was no objection.
        Mrs. Sullivan: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        Must I again ask unanimous consent to change the name Consumers 
    Union to the name Consumers Federation of America?
        The Chairman: The Chair had understood that the gentlewoman had 
    made the change before she submitted the amendment. Has the 
    gentlewoman made the change in her amendment?
        Mrs. Sullivan: I did make the request. I do not know if I did 
    it at the proper time.
        The Chairman: Will the gentlewoman send it to the desk?
        The Clerk will report the portion of the amendment that the 
    gentlewoman is asking unanimous consent to change.

Point of Order Pending Against Amendment

Sec. 21.6 Pending a decision by the Chairman on a point of order raised 
    against an amendment in the Committee of the Whole, the Member 
    proposing the amendment secured unanimous consent that it be 
    modified to delete certain language.

    On Oct. 10, 1963,(3) the following proceedings took 
place

[[Page 7031]]

with regard to a proposed limitation on the use of funds by the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 109 Cong. Rec. 19258-60, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 8747.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment. . . .
        . . . [H]ere is the thing that puzzles me. If the gentleman 
    will read with me the language found in his amendment beginning on 
    the fourth line from the bottom:

            Except pursuant to an agreement hereafter made by the 
        President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate as 
        provided by section 205 of the National Aeronautics and Space 
        Act of 1958.

        That language puts this Subcommittee on Appropriations right 
    into the middle of foreign affairs--and it is not in our field. It 
    puts an extra duty on us. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair would like to ask the 
    gentleman from Washington a question. What is the reason for the 
    inclusion of language at the end of the amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The problem the Chair is considering is why there is any need 
    to include the language at the end of the amendment unless in some 
    way it changes existing law?
        Mr. [Thomas M.] Pelly [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    say that it does not change existing law but simply follows it. 
    But, in order to clarify this matter I ask unanimous consent to 
    strike from the amendment the words from ``except pursuant to an 
    agreement'' to the end.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Washington?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the modified amendment.

Unanimous-Consent Request Following Demand for Recorded Vote

Sec. 21.7 Pending a request for a recorded vote following a voice vote 
    on an amendment the Committee of the Whole, by unanimous consent, 
    vacated the Chair's putting of the question on the amendment to 
    permit a modification or amendment thereof, and further debate 
    thereon.

    On Jan. 29, 1980,(5) during consideration of H.R. 4788 
(6) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 126 Cong. Rec. 958-60, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. The Water Resources Development Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (7) When the Committee of the Whole 
    rose on Monday, January 28, 1980, title I was open to amendment at 
    any point, and pending was a demand for a recorded vote made by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Edgar) on an amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Edgar) insist on his 
    demand for a recorded vote?

[[Page 7032]]

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the Chair's putting of the question on the 
    Michel amendment be vacated.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Illinois? . . .
        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Further reserving the 
    right to object, the gentleman will, after this action is taken, if 
    no one objects, then ask unanimous consent to substitute language 
    for the language in the amendment; is that not correct?
        Mr. Michel: That is correct. . . .
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) to vacate the proceedings by 
    which the Chair put the question on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel)?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    amendment be modified.
        The Clerk will report the modification to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            On page 71, immediately after line 7, insert the following 
        and redesignate the succeeding sections accordingly. . . .

        Mr. [Willaim H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, is the 
    parliamentary situation such, if there is no further objection to 
    the unanimous-consent request, we then get an opportunity to 
    discuss the amendment further, or do we just vote on it?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. The gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Michel) would be recognized for 5 minutes in support 
    of his modified amendment.
        Mr. Harsha: I thank the Chairman.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
    request of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel)?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) is 
    recognized for 5 minutes in support of his modified amendment.

Unanimous-Consent Request To Modify Reduced to Writing

Sec. 21.8 The Chair may insist that a unanimous-consent request to 
    modify a pending amendment be reduced to writing to indicate the 
    complete text of the amendment as proposed to be modified.

    On Dec. 18, 1979,(8) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 5860,(9) a modification of a 
pending amendment was proposed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 125 Cong. Rec. 36824, 36825, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. Authorizing loan guarantees to the Chrysler Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bethune to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania:

[[Page 7033]]

            Page 22, line 21, insert after ``outstanding.'' the 
        following new sentence: ``The final report for 1981 shall 
        include an evaluation of the long-term economic implications of 
        the Chrysler loan guarantee program, with findings, conclusions 
        and recommendations for legislative and administrative actions 
        considered appropriate to future Federal loan guarantee 
        programs.''.

        Mr. [Joseph L.] Fisher [of Virginia]: . . . Mr. Chairman, this 
    is along the line of the amendment that I had printed in the Record 
    and was going to offer. I want to inquire of the gentleman who has 
    just presented this amendment if he would accept an addition to his 
    amendment to incorporate some of the features of the amendment that 
    I was going to propose. . . .
        Mr. Bethune: I am familiar with the gentleman's amendment, 
    having read it in the Record. I think the gentleman has some 
    excellent points in his amendment. I would certainly be amenable to 
    the gentleman's suggestion.
        The Chairman: (10) A modification should be 
    submitted in writing and can be adopted by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fisher: Mr. Chairman, the amendment appears in writing. It 
    would be the part beginning with the sentence just prior to the 
    numbered items:

            The study shall consider for inclusion in guidelines 
        relating to aid of this kind the following factors:

        The factors are there listed.
        Mr. Chairman, I gather the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Bethune) would accept that.
        Mr. Bethune: Mr. Chairman, I would accept that.
        The Chairman: The Chair will have to ask that the amendment be 
    reduced to writing as modified. That is the only way in which it 
    can be considered without the possibility of error.
        Mr. Fisher: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is at the desk.
        The Chairman: The Chair feels that the committee should have 
    before it an amendment that includes the modification.
        Mr. Fisher: May I ask unanimous consent that the portion I just 
    read be included in this amendment with the consent of the maker of 
    it?
        The Chairman: Would the gentleman repeat that portion so that 
    we can see if we can accommodate the gentleman?
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Arkansas (Mr. Bethune).
        The amendment was agreed to.

Unanimous-Consent Request To Modify Pending a Request To Dispense With 
    Reading

Sec. 21.9 A unanimous-consent request to modify an amendment is not in 
    order pending a unanimous-consent request to dispense with the 
    reading of the amendment.

    On Oct. 27, 1977,(11) during consideration of H.R. 9346, 
the Social

[[Page 7034]]

Security Financing Amendments of 1977, the proceedings described above 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 35389, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Ketchum [of California] (during the reading): 
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
    considered as read and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: (12) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from California? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Now, if it were in order, I would 
    like to ask unanimous consent that that tax increase in 1982 be 
    included as part of his amendment to adjust for the discrepancy 
    that has been created by the addition of the Fisher amendment.

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that such a request would 
    not be in order at this time.

Amendment Offered by Another After Objection

Sec. 21.10 In the event of objection to a unanimous-consent request to 
    modify a pending amendment, any Member (other than the proponent of 
    the amendment) may offer a proper amendment in writing thereto.

    On Apr. 9, 1979,(13) an amendment was offered, as 
follows, during consideration of H.R. 3324, the International 
Development Cooperation Act of 1979:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 7755, 7756, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: On page 23, line 10, 
        strike all of Section 303(a) and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following new Section 303:
            ``Sec. 303. (a) Section 533 of the Foreign Assistance Act 
        of 1961 is amended to read as follows:
            `` `Sec. 533--Southern Africa Program
            `` `(a) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated to 
        carry out this chapter for the fiscal year 1980, $68,000,000 
        shall be available (only) for the countries of southern Africa. 
        . . .
            `` `Such funds may be used to provide humanitarian 
        assistance to African refugees and persons displaced by war and 
        internal strife in southern Africa, to improve transportation 
        links interrupted or jeopardized by regional political 
        conflicts and to provide support to countries in that region. . 
        . .
            `` `(c) Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated to 
        carry out the purposes of this section, $20,000,000 shall be 
        made available to the government of Zimbabwe/Rhodesia which is 
        installed in that nation as a result of the election held in 
        April 1979, which election may be evaluated and reported upon 
        by observers as provided for in this section.' ''

    Subsequently, after some discussion of the merits of a proposal to 
change ``shall'' to ``may'' in the last paragraph, a unanimous-consent 
request was made: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at 7761.

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

[[Page 7035]]

    Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, just to bring this 
to a head, I ask unanimous consent that the word ``shall'' which 
appears in two places in the last paragraph of the amendment be changed 
to ``may.''

        The Chairman: (15) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Illinois?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        The gentleman will have to submit an amendment in writing if 
    the Chair is to consider it.

Modification of Amendment Considered as Amendment in Third Degree

Sec. 21.11 Where there is pending an amendment and an amendment 
    thereto, a modification of the latter amendment is in order only by 
    unanimous consent and further amendment would be in the third 
    degree; but a substitute for the original amendment remains in 
    order.

    On June 25, 1975,(16) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 8069,(17) the proceedings, 
described above, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 20855, 20863, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare 
        appropriations, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (18) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For expenses of the Community Services Administration, 
        $399,185,000.
            For ``Community services program'' for the period July 1, 
        1976, through September 30, 1976, $99,800,000.

        Mr. [Augustus F.] Hawkins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer amendments, and I ask unanimous consent that they be 
    considered en bloc.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Hawkins: On Page 44, line 18, 
        strike ``$399,185,000'' and insert in lieu thereof, 
        ``$434,185,000'', and on line 20, strike ``$99,800,000'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof, ``$108,600,000''.

        Mrs. [Yvonne B.] Burke [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendments offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Hawkins).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Burke of California to the 
        amendments offered by Mr. Hawkins: On Page 44, line 18, strike 
        ``$399,185,000'' and insert in lieu thereof: ``$439,385,000''. 
        . . .

        Mrs. Burke of California: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
    in order to clarify the Record that the amendment be corrected so 
    it will include these figures to be inserted:

            On page 44, line 18, insert: ``$474,385,000'' and on page 
        44, line 20, insert ``$144,975,000''.

[[Page 7036]]

        The Chairman: If there is no objection, the Clerk will report 
    the figures.
        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I am 
    constrained to object, if it will save time.
        The Chairman: The gentlewoman has asked unanimous consent to 
    change the amendment to the amendment, and objection is heard.
        Therefore the amendment as originally offered by the 
    gentlewoman from California will have to be considered as the 
    amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California.
        Mr. [John] Buchanan [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry. Would it be in order for an amendment now to be offered if 
    it is not offered by unanimous consent?
        The Chairman: It would depend on the form in which the 
    amendment would come. If it is a substitute for the original 
    amendment, it would be in order, the Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Alabama. However, an amendment to the amendment to 
    the amendment would not be in order, it being in the third degree.

Modification of Amendment Offered Pursuant to Special Rule or Printed 
    in Record

Sec. 21.12 While a special rule adopted by the House controlling the 
    consideration of a bill may not be directly amended in the 
    Committee of the Whole even by unanimous consent, the Committee 
    may, by unanimous consent, permit the modification of an amendment, 
    when offered, made in order by that special rule.

    On Aug. 2, 1977,(19) during consideration of H.R. 8444 
(the National Energy Act), there was pending in the Committee of the 
Whole a committee amendment under a special rule permitting a 
designated amendment to be offered only to such committee amendment, 
rather than separately to the bill. The Chair,(20) during 
these proceedings, entertained a unanimous-consent request to modify 
the designated amendment, which had been made in order by the rule and 
offered by Mr. William D. Ford, of Michigan. The modified amendment, 
while retaining its status as an amendment to the committee amendment 
consistent with the rule adopted by the House, changed the substantive 
text of the amendment by limiting its application to the committee 
amendment to which offered rather than, as originally printed in the 
Record, to the entire title of the bill. The Ford amendment read as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 26163, 26166, 26167, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Frank E. Evans (Colo.), Chairman pro tempore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Ford of Michigan to the ad hoc 
    committee

[[Page 7037]]

    amendment: At the end of the committee amendment on page 180, 
    insert the following new section:
        ``Sec. 5. Application of Davis-Bacon Act.
        ``The Federal employee or officer primarily responsible for 
    administering any program established under any provision of, or 
    amendment made by, title I of this Act which provides for Federal 
    funding shall take such steps as are necessary to insure by 
    contractors or subcontractors in the performance of work on any 
    construction utilizing such funds will be paid at rates not less 
    than those prevailing on similar construction in the locality, as 
    determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Act of 
    March 3, 1931 (40 U.S.C. 276a-276a-5, known as the Davis-Bacon 
    Act); and the Secretary of Labor shall have with respect to the 
    labor standards specified in this section the authority and 
    functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950. . . 
    .

    At this point, Mr. Richard L. Ottinger, of New York, raised a 
parliamentary inquiry as follows:

        Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order to ask 
    unanimous consent that the Ford amendment be considered separately. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman from New York that the Ford amendment is in order only 
    under the rule and the rule cannot be changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ottinger: And it cannot be changed by unanimous consent?
        The Chairman: The Committee of the Whole cannot directly change 
    House Resolution 727, the special rule adopted by the House, even 
    by unanimous consent.

    Subsequently, after some discussion of the scope of the Ford 
amendment, Mr. Ford asked unanimous consent that it be modified:

        Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
    assist me . . . I would be very happy to ask unanimous consent to 
    add, before the words, ``title I,'' on line 17, the words, ``part 
    III of.''. . .
        Mr. [Garry] Brown of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, it is my 
    understanding that the Chair has ruled that even by unanimous 
    consent the gentleman could not amend his amendment. All I am 
    trying to do in this colloquy is establish the legislative 
    understanding.
        Mr. Ford of Michigan: I do not understand that there would be a 
    ruling that by unanimous consent I cannot modify my amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the Chair 
    merely stated that the rule cannot be amended by unanimous consent. 
    The Chair did not state that the amendment could not be amended by 
    unanimous consent.

    Mr. Ford then modified his amendment by unanimous consent, 
whereupon the amendment was agreed to, and the ad hoc committee 
amendment, as so amended, was agreed to. A parliamentary inquiry was 
raised, as follows:

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, earlier 
    today

[[Page 7038]]

    when the gentleman from Massachusetts occupied the chair, a 
    question was put to the Chair whether or not by unanimous consent 
    amendments could be offered to the bill.
        The resolution under which this bill is being considered says 
    on page 2:

            No amendment to the bill shall be in order except pro forma 
        amendments for the purpose of debate and except the following 
        amendments, which shall be in order without the intervention of 
        any point of order, which shall not be subject to amendment 
        except for amendments recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee on 
        Energy. . . .

        Now, subsequent to the Chair's ruling, with the gentleman from 
    Colorado in the chair, in response to a question when the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Ford) offered a unanimous-consent request, said 
    that the unanimous-consent request would be in order.

        My question to the Chair is, what is the ruling on unanimous-
    consent amendments to this bill or to the bill henceforth?
        The Chairman: The Chair will respond by indicating that the 
    Chair at the time understood the unanimous-consent request by the 
    gentleman from New York was to change the rule adopted by the 
    House.
        The Chair would agree that by unanimous consent modification of 
    a pending amendment is permissible in Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, so any pending amendment can be 
    modified by unanimous consent?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

    Parliamentarian's Note: See also the proceedings of Sept. 1, 
1976,(2) relating to H.R. 14238, legislative branch 
appropriations for fiscal 1977, which was considered under a ``modified 
closed'' rule (H. Res. 1507) allowing only designated amendments to be 
offered and prohibiting amendments to said amendments. An amendment 
that had been made in order under the rule and offered by Mr. George E. 
Shipley, of Illinois, was modified pursuant to a unanimous-consent 
request by Mr. Morris K. Udall, of Arizona.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 122 Cong. Rec. 28877, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 21.13 Where a special order providing for the consideration of a 
    bill permits the offering only of designated amendments which have 
    been printed in the Congressional Record, an amendment offered 
    under the rule should be in the exact form in which it was printed 
    in the Record, but the Committee of the Whole may by unanimous 
    consent permit modification of the amendment to correct erroneous 
    page and line numbers.

    On Aug. 3, 1977,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 7039]]

ering H.R. 8444, the National Energy Act, under a special order which 
permitted the offering only of certain amendments. The proceedings 
described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 123 Cong. Rec. 26450, 26451, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
            Compare the proceedings of Apr. 1, 1976, at 122 Cong. Rec. 
        9091, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., where the Chairman stated that it 
        was permissible to insert a page reference in an amendment 
        printed in the Record, where the printed amendment did not 
        contain one, the amendment being considered in substantial 
        compliance with the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I further 
    direct a question to the gentleman from Ohio; this is the amendment 
    published in the Record on July 27, 1977; am I correct?
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: But for the page and line 
    numbers; that is correct.
        Mr. Dingell: That is the reason for my inquiry, because I 
    observe that the page and line numbers cited therein were 
    incorrect. The reason I am inquiring is to make sure it is the 
    correct amendment.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, at the 
    time it was published in the Record we were using page and line 
    numbers of the bill then available to us. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, if I heard the Clerk correctly, I think the Clerk 
    read the proper page and line numbers. The amendment at the desk 
    relates to the page and line numbers as they would be related in 
    the bill. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I make the observation that the rule 
    does provide that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) shall have 
    the authority to offer the amendment now referred to according to 
    the terms and the conditions of the rule. The rule says as follows:

            (3) An amendment printed in the Congressional Record of 
        July 27, 1977, beginning on page H7996, by Representative Brown 
        of Ohio, to part IV, title I, which amendment shall be in order 
        only after disposition of the amendments to that part 
        recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee on Energy printed in or 
        adopted to the bill;

        Mr. Chairman, I observe that the amendment printed in the 
    Record is to one portion of the bill, but I observe that the 
    amendment offered is offered to a different portion of the 
    legislation before us.
        Mr. Chairman, I am curious to know whether or not the amendment 
    is offered in conformity with the rule.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: . . . The question of the slight differences 
    in page numbers and so forth which were necessitated because of the 
    fact that the printed bill in its final form was not available for 
    the gentleman from Ohio to make reference to when he printed his 
    amendment in the Record. Because of that circumstance we cleared 
    with the Parliamentarian, or so we thought, the appropriateness of 
    the amendment which was submitted to the desk in accordance with 
    the rule. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) the Chair finds that there is a 
    difference in the page and line numbers that are now before the 
    committee, and if the gentleman from Michigan insists upon his 
    request, the gentleman from Ohio will have to ask unanimous consent 
    that his amendment be modified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Does the gentleman from Michigan insist upon his request?

[[Page 7040]]

        Mr. Dingell: I think, Mr. Chairman, we would be better served 
    were that done. It will not prejudice my friend from Ohio.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to modification of the 
    amendment?
        Mr. [Clifford R.] Allen [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I make the same unanimous-consent 
    request.
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman that 
    the amendment will be in order regardless of the page and line 
    numbers since an amendment to part IV of title I is permitted in 
    the rule.
        Mr. Dingell: Perhaps I can obviate some of the problems. . . . 
    I am sure my good friend from Ohio . . . would assure us that the 
    two amendments are substantively identical.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: They are.
        [After some further discussion, the Chair again put the 
    unanimous-consent request to modify the amendment, and there was no 
    objection.]
        The Chairman: The amendment is now modified. The Clerk will 
    continue to read the amendment.

Sec. 21.14 Unanimous consent was obtained in the House to modify an 
    amendment printed in the Congressional Record and made in order for 
    consideration in the Committee of the Whole by a special order of 
    business.

    On Sept. 4, 1985,(5) Mr. James J. Howard, of New Jersey, 
sought and obtained unanimous consent in the circumstance described 
above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 131 Cong. Rec. 22837, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James J.] Howard [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the committee amendment at the desk which 
    was printed in the Congressional Record on July 11, 1985, and which 
    the rule, House Resolution 223, passed by the House on July 24 
    makes in order during the consideration of H.R. 10, be modified to 
    conform to funding ceilings represented by Senate Concurrent 
    Resolution 32, passed by the Congress August 1, 1985, setting forth 
    the congressional budget for the United States.

Sec. 21.15 Where there was pending an amendment to a title of a bill 
    being considered under a special rule permitting only germane 
    amendments printed in the Record for at least two calendar days to 
    be offered to that title, and prohibiting amendments thereto, a 
    modification of an amendment printed in the Record was permitted in 
    Committee of the Whole by unanimous consent.

    On Mar. 26, 1974,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill,(7) an amendment

[[Page 7041]]

was modified by unanimous consent, as described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 120 Cong. Rec. 8253, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. H.R. 69, to amend and extend the Elementary and Secondary Education 
        Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Patsy T.] Mink [of Hawaii]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee substitute.
        The Chairman: (8) Is the amendment printed in the 
    Record?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. Mink: It is, Mr. Chairman.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Mink to the committee substitute: 
        The first sentence of Section 103(a)(1), beginning on line 13 
        on page 28, is amended to read as follows: ``Sec. 103(a)(1) 
        There is authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year for 
        the purpose of this paragraph 1 per centum of the amount 
        appropriated for such year for payments to States under section 
        134(a). . . .

        Mr. [Lloyd] Meeds [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that at the end of the amendment . . . the 
    following words be added: ``and to the Secretary of the Interior 
    for payments pursuant to (d)(1) and (d)(2).''. . .
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Washington?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 21.16 Where a special rule precludes the offering of amendments 
    not printed in the Congressional Record by a previous date, 
    amendments may only be offered in the form as printed and may be 
    modified only by unanimous consent.

    On Oct. 1, 1985, the Committee of the Whole had under consideration 
H.R. 2100, the Food Security Act of 1985. The bill was being considered 
pursuant to a special rule, adopted on Sept. 20, 1985, which stated in 
part as follows: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See H. Res. 267, 131 Cong. Rec. 24521, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
        resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
        XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
        Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 
        the bill (H.R. 2100) to extend and revise agricultural price 
        support and related programs. . . . After general debate, which 
        shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed 
        two and one-half hours, two hours to be equally divided and 
        controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
        Committee on Agriculture, and thirty minutes to be equally 
        divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
        member of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, the 
        bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
        rule. It shall be in order to consider the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
        Agriculture now printed in the bill, as modified by the 
        amendments recommended by the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
        Fisheries now printed in the bill, as an original bill for the 
        purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule, said 
        substitute shall be considered for amendment by titles instead 
        of by sections, and each title shall be considered as having 
        been read. . . . No amendment to the bill or to the substitute 
        made in order by this resolution shall be in order except 
        amendments printed in

[[Page 7042]]

        the Congressional Record on or before September 24, 1985, and 
        except an amendment offered by the chairman of the Committee on 
        Agriculture or his designee to strike out section 1141 of the 
        substitute, as incorporated into the substitute by this 
        resolution, and to insert the text of section 1141 of the 
        substitute as reported by the Committee on Agriculture.

    During consideration of the bill, an amendment was offered by Mr. 
Dan Glickman, of Kansas, against which a point of order was made as 
indicated below: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 131 Cong. Rec. 25418-20, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) When the Committee of the Whole 
    rose on Thursday, September 26, title IV was open to amendment at 
    any point to amendments printed in the Congressional Record before 
    September 24, 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there amendments to title IV? . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Glickman: Title IV of H.R. 2100 is 
        amended by--
            On page 65, after line 8, striking all through ``shall'' on 
        line 11 and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``(2) If 
        the Secretary determines that the availability of nonrecourse 
        loans and purchases will not have an adverse effect on the 
        program provided for in paragraph (3), the Secretary may''; . . 
        .

        Title V of H.R. 2100 is amended by--
        On page 87, after line 15, striking all through ``shall'' on 
    line 18 and inserting in lieu thereof the following: . . .
        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I believe 
    a point of order would lie against the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Glickman) because the amendment, if I 
    understand the amendment that is being offered, goes to more than 
    one title of the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Dan] Glickman [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    amends two titles of the bill. To be frank with the Chair, it was 
    submitted as one amendment, but the intention of the author of this 
    amendment as well as the other authors was to deal with the issues 
    as they affected title IV and then title V. I put it in one title 
    of the bill, but, to be honest with the Chair, the issues are 
    divisible, they are separate. I could have amended it and put it in 
    two separate amendments. I did not because that is not the way the 
    issue came up in the Committee on Agriculture. . . .
        Mr. Robert F. Smith [of Oregon]: . . . Mr. Chairman, (the rule) 
    provides that consideration can only be by title, not by section. I 
    think the point remains that there is no question that this 
    amendment does affect two titles. . . .
        Mr. [Arlan] Stangeland [of Minnesota]: . . . I just want to 
    make the point that the amendment was printed in two distinctly 
    separate sections. One portion of the amendment dealt with wheat 
    and target prices and marketing loans. The second section of the 
    amendment deals with title V, the feed grain section. Two 
    distinctly different amendments but introduced in the Record as, 
    unfortunately, one amendment. . . . I would just appeal to the 
    Chair that the intent of the authors was that because they were 
    handled en bloc in committee, we would run that way, but they are 
    divisible, they can be

[[Page 7043]]

    addressed to title IV and title V very distinctly in the amendment. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair would state that the Chair can only look at the form 
    in which the amendment has been submitted for printing in the 
    Record. According to the rule, the substitute shall be considered 
    for amendment by title instead of by sections, and only amendments 
    to the bill which have been printed in the Record by September 24 
    may be offered.
        Therefore, the only way in which the amendment that the 
    gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Glickman) wishes to offer could be 
    considered is by unanimous consent.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 21.17 Amendments in the Committee of the Whole may be modified by 
    unanimous consent while they are pending to reflect the version of 
    the bill being considered but cannot initially be offered except in 
    the form required by the special rule.

    On Oct. 3, 1985,(12) Where a bill was being considered 
under a rule requiring prior printing of amendments in the 
Congressional Record, an amendment printed with specific page and line 
numbers was offered in that form, even though that form did not conform 
to the version of the bill under consideration. The proceedings in the 
Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 131 Cong. Rec. 26021, 26022, 99th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 2100, the Food Security Act of 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Beryl F.] Anthony [Jr., of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is the amendment printed in the 
    Record?
        Mr. Anthony: It is printed in the Record, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        Mr. Anthony: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    amendment be modified to read ``Page 323, strike lines 6 through 
    10.''
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Arkansas?
        Mr. [William W.] Franklin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, 
    reserving the right to object, is this the amendment that was 
    originally offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Rostenkowski]?
        Mr. Anthony: Yes, it is.
        Mr. Franklin: I would like to ask, under the reservation, if I 
    could, if the amendment that is presently at the desk is in the 
    same form as the one printed in the Record.
        Mr. Anthony: It is the identical amendment. All it does is 
    correct the pages, inasmuch as when the amendment was filed, it was 
    according to the bill that was reported out of the committee rather 
    than the one that was under the Union Calendar version. It is the 
    identical amendment. . . .
        Mr. Franklin: Mr. Chairman, continuing under my reservation, I 
    would

[[Page 7044]]

    like to raise a point of order to the amendment now offered, which 
    was originally filed by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Rostenkowski], and state that the amendment as printed in the 
    Record does not refer to the sections to be amended on H.R. 2100, 
    the Union Calendar, under which we are dealing.
        I would call the Chair's attention to a previous ruling on a 
    point of order when the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts 
    attempted to strike the honey provisions of H.R. 2100 and the Chair 
    ruled, because of a not specific reference to line and title and 
    page number, that that amendment was ruled out of order.
        I at this time insist on my point of order to the amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The amendment that is in the Record 
    has a specific line and title and may be offered in that form.
        The Clerk will report the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Anthony: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
    amendment to conform with the Union Calendar version of the bill.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Arkansas?
        There was no objection.
        The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Anthony, as modified: Page 323, 
        strike out lines 6 through 10.

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Anthony], as modified.
        The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

Sec. 21.18 An amendment specifically made in order under a ``modified 
    closed'' rule adopted by the House and not amendable thereunder may 
    be modified in Committee of the Whole only by unanimous consent.

    The proposition stated above was the basis of the following 
exchange, which occurred on Aug. 14, 1986,(13) during 
consideration of H.R. 4428 (14) in the Committee of the 
Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 132 Cong. Rec. 21686, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
14. The Department of Defense Authorization, fiscal year 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James A.] Courter [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, is this 
    modification of the amendment permissible and germane, or does it 
    need unanimous consent to be considered?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (15) The Chair will state 
    to the gentleman from New Jersey that a modification of this sort 
    is permitted only by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Cardiss] Collins [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I again ask 
    unanimous consent to offer the modification to the amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentlewoman from Illinois?
        Mr. Courter: Mr. Chairman, I object.

[[Page 7045]]


 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
                      E. CONSIDERATION AND VOTING
 
Sec. 22. In General; Reading of Amendment


    Issues relating to consideration of bills under the five-minute 
rule, particularly with reference to the question of when particular 
amendments may be offered during the reading for amendment, have been 
treated elsewhere in this chapter.(1) The sections which 
follow focus on further questions relating to the order of 
consideration and voting, and to debate.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. Sec.  7-14, supra.
 2. For more general coverage of these subjects, see Ch. 29 
        (Consideration and Debate), and Ch. 30 (Voting), infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rules and procedures applicable to the reading of bills for 
amendment having been discussed in those earlier sections, it is 
important here to note that amendments to a bill must be read in full 
or their reading dispensed with in accordance with the rules (or waived 
pursuant to a special rule) even where the bill itself is considered as 
having been read for amendment pursuant to a special 
rule.(3) In the 97th Congress, Rule XXIII clause 5 was 
amended to permit the reading of an amendment in the Committee of the 
Whole to be dispensed with by motion, if the amendment has been printed 
in the bill as reported, or if printed in the Record and submitted to 
the committee or committees reporting the bill.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 22.1, infra, discussing the rule as applicable to 
        committee amendments. For discussion of questions arising under 
        the terms of special rules, see Sec. 3, supra.
 4. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 873(b) (101st 
        Cong.).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading of Amendment--Requirements

Sec. 22.1 Committee amendments to a bill must be read in full or their 
    reading dispensed with, even where the bill itself is considered as 
    having been read for amendment pursuant to a special rule.

    On Feb. 9, 1976, (5) during consideration of H.R. 5808 
in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 122 Cong. Rec. 2872, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) All time has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Richard H. Ichord (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the rule, the bill is considered as having been read and 
    open to amendment at any point under the 5-minute rule. . . .
        The Clerk will report the first committee amendment.

[[Page 7046]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Strike page 1, line 3, through and 
        including page 9, line 8, and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following:
            That this Act may be cited as the ``Animal Welfare Act 
        Amendments of 1976''. . . .

        Mr. [Charles E.] Wiggins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Wiggins: Mr. Chairman, under the rule, is the first 
    committee amendment considered to have been read?
        The Chairman: There have been no requests for considering the 
    amendment as having been read, the Chair will advise the gentleman 
    from California, but the Chair will entertain such a request.
        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Foley: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the rule 
    itself provides that the bill shall be considered as read and open 
    to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: Yes, that is the bill, the Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Washington, not the amendment.
        Mr. Foley (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the first committee amendment may be considered as 
    read and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Washington?
        There was no objection.

Rereporting Amendments

Sec. 22.2 An amendment which has been once read may not be read again 
    except by unanimous consent.

    The following exchange occurred on Mar. 26, 1965,(7) 
with respect to an amendment offered by Mr. Charles E. Goodell, of New 
York, to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965: 
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 111 Cong. Rec. 6097, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
            See also 113 Cong. Rec. 5020, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 1, 
        1967 (request by Mr. Sidney R. Yates [Ill.]).
 8. H.R. 2362.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: May I have the 
    amendment read again?
        The Chairman: (9) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from New Hampshire?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Multer and Mr. Roosevelt objected.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard. The amendment may be read 
    again only by unanimous consent.

Sec. 22.3 Where the Committee of the Whole resumes its consideration of 
    a bill after an interval of time, the Chair sometimes (without 
    objection) directs the Clerk to rereport the amendments which were 
    pending at the time the Committee rose.

[[Page 7047]]

    On May 6, 1970, (10) the Chairman (11) 
announced as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 14418, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 17123.
11. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        When the Committee rose on Thursday, April 30, 1970, there was 
    pending the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reid), a 
    substitute therefor offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Findley), and the amendment to the Findley substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from California (Mr. Leggett).
        Without objection, the Clerk will again report the amendment, 
    the substitute, and the amendment to the substitute.

Reading Committee Amendments

Sec. 22.4 Until a committee amendment has been read, it is not in order 
    to offer an amendment thereto; and where there are several 
    committee amendments to a section, the first of which is pending, 
    only an amendment to the pending committee amendment is in order.

    On Feb. 20, 1964,(12) the Chair indicated that, where a 
Member has amendments to each of several committee amendments, he must 
offer such amendments singly, as each committee amendment is reported; 
and it is not in order to consider ``en bloc'' amendments to committee 
amendments which have not been reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 110 Cong. Rec. 3217, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 9637.
            For further discussion of reading for amendment, see 
        Sec. Sec. 7 et seq., supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (13) The Clerk will report the first 
    committee amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Harold D. Donohue (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jeffery] Cohelan [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I wonder if at this time I should offer my 
    amendments en bloc, as I have two other amendments to the bill.
        The Chairman: There is pending now only the first committee 
    amendment to this section.

Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 22.5 Reading of an amendment in the nature of a substitute must be 
    completed before an amendment thereto is in order.

    On Jan. 23, 1962, (14) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 108 Cong. Rec. 759, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7927.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. James C. Davis [of Georgia] (interrupting reading of the 
    amendment): Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 7048]]

        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. James C. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to 
    when it will be in order to offer an amendment to the amendment 
    which is now being read, whether it must be offered as the section 
    is reached in reading, or wait until the entire amendment is 
    completed?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the entire amendment 
    must be read before an amendment would be in order.

Sec. 22.6 An amendment in the nature of a substitute is not read by 
    sections in the absence of a special rule specifying otherwise, and 
    is open to amendment at any point when it has been read in its 
    entirety.

    An amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered, on Sept. 
28, 1965, (16) by Mr. Abraham J. Multer, of New York, during 
consideration of a bill (17) to provide ``home rule'' for 
the District of Columbia. On the next day, (18) the 
following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 111 Cong. Rec. 25376 et seq., 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. H.R. 4644.
18. 111 Cong. Rec. 25418, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 29, 1965. The 
        Chairman was Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard L.] Roudebush [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to ask if the so-called Multer amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute will be open at any point for amendment?
        The Chairman: It would be, the Chair will state, and is open 
    for amendment.
        Mr. Roudebush: Mr. Chairman, I mean when it comes before the 
    body.
        The Chairman: It is now open for amendment at any point.

Sec. 22.7 When a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    being read as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
    pursuant to provisions of a special rule making the bill in order, 
    the amendment is read section by section.

    On Feb. 26, 1964, (19) he following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 110 Cong. Rec. 3641, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 9022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chairman: (1) . . . Under the provisions of House 
Resolution 632, it is in order to consider the substitute amendment 
recommended by the Committee on Banking and Currency and now printed in 
the bill, and such substitute for the purpose of amendment shall be 
considered under the 5-minute rule as an original bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk will now read the committee 
    substitute

[[Page 7049]]

    amendment printed in the reported bill for the purpose of 
    amendment. . . .

        Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin] (during the reading of the 
    committee substitute amendment): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the further reading of the committee substitute 
    amendment be dispensed with and that it be open for amendment at 
    any point. . . .
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right 
    to object; does this mean, since this is being considered as an 
    original bill, that with the reading of each designated section in 
    the bill it would be in order to strike the requisite number of 
    words in order to gain recognition; or will the entire bill be read 
    before it will be in order to move to strike the requisite number 
    of words?
        The Chairman: If there is no objection to the unanimous-consent 
    request of the gentleman from Wisconsin the entire bill will be 
    considered as having been read and will be open for amendment at 
    any point, at which time it will be in order to seek recognition 
    under the 5-minute rule for the purpose of offering a substantive 
    amendment or for the purpose of offering a pro forma amendment.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, then it would be in order to offer a 
    pro forma amendment to strike the requisite number of words after 
    the reading of each section of the bill; is that correct, if the 
    unanimous-consent request is not granted?
        The Chairman: If the bill is read by section, it will be in 
    order to move to strike out the requisite number of words as the 
    sections are read.

Sec. 22.8 Where a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
    being read by sections as an original bill for amendment and there 
    was pending thereto an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    offered from the floor, the Chairman indicated that the pending 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute for the committee amendment 
    was open to amendment at any point.

    On Apr. 11, 1973,(2) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 119 Cong. Rec. 11795, 11798, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 3180.
            For further discussion of reading for amendment, see Sec. 7 
        et seq., supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Lawrence G.] Williams [of Pennsylvania]: Is the gentleman 
    now offering his substitute as an amendment for H.R. 3180?
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Yes. The committee had one 
    committee amendment. We struck out all after the enacting clause 
    and had one committee amendment. For that committee amendment I now 
    offer one substitute.
        Mr. Williams: The gentleman's entire substitute?
        Mr. Udall: Yes, and it can be perfected, of course, with some 
    amendments that may be offered. . . .
        Mr. [Charles S.] Gubser [of California]: Madam Chairman, is the 
    substitute amendment now open to amendment at any point?
        The Chairman: (3) Yes, it is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Martha W. Griffiths (Mich.).

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

[[Page 7050]]

Amendment Considered as Read and Open to Amendment

Sec. 22.9 When an amendment in the nature of a substitute is, by 
    unanimous consent, considered as read and open to amendment, the 
    entire amendment is then subject to substantive or pro forma 
    amendment.

    On Feb. 26, 1964,(4) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 110 Cong. Rec. 3641, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 9022.
            For general discussion of amendments to bills considered as 
        read and open to amendment, see Sec. 11, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (5) . . . Pursuant to the rule, the 
    Clerk will now read the committee substitute amendment printed in 
    the reported bill for the purpose of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) 
        the first sentence of subsection (b) of section 7 of the 
        International Development Association Act (22 U.S.C. 284e(b)) 
        is amended by striking out ``, after paying the requisite part 
        of the subscription of the United States in the Association 
        required to be made under the articles,''.

        Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin] (during the reading of the 
    committee substitute amendment): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the further reading of the committee substitute 
    amendment be dispensed with and that it be open for amendment at 
    any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin?
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right 
    to object; does this mean, since this is being considered as an 
    original bill, that with the reading of each designated section in 
    the bill it would be in order to strike the requisite number of 
    words in order to gain recognition; or will the entire bill be read 
    before it will be in order to move to strike the requisite number 
    of words?
        The Chairman: If there is no objection to the unanimous-consent 
    request of the gentleman from Wisconsin the entire bill will be 
    considered as having been read and will be open for amendment at 
    any point, at which time it will be in order to seek recognition 
    under the 5-minute rule for the purpose of offering a substantive 
    amendment or for the purpose of offering a pro forma amendment.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, then it would be in order to offer a 
    pro forma amendment to strike the requisite number of words after 
    the reading of each section of the bill; is that correct, if the 
    unanimous-consent request is not granted?
        The Chairman: If the bill is read by section, it will be in 
    order to move to strike out the requisite number of words as the 
    sections are read.

    Parliamentarian's Note: When an amendment in the nature of a

[[Page 7051]]

substitute is being read by sections, substantive as well as pro forma 
amendments are in order following the reading of each section. .

Amendment To Indicate Page and Line Number

Sec. 22.10 When an amendment in the nature of a substitute (consisting 
    of numbered pages and lines) is pending, an amendment to that 
    amendment should indicate the appropriate page and line number to 
    which it is to be offered; and a Member who intends to propose such 
    an amendment may ascertain the appropriate page and line number by 
    inspecting the amendment at the Clerk's desk or obtaining a copy 
    thereof at the committee tables.

    On Aug. 7, 1964,(6) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 110 Cong. Rec. 18573, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11377.
            For further discussion of the form in which amendments are 
        to be offered, see Sec. 1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: For some time now we have 
    been discussing the parliamentary situation with respect to 
    amendments that might be offered to the substitute which has just 
    been read. . . . I assume we will proceed by the printed matter 
    that appeared a couple of days ago in the Congressional Record. If 
    we do, and one wishes to offer an amendment, how is he going to 
    identify his amendment and tie it to the proper place and the 
    proper section of a bill that has no lines in it?
        The Chairman: (7) Permit the Chair to suggest to the 
    gentleman from Virginia that the clerks can assist anyone desiring 
    to offer an amendment to the pending amendment with respect to the 
    particular place in the pending amendment where such an amendment 
    would lie. . . . The amendment which has been read has a page and 
    line in it, and if the gentleman from Virginia has an amendment he 
    desires to offer, the amendment would be offered to that page and 
    to that line of the pending amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Failure To Distribute Copies of Proposed Amendments

Sec. 22.11 It is not the immediate responsibility of a Member offering 
    an amendment to insure that copies of the amendment are distributed 
    according to the requirements of Rule XXIII clause 5, and improper 
    distribution will not prevent consideration of that amendment.

    On Feb. 19, 1975,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the

[[Page 7052]]

Whole of a bill,(9) the Chair responded to a point of order 
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 121 Cong. Rec. 3596, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. For further discussion of 
        the effect of failure to distribute copies of amendments in 
        accordance with Rule XXIII, see Sec. 1, supra.
            See Rule XXIII clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 
        (101st Cong.), stating in part: Upon the offering of any 
        amendment by a Member, when the House is meeting in the 
        Committee of the Whole, the Clerk shall promptly transmit to 
        the majority committee table five copies of the amendment and 
        five copies to the minority committee table. Further, the Clerk 
        shall deliver at least one copy of the amendment to the 
        majority cloak room and at least one copy to the minority cloak 
        room.
 9. H.R. 2051, to amend the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: On page 7 after line 24 
        insert a new section 5 (and number the succeeding Sections 
        accordingly).
            Sec. 5. (a) Section 208(a) of the Regional Rail 
        Reorganization Act of 1973. The sentence ``The final system 
        plan shall be deemed approved at the end of the first period of 
        60 calendar days of continuous session of Congress after such 
        date of transmittal unless either the House of Representatives 
        or the Senate passes a resolution during such period stating 
        that it does not favor the final system.' is amended by 
        deleting the language after ``shall'' and inserting in lieu 
        thereof 'be voted by each House of Congress within the period 
        of 60 calendar days of continuous session of Congress after 
        such date of transmittal.''. . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order. . . .

        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from Michigan 
    desire to be heard on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order on two 
    bases, the first of which is that under the rules of the House the 
    proponent must have made copies of the amendment available to the 
    cloakroom of the majority and the minority. They must have made the 
    necessary number of copies available both to the reading clerk and 
    to the two committee desks. I have checked with both of the 
    committee desks and find that this rule has not properly been 
    complied with.
        The second point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that the amendment 
    goes beyond the scope of the legislation before us. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        On the first point of order as raised by the gentleman from 
    Michigan, it is not the immediate responsibility of the Member 
    under the rule to see that the distribution of the copies is made 
    and consideration of the amendment cannot be prevented for that 
    reason. Therefore the first point of order is overruled.
        As to the second point made by the gentleman from Michigan, the 
    Chair has examined the amendment as well as the ``Ramseyer'' in the 
    report on the bill under consideration, and in the opinion of the 
    Chair, the bill under consideration amends several sections of the 
    act, and is so comprehensive an

[[Page 7053]]

    amendment as to permit germane amendments to any portion of the 
    law. . . . Therefore the Chair overrules the point of order raised 
    by the gentleman from Michigan.

Sec. 22.12 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole indicated that the rule concerning 
    distribution of proposed amendments by the Clerk (Rule XXIII clause 
    5) was a matter of courtesy, not mandate, and the Clerk's failure 
    to distribute copies did not prohibit consideration of the 
    amendment.

    On Mar. 14, 1975, (11) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 25, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, a 
parliamentary inquiry was directed to the Chair and the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 6708, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
            See Rule XXIII clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 
        (101st Cong.) stating in part: Upon the offering of any 
        amendment by a Member, when the House is meeting in the 
        Committee of the Whole, the Clerk shall promptly transmit to 
        the majority committee table five copies of the amendment and 
        five copies to the minority committee table. Further, the Clerk 
        shall deliver at least one copy of the amendment to the 
        majority cloak room and at least one copy to the minority cloak 
        room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sam] Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, without a copy of the 
    amendment, we cannot understand the purpose of the amendment.
        I thought that under the new rules we are under some obligation 
    to provide some sort of amendment in written form so that those 
    Members who wish to go to the extra effort might read and 
    understand what is going on.
        Am I correct or incorrect, Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman: It does not stop the consideration of an 
    amendment, although that is supposed to be the custom.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, the rule is simply a 
    matter of courtesy rather than one of mandate?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Sec. 22.13 No point of order lies against an amendment by reason of the 
    fact that exact copies of the amendment as submitted to, and read 
    by, the Clerk have not been distributed, clause 5 of Rule XXIII 
    only requiring distribution and not preventing consideration.

    An example of the proposition stated above occurred on July 2,

[[Page 7054]]

1980, (13) during consideration of H.R. 7235, the Rail Act 
of 1980. The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 126 Cong. Rec. 18288, 18290-92, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James J.] Florio [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Florio: Page 103, line 14, insert 
        ``or (c)'' immediately after ``subsection (b)''.
            Page 104, line 20, strike out the closing quotation marks 
        and the following period.
            Page 104, after line 20, insert the following new 
        subsection: . . .

        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Madigan as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Florio:

        Page 103, line 14 insert ``or (c)'' immediately after 
    ``subsection (b)''.
        Page 104, line 20, strike out the closing quotation marks and 
    the following period. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Eckhardt to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Madigan as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. 
        Florio: page 3, strike out lines 14 through 20.
            Page 3, line 5, strike out ``(1)''.
            Page 3, line 13, strike out ``; or'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof a period.
            Pages 4 and 5, strike out ``20,000'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``5,000''.

        Mr. Florio: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman from New Jersey 
    reserves a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Florio: We have not got a copy of the amendment, and what 
    was just shown does not comply with what was just read.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from New 
    Jersey that the amendment that has been read is the amendment that 
    is pending. The fact that the gentleman does not have a copy of the 
    amendment does not give rise to a point of order.

Putting Question Where Amendment Is Divided for Vote

Sec. 22.14 Portions of a divided amendment having been agreed to on 
    separate votes, the question recurred on the remainder of the 
    amendment.

    On Aug. 17, 1972, (15) during consideration of a pending 
amendment to the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1972, 
(16) the Chairman (17) announced as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 118 Cong. Rec. 28906, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
16. H.R. 13915.
17. Morris K. Udall (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Wisconsin demands a division and a separate 
    vote

[[Page 7055]]

    on those portions of the pending amendment of the gentlewoman from 
    Oregon (Mrs. Green) to section 403 and section 406. . . .

    Subsequently, votes were taken in the following order:

        The Chairman: . . . The question is on that portion of the 
    amendment relating to section 403 of the amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from Oregon (Mrs. Green).
        Such portion of the amendment was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on that portion of the amendment 
    relating to section 406 of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
    from Oregon (Mrs. Green).
        Such portion of the amendment was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the remainder of the amendment 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Mrs. Green).
        The remainder of the amendment was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rejection of a portion of an amendment on a 
division of the question should be distinguished from the situation 
where an amendment to an amendment, striking out a portion thereof, is 
agreed to. In the latter event, the question would recur on the 
original amendment, as amended, but where a portion of an amendment is 
rejected on a separate vote, the question merely recurs on the 
remainder of the amendment.


 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
                      E. CONSIDERATION AND VOTING
 
Sec. 23. Order of Consideration Generally

    The four forms of amendment permitted by Rule XIX may be pending 
simultaneously. They must, however, be voted on in a definite sequence, 
as follows: (1) amendments to the amendment, if any, are disposed of 
first, seriatim, until the amendment is perfected; (2) amendments to 
the substitute are next voted on, seriatim, until the substitute is 
perfected; (3) the substitute is next voted on; (4) the amendment is 
voted on last, so that if the substitute has been agreed to, the vote 
is on the amendment as amended by the substitute. (18) Thus, 
where there is pending in the House an amendment, a substitute therefor 
and an amendment to the substitute, the vote is

[[Page 7056]]

first taken on the amendment to the substitute, then on the substitute 
as amended, and then on the amendment as amended by the substitute; and 
defeat of the amendment as amended by the substitute results in the 
rejection of the language included in the substitute as amended. 
(19) Where the House has adopted a special rule permitting 
the consideration of amendments in Committee of the Whole only in a 
prescribed order, the Committee of the Whole must rise to permit the 
House, by unanimous consent, to change the order of consideration of 
certain amendments in Committee of the Whole. (Only the House, and not 
the Committee of the Whole, may by unanimous consent alter the terms of 
a special rule previously agreed to by the House.) (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See, for example, 108 Cong. Rec. 13415, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., July 
        12, 1962 (response of Chairman Wilbur D. Mills [Ark.] to the 
        parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Hale Boggs [La.], during 
        consideration of H.R. 11921).
            The order in which amendments are to be voted on is 
        prescribed by Rule XIX, House Rules and Manual Sec. 822 (101st 
        Cong.).
            Amendments to a bill reported by a standing committee are 
        taken up in Committee of the Whole in proper sequence and not 
        as shown in the reported bill when, through error, the standing 
        committee submitted them for printing in improper order. 112 
        Cong. Rec. 8428, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 19, 1966.
19. See 119 Cong. Rec. 21320, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., June 26, 1973 
        (proceedings during consideration of H.J. Res. 636, including 
        response of Speaker Carl Albert [Okla.] to parliamentary 
        inquiry by Mr. Sidney R. Yates [Ill.].
20. For discussion of special rules and their effect generally, see 
        Sec. 3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

In General

Sec. 23.1 Where there was pending in Committee of the Whole an 
    amendment, an amendment thereto, a substitute therefor and an 
    amendment to the substitute, the Chairman indicated that the vote 
    would first be taken on the amendment to the original amendment, 
    then on the amendment to the substitute, then on the substitute, 
    and finally on the original amendment (as amended).

    On May 6, 1970, (21) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 116 Cong. Rec. 14424, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 17123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (1) The first amendment to be voted on 
    will be the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Bingham) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Reid).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Findley: Then, I further suggest that the Bingham amendment 
    be defeated, and as I understand the parliamentary situation, 
    assuming that the Bingham amendment is defeated, the next vote will 
    be on the Leggett amendment. Am I correct on that?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct; to the substitute 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois.
        Mr. Findley: And then next will be the substitute which I 
    offered?

[[Page 7057]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Sec. 23.2 Where there was pending an amendment, a substitute therefor 
    and an amendment to the substitute, the Chair indicated in response 
    to a parliamentary inquiry that the vote would first be taken on 
    the amendment to the substitute, then on the substitute as amended, 
    and finally on the amendment as amended by the substitute.

    On June 5, 1974, (2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the bill H.R. 14747 (to amend the Sugar Act 
of 1948), a parliamentary inquiry was addressed to the Chair as set out 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 120 Cong. Rec. 17872, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold R.] Collier [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. Is the new Ford proposal an amendment to the 
    amendment, since there is already an amendment with a pending 
    substitute before the House?
        The Chairman: (3) The new Ford amendment is an 
    amendment to the substitute. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. James J. Burke (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Collier: Then the parliamentary situation in voting on this 
    would be what?
        The Chairman: The Members will vote on the amendment to the 
    substitute first, and then vote on the substitute, as amended.
        Mr. Collier: And then there would be a vote on the substitute 
    amendment, as amended?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

Sec. 23.3 Where there were pending in Committee of the Whole an 
    amendment in the form of a new section, an amendment thereto and a 
    substitute therefor, the Chairman indicated that the vote would 
    first be taken on the amendment to the amendment and then on the 
    substitute.

    On June 17, 1971, (4) The following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 117 Cong. Rec. 20553, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 8687.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles S.] Gubser [of California]: Could the Chair inform 
    the gentleman regarding the order in which votes might come, 
    assuming that no other amendments or substitutes are offered at 
    this time?
        The Chairman: (5) The first vote would come on the 
    Robison amendment to the Nedzi-Whalen amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gubser: Then, if that vote fails, the vote would come on 
    the Mink substitute?
        The Chairman: That is right.

Sec. 23.4 Where there is pending an amendment, an amend

[[Page 7058]]

    ment thereto and a substitute therefor, the vote is taken on the 
    amendment to the amendment before the vote recurs on the 
    substitute.

    On Sept. 26, 1973,(6) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 119 Cong. Rec. 31463, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. [William J.] Keating [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, will the vote be 
on the amendment offered as a substitute by the gentleman from Texas to 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rodino)?

        The Chairman: (7) The Chair will state that there is 
    a perfecting amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from New Jersey (Mr. Rodino). The first question occurs on the 
    perfecting amendment to the amendment. Thereafter the vote will 
    occur on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Gonzalez), as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rodino).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Brock Adams (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If the substitute amendment is agreed to, the vote will recur 
    on the original amendment, as amended. If the substitute fails, the 
    vote will then occur on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New Jersey (Mr. Rodino) in the form in which it was offered.

Sec. 23.5 Where the four amendments permitted under Rule XIX are 
    pending, the amendment is perfected before the substitute.

    On July 12, 1962,(8) The following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 108 Cong. Rec. 13415, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11921.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana]: I would appreciate it if the 
    Chair would explain exactly what the voting situation is on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Casey], the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Morgan], 
    the substitute offered by the gentleman from Ohio, and the 
    amendment to the substitute.
        The Chairman: (9) If the gentleman from Louisiana 
    would permit the Chair to respond to the parliamentary situation, 
    the Chair would advise that the vote first will occur on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Morgan] 
    to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Casey]. 
    The next vote will occur on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen] to the substitute amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Feighan]. The next vote 
    will occur on the substitute offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
    [Mr. Feighan]. The last vote then occurs on the Casey amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Boggs: That is, provided the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Ohio as amended by the 
    gentleman from New Jersey is voted down?

[[Page 7059]]

        The Chairman: The vote finally occurs on the Casey amendment 
    whether the substitute is agreed to or not. It would be the Casey 
    amendment as amended by the substitute if the substitute is agreed 
    to.
        The question now occurs on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Morgan] to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Casey].

Sec. 23.6 The Chairman advised that should a pending amendment to an 
    amendment be agreed to, the vote would then recur on the amendment, 
    as amended.

    On June 28, 1967,(10) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 17748, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 10340.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William F.] Ryan [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, if the 
    amendment of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roudebush] is adopted, 
    will the House have an opportunity to vote on the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fulton]?
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair will state, in response 
    to the parliamentary inquiry, that if the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Indiana to the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania is adopted, the vote will then recur on the amendment 
    of the gentleman from Pennsylvania as amended by the amendment of 
    the gentleman from Indiana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 23.7 Where there was pending a committee amendment in the form of 
    a new title, an amendment thereto and a substitute therefor, the 
    first vote was on the amendment to the committee amendment, then on 
    the substitute, and then on the committee amendment as it may have 
    been amended.

    On Apr. 6, 1977,(12) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill,(13) the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry as described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 123 Cong. Rec. 10773, 10774, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H.R. 5262, providing for increased participation by the United 
        States in international financial institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tsongas) to the 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Robert Duncan (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul E.] Tsongas: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Tsongas: Mr. Chairman, I believe it is in order that we 
    vote first on the substitute offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Wylie), is it not?
        The Chairman: No. The Chair will state that the vote on the 
    amendment to the committee amendment will occur first. Following 
    that there will be a vote on the substitute for the committee 
    amendment, as amended, if the amendment offered by the gentleman

[[Page 7060]]

    from Massachusetts (Mr. Tsongas) to the committee amendment is 
    adopted. Following that there will be a vote on the committee 
    amendment, as it may have been amended.

Sec. 23.8 The question is first put on a perfecting amendment to an 
    amendment, and then on a substitute for the original amendment, and 
    if the substitute is adopted, the vote recurs immediately upon the 
    original amendment as amended by the substitute, and further 
    perfecting amendments are not in order.

    On May 1, 1979,(15) during consideration of House 
Concurrent Resolution 107 (16) in the Committee of the 
Whole, the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry concerning the 
order in which amendments would be voted upon, as described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 125 Cong. Rec. 9299-9301, 9311, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. The first concurrent resolution on the Budget, fiscal 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Paul] Simon [of Illinois]: In the 
    matter relating to the appropriate level of total new budget 
    authority increase the amount by $2,223,000,000;
        In the matter relating to the appropriate level of total budget 
    outlays increase the amount by $1,522,000,000. . . .
        In the matter relating to Function 050--National Defense 
    increase the amount for budget authority by $628,000,000; and 
    increase the amount for outlays by $315,000,000. . . .
        In section (3);
        In the matter relating to Function 050--National Defense 
    increase the amount for outlays by $166,000,000. . . .
        Amendment offered by Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California to the 
    amendment offered by Mr. Simon: Strike out the amount by which the 
    appropriate level of total new budget authority for fiscal year 
    1979 is proposed to be increased and insert in lieu thereof 
    ``$2,871,000,000''. . . .
        Strike out the amount by which the amount for outlays for 
    fiscal year 1979 for National Defense is proposed to be increased 
    and insert in lieu thereof ``$702,000,000''. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Edwards of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Edwards of Alabama as a substitute 
        for the amendment offered by Mr. Simon: In the matter relating 
        to the appropriate level of total new budget authority increase 
        the amount by $1,122,368,000. . . .
            In Section 6(b):
            In the matter relating to Function 050 increase the amount 
        for budget authority by $1,458,368,000; and increase the amount 
        for outlays by $505,176,000. . . .

        Mr. Edwards of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, this 
    amendment strikes all of the Simon amendment except for the defense 
    function, and in that case it uses the Charles H.

[[Page 7061]]

    Wilson of California amendment as the defense number. . . .
        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, so that I 
    understand the situation, if the Edwards substitute were to prevail 
    and some Member had an amendment to the Simon amendment, we would 
    not have a bill to amend at this time; is that correct? In other 
    words, a Member would have to offer a totally separate amendment 
    because this amendment is not speaking to the matters to which the 
    Simon amendment spoke?
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair would like to advise 
    the gentleman from New York (Mr. Peyser) that the first vote would 
    come on the Charles H. Wilson of California amendment to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Simon). The 
    second vote would come on the substitute offered by the gentleman 
    in the well, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Edwards), and if that 
    substitute were adopted the vote would recur immediately without 
    further amendment on the Simon amendment as amended by the 
    substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Peyser: I thank the Chair.

Sec. 23.9 Once a perfecting amendment to an amendment is disposed of, 
    the original amendment, as amended or not, remains open to further 
    perfecting amendment, and all such amendments are disposed of prior 
    to voting on substitutes for the original amendment and amendments 
    thereto.

    On July 26, 1984,(18) during consideration of H.R. 11 
(19) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings 
described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 130 Cong. Rec. 21231, 21251, 21253, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. The education amendments of 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Indiana (Mr. Coats).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Coats: Page 91, after line 14, 
        insert the following new section (and redesignate the 
        succeeding sections accordingly):

                            voluntary school prayer

        Sec. 806. Part B of the General Education Provisions Act is 
    amended by inserting after section 420 (20 U.S.C. 1228) the 
    following new section: . . .
        Mr. [Steven] Gunderson [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        Mr. [Dan R.] Coats [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order on the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gunderson to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Coats:
            In Section 420A of the General Education Provisions Act (as 
        proposed to be added by the amendment of the amendment of the 
        gentleman from Indiana) strike out the first sentence and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following: ``No State or local 
        educational agency shall deny individuals in public schools the 
        opportunity to participate in moments of silent prayer.''. . .

        Mr. [Duncan L.] Hunter [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an

[[Page 7062]]

    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hunter as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Coats: In lieu of the matter proposed 
        to be inserted, insert the following:

                            Voluntary School Prayer

             Sec. 806. Part B of the General Education Provisions Act 
        is amended by inserting after section 420 (20 U.S.C. 1228) the 
        following new section: . . .

        Mr. [Don] Bonker [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, we have a 
    fairly complex parliamentary procedure. I wonder if the Chair would 
    explain to the Members the various motions as they would occur.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (20) The first vote will 
    be on the Gunderson amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coats. If no 
    further amendments are offered to the Coats amendment, then the 
    vote will occur on the substitute amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) if no amendments are offered 
    to his substitute amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bonker: As amended?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: As amended or not.
        Mr. Bonker: Possibly by Gunderson, if that amendment is 
    adopted?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Or possibly by another Member. . .
        Mr. [Charles E.] Schumer [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I was 
    confused by that explanation; could the Chair go over it once 
    again?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: . . . The first vote will be on the 
    Gunderson amendment to the Coats amendment. If no other amendments 
    are offered, then the next vote will be on the Hunter amendment, 
    which is a substitute for the Coats amendment. Any amendment to the 
    Hunter substitute would have to be offered before the vote on the 
    Hunter substitute. Then after the Hunter substitute is voted on, 
    the Coats amendment will be voted on.

Amendments to Original Amendment Disposed of First

Sec. 23.10 While the Chair may, in his discretion, recognize a senior 
    committee member to offer an amendment to a pending substitute 
    before recognizing a junior committee member to offer a perfecting 
    amendment to the original amendment, the question will not be put 
    on the amendment to the substitute until all amendments to the 
    original amendment are disposed of.

    Perfecting amendments to an amendment may be offered and voted on, 
seriatim, before the question is put on a pending perfecting amendment 
to a substitute for the amendment. An application of this procedure may 
be seen in the proceedings of May 15, 1979,(1) during 
consideration of H.R. 39, the Alaska National In

[[Page 7063]]

terest Lands Conservation Act of 1979. Pending was an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Merchant Marine 
and Fisheries (also called the ``Breaux-Dingell'' amendment). Also 
pending was a substitute for that amendment, offered by Mr. Morris K. 
Udall, of Arizona.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 125 Cong. Rec. 11152, 11153, 11158, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (2) The question is on the amendments 
    offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby) to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the Committee on 
    Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    were agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    group of amendments I wish to offer (to the amendment offered by 
    Mr. Udall as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute).
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Huckaby [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I also 
    have amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute at 
    the desk.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that he is advised by the 
    Parliamentarian that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling) may 
    offer his amendments [to the Udall substitute], but that the votes 
    will come on any amendments which would be offered to Breaux-
    Dingell before they will come on the amendments offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling).
        The Clerk will report the amendments.
        The amendments to the substitute read as follows:

            Page 4, add to the Table of Contents:
            Sec. 935. Protraction Diagrams.
            Page 11, lines 17-18, strike ``subsistence-oriented 
        lifestyle'' and insert in lieu thereof ``subsistence way of 
        life''. . . .

        Mr. [Keith G.] Sebelius [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    Sebelius amendments 1 and 2 to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute offered by the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
    Fisheries.
        Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe we have voted on 
    this amendment yet.
        The Chairman: That is correct. As long as there are amendments 
    pending for the Merchant Marine and Fisheries matter proposed, we 
    will take those prior to voting on the gentleman's amendments.
        The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Sebelius) has, I understand, 
    amendments to the Merchant Marine and Fisheries matter.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendments.
        The amendments offered to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute are as follows:

            Section 201 of the Breaux-Dingell bill is amended by 
        revising paragraph (3) (page 294, line 23) to read as follows: 
        . . . .

[[Page 7064]]

--Amendments to Original Amendment in Order Following Disposition of 
    Amendment to Substitute

Sec. 23.11 Perfecting amendments to an amendment are offered and voted 
    on before a perfecting amendment pending to the substitute is voted 
    on; but disposition of the perfecting amendment to the substitute 
    does not preclude the offering of further amendments to the 
    amendment.

    On May 15, 1979,(3) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 39,(4) the above-stated proposition 
was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 125 Cong. Rec. 11180, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: I would ask the Chair, is 
    it appropriate now that we consider voting on the Seiberling 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair will put the question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don] Young of Alaska: Mr Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Young of Alaska: There is an additional amendment to the 
    Breaux-Dingell bill by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Swift). 
    Is that not what is before the House right now?
        The Chairman: The Chair would make clear that voting on the 
    Seiberling amendment does not preclude further amendments to the 
    Merchant Marine and Fisheries amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling) to the substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall).
        The amendments to the substitute were agreed to.

Proposition Read as Original Text for Amendment, and Amendments Thereto

Sec. 23.12 To a proposition being read as original text for amendment 
    there may be pending at one time only one amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute, a substitute therefor, a perfecting amendment to 
    the original amendment in the nature of a substitute and a 
    perfecting amendment to the substitute, and any further amendment 
    to perfecting amendments would be in the third degree; and the vote 
    is first taken on perfecting amendments to the original amendment, 
    then on perfecting amendments to the substitute, then on the 
    substitute (as per

[[Page 7065]]

    fected), and finally on the original amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute (as amended).

    In the proceedings described below, which occurred on May 18, 
1978,(6) the Committee of the Whole had under consideration 
H.R. 39, the Alaska National Interest Conservation Lands Act of 1978. 
An amendment in the nature of a substitute (the Leggett amendment) was 
offered which, pursuant to House Resolution 1186, agreed to the 
previous day, was to be read for amendment under the five-minute rule 
as an original bill by titles. To such amendment, an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute (the ``Meeds amendment'') was subsequently 
offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 124 Cong. Rec. 14391, 14394, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. For discussion of 
        permissible pending amendments, and amendments in the third 
        degree, see Sec. Sec. 5 and 6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (7) When the committee rose on 
    yesterday, Wednesday, May 17, 1978, all time for general debate had 
    expired, the Clerk had read through line 4 on page 1 of the bill. . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute, the text of H.R. 12625.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will read the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute by titles.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Leggett: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following. . . .

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: . . . The script we have 
    put together here was that when section 1 of the Leggett amendment, 
    the consensus substitute, was read, the gentleman from Washington 
    (Mr. Meeds) would offer his substitute, but that I would offer a 
    substitute for the Meeds amendment, and we would then have 
    foreclosed these nongermane things that we have been talking about. 
    But it would also be understood that both sides, the Meeds and the 
    Udall substitutes, would be open. As long as anybody has serious 
    amendments, we would be prepared to stay here and take them and 
    discuss those serious amendments.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry. . . .
        At that point have we gotten into amendments in the third 
    degree, or would amendments to both the pending substitutes be in 
    order?
        The Chairman: Perfecting amendments to the Meeds amendment if 
    offered or amendments to a substitute thereto would be in order.
        Mr. Bauman: But no further amendments in the nature of a 
    substitute would be in order at that point?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Udall: I am advised that the parliamentary preference is 
    that the main amendment, the Meeds amendment, get priority and 
    could be perfected first, after which the substitute

[[Page 7066]]

    I have could be perfected before the committee chooses between 
    those two, so we are not going to try to foreclose any opportunity 
    to have the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Meeds) perfect his 
    amendment as much as he desires, or as much as the Members desire. 
    . . .
        Mr. Bauman: I would like to put the parliamentary inquiry to 
    the Chair, whether, indeed, that is the parliamentary situation.
        The Chairman: Perfecting amendments to the Meeds' amendment if 
    offered will be voted on first, and the amendments to the Udall 
    substitute offered would (then) be voted upon.

All Amendments Voted On

Sec. 23.13 The vote is first taken on a perfecting amendment to an 
    amendment, then on a perfecting amendment to a substitute therefor, 
    then on the substitute and then on the amendment; and all such 
    pending amendments must be voted on, even where a perfecting 
    amendment which substantially replaces the text of the original 
    (primary) amendment is adopted.

    On Aug. 1, 1978,(8) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 12514,(9) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 124 Cong. Rec. 23694-96, 23709, 23717, 23725, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. The International Security Assistance Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                         assistance and sales to turkey

            Sec. 16. (a) Section 620(x) of the Foreign Assistance Act 
        of 1961 is repealed.
            (b) Section 504(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
        is amended by striking out the following:
        ``Turkey--------48,000,000''. . . .

    Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
amendment.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fascell: To section 16 of H.R. 
        12514, as reported: On page 13, line 2, delete all of section 
        16 through line 7 and insert, in lieu thereof, the following:
            ``Sec. 16. Section 620(x) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
        1961 is amended as follows:
            Strike out the language following the colon in the first 
        sentence, through the period, and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following: ``Provided, That the President may suspend the 
        provisions of this subsection. . . .

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wright to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Fascell: In lieu of the section proposed to be inserted, 
        insert the following section:
            Sec. 16. (a) Section 620(x) of the Foreign Assistance Act 
        of 1961 shall be of no further force and effect upon the 
        President's determination and certification to the Congress 
        that the resumption of full military cooperation with Turkey is 
        in the national interest of the United States. . . .

        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.

[[Page 7067]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Seiberling as a substitute for 
        amendment offered by Mr. Fascell: Page 13, strike out lines 2 
        through 7 and insert in lieu thereof the following section:

                              turkey arms embargo

            Sec. 16. (a) Section 620(x) of the Foreign Assistance Act 
        of 1961 shall be of no further force and effect upon the 
        President's determination and certification to the Congress 
        that the resumption of full military cooperation with Turkey is 
        in the national interest of the United States. . . .

        Mr. [David F.] Emery [of Maine]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Emery to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Seiberling as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. 
        Fascell: Page 2, at the end of line 21 (of the Seiberling 
        Substitute), insert the following new sentence: ``In 
        particular, defense articles furnished to the government of 
        Turkey after the enactment of this act shall not be transferred 
        to Cyprus.''. . .

        Mr. Fascell: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to get the parliamentary 
    situation straight as to what is now pending. Am I correct in 
    stating that there is an amendment, the Fascell amendment, pending; 
    that there is a substitute to the Fascell amendment?
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fascell: There is an amendment to the substitute?
        The Chairman: There is an amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Maine to the substitute. There is also an amendment to the 
    Fascell amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright).
        The vote will occur on the Wright amendment first. Should it be 
    adopted or defeated, the votes will occur on the Emery amendment to 
    the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Seiberling).
        Mr. Fascell: So the first vote, then, I ask the Chair, is on 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright) to 
    the Fascell amendment?
        The Chairman: Correct.
        Mr. Fascell: Then the substitute will be offered, then the 
    amendment will be perfected?
        The Chairman: The perfecting amendment to the substitute will 
    be voted on, and then the substitute. . . .
        Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, am I correct in stating that the 
    substitute which will be voted on after the Wright amendment is 
    voted on is identical to the Wright amendment except for the 
    Seiberling addition?
        The Chairman: That is not in the form of a parliamentary 
    inquiry, the Chair will state to the gentleman from Ohio. . . .
        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: If the Wright 
    amendment stands--known as the ``wrong'' amendment--if the Wright 
    amendment is agreed to, then the Seiberling and Emery amendments 
    have fallen by the wayside?
        The Chairman: That is not correct. They still must be voted on.

Where Amendment in Nature of Substitute Considered Original Text

Sec. 23.14 Where pursuant to a special rule the first section

[[Page 7068]]

    of a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute had been 
    read for amendment, and there was pending an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute for the committee amendment, an amendment 
    thereto and a substitute therefor, the Chair indicated in response 
    to a parliamentary inquiry that the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and the substitute therefor could each be perfected by 
    amendment before a vote was had on the substitute, but that the 
    original committee bill had not been read and was not open to 
    amendment.

    On Feb. 5, 1976,(11) during consideration of a bill 
(12) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry regarding the situation described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 122 Cong. Rec. 2623, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. For further discussion of 
        amendments in the nature of a substitute, see Sec. 25, infra.
12. H.R. 9464, Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (13) When the Committee rose on 
    yesterday there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger) for 
    the substitute committee amendment, an amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) to the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger) 
    and a substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
    Smith) for the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, do I correctly understand the 
    parliamentary situation to be this, that there is before the House 
    as one stem of legislation which may be amended, the original bill 
    from the committee?
        There is also the Krueger amendment in the form of a 
    substitute, made in order, of course, by the Committee on Rules as 
    a rule; and there is also another substitute, the Smith amendment, 
    that is before the body, that these three all may be amended; but 
    no more than one amendment to each may be available for 
    consideration of the House at any given time?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman is nearly 
    correct. The basic bill, the basic committee product, has not been 
    read. Therefore, it is not subject to amendment at this point.
        The Krueger amendment is subject to amendment, and there is 
    pending to the Krueger amendment the gentleman's amendment. The 
    Smith substitute for the Krueger amendment is pending to the 
    Krueger amendment,

[[Page 7069]]

    and it can be amended. There is no amendment pending to the Smith 
    substitute at this time.
        Mr. Eckhardt: Let me put it this way: It would be appropriate 
    to vote on an amendment pending to the Krueger amendment prior to 
    the time a vote would be taken with respect to the Smith 
    substitute?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Eckhardt: In other words, each of the pieces of legislation 
    before us is subject to being perfected before a choice is made 
    between the two?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

Time Limit on One Branch of Amendment Tree

Sec. 23.15 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, a substitute therefor and an amendment to the 
    substitute, and debate had been limited on the substitute and all 
    amendments thereto but not on the original amendment or amendments 
    thereto, the Chair indicated that (1) further amendments to the 
    substitute or modifications of the substitute by unanimous consent 
    must await disposition of the pending amendment to the substitute; 
    (2) amendments to the original amendment could be offered and 
    debated under the five-minute rule and would be voted on before 
    amendments to the substitute; (3) amendments to the substitute 
    could be offered and voted upon without debate unless printed in 
    the Record pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6; and (4) the question 
    would not be put on the substitute until all perfecting amendments 
    to it and to the original amendment were disposed of.

    On Feb. 5, 1976,(14) during consideration of H.R. 9464, 
the Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1976, there was pending an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute (the Krueger amendment); a substitute 
therefor (the Smith amendment); and an amendment to the substitute (the 
Eckhardt amendment). A unanimous-consent request was made to limit 
debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 122 Cong. Rec. 2646-48, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    strike the requisite number of words.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the 
    Smith amendment and all amendments thereto terminate immediately 
    upon the conclusion of consideration of the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt). . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, as I understood 
    it, the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Dingell)

[[Page 7070]]

    was that all debate on the Smith substitute amendment cease after 
    the disposition of the Eckhardt amendment. The Eckhardt amendment 
    would be the pending business then, and immediately after the 
    determination of the Eckhardt amendment, we would vote on the Smith 
    amendment. Is that not correct? . . .
        The Chairman: (15) Not necessarily, because there 
    could be an amendment to the Krueger amendment, which would be 
    debatable. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Before we vote on the Smith substitute, amendments to the 
    Krueger amendment are debatable if offered. . . . 
        The point that the Chair is trying to make, regardless of what 
    agreements are reached, is that until the Krueger amendment is 
    finally perfected to the satisfaction of the Committee, the Chair 
    cannot put the question on the Smith substitute.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: The Chair cannot put the question on the 
    Smith amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot put the question on the Smith 
    substitute until the Krueger amendment is perfected to the 
    satisfaction of the Committee.
        There has been no limitation of debate on the Krueger amendment 
    or amendments thereto. The basic parliamentary situation is that we 
    have a substitute amendment for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, the Krueger amendment. Both of those are subject to 
    amendment, but both must be perfected before the Chair can put the 
    question on the substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: With respect to the unanimous-consent 
    request of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the Eckhardt 
    amendment is still to be voted upon, and then there are to be no 
    other amendments to the Smith amendment?
        The Chairman: There is to be no further debate on such 
    amendments. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, if my time still applies, I 
    would like to ask the Chair to state the circumstances. If I may, 
    before the Chair does that, I would like to ask the question this 
    way: As the situation stands at this moment, the Krueger amendment 
    is still perfectable by amendments under the normal course of time, 
    and there is no limitation on the Krueger amendment.
        The Smith amendment, however, can be perfected only by the vote 
    on the Eckhardt amendment, and then if there are other amendments 
    to the Smith amendment there is no debate time remaining on those 
    amendments.
        Is that correct?
        The Chairman: Unless they are printed in the Record.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: And if they are printed in the Record, the 
    debate time is 5 minutes per side pro and con. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: That is correct. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, it is, however, a fact that the 
    gentleman may have an amendment at the desk and it may be voted on 
    without debate under the unanimous-consent request?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. [Robert] Krueger [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 7071]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Krueger: Mr. Chairman, there are still those of us who are 
    not certain of the parliamentary situation. I am among them.
        Mr. Chairman, my question is this: We will vote first on the 
    Eckhardt amendment to the Smith substitute?
        The Chairman: That is right.
        Mr. Krueger: Following that, there will then be a vote without 
    further debate on the Smith substitute, or no?
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot say, because if there were 
    amendments printed in the Record, there can be both an amendment 
    offered and debate on the amendment. If there were no amendments 
    that were qualified for debate by being printed in the Record, they 
    could not be offered and voted on without debate.
        But if they are offered to the Krueger amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute, they would both be considered and would be 
    debatable under the 5-minute rule. . . .
        The 5-minute rule applies only to amendments to the Smith 
    amendment which has been printed in the Record. Other amendments to 
    the Smith amendment do not have debate time; they are just voted 
    on. . . .
        Mr. [Benjamin A.] Gilman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the Krueger amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute. My amendment has been printed in the Record.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Krueger immediately after 
        section 26 of the Natural Gas Act (as added by section 208) 
        insert the following:

        ``treatment of rates and charges for natural gas sold to senior 
                                    citizens

            ``Sec. 27. (a) The Commission shall prohibit any natural-
        gas company from selling or otherwise supplying natural gas to 
        any local natural gas company which increases the rates for 
        natural gas sold to senior citizens. . . .

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana] (during the 
    reading): Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
        The point of order lies to the fact that the amendment now 
    being read is to the Krueger amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and is not in order until there has been a disposition 
    of the Eckhardt amendment to the Smith substitute.
        The Chairman: The Chair has stated that any amendment to the 
    Krueger amendment in the nature of a substitute may now be offered 
    and is debatable.
        Mr. Waggonner: But, Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not in order 
    until there has been a disposition of the Eckhardt amendment to the 
    Smith substitute which is now under consideration.
        The Chairman: This amendment takes precedence. This amendment 
    takes precedence over the amendment to the substitute amendment. 
    That is what the Chair has been trying to say now, repeatedly. The 
    amendment that has precedence is an amendment to the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute, and this is the amendment that is now 
    before the committee. . . .
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Texas

[[Page 7072]]

    (Mr. Eckhardt) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa 
    (Mr. Smith) as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger).
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Eckhardt) there were--ayes 33, noes 35.
        So the amendment to the substitute amendment for the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute was rejected.

Precedence of Perfecting Amendments to Original Text

Sec. 23.16 Where there is pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, perfecting amendments and amendments thereto to the 
    pending portion of underlying text may be offered and are voted on 
    prior to the vote on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    and amendments thereto.

    On Apr. 13, 1983,(16) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Joint Resolution 13,(17) the 
above-stated proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 129 Cong. Rec. 8402-04, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. Nuclear Weapons Freeze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    perfecting amendment at the desk to section 2 of House Joint 
    Resolution 13.
        The Chairman: (18) the Chair will advise that 
    perfecting amendments to the underlying text are in order at this 
    time while the Levitas amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    pending. But the Chair will also point out that if any Member is 
    recognized to offer a perfecting amendment at this time, debate 
    will not be limited on the perfecting amendment and the vote will 
    first come on the perfecting amendment and on any potential 
    amendments thereto before the question is put on the Levitas 
    substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Perfecting Amendment to Original Text Voted On First

Sec. 23.17 While an amendment in the nature of a substitute is pending 
    to a proposition which is open to amendment at any point, a 
    perfecting amendment to the original text may be offered, and a 
    perfecting amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    may be offered; but the perfecting amendment to the original text 
    is voted on first.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on May 3, 
1979,(19) during consideration of House Concurrent 
Resolution 107 (20) in the Committee of the

[[Page 7073]]

Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 9654, 9660, 9663, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. The first concurrent resolution on the Budget, fiscal 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Rousselot: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:

        That the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant to 
    section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that for 
    the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1979--(1) the recommended 
    level of Federal revenues is $515,000,000,000, and the amount by 
    which the aggregate level of Federal revenues should be decreased 
    is $10,000,000,000. . . .
        Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment to the text of the concurrent resolution (H. 
    Con. Res. 107).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Wylie: Strike out 
        sections 1 through 5 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
        That the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant to 
        section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that 
        for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1979. . . .

        Mr. [Charles E.] Grassley [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Grassley to the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Rousselot:
            In the matter relating to the appropriate level of total 
        new budget authority reduce the amount by $1,100,000,000. . . .

        Mr. Wylie: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman from Ohio will state 
    his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wylie: The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Grassley) is offering 
    an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered 
    by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot), as I understand 
    it.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Wylie: That would be voted on before my perfecting 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: No. The perfecting amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wylie) to the concurrent resolution would 
    be voted on first.
        Mr. Wylie: That was my understanding Mr. Chairman. My amendment 
    includes the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
    Grassley).
        Mr. Grassley: Mr. Chairman, I am offering the perfecting 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot).
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Grassley) is 
    offering the perfecting amendment to the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Rousselot). The perfecting amendment to the main resolution offered 
    by the gentleman from Ohio would be voted on first.

[[Page 7074]]

Sec. 23.18 Pending the vote on a perfecting amendment to an amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute (to a proposition open for amendment 
    at any point), a perfecting amendment to the original text may be 
    offered and must be voted on first.

    On May 3, 1979,(2) uring consideration of House 
Concurrent Resolution 107 (3) n the Committee of the Whole, 
the proceedings described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 125 Cong. Rec. 9664, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. The first concurrent resolution on the Budget, fiscal 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to 
    the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot).

                          parliamentary inquiries

        Mr. Solarz: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Solarz: Mr. Chairman, if I were to withdraw my request to 
    speak at this particular time on the Rousselot amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute, would a vote then be in order on the 
    Grassley amendment to the Rousselot amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk which I think would precede the vote on the 
    Rousselot amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: Is the gentleman's amendment a perfecting 
    amendment to the resolution?
        Mr. Solomon: To the basic resolution, yes, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.

                perfecting amendment offered by mr. solomon

        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment.

    The Clerk read the perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Solomon and, 
following brief debate, the Chair put the question thereon.

Committee Amendments and Amendments Offered From Floor

Sec. 23.19 Amendments recommended by a committee reporting a bill are 
    normally considered before amendments offered from the floor; and 
    where a ``modified closed'' rule adopted by the House permitted 
    consideration of reported committee amendments en bloc and 
    permitted three designated

[[Page 7075]]

    amendments to be offered without specifying the order of 
    consideration, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole required 
    that the committee amendments be first disposed of unless the 
    Committee of the Whole determined otherwise by unanimous consent.

    On Dec. 1, 1982, (5) during consideration of H.R. 6995 
(6) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 128 Cong. Rec. 28206, 28209, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. For further 
        discussion of committee amendments, see Sec. 26, infra.
 6. The Federal Trade Commission Authorization Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (7) Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
    considered as having been read for amendment under the 5-minute 
    rule. No amendments are in order except: First, the amendments en 
    bloc recommended by the Committee on Rules now printed in the bill; 
    second, the amendment printed in the Congressional Record of 
    September 15, 1982, by, and if offered by, Representative Luken or 
    Representative Lee which shall be subject to a substitute printed 
    in the Congressional Record of September 15, 1982, by 
    Representative Broyhill and if offered by Representative Broyhill 
    or Representative Dingell. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would entertain first the amendments en bloc 
    recommended by the Committee on Rules now printed in the bill, 
    unless someone requests unanimous consent to proceed otherwise.
        Mr. [James J.] Florio [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Dannemeyer) be authorized at this point to offer the so-called 
    Luken-Lee amendment. . . .
        There was no objection.

Perfecting Amendments and Motions To Strike

Sec. 23.20 While a motion to strike out language in a bill is pending, 
    a perfecting amendment to a portion of the language sought to be 
    stricken may be offered, and it is further in order to offer an 
    amendment to such amendment, a substitute for said amendment and an 
    amendment to the substitute; the vote is taken first on the 
    amendment to the amendment, then on the amendment to the 
    substitute, then on the substitute, and then on the amendment; the 
    vote then recurs on the original motion to strike, which if adopted 
    deletes any perfections adopted to the original language sought to 
    be stricken.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on July 18,

[[Page 7076]]

1979,(8) during consideration of H.R. 4473 (9) in 
the Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 125 Cong. Rec. 19310-12, 19314, 19316, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. For 
        discussion of perfecting amendments, or motions to strike and 
        insert, and motions to strike, generally, see Sec. Sec. 15-17, 
        supra, and Sec. 24, infra.
 9. Foreign Assistance Appropriations, Fiscal Year 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

           contribution to the international development association

            For payment to the International Development Association by 
        the Secretary of the Treasury, $292,000,000 for the United 
        States contribution to the fourth replenishment as authorized 
        by the Act of August 14, 1974 (Public Law 93-373), to remain 
        available until expended and $800,000,-000, for the third 
        installment of the United States contribution to the fifth 
        replenishment as authorized by the Act of October 3, 1977 
        (Public Law 95-118), to remain available until expended. . . .

    Mr. C. W. Young, of Florida, offered an amendment to strike the 
language after ``Treasury,'' down to (but not including) the figure of 
$800,000,000:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Florida: On page 4, line 
        4, after the comma, strike the remainder of line 4 and lines 5 
        through 7.

        Mr. Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes to the 
    International Development Association of the World Bank.
        That is the soft-loan window of the World Bank that makes loans 
    that are 50 years' repayment with no repayment during the first 10 
    years, no interest, less than a 1-percent handling charge.
        Now, the amount of cut this amendment would accomplish is $292 
    million. The $292 million was arrived at because that is the amount 
    of the so-called IDA IV replenishment.
        Now, the Congress last year refused to appropriate this money 
    for the IDA IV replenishment. We also refused to do it the year 
    before that. So what we have in effect is the administration coming 
    back now and asking to put money back into the IDA account that we 
    refused to do last year and the year before.
        Now, we are already appropriating money for the IDA V 
    replenishment. We are already negotiating for the IDA VI 
    replenishment.
        It is just my feeling that we can save our taxpayers a lot of 
    money if we just go ahead and let IDA IV go by the board, like we 
    did last year and like we did the year before. It is not going to 
    hurt anybody. IDA has plenty of money. . . .
        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment by Mr. Obey to the [bill]: Restore the matter 
        stricken by said amendment, changing the sum named in such 
        matter to ``$286,160,000''. . . .

        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from Florida 
    insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).

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

[[Page 7077]]

        Mr. Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of 
    order. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair has looked at the amendment, and the 
    Chair would say that the amendment of the gentleman from Florida 
    strikes a part of the bill, that the amendment sent up by the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin is, in fact, a perfecting amendment to the 
    bill, which is one of the exceptions of having two amendments 
    pending at the same time. The amendment of the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin only changes the figure that is part of the text of the 
    bill which the gentleman from Florida seeks to strike altogether, 
    and therefore the Chair will respectfully overrule the point of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. [Matthew F.] McHugh [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered by Mr. Obey.
        Mr. Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about this 
    further amendment. It seems to me that would be a third-degree 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: No, the Chair will explain to the gentleman that 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin was in the 
    nature of a perfecting amendment to the bill, and it of itself is 
    in the first degree. . . .
        Mr. Young of Florida: . . . The amendment I am reading that was 
    originally offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was 
    offered by Mr. Obey as an amendment to the amendment offered by Mr. 
    Young of Florida.
        The Chairman: This is correct. However, the Chair has stated 
    that the amendment has been interpreted by the Chair as being a 
    perfecting amendment to the bill; not to the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Florida, but to the bill, and subject to 
    amendment itself. The precedents support the Chair on this point. . 
    . .
        Mr. Young of Florida: We now have pending the original Young of 
    Florida amendment.
        The Chairman: Yes.
        Mr. Young of Florida: An amendment to that amendment offered by 
    Mr. Obey, which, in effect, was not an amendment to that amendment 
    but which was, in effect, a perfecting amendment to the bill.
        The Chairman: This is correct. There would still be an 
    opportunity to vote on the Young of Florida amendment striking 
    whatever is perfected by these two amendments. . . .
        Mr. Young of Florida: After the Young amendment and the Obey 
    amendment, we now have the McHugh amendment to the Obey amendment. 
    Is that correct?
        The Chairman: This is correct.
        Mr. Young of Florida: So the parliamentary situation is that we 
    have three amendments before us, but technically one of them is an 
    amendment to the bill and one of them is really an amendment to the 
    bill. So, in effect, there is a further amending procedure that 
    could be used; that would be a substitute for the final amendment 
    offered by Mr. McHugh.
        The Chairman: A substitute for the Obey amendment would still 
    be in order.
        Mr. Young of Florida: I thank the Chairman.

[[Page 7078]]

        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McHugh to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Obey: Strike out ``$286,- 160,000'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``$286,159,000''. . . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Smith of Nebraska as a substitute 
        for the amendment offered by Mr. Obey: Restore the matter 
        stricken by said amendment, changing the sum named in such 
        matter to ``$86,000,000.'' . . .

        Mr. Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
    amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Florida to the amendment 
        offered by Mrs. Smith of Nebraska as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Obey: Strike out ``$86,000,000'' and 
        insert ``$85,000,000''. . . .

        Mr. Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Young of Florida: . . . I want to find out now in what 
    order the votes will be coming, if I might.
        The Chairman: The Chair will inform the gentleman that the 
    first vote will be agreeing on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) to the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
        The second vote will come on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) to the substitute amendment 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Nebraska (Mrs. Smith). Then there 
    will be a third vote on the Smith substitute itself, and then there 
    will be a fourth vote on the Obey amendment. Then we will have a 
    vote on the original Young amendment.
        Mr. Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I have a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        If the Obey amendment, as amended or substituted or however it 
    might turn out, is voted on in its original form, the way that the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) first submitted it, it strikes 
    and replaces a figure that would not have been stricken in the 
    first place.
        The Chairman: Then the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Florida (Mr. Young) would come in for a vote after that of the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
        Mr. Young of Florida: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but if I may pose 
    another parliamentary inquiry, that is the problem in which I find 
    myself.
        Until the original amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Florida is accepted, there is no language stricken. However, the 
    amendment that we would be voting on, the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), in fact says: Restore the 
    matter stricken. But at that point nothing had been stricken. I am 
    having a little problem with the parliamentary situation there.
        The Chairman: But the Chair has explained to the gentleman that 
    the Obey amendment was a perfecting amendment to the bill, not to 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and 
    in effect

[[Page 7079]]

    the instructions in the Obey amendment to restore language are to 
    be disregarded. If the Obey amendment carries, the Young amendment 
    will still be voted upon after the Obey amendment has been voted 
    on.
        Mr. Young of Florida: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Young of Florida: Then, Mr. Chairman, will the Young 
    amendment be in its original form, or will it have also been 
    amended by the Obey amendment to perfect the bill?
        The Chairman: It will be in its original form.
        Mr. Young of Florida: So the Young amendment then will be voted 
    on in its original form regardless of what happens?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Where Amendments To Strike, Strike and Insert, and Insert Are Pending 
    Simultaneously

Sec. 23.21 A perfecting amendment to a paragraph takes precedence over 
    a motion to strike out the paragraph and insert a new text; and 
    where a motion to strike out a paragraph, a motion to strike out 
    the paragraph and insert a new text, and a perfecting amendment to 
    the paragraph are pending, the amendments are voted on in the 
    reverse order.

    On July 12, 1951, the Chair indicated that, if a motion to strike 
out a paragraph and insert new language is agreed to, a pending 
amendment proposing to strike out the paragraph falls and is not voted 
upon. On that date, a bill (11) was under consideration to 
amend the Defense Production Act of 1950. An amendment was offered as 
follows: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 3871.
12. 97 Cong. Rec. 8073, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Howard H.] Buffett [of Nebraska]: 
    Page 8, line 25, strike out all of subsection (e). . . .
A further (perfecting) amendment was offered: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 8077. A motion to strike and insert is not a proper 
        substitute for a motion to strike. However, a perfecting 
        amendment to strike and insert was in order and the Wolcott 
        amendment was so treated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan] as a 
    substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Buffett: Page 8, line 
    25, strike out subsection (e) and insert in lieu thereof the 
    following: . . .
The following proceedings then took place:

        Mr. [Jacob K.] Javits [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment perfecting the language sought to be stricken by the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Buffett). . . 
    .
        Amendment offered by Mr. Javits: On page 9, line 1, after the 
    word ``de

[[Page 7080]]

    fense'', insert ``and upon the certification of the Director of 
    Defense Mobilization that it is required for the national defense 
    and is not otherwise obtainable.'' (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 8084.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (15) . . . Under the rules the 
    perfecting amendment will be voted upon first; the motion to strike 
    out and insert will be voted upon next; and, should the amendment 
    by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Wolcott] be adopted, the motion 
    made by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Buffett] would fall. 
    (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
16. 97 Cong. Rec. 8090, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Sept. 15, 1970,(17) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 31840, 31845, 31846, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 17654.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Sam M.] Gibbons [of Florida]: On page 
    41 strike all of section 120, lines 1 through 23, inclusive. . . .
        Amendment offered by Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: On 
    page 41, strike out line 1 through line 23 and insert the 
    following:

            Motions in the House to Dispose of Nongermane Amendments 
        Between the Two Houses to House or Senate Bills or Resolutions. 
        . . .

        [The O'Hara amendment was agreed to.]
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. Have we voted on the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons)?
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair would like to inform 
    the gentleman from Missouri that since the amendment to strike and 
    insert of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara) was adopted, 
    that means that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
    (Mr. Gibbons) the motion to strike, that is, falls as a result of 
    the adoption of the first amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 23.22 Where it is proposed to strike out a paragraph of a bill, it 
    is in order to perfect the paragraph, as by adding new language 
    thereto, before acting on the motion to strike, and the perfecting 
    amendment is first disposed of.

    On Feb. 24, 1977,(19) in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry, the Chair indicated that a perfecting amendment adding words 
to a paragraph of a bill (20) would be voted on before a 
pending motion to strike such paragraph. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 5321, 5323, 5325, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. H.R. 11, Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act 
        Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sam] Gibbons [of Florida]: Madam Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

            Page 2, strike out line 23 and all that follows down 
        through and including line 7 on page 3. . . .

[[Page 7081]]

        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Madam Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Harsha: Page 3, line 7, 
        after the first period insert the following:
            ``This subsection shall not apply in any case where the 
        Secretary determines it to be inconsistent with the public 
        interest, or the cost to be unreasonable. . . .

        Mr. Gibbons: Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I 
    only take the floor for the purpose of asking the gentleman from 
    Ohio to clarify his amendment. As I understand it, this amendment 
    is a substitute for my amendment. If the gentleman's amendment is 
    adopted, my amendment would be wiped out and his would, in effect, 
    be reaffirmation of the existing buy American law. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair would say to the 
    gentleman from Florida that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Ohio is a perfecting amendment to the text of the bill, and it 
    will be voted on first because of its precedence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert A.] Roe [of New Jersey]: Madam Chairman, would the 
    Chair explain the parliamentary situation?
        The Chairman: The parliamentary situation is this:
        The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons) offered an amendment 
    to strike a paragraph from the bill. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Harsha) offered an amendment which is a perfecting amendment to the 
    original bill and which, if it is adopted, would be a part of the 
    original text which the gentleman from Florida proposes to strike.
        The question would then occur on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons). If the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons) were adopted, then the 
    language which had been included as a perfecting amendment would 
    also be stricken, along with the rest of the paragraph.
        The question is on the perfecting amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha).
        The perfecting amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons).
        The amendment was rejected.

Amendments To Strike All After Enacting Clause and Insert New Matter

Sec. 23.23 A committee amendment to the first paragraph or section of a 
    bill is voted on before a vote is taken on an amendment to strike 
    out all after the enacting clause and insert new matter.

    On Feb. 9, 1940,(2) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 86 Cong. Rec. 1330, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 960, extending the classified executive civil service of 
        the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: May an amendment which 
    proposes to

[[Page 7082]]

    strike out all after the enacting clause and insert other matter be 
    offered at any time during the process of the reading of the bill, 
    or must it be offered at some particular point in the bill?
        The Chairman: (3) It may be offered at the 
    conclusion of the reading of the first section, with notice that if 
    it is adopted, motions will be made as subsequent sections are read 
    that they be stricken out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Charles F. McLaughlin (Nebr.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Nichols: Does the Chair mean by that statement that an 
    amendment offered at the close of the reading of the first section 
    to strike out all after the enacting clause would not be in order?
        The Chairman: It can be done after the reading of the first 
    section as soon as the committee amendment is disposed of.

Motion To Strike Enacting Clause

Sec. 23.24 A motion to strike out the enacting clause of an omnibus 
    private bill takes precedence over an amendment to strike out a 
    title of the bill, and if adopted, applies to the entire bill.

    On May 16, 1939,(4) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 84 Cong. Rec. 5613, 5616-18, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            H.R. 6182. A bill for the relief of sundry aliens. . . .
            Mr. [A. Leonard] Allen of Louisiana moves that the enacting 
        clause be stricken out. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The gentleman from 
    Louisiana (Mr. Allen) has offered a preferential motion to strike 
    out the enacting clause. If that motion is adopted, then there 
    would be no further consideration of the bill. It would apply to 
    all titles enumerated in the bill. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If the gentleman's motion is not adopted, the next procedure 
    would be to vote upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Ohio [Mr. Jenkins] to strike out title I of the bill.

Order of Consideration, as Specified in Special Rule, Changed by 
    Unanimous Consent

Sec. 23.25 Where a special rule adopted by the House governing 
    consideration of a bill specifies the order in which amendments may 
    be considered in Committee of the Whole, the House (but not the 
    Committee of the Whole) may by unanimous consent change the order 
    of consideration of the amendments.

    The proposition stated above was the basis of the following 
proceedings in the House, which oc

[[Page 7083]]

curred on June 14, 1984,(6) during consideration of H.R. 
1510: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 130 Cong. Rec. 16404-05, 98th Cong. 2d Sess. For discussion of the 
        effects of special rules on consideration generally, see Sec. 
        Sec. 3, supra.
 7. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Romano L.] Mazzoli [of Kentucky]: . . . Therefore, the 
    gentleman from Kentucky now, Mr. Speaker, makes the unanimous-
    consent request that amendments numbered 46, 47, and 48 to the bill 
    (H.R. 1510) be postponed for consideration until Tuesday next, to 
    become the first order of business on that day.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) To become the first 
    order of business upon the resumption of the sitting of the 
    Committee of the Whole under the terms of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mazzoli: Precisely.
        Mr. [Howard L.] Berman [of California]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, are 46, 47, and 48 king of the mountain 
    amendments?
        Mr. Mazzoli: It says king of the mountain, on page 3, yes. The 
    gentleman is correct. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
    Mazzoli] asks unanimous consent that amendments numbered 46, 47, 
    and 48 be postponed for consideration until Tuesday next and that 
    they be in that order, the first order of business, when the 
    Committee resumes sitting under the Committee of the Whole for the 
    further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1510).
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Kentucky?
        There was no objection.

Amendments to Preamble

Sec. 23.26 Amendments to the preamble of a joint resolution are 
    considered in the Committee of the Whole following the disposition 
    of any amendments to the body of the resolution; and, in the House, 
    amendments to the preamble of a joint resolution reported from 
    Committee of the Whole are considered following engrossment and 
    prior to third reading of the resolution.

    On Oct. 29, 1975, (9) the Committee of the Whole having 
amended the preamble of a joint resolution reported the joint 
resolution (10) back to the House, the proceedings described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 34282, 34283, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. For discussion of 
        amendments to titles and preambles generally, see Sec. 19, 
        supra.
10. H.J. Res. 92, census statistics, economic and social, relating to 
        Americans of Spanish origin or descent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) Are there further amendments to 
    the bill? If not, the Clerk will report the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William J. Randall (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Whereas more than twelve million Americans identify 
        themselves as

[[Page 7084]]

        being of Spanish-speaking background and trace their origin or 
        descent from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Central and South 
        America, and other Spanish-speaking countries. . . .

        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the committee amendment to 
    the preamble.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Amend the preamble by striking out 
        ``Western Hemisphere''.

        The committee amendment to the preamble was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the committee rises.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Randall, 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. 92) 
    relating to the publication of economic and social statistics for 
    Americans of Spanish origin or descent, pursuant to House 
    Resolution 799, reported the joint resolution back to the House 
    with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker: (12) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair 
    will put them en gross.
        The amendments were agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment of the joint 
    resolution.
        The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the amendment to the 
    preamble.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amend the preamble by striking out ``Western Hemisphere''.

        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment to the preamble.
        The amendment to the preamble was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the third reading of the joint 
    resolution.
        The joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, and 
    was read the third time.

Sec. 23.27 Amendments to the preamble of a concurrent resolution are 
    considered in the House after the resolution has been agreed to.

    On Feb. 21, 1966, (13) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 112 Cong. Rec. 3473, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      House Concurrent Resolution 552

        Whereas June 15, 1966, will mark the fiftieth anniversary of 
    the granting by Act of Congress of the charter of the Boy Scouts of 
    America. . . .
        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That the Congress hereby pay tribute. . . .
        The concurrent resolution was agreed to and a motion to 
    reconsider was laid on the table.
        The following committee amendment was agreed to:

            On pages 1 and 2, strike all ``Whereas'' clauses.

        Mr. [Arch A.] Moore [Jr., of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent for the present consider

[[Page 7085]]

    ation of Senate Concurrent Resolution 68, which is similar to House 
    Concurrent Resolution 552. . . .
        There being no objection, the Clerk read the Senate concurrent 
    resolution. . . .
        Mr. Moore: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Moore: Strike out all after the 
        [resolving] clause and insert the provisions of House 
        Concurrent Resolution 552 as passed.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) Would the amendment of 
    the gentleman from West Virginia strike out the preamble or all 
    after the [resolving] clause and substitute the language of the 
    House concurrent resolution just passed?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Moore: It would strike out all after the [resolving] 
    clause.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That would not eliminate the preamble.

    Mr. Moore having indicated he would move to strike the preamble, 
the Senate concurrent resolution was agreed to and a motion to 
reconsider was laid on the table, whereupon the Chair instructed the 
Clerk to read Mr. Moore's motion:

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the amendment of 
    the gentleman from West Virginia.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Moore moves to strike out the preamble.

        The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment of Table of Contents

Sec. 23.28 By unanimous consent, the Committee of the Whole delayed 
    consideration for amendment of the table of contents at the 
    beginning of a bill until the bill had been considered for 
    amendment in its entirety.

    On Aug. 2, 1977, (15) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 8444, (16) the unanimous-consent 
request described above was agreed to as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 26124, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. National Energy Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (17) When the Committee rose on 
    Monday, August 1, 1977, all time for general debate had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered by parts and each 
    part is considered as having been read for amendment. No amendment 
    shall be in order except pro forma amendments and amendments made 
    in order pursuant to House Resolution 727, which will not be 
    subject to amendment, except amendments recommended by the ad hoc 
    Committee on Energy and amendments made in order under House 
    Resolution 727.
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the Committee amendments

[[Page 7086]]

    to the table of contents and the table of contents be passed over 
    and considered after all other amendments have been considered, in 
    order that they can be correctly disposed of.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Ohio?
        There was no objection.

Instance Where Two Perfecting Amendments to Same Text Were Pending 
    Simultaneously

Sec. 23.29 While there may be pending only one perfecting amendment to 
    a section at a time and there are no degrees of preference as 
    between perfecting amendments, in one instance where there was 
    pending an amendment proposing to strike out a subsection and 
    insert new language, the Chair announced that an amendment which 
    merely perfected the subsection of the bill (and which could have 
    been drafted as a substitute) would be treated as a perfecting 
    amendment to the bill and would be voted on first.

    On Mar. 21, 1975,(18) during consideration of a bill 
(19) in the Committee of the Whole the proceedings, 
described above, occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 7950, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. H.R. 4485, the Emergency Middle-Income Housing Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick: Page 11, strike out 
        lines 1 through 12 and insert in lieu thereof:
            ``(d) Not more than 50 per centum of the aggregate mortgage 
        amounts approved in appropriation Acts may be allocated (1) for 
        use with respect to existing previously occupied dwellings 
        which have not been substantially rehabilitated and (2) for use 
        with respect to new, unsold dwelling units the construction of 
        which commenced prior to the enactment of this Act. Not more 
        than 10 per centum of the aggregate mortgage amounts approved 
        in appropriation Acts may be allocated with respect to dwelling 
        units with appraised values in excess of $38,000.''. . .

        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. AuCoin: On page 11, 
        line 1, strike out ``25'' and insert in lieu thereof ``30.''
            On page 11, line 3, insert ``with respect to existing units 
        and'' immediately after ``use.''

        The Chairman: (20) The Chair will treat this 
    amendment as a perfecting amendment to the paragraph of the bill 
    and it will be voted on first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The AuCoin amendment could have been 
interpreted as a substitute for the Fenwick amendment, but it was far 
less comprehensive in scope and if agreed to would not

[[Page 7087]]

have precluded the reoffering of the Fenwick amendment in its original 
form.


 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
                      E. CONSIDERATION AND VOTING
 
Sec. 24. Perfecting Amendments; Motions To Strike

No Preference Between Perfecting Amendments

Sec. 24.1 There may be pending but one perfecting amendment to a 
    section at a time and there are no degrees of preference as between 
    perfecting amendments.

    On Mar. 9, 1935,(21) during consideration of H.R. 6021, 
relating to home mortgage relief, an amendment was offered by Mr. 
Walter G. Andrews, of New York, to section 10 of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 79 Cong. Rec. 3291, 3294, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
            An amendment had been offered inserting a new section 11, 
        which the Chair indicated would be voted upon after perfecting 
        amendments to section 10 were disposed of.
            For an instance in which a second perfecting amendment to 
        text was considered and voted on prior to another perfecting 
        amendment, see Sec. 23.29, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment by Mr. Andrews of New York: Page 7, line 17, after 
    the word ``following'', insert a new paragraph to read as follows--
        . . .``In the appointment of agents and the selection of 
    employees for said Corporation, and in the promotion of agents or 
    employees, no partisan political test or qualification shall be 
    permitted or given consideration, but all agents and employees 
    shall be appointed, employed, or promoted solely upon the basis of 
    merit and efficiency. Any member of the Board who is found guilty 
    of a violation of this provision by the President of the United 
    States shall be removed from office by the President of the United 
    States and any agent or employee of the Corporation who is found 
    guilty of a violation of this section by the Board shall be removed 
    from office by said Board.''

    Subsequently, an amendment was offered by Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of 
Texas:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Blanton: Page 7, line 19, after the 
    word ``office'' insert ``or congressional district''. . . .
        The Chairman: (22) The Chair suggests to the 
    gentleman from Texas that the gentleman withhold his amendment 
    until the committee has disposed of the other perfecting amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Andrews].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Emanuel Celler (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Blanton: That amendment added a new section, Mr. Chairman. 
    Mine is perfecting the text of section 10. . . .
        I make the point of order that any amendment that changes the 
    text in any way or seeks to perfect it is preferential. . . .
        The Chairman: The Andrews amendment does something to the bill 
    in the way of perfecting it, and that is exactly what the 
    gentleman's amend

[[Page 7088]]

    ment does, and the committee would have two perfecting amendments 
    pending at the same time if the gentleman's amendment was offered 
    at this time. The Chair suggests that the gentleman withhold his 
    amendment.

Amendment Inserting New Section

Sec. 24.2 Perfecting amendments to a section are considered before 
    amendments proposing to insert new sections.

    On Mar. 9, 1935,(23) during consideration of a bill 
(1) relating to home mortgage relief, the following exchange 
took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. 79 Cong. Rec. 3291, 74th Cong. 1st Sess. For further discussion of 
        priorities among proffered amendments, see Sec. Sec. 15 et 
        seq., supra.
 1. H.R. 6021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (2) The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Brown] is a proposed new section to 
    follow section 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Emanuel Celler (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Then all amendments which 
    would perfect the text should be voted upon before the Brown 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: All amendments that perfect section 10 would 
    naturally come before the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Michigan [Mr. Brown]; that is correct.

Perfecting Amendment Voted On Before Amendment To Strike

Sec. 24.3 All perfecting amendments to a section of a bill must be 
    disposed of prior to the vote recurring on a pending motion to 
    strike out the section.

    On Aug. 3, 1966,(3) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 112 Cong. Rec. 18111-15, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 14765.
            For further discussion of the precedence of perfecting 
        amendments, see Sec. 15 et seq., supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Arch A.] Moore [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. Moore: Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have offered, in 
    effect, will strike the language contained in title IV of the bill 
    before us.
        Mr. [Charles McC.] Mathias [Jr., of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer a perfecting amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Under what 
    conditions can a perfecting amendment to title IV be offered by the 
    gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mathias] in view of the fact that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Moore] 
    was to strike out all of title IV. What does it perfect? Or what 
    would it then perfect?
        The Chairman: (4) Under our rules--the rules of the 
    House, and ordinary

[[Page 7089]]

    parliamentary procedure--the basic legislation is perfected before 
    there is a vote on an amendment to strike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 24.4 The vote on a perfecting amendment takes precedence over a 
    vote on a motion to strike out.

    On Oct. 20, 1967,(5) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 113 Cong. Rec. 29569, 29570, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            On page 2, line 3, strike the words ``available to'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof the words ``covered into a special fund 
        in the Treasury which when appropriated shall be available 
        until expended by''. . . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [California] to the 
        committee amendment:
            On page 2, line 2, after the period, strike out the 
        remainder of line 2 and following down through line 10. . . .

        The Chairman: (6) The Chair will state that the 
    question first (comes) on the perfecting amendment, and 
    subsequently on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Hosmer], which was in effect a motion to strike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Fernand J. St Germain (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Similarly, on May 17, 1944, the Chair stated that perfecting 
    amendments are voted on before amendments to strike 
    out.(7) The statement of the Chairman (8) was 
    as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See 90 Cong. Rec. 4616, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        S. 1767, relating to aid for the readjustment in civilian life 
        of returning war veterans.
 8. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            The amendment offered by the gentleman from South Dakota is 
        offered as an amendment to the text of the bill, therefore is a 
        perfecting amendment to the text of the bill. The vote would 
        come first on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
        Dakota in view of the fact that perfecting amendments are voted 
        upon prior to amendments to strike out.

Sec. 24.5 A perfecting amendment to the text of a bill is in order 
    pending a vote on a motion to strike out the same text and is first 
    voted on.

    On Oct. 3, 1969, (9) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 115 Cong. Rec. 28454, 28455, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 14000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Motion offered by Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: 
        On page 16, line 9, strike all of Title V. . . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana] 
        to title V: On page 17, immediately after line 13 insert the 
        following:
            Sec. 505. . . .

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: . . . How can you 
    have an amendment to a section that is to be stricken?

[[Page 7090]]

        . . . I make the point of order that the amendment is not in 
    order and is not germane to the section.
        The Chairman: (10) . . . Perfecting amendments to a 
    title in a bill may be offered while there is pending a motion to 
    strike out such title.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is well established that, where both a perfecting amendment to a 
section and a motion to strike out the section are pending, the 
perfecting amendment is first voted on. Further, the Chair may decline 
to recognize a Member offering a motion to strike out text as a 
substitute for a pending motion to perfect the same text, since a 
motion to strike is not a proper substitute for a perfecting amendment.
    On June 4, 1968,(11) for example, the following 
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 114 Cong. Rec. 15889, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 17268.
            See also, for further examples, 119 Cong. Rec. 26201, 
        26204, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., July 26, 1973; and 113 Cong. Rec. 
        26120, 26122, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 20, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (12) The Clerk will report the next 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            On page 3, line 17, after ``section'' insert. . . .

        Mr. [Porter] Hardy [Jr., of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. Would it be in order at this point to offer 
    a substitute for the committee amendment to strike out the entire 
    language beginning at line 7 through line 20?
        The Chairman: Not until we have disposed of the committee 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. Hardy: Will the committee amendment--is it not in order to 
    offer a substitute for the committee amendment?
        The Chairman: After we dispose of the pending committee 
    amendment a motion to strike out the section would be in order.

Sec. 24.6 A perfecting amendment to a paragraph may be offered while a 
    motion to strike out the paragraph is pending, and the perfecting 
    amendment is voted on first.

    On June 24, 1975,(13) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill,(14) an amendment was offered and 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 20569, 20570, 20573, 20574, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. H.R. 8070, Department of Urban Development appropriations, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Leo J.] Ryan [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The portion of the bill to which the amendment relates is as 
    follows:

                            Selective Service System

                             salaries and expenses

            For expenses necessary for the Selective Service System, 
        including ex

[[Page 7091]]

        penses of attendance at meetings and of training for uniformed 
        personnel assigned to the Selective Service System, as 
        authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 4101-4118) for civilian employees; 
        and not to exceed $1,000 for official reception and 
        representation expenses: $40,000,000: . . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ryan: Page 26, strike out line 18 
        and all that follows thereafter through page 27, line 13. . . .

        Mr. [Robert F.] Drinan [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a perfecting amendment to the paragraph of the bill which the Ryan 
    amendment seeks to strike.

        The Chairman: (15) The Clerk will report the 
    perfecting amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Drinan to the paragraph 
        which the Ryan amendment seeks to strike: On page 27, line 1, 
        strike out ``$40,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$17,672,000.''
            On page 27, line 11, strike out ``$8,300,000'' and insert 
        in lieu thereof ``$3,272,000.''. . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the perfecting amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Drinan). . . .
        (T)he perfecting amendment was rejected.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Ryan).
        The amendment was rejected.

Sec. 24.7 Where there is pending an amendment to strike out a section 
    of a bill, a perfecting amendment to that section striking out some 
    of its provisions and inserting new language is in order and is 
    first voted upon.

    On Apr. 19, 1973,(16) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 119 Cong. Rec. 13233, 13235, 13240, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was S. 502.
            See also 116 Cong. Rec. 8188, 8190, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Mar. 19, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Hanley [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hanley: Page 124, strike out line 
        10 and all that follows down through and including the line 
        following line 12 on page 125.
            Renumber succeeding sections and references thereto 
        accordingly. . . .

        Mr. [John] Buchanan [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Buchanan: Page 124, 
        strike out line 14 and all that follows down through and 
        including the line following line 12 on page 125, and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
            Sec. 149. Availability of urban system funds. . . .

        The Chairman: (17) . . . The question is on the 
    perfecting amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
    Buchanan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Morris K. Udall (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The perfecting amendment was rejected.

[[Page 7092]]

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanley).

Perfecting Amendment Added to End of Material Proposed To Be Stricken

Sec. 24.8 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair indicated 
    (1) that a perfecting amendment adding words to a paragraph would 
    be voted on before a pending motion to strike such paragraph, and 
    (2) that the adoption of the motion to strike the paragraph would 
    strike the perfecting language, if adopted, along with the rest of 
    the paragraph.

    On Feb. 24, 1977,(18) during consideration of a bill 
(19) on the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry as described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 123 Cong. Rec. 5321, 5323, 5325, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. H.R. 11, Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act 
        amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sam] Gibbons [of Florida]: Madam Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

            Page 2, strike out line 23 and all that follows down 
        through and including line 7 on page 3. . . .

        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Madam Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Harsha: Page 3, line 7, 
        after the first period insert the following:
            ``This subsection shall not apply in any case where the 
        Secretary determines it to be inconsistent with the public 
        interest, or the cost to be unreasonable. . . .

        Mr. Gibbons: Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I 
    only take the floor for the purpose of asking the gentleman from 
    Ohio to clarify his amendment. As I understand it, this amendment 
    is a substitute for my amendment. If the gentleman's amendment is 
    adopted, my amendment would be wiped out and his would, in effect, 
    be reaffirmation of the existing buy American law. . . .
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair would say to the 
    gentleman from Florida that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Ohio is a perfecting amendment to the text of the bill, and it 
    will be voted on first because of its precedence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert A.] Roe [of New Jersey]: Madam Chairman, would the 
    Chair explain the parliamentary situation?
        The Chairman: The parliamentary situation is this:
        The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons) offered an amendment 
    to strike a paragraph from the bill. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Harsha) offered an amendment which is a perfecting amendment to the 
    original bill and which, if it is adopted, would be a part of the 
    original text which the gentleman from Florida proposes to strike.
        The question would then occur on the amendment offered by the 
    gen

[[Page 7093]]

    tleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons). If the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons) were adopted, then the 
    language which had been included as a perfecting amendment would 
    also be stricken, along with the rest of the paragraph.
        The question is on the perfecting amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha).
        The perfecting amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons).
        The amendment was rejected.

    Parliamentarian's Note: An amendment adding a new sentence at the 
end of a section which is proposed to be stricken is considered a 
perfecting amendment and is first voted on.

--Motion To Strike Not Proper Substitute for Amendment Changing a 
    Figure

Sec. 24.9 Perfecting amendments to a paragraph are disposed of prior to 
    amendments to strike out the paragraph, and a motion to strike out 
    is not a proper substitute for a perfecting amendment merely 
    changing a figure.

    On June 25, 1974,(1) during consideration of a bill 
(2) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair ruled as 
described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 120 Cong. Rec. 21038, 21039, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. H.R. 15544, Treasury Department, Postal Service and Executive 
        Office appropriations, fiscal 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John T.] Myers [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Myers: On page 14, lines 16 and 
        17, strike $1,000,000 and substitute $250,000.

        Mr. Myers: Mr. Chairman, it seems to be the mood of the 
    committee this afternoon to make cuts. This would simply restore 
    the funds for the Commission on the Review of the National Policy 
    Toward Gambling back to last year's level. . . .
        Mr. [C. W.] Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Young of Florida for the amendment offered by Mr. Myers:
            Page 14, lines 10 through 17, strike lines 10 through 17 
        and renumber the following lines.

        The Chairman: (3) The Chair states that this is not 
    a proper substitute for the amendment now pending. Once the pending 
    perfecting amendment has been disposed of, then the gentleman's 
    amendment to strike out the paragraph would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Motion To Strike Title of Bill

Sec. 24.10 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chairman stated 
    that where there was pending a motion to strike a title of a bill, 
    per

[[Page 7094]]

    fecting amendments to that title could be offered and would be 
    voted on prior to voting on the motion to strike.

    On June 13, 1975,(4) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the bill H.R. 6860,(5) parliamentary 
inquiry was addressed to the Chair, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 18819, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. Energy Conservation and Conversion Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ken] Hechler of West Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hechler of West Virginia: Does this amendment strike all of 
    title IV?
        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Yes.
        Mr. Hechler of West Virginia: In that event, my parliamentary 
    inquiry is, Mr. Chairman, I have a perfecting amendment to title 
    IV. I would inquire of the Chair whether that perfecting amendment 
    could be considered.
        The Chairman: The Chair desires to inform the gentleman from 
    West Virginia that his perfecting amendment would be in order 
    pending the vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin.

--Several Amendments Pending; Vote on Motion To Strike Deferred

Sec. 24.11 There may be pending a motion to strike out a pending title 
    of a bill, a perfecting amendment (adding a new section at the end 
    of the title), and a substitute for the perfecting amendment. The 
    vote is taken first on the substitute, then on the perfecting 
    amendment, finally on the motion to strike. After the first 
    perfecting amendment has been disposed of, another may be offered 
    and the vote on the motion to strike out is again deferred until 
    the amendment is disposed of.

    The proceedings of Oct. 3, 1969, are discussed in Sec. 5.10, supra.

Text Perfected Before Vote on Striking it Out

Sec. 24.12 A motion proposing to strike out a section is not properly 
    offered as an amendment to a perfecting amendment to that section, 
    but where no point of order is raised, the Chair nevertheless 
    follows the general principle that the pending text should first be 
    perfected before the vote recurs on striking it out. The principle 
    of perfecting text before considering an amendment striking it from 
    the bill is followed even where the motion to

[[Page 7095]]

    strike out is improperly drafted as an amendment to an amendment.

    On Mar. 20, 1975,(7) uring consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill,(8) parliamentary inquiry 
was addressed to the Chair and the proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 7653, 7658, 7662, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. H.R. 4296, emergency price supports for 1975 crops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Richmond: Page 3, line 8, strike 
        the figure ``85 per centum'', and insert in lieu thereof the 
        figure ``80 per centum''. . . .

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Richmond: Page 3, line 1, strike out lines 1 through 16. 
        . .

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Am I correct that the order of consideration of the two 
    amendments presently before the committee is that the first vote 
    will occur on the so-called Richmond amendment as a perfecting 
    amendment to the bill and the second vote will occur on the Findley 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley) that he is correct. Under 
    Deschler's Procedure, Chapter 27, Section 22.3 where both a 
    perfecting amendment to a section and a motion to strike out the 
    section are pending, the perfecting amendment is first voted on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the case now facing the committee, the perfecting amendment 
    to the section is the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Richmond) and the motion to strike out the section, is 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Findley).
        Therefore, under the procedure, the perfecting amendment of the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Richmond) will be the first amendment 
    on which the committee will vote.
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Findley: In offering the amendment, the Clerk read the 
    amendment as an amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Richmond). Would that not on the face of it 
    qualify it as an amendment to the amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct in stating the manner in 
    which his amendment was proposed and as the Clerk read it; but 
    since no point of order was raised against the amendment, the 
    procedure which the Chair just read nonetheless applies.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Technically, the motion to strike out the 
designated lines should not have been offered while a perfecting 
amendment to those lines

[[Page 7096]]

was pending, but when it was offered without objection, the Chair 
properly stated the order of voting as indicated above.

Motions Pending To Strike Entire Title and Lesser Portion of Title

Sec. 24.13 Where there is pending a motion to strike an entire title of 
    a bill, it is in order to offer, as a perfecting amendment to that 
    title, a motion to strike out a lesser portion of the title, and 
    that perfecting amendment is voted on first.

    On June 11, 1975, (10) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the bill H.R. 6860, (11) a motion to 
strike a portion of the bill was offered and proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 18435, 18437, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Energy Conservation and Conversion Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Alexander: Strike out title II 
        (relating to energy conservation taxes), beginning on line 1 of 
        page 29, and ending on line 24 of page 57. . . .

        Mr. [Fortney H.] Stark [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    several amendments, and ask unanimous consent that they be 
    considered en bloc.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Stark:
            Page 30, strike out line 1 and all that follows down 
        through line 5 on page 31.
            Page 32, strike out line 20 and all that follows down 
        through line 25. . . .

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from 
    California has offered an amendment which would strike part B. The 
    gentleman from Arkansas has offered an amendment which would strike 
    the whole title.
        I would assume, after part B is perfected, as the gentleman's 
    amendment to strike part B asks, it would come before the amendment 
    to strike the whole title. Am I correct?
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair would like to advise 
    the chairman of the committee that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) is a perfecting amendment and 
    will be voted on first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. William H. Natcher (Ky.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disposition of Perfecting Amendment as Affecting Vote on Motion To 
    Strike

Sec. 24.14 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair indicated 
    that either adoption or rejection of a perfecting amendment to a 
    section would not preclude a vote on a pending motion to strike out 
    the section (where the perfecting amendment did not change all the 
    language in the section).

[[Page 7097]]

    On Mar. 20, 1975,(13) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the bill H.R. 4296, emergency price supports for 
1975 crops, the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 7653, 7658, 7663, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. For 
        discussion of effects of consideration or adoption of 
        amendments generally, see Sec. 29 et seq., infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frederick W.] Richmond [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Richmond: Page 3, line 8, strike 
        the figure ``85 per centum'', and insert in lieu thereof the 
        figure ``80 per centum''. . . .

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Richmond: Page 8, line 1, strike out lines 1 through 16. 
        . . .

        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Findley: The response of the Chair made to the 
    parliamentary inquiry of the chairman of the House Committee on 
    Agriculture indicated that because my amendment to the amendment 
    had the effect of striking the section, it would, therefore, come 
    second after the disposition of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Richmond).
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Findley: May I further ask, suppose the amendment of the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Richmond) is defeated, what standing, 
    if any, would my amendment to the amendment then have?
        The Chairman: The amendment of the gentleman from Illinois will 
    be voted on in either event.
        Mr. Findley: I thank the Chairman.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Technically, the motion to strike out the 
designated lines should not have been offered while a perfecting 
amendment to those lines was pending, but when it was offered without 
objection, the Chair properly stated the order of voting as indicated 
above.

Sec. 24.15 A perfecting amendment may be offered while a motion to 
    strike out is pending, and if the perfecting amendment changes all 
    the words proposed to be stricken out, the motion to strike 
    necessarily falls and is not voted on.

    On Apr. 9, 1979,(15) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 3324, (16) the

[[Page 7098]]

above-stated proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 125 Cong. Rec. 7753, 7755, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. The International Development Cooperation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas B.] Evans [Jr.] of Delaware: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Evans of Delaware: Page 22, strike 
        out all of lines 13 through 20 and renumber each succeeding 
        paragraph accordingly. . . .

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a perfecting amendment.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki: Page 22, 
        strike out lines 13 through 20 and insert:
            ``(2) It is the sense of Congress that funds made available 
        under this chapter for countries in the Middle East are 
        designed to promote progress toward a comprehensive peace 
        settlement in the Middle East and that Syria and Jordan, to 
        continue to receive funds under this chapter, should act in 
        good faith to achieve further progress toward a comprehensive 
        peace settlement and that the expenditure of the funds will 
        serve the process of peace in the Middle East. . . .

        The Chairman: (17) The question is on the perfecting 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The perfecting amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Delaware (Mr. Evans) will not be voted upon, because it is in the 
    nature of a motion to strike.

Perfecting Amendments to Bill While Amendment in Nature of Substitute 
    Pending

Sec. 24.16 Pending an amendment in the nature of a substitute for an 
    entire bill, perfecting amendments to the pending portion of the 
    bill may still be offered.

    On July 28, 1983, (18) during consideration of a bill 
(19) to amend the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal 
year 1983, pursuant to a special rule (20) permitting the 
majority and minority leaders to offer amendments not printed in the 
Record but requiring all other Members to offer amendments to the bill 
which have been printed in the Record, the majority leader was 
permitted to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute not 
printed in the Record, but another Member was permitted to offer a 
perfecting amendment printed in the Record to the bill while the 
substitute was pending. (Pursuant to a unanimous-consent agreement, 
(21) the bill was open to amendment at any point.) The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 129 Cong. Rec. 21468, 21469, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. H.R. 2760.
20. H. Res. 261.
21. 129 Cong. Rec. 21196, 98th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an

[[Page 7099]]

    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Wright: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
            That the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
        1983 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        title: . . .

        Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: I have an amendment that was 
    printed in the Record. Will I be given an opportunity to offer it?
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman that a printed perfecting amendment to the bill can be 
    offered before the vote on the Wright amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: In cases such as that above, the perfecting 
amendment to the pending portion of the bill is voted on first.



 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
                      E. CONSIDERATION AND VOTING
 
Sec. 25. Substitute Amendments; Amendments in Nature of Substitute

    An amendment in the nature of a substitute is basically, in form, a 
motion to strike out and insert. But the term ``amendment in the nature 
of a substitute'' applies only to those motions which propose to strike 
out an entire pending bill, or, less precisely, to motions proposing to 
strike out an entire pending portion (section or title) of text and to 
insert new matter and is not used to describe those motions to strike 
out and insert which may be properly characterized as ``perfecting 
amendments'' and which go only to a portion of the pending text.
    An amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill may be 
proposed before perfecting amendments to the pending portion of the 
original text have been offered, but may not be voted on until after 
such perfecting amendments have been disposed of. (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See 107 Cong. Rec. 8825-27, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., May 24, 1961, 
        where a Member was recognized to offer an amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute for a bill, and after it was read 
        another Member was recognized to offer a perfecting amendment 
        to the original text. The perfecting amendment was considered 
        and voted on before the amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amendments to a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
are voted on before a substitute amendment, and the effect of the 
adoption of a substitute amendment striking out all after the title of 
the committee amendment is to eliminate the language inserted by the 
committee amendment as well as the language of the amendments thereto. 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 25.3, infra.

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

[[Page 7100]]

    Where a substitute--striking out all of the text and inserting new 
matter--for an amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted, the 
vote recurs immediately on the amendment, as amended, and no further 
amendments to either proposition are in order since the original 
amendment has been changed in its entirety by the substitute. 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See, for example, 116 Cong. Rec. 20206, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., June 
        17, 1970 (response of Chairman Charles M. Price [Ill.] to 
        parliamentary inquiry by Mr. James G. Fulton 
        [Pa.]).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rejection of Substitute

Sec. 25.1 If a substitute amendment is adopted, the question recurs on 
    the amendment as amended by the substitute; but if the substitute 
    is rejected, the amendment is open to further amendment.

    On Dec. 3, 1941, (5) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 87 Cong. Rec. 9395, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 4139, to further expedite national defense programs with 
        respect to naval construction, etc., by providing for the 
        investigation and mediation of labor disputes in connection 
        therewith. For discussion of the effect of rejection of 
        amendments generally, see Sec. Sec. 35 and 38, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: I desire to know if the 
    first vote is on the Smith substitute as amended, to the Ramspeck 
    amendment to the Vinson bill?
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. William P. Cole, Jr. (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cochran: Now I want to know if the Smith substitute is 
    adopted, if the vote then comes on the Ramspeck amendment as 
    amended by the Smith substitute?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct again. . . .
        Mr. Cochran: I would like to make one further parliamentary 
    inquiry. If the Smith substitute is voted down, we then remain in 
    Committee of the Whole and consider the Ramspeck bill, open to 
    amendment under the 5-minute rule?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri is correct 
    throughout.

Adoption of Substitute for Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 25.2 Where an amendment in the nature of a substitute to a bill is 
    amended in Committee of the Whole by the adoption of a substitute 
    therefor, the question recurs on the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, as amended.

    On Dec. 16, 1970,(7) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 116 Cong. Rec. 42032, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 18582. For discussion of the effect of adoption of 
        substitute amendments generally, see Sec. 32, infra.

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

[[Page 7101]]

        The Chairman: (8) The question is on the substitute 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Abbitt), as 
    amended for the amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by 
    the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Spark M. Matsunaga (Hawaii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question now occurs on the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Washington 
    (Mr. Foley), as amended by the substitute amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Abbitt). . . .
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: The amendment was a 
    substitute amendment for the Foley committee amendment, and 
    therefore the question does not arise, does it?
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley), 
    as amended by the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Virginia (Mr. Abbitt).

Sec. 25.3 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.

    On May 26, 1960,(9) while a committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute was pending, the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 106 Cong. Rec. 11282, 11292, 11296-98, 11301, 11302, 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. . . .(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 106 Cong. Rec. 11282, 11292, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            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. . . .(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at pp. 11296, 11297.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Frank T.] Bow of Ohio: On page 
        11, line 20, 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.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at pp. 11298, 11301.

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

[[Page 7102]]

    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. An inquiry was then 
directed to the Chair: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 11302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Graham A.] Barden [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, what 
    effect will the Bow amendment have on the other amendments that 
    will be voted on?
        The Speaker: (14) If the Bow amendment is agreed to 
    it will strike out the other two amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Barden: It strikes out the Elliott amendment and the Powell 
    amendment?
        The Speaker: That is correct.

Sec. 25.4 Where a substitute for an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute has been agreed to, the question recurs immediately upon 
    the amendment as amended by the substitute, and further perfecting 
    amendments to the amendment are not then in order.

    On Feb. 5, 1976,(15) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 9464,(16) the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry as described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 122 Cong. Rec. 2648, 2649, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (17) The question is on the amendment, 
    as amended, offered as a substitute by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
    Smith) for the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the substitute amendment, as amended, for the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute to the committee amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute, was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger) as 
    amended to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        . . . [I]t is my understanding that at this stage, since the 
    Smith substitute amendment has been agreed to narrowly, that there 
    are no further amendments to the Krueger amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute since it was a complete substitute, is that correct?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

Amendments to Original Text While Amendment in Nature of Substitute Is 
    Pending

Sec. 25.5 An amendment in the nature of a substitute is not voted on 
    until the pending

[[Page 7103]]

    portion of original text is perfected.

    On June 21, 1962,(18) during consideration of the Food 
and Agricultural Bill of 1962 (H.R. 11222), Mr. Charles B. Hoeven, of 
Iowa, offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 108 Cong. Rec. 11324-26, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Hoeven: Page 15, line 16, strike out 
    lines 16 through 23, all of page 17 through 87 and lines 1 through 
    3 on page 88 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

                         ``subtitle a--feed grains

        ``Sec. 401. Paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 105(c) of the 
    Agricultural Act of 1949 are amended by inserting after the words 
    `1962' wherever they appear the words `or 1963'.
        ``Sec. 402. Section 105(c) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 as 
    amended by adding new subsections (5)(a) and (5)(b) as follows:
        `` `(5)(a) The Secretary is authorized and directed to make 
    payment-in-kind to producers eligible for price support on the 1963 
    crop of corn, grain sorghums, and barley who elect to take such 
    payments in lieu of price support. . . .
        ``Sec. 321. This subtitle may be cited as the `Wheat and Feed 
    Grain Disposal Act of 1962.'
        Sec. 422. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
    Secretary shall formulate and carry out a surplus wheat and feed 
    grain disposal program for each crop year beginning with the 1963 
    crop year for each of the following commodities: Wheat, corn, rye, 
    barley, oats, and grain sorghums. Each such program shall afford 
    producers, who agree not to plant that particular commodity, an 
    opportunity to purchase from the Commodity Credit Corporation, at 
    an attractive price, notwithstanding the provisions of section 407 
    of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, the quantity of such 
    commodity determined under section 404. . . .

    Mr. Hoeven explained the effect of the amendment in part as 
follows:

        Mr. Hoeven: . . . Mr. Chairman, this substitute would strike 
    title IV from the bill and substitute a voluntary feed grain 
    program for 1 year, and the extension of the present wheat program 
    for another year, with certain additions.
        Here are the main provisions of the substitute: No. 1, it 
    extends the present voluntary feed grain program for 1 more year, 
    but makes these important changes: It prohibits the ``dumping'' of 
    surplus feed grains back onto the domestic market, at less than 5 
    percent above the current support price, plus reasonable carrying 
    charges. . . .
        Another provision of the substitute would make payments-in-kind 
    to participating feed grain farmers in lieu of price supports, thus 
    preventing wholesale shuffling of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
    inventory. . . .
        Another important part of the substitute authorizes the 
    Secretary to extend expiring conservation reserve contracts for 
    periods of from 3 to 10 years

[[Page 7104]]

    beyond the scheduled termination dates, thus preventing millions of 
    acres which are now retired from coming back into production.
        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, this 
    amendment, as I understand it, is in the nature of a substitute for 
    the entire section. Is it not correct that since it is a substitute 
    the amendment will go over until we have perfected the titles, and 
    that the gentleman's proposed substitute will then be subject to 
    perfection itself and be voted upon, after completing the work on 
    the titles of the bill?
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair will state that the 
    gentleman is correct. If there are any perfecting amendments to 
    this section, they will be disposed of before the amendment in the 
    nature of the substitute is disposed of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 25.6 Where there is pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, perfecting amendments to the pending portion of 
    underlying text, and amendments thereto, may be offered and are 
    voted on prior to the vote on the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and amendments thereto.

    On Apr. 13, 1983,(20) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Joint Resolution 13,(1) the above-
stated proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 129 Cong. Rec. 8402-04, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. Nuclear Weapons Freeze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    perfecting amendment at the desk to section 2 of House Joint 
    Resolution 13.
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair will advise that 
    perfecting amendments to the underlying text are in order at this 
    time while the Levitas amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    pending. But the Chair will also point out that if any Member is 
    recognized to offer a perfecting amendment at this time, debate 
    will not be limited on the perfecting amendment and the vote will 
    first come on the perfecting amendment and on any potential 
    amendments thereto before the question is put on the Levitas 
    substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Amendments Offered Under Terms of Special Rule

Sec. 25.7 During consideration of a bill pursuant to a special rule 
    permitting the majority and minority leaders to offer amendments 
    not printed in the Record but requiring all other Members to offer 
    amendments to the bill which have been printed in the Record, the 
    majority leader was permitted to offer an amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute not printed in the Record, but while the substitute 
    was pending an

[[Page 7105]]

    other Member was permitted to offer to the bill a perfecting 
    amendment printed in the Record.

    During the proceedings of July 28, 1983,(3) in the 
Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that, pending an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute for an entire bill, perfecting amendments 
to the pending portion of the bill could still be offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 129 Cong. Rec. 21468, 21469, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Wright: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
        That the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1983 is 
        amended by adding at the end thereof the following new title. . 
        . .

        Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: I have an amendment that was 
    printed in the Record. Will I be given an opportunity to offer it?
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman that a printed perfecting amendment to the bill can be 
    offered before the vote on the Wright amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments to Amendment in Nature of Substitute, and to Substitute, 
    Under Limitation on Debate

Sec. 25.8 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, a substitute therefor and an amendment to the 
    substitute, and debate had been limited on the substitute and all 
    amendments thereto but not on the original amendment or amendments 
    thereto, the Chair indicated that (1) further amendments to the 
    substitute or modifications of the substitute by unanimous consent 
    must await disposition of the pending amendment to the substitute; 
    (2) amendments to the original amendment could be offered and 
    debated under the five-minute rule and would be voted on before 
    amendments to the substitute; (3) amendments to the substitute 
    could be offered and voted upon without debate unless printed in 
    the Record pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6; and (4) the question 
    would not be put on the substitute until all perfecting amendments 
    to it and to the original amendment were disposed of.

[[Page 7106]]

    On Feb. 5, 1976,(5) during consideration of H.R. 9464, 
the Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1976, there was pending an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute (the Krueger amendment); a substitute 
therefor (the Smith amendment); and an amendment to the substitute (the 
Eckhardt amendment). A unanimous-consent request was made to limit 
debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 122 Cong. Rec. 2646-48, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    strike the requisite number of words.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the 
    Smith amendment and all amendments thereto terminate immediately 
    upon the conclusion of consideration of the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt). . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, as I understood 
    it, the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Dingell) was that all debate on the Smith substitute amendment 
    cease after the disposition of the Eckhardt amendment.
        The Eckhardt amendment would be the pending business then, and 
    immediately after the determination of the Eckhardt amendment, we 
    would vote on the Smith amendment. Is that not correct? . . .
        The Chairman: (6) Not necessarily, because there 
    could be an amendment to the Krueger amendment, which would be 
    debatable. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Before we vote on the Smith substitute, amendments to the 
    Krueger amendment are debatable if offered. . . .
        The point that the Chair is trying to make, regardless of what 
    agreements are reached, is that until the Krueger amendment is 
    finally perfected to the satisfaction of the Committee, the Chair 
    cannot put the question on the Smith substitute.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: The Chair cannot put the question on the 
    Smith amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot put the question on the Smith 
    substitute until the Krueger amendment is perfected to the 
    satisfaction of the Committee.
        There has been no limitation of debate on the Krueger amendment 
    or amendments thereto. The basic parliamentary situation is that we 
    have a substitute amendment for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, the Krueger amendment. Both of those are subject to 
    amendment, but both must be perfected before the Chair can put the 
    question on the substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: With respect to the unanimous-consent 
    request of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the Eckhardt 
    amendment is still to be voted upon, and then there are to be no 
    other amendments to the Smith amendment?
        The Chairman: There is to be no further debate on such 
    amendments. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, if my time still applies, I 
    would like to ask the Chair to state the circumstances. If I may, 
    before the Chair does that, I would like to ask the ques

[[Page 7107]]

    tion this way: As the situation stands at this moment, the Krueger 
    amendment is still perfectable by amendments under the normal 
    course of time, and there is no limitation on the Krueger 
    amendment.
        The Smith amendment, however, can be perfected only by the vote 
    on the Eckhardt amendment, and then if there are other amendments 
    to the Smith amendment there is no debate time remaining on those 
    amendments.
        Is that correct?
        The Chairman: Unless they are printed in the Record.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: And if they are printed in the Record, the 
    debate time is 5 minutes per side pro and con. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: That is correct. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, it is, however, a fact that the 
    gentleman may have an amendment at the desk and it may be voted on 
    without debate under the unanimous-consent request?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. [Robert] Krueger [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Krueger: Mr. Chairman, there are still those of us who are 
    not certain of the parliamentary situation. I am among them.
        Mr. Chairman, my question is this: We will vote first on the 
    Eckhardt amendment to the Smith substitute?
        The Chairman: That is right.
        Mr. Krueger: Following that, there will then be a vote without 
    further debate on the Smith substitute, or no?
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot say, because if there were 
    amendments printed in the Record, there can be both an amendment 
    offered and debate on the amendment. If there were no amendments 
    that were qualified for debate by being printed in the Record, they 
    could not be offered and voted on without debate.
        But if they are offered to the Krueger amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute, they would both be considered and would be 
    debatable under the 5-minute rule. . . .
        The 5-minute rule applies only to amendments to the Smith 
    amendment which has been printed in the Record. Other amendments to 
    the Smith amendment do not have debate time; they are just voted 
    on. . . .
        Mr. [Benjamin A.] Gilman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the Krueger amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute. My amendment has been printed in the Record.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Krueger immediately after 
        section 26 of the Natural Gas Act (as added by section 208) 
        insert the following:

        ``treatment of rates and charges for natural gas sold to senior 
                                    citizens

            ``Sec. 27. (a) The Commission shall prohibit any natural-
        gas company from selling or otherwise supplying natural gas to 
        any local natural gas company which increases the rates for 
        natural gas sold to senior citizens. . . .

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana] (during the 
    reading): Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
        The point of order lies to the fact that the amendment now 
    being read is

[[Page 7108]]

    to the Krueger amendment in the nature of a substitute and is not 
    in order until there has been a disposition of the Eckhardt 
    amendment to the Smith substitute.
        The Chairman: The Chair has stated that any amendment to the 
    Krueger amendment in the nature of a substitute may now be offered 
    and is debatable.
        Mr. Waggonner: But, Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not in order 
    until there has been a disposition of the Eckhardt amendment to the 
    Smith substitute which is now under consideration.
        The Chairman: This amendment takes precedence. This amendment 
    takes precedence over the amendment to the substitute amendment. 
    That is what the Chair has been trying to say now, repeatedly. The 
    amendment that has precedence is an amendment to the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute, and this is the amendment that is now 
    before the committee. . . .
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Iowa (Mr. Smith) as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger).
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Eckhardt) there were--ayes 33, noes 35.
        So the amendment to the substitute amendment for the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute was rejected.

If Amendment in Nature of Substitute Is Defeated in House

Sec. 25.9 When an amendment in the nature of a substitute is reported 
    to the House from the Committee of the Whole, the previous question 
    having been ordered on the bill and amendments to final passage, 
    the question is first on agreeing to that amendment. And if it is 
    defeated, the question would recur on the engrossment of the 
    original bill, and further amendment thereof is not in order.

    On Aug. 13, 1959 (7) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 105 Cong. Rec. 15859, 15867, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 8342.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (8) Under the rule the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on agreeing to the amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr.] of New Jersey: Is it my 
    understanding that the vote about to be taken is on whether or not 
    the substitute will be accepted, and that it is not a vote on final 
    passage?
        The Speaker: It will be a vote on the amendment adopted in the 
    Committee of the Whole. . . .
        Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]: If the amendment is 
    defeated, what is then the parliamentary situation?
        The Speaker: Then the question is on the engrossment and third 
    reading of the so-called committee bill.

[[Page 7109]]

Separate Votes on Amendments in House

Sec. 25.10 The rule that an amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    always perfected before a vote is taken on a substitute amendment 
    is followed in the House when operating under a special rule 
    permitting separate votes on amendments adopted in the Committee of 
    the Whole.

    In the 86th Congress,(9) during consideration of a bill 
(10) to authorize federal financial assistance to school 
construction, the Committee of the Whole had adopted, in the following 
order: (1) an amendment to section 4 of a committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute,(11) (2) then an amendment to section 
6,(12) (3) an amendment, in effect a substitute, striking 
out all after section 1 of the committee amendment (thus deleting all 
after the title),(13) and finally (4) had agreed to the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
amended;(14) these amendments were then voted on in the 
House, under a special rule permitting separate votes on any amendments 
adopted in the Committee of the Whole to either the bill or the 
committee amendment, in the order in which they had been 
adopted.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See the proceedings at 106 Cong. Rec. 11282, 11292, 11296-98, 
        11301-03, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 26, 1960.
10. H.R. 10128.
11. 106 Cong. Rec. 11282, 11292, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. Id. at pp. 11296, 11297.
13. Id. at pp. 11298, 11301.
14. Id. at p. 11302.
15. Id. at pp. 11302, 11303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Substitute Not Subject to Division of Question

Sec. 25.11 A substitute for an amendment is not subject to a division 
    of the question.

    An example of the proposition stated above occurred on July 2, 
1980,(16) during consideration of H.R. 7235, the Rail Act of 
1980. The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 126 Cong. Rec. 18288, 18290-92, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James J.] Florio [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Florio: Page 103, line 14, insert 
        ``or (c)'' immediately after ``subsection (b)''.
            Page 104, line 20, strike out the closing quotation marks 
        and the following period.
            Page 104, after line 20, insert the following new 
        subsection. . . .

        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amend

[[Page 7110]]

    ment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Madigan as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Florio:
            Page 103, line 14 insert ``or (c)'' immediately after 
        ``subsection (b)''.
            Page 104, line 20, strike out the closing quotation marks 
        and the following period.
            Page 104, after line 20, insert the following new 
        subsection. . . .

        Mr. Madigan: Mr. Chairman, this amendment includes a number of 
    provisions designed to resolve problems which had been expressed by 
    agricultural groups since the bill was reported from committee. . . 
    .
        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I was not 
    aware at the time that this amendment was offered that it would 
    purport to deal with a number of very different subjects. I assume 
    that it would not be in order to raise a point of order concerning 
    germaneness at this late time, not having reserved it, but I would 
    like to ask if the question may be divided. There are several 
    subjects that are quite divisible in the amendment offered here, 
    and that deal with different matters.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Texas that he is correct, it is too late to raise a 
    point of order on the question of germaneness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will further advise the gentleman from Texas that a 
    substitute is not divisible.



 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
                      E. CONSIDERATION AND VOTING
 
Sec. 26. Committee Amendments

Amendment to First Section Voted On Before Amendment in Nature of 
    Substitute

Sec. 26.1 A committee amendment to the first paragraph or section of a 
    bill is voted on before a vote is taken on an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute to strike out all after the enacting clause 
    and insert new matter.

    On Feb. 9, 1940,(18) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 86 Cong. Rec. 1330, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 960, extending the Classified Executive Civil Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: May an amendment which 
    proposes to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert 
    other matter be offered at any time during the process of the 
    reading of the bill, or must it be offered at some particular point 
    in the bill? . . .
        The Chairman: (19) It can be done after the reading 
    of the first section, as soon as the committee amendment is 
    disposed of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Charles F. McLaughlin (Nebr.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Adding Section

Sec. 26.2 While committee amendments to a pending section are normally 
    considered

[[Page 7111]]

    prior to amendments offered from the floor, a floor amendment to 
    the text of a pending section is considered before a committee 
    amendment adding a new section at the end of the pending section.

    On Oct. 4, 1972,(20) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 118 Cong. Rec. 33779, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was S. 
        1316.
            See also 110 Cong. Rec. 3215, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 20, 
        1964, where an amendment offered from the floor was considered 
        before a committee amendment reported in the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Kyl [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Kyl: Page 1, line 6, at the end 
        thereof insert the following: . . .

        Mr. [Wiley] Mayne [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I believe there are 
    several committee amendments. Would they not be in order first and 
    then the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa be out of order 
    unless deferred until after the committee amendment has been 
    disposed of?
        The Chairman: (1) The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Iowa is to section 1 and it is thus in order at this 
    point. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.  Stuart Symington (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the amendment was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the first committee 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 1, line 6, insert the following 
        new section: . . .

Bill Open to Amendment at Any Point

Sec. 26.3 Where a bill was open to amendment at any point and there was 
    pending a perfecting committee amendment, the Chairman indicated 
    that further amendments to the bill would be in order following 
    disposition of the committee amendment.

    On May 30, 1973, (2) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 119 Cong. Rec. 17338, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 5858.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [M. G.] Snyder [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an . . 
    . amendment.
        The Chairman: (3) the committee amendment is 
    pending. Is this an amendment to the committee amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.  Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Snyder: It is to the bill.
        The Chairman: There is an amendment pending.
        Mr. Snyder: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. If the 
    committee amendment is adopted, is the parliamentary situation the 
    same as awhile ago, that I would be precluded from offering this 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: After the committee amendment has been considered 
    and

[[Page 7112]]

    disposed of, other amendments will be in order.

Sec. 26.4 Where, under a special rule, a bill is considered as having 
    been read for amendment, committee amendments to the bill must be 
    read in full or their reading dispensed with by unanimous consent.

    On Feb. 9, 1976,(4) during consideration of H.R. 
5808,(5) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair stated 
that, pursuant to the rule, the bill was open to amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 122 Cong. Rec. 2872, 2875, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The proceedings occurred as indicated below:
        The Chairman: (6) . . . Under the rule, the bill is 
    considered as having been read and open to amendment at any point 
    under the 5-minute rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Richard H. Ichord (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Wiggins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, under 
    the rule, is the first committee amendment considered to have been 
    read?
        The Chairman: There have been no requests for considering the 
    amendment as having been read, the Chair will advise the gentleman 
    from California, but the Chair will entertain such a request. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, it is my 
    understanding that the rule itself provides that the bill shall be 
    considered as read and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: Yes, that is the bill, the Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Washington, not the amendment.
        Mr. Foley (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the first committee amendment may be considered as 
    read and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Washington?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 26.5 Where a bill is considered as having been read for amendment, 
    it is open to amendment at any point and all committee perfecting 
    amendments must be disposed of, regardless of their place in the 
    bill, prior to offering of amendments to the bill from the floor.

    On Feb. 9, 1976,(7) H.R. 5808 (8) having been 
read and opened to amendment in the Committee of the Whole, the 
proceedings, described above, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 122 Cong. Rec. 2872, 2876, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) . . . Under the rule, the bill is 
    considered as having been read and open to amendment at

[[Page 7113]]

    any point under the 5-minute rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Richard H. Ichord (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the next committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 19, line 24, insert ``knowingly'' 
        immediately before ``sell''.

        The committee amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. [Charles E.] Wiggins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I now 
    offer an amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California (Mr. Wiggins) will 
    be advised that his amendment would not be in order at this time 
    under the rule. There are 2 additional committee amendments to be 
    considered. . . .
        The Chair will advise the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Wiggins) further that his amendment will be in order after the 
    consideration of the committee amendments. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment I wish to offer that comes 
    before that committee amendment on the same page. Would that 
    amendment be in order, or is it not in order until after this time?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Maryland 
    (Mr. Bauman) that his amendment would not be in order at this time 
    unless it is an amendment to this committee amendment.

Amendments Considered En Bloc

Sec. 26.6 In accordance with the procedure for considering committee 
    amendments to a bill under the five-minute rule in Committee of the 
    Whole, pursuant to a special order providing that said committee 
    amendments be considered en bloc and be considered as having been 
    read, the Chairman instructs the Clerk to designate the page and 
    line number of the amendments.

    On Aug. 2, 1977,(10) during consideration of H.R. 8444, 
the National Energy Act, the proceedings described above were as 
indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 123 Cong. Rec. 26172, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. For discussion of 
        consideration of en bloc amendments generally, see Sec. 27, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) The Clerk will designate the page 
    and line number of the ad hoc committee amendments, the first group 
    of the amendments recommended by the ad hoc committee to be 
    considered en bloc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 183, line 11 through page 184, line 19 . . . and on 
        page 208, line 4 through page 209, line 2, and an amendment 
        inserting on page 188, line 11, the word ``domestic'' before 
        the word ``crude''.

Sec. 26.7 Unanimous consent is required to consider en bloc separate 
    committee amendments printed in a bill, even where a special order 
    adopt

[[Page 7114]]

    ed by the House provides that the bill is considered as having been 
    read for amendment and that said committee amendments are 
    considered before other committee or individual amendments.

    On Aug. 10, 1978, (12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 13511, the Revenue Act of 1978, pursuant to House 
Resolution 1306, (13) a ``modified closed'' rule which 
provided that the bill be considered as read, allowed only designated 
amendments (including committee amendments), and prescribed the order 
of consideration for such amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 25453, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. Id. at pp. 25415, 25416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) All time has expired for general 
    debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule the bill is considered as having been read 
    for amendment. No amendments shall be in order except the following 
    amendments which shall not be subject to amendment except 
    amendments recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, and 
    which shall be considered in the following order:
        First. The committee amendments printed in the bill (except for 
    section 404);
        Second. The committee amendment adding a new section 404. . . .
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the first committee 
    amendment.
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent, in the interest of saving time, that the committee 
    amendments as printed in the bill, except for section 404, be 
    considered en bloc, considered as read, and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Oregon?
        There was no objection.

Amendments to Committee Amendment

Sec. 26.8 Where there is pending a committee amendment, an amendment 
    thereto and a substitute therefor, the vote is first taken on the 
    amendment to the amendment, then on the substitute and finally on 
    the committee amendment.

    In the 92d Congress, during consideration of a bill (15) 
to provide for improved financing for the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting, the following exchange took place: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 13918.
16. 118 Cong. Rec. 19463, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., June 1, 1972. See also 
        the proceedings at 117 Cong. Rec. 40587, 40590, 92d Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Nov. 11, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert O.] Tiernan [of Rhode Island]: Do I correctly 
    understand that

[[Page 7115]]

    the first vote will be on the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keith)?
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair will state that the 
    first vote will occur on the amendment to the committee amendment, 
    that is, the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia. Then the vote 
    will recur on the substitute offered by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Keith) and then the vote will recur on the 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.9 Where there was pending a committee amendment in the form of 
    a new title, an amendment thereto and a substitute therefor, the 
    first vote was on the amendment to the committee amendment, then on 
    the substitute, and then on the committee amendment as it may have 
    been amended.

    On Apr. 6, 1977, (18) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill, (19) the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry as described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 123 Cong. Rec. 10773, 10774, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. H.R. 5262, providing for increased participation by the United 
        States in international financial institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tsongas) to the 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Robert Duncan (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul E.] Tsongas: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Tsongas: Mr. Chairman, I believe it is in order that we 
    vote first on the substitute offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Wylie), is it not?
        The Chairman: No. The Chair will state that the vote on the 
    amendment to the committee amendment will occur first. Following 
    that there will be a vote on the substitute for the committee 
    amendment, as amended, if the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts (Mr. Tsongas) to the committee amendment is 
    adopted. Following that there will be a vote on the committee 
    amendment, as it may have been amended.

``Acceptance'' of Amendment by Committee

Sec. 26.10 The Committee of the Whole must vote on a pending amendment 
    even though it has been ``accepted'' by members of the committee 
    reporting the bill.

    On June 3, 1971,(1) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 117 Cong. Rec. 17890, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 1709.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, as ranking 
    minority member of the Committee on

[[Page 7116]]

    Science and Astronautics, I can advise the gentleman, after having 
    consulted with him about his amendment under the circumstances, we 
    have no objection to the amendment passing. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, on the amendment that we have just been 
    discussing, it was stated that there would be no objection on 
    either side of the aisle. Has there been any action taken on that 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: (2) No, there has not been any action 
    taken on the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would advise the gentleman that the Chair is trying 
    to determine whether or not the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Collier) desires to speak on the amendment.
        Mr. [Harold R.] Collier: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman, and I would 
    ask a parliamentary inquiry--the fact that they have not voiced any 
    objection still leaves it open for discussion inasmuch as they have 
    not accepted the amendment; is that correct?
        The Chairman: The amendment must be voted upon by the members 
    of the committee, the Chair would advise the gentleman from 
    Illinois. . . .
        Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, when it is stated by 
    both sides of the aisle that there is no objection, it would seem 
    to me that the obvious effect of that is that the amendment is 
    agreed to and it is acceptable to both sides. Of course, as the 
    Chairman pointed out, it has to be passed on by the Committee of 
    the Whole House on the State of the Union. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair states that any Member desiring 
    recognition to discuss the amendment will be recognized.

Amendment Considered as Original Bill

Sec. 26.11 A unanimous-consent request has been made 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.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 36.22 infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
                      E. CONSIDERATION AND VOTING
 
Sec. 27. Considering Amendments En Bloc

    Amendments may be considered en bloc only by unanimous 
consent,(4) or where specified by special 
rule.(5) Such amendments are voted on en bloc.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. Sec. 27.2, 27.3, infra.
 5. See Sec. Sec. 27.14-27.16, infra.
 6. See Sec. 27.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where amendments reported to the House have been considered en bloc 
in Committee of the Whole and a separate vote thereon is demanded in 
the House, the Chair puts the question on the amendments en bloc where 
no Member demands a division of the question in the 
House.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. For discussion of House consideration of amendments reported from 
        Committee of the Whole, and demands for a separate vote on 
        amendments, see Sec. 36, infra.

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

[[Page 7117]]

Unanimous-Consent Requirement--Amendments to More Than One Section

Sec. 27.1 To a bill being read for amendment by sections, amendments to 
    more than one section may be considered en bloc by unanimous 
    consent only.

    On Oct. 5, 1977,(8) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 8410,(9) the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry concerning the procedure for offering amendments 
to two sections of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 123 Cong. Rec. 32523, 32524, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. The Labor Reform Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (10) Are there further amendments to 
    section 7? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    amendments that amend both sections 7 and 8. The amendment to 
    section 7 is technical and conforming in nature. The substance of 
    the amendments is to section 8.
        I would ask the Chairman if I might offer my amendments now, or 
    should I wait until section 8 has been read?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Erlenborn) that if the gentleman desires to offer his 
    amendments as one amendment, he will have to obtain unanimous 
    consent to do so, either now or when section 8 is read.

--Committee Amendment Required by Special Rule To Be Considered First

Sec. 27.2 Unanimous consent is required to consider en bloc separate 
    committee amendments printed in a bill, even where a special order 
    adopted by the House provides that the bill is considered as having 
    been read for amendment and that said committee amendments are 
    considered before other committee or individual amendments.

    On Aug. 10, 1978, (11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 13511, the Revenue Act of 1978, pursuant to House 
Resolution 1306, (12) a ``modified closed'' rule which 
provided that the bill be considered as read, allowed only designated 
amendments (including committee amendments), and prescribed the order 
of consideration for such amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 25453, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. Id. at pp. 25415, 25416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (13) All time has expired for general 
    debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).

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

[[Page 7118]]

        Pursuant to the rule the bill is considered as having been read 
    for amendment. No amendments shall be in order except the following 
    amendments which shall not be subject to amendment except 
    amendments recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, and 
    which shall be considerd in the following order:
        First. The committee amendments printed in the bill (except for 
    section 404);
        Second. The committee amendment adding a new section 404. . . .
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the first committee 
    amendment.
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent, in the interest of saving time, that the committee 
    amendments as printed in the bill, except for section 404, be 
    considered en bloc, considered as read, and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Oregon?
        There was no objection.

En Bloc Amendments Where Motion To Strike Pending

Sec. 27.3 While there is pending a motion to strike out a title of a 
    bill, only one perfecting amendment to that title may be offered at 
    a time; however, a series of perfecting amendments may be 
    considered en bloc by unanimous consent.

    On June 11, 1975,(14) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 6860,(15) motion to strike out a 
title of the bill was offered. The proceedings, described above, were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 18435, 18437, 18438, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Energy Conservation and Conversion Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Alexander: Strike out title II 
        (relating to energy conservation taxes), beginning on line 1 of 
        page 29, and ending on line 24 of page 57. . . .

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment to 
    strike will not be voted on until there is opportunity to vote on 
    all of the perfecting amendments to title II?
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman is correct. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fortney H.] Stark [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    several amendments, and ask unanimous consent that they be 
    considered en bloc.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Stark:
            Page 30, strike out line 1 and all that follows down 
        through line 5 on page 31.
            Page 32, strike out line 20 and 
        all that follows down through line 25. . . .
            Page 124, line 25, strike out ``section 44D(c)(2)'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``section 44B(c)(2)''.

        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from California?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Ullman: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California has 
    offered

[[Page 7119]]

    an amendment which would strike part B. The gentleman from Arkansas 
    has offered an amendment which would strike the whole title.
        I would assume, after part B is perfected, as the gentleman's 
    amendment to strike part B asks, it would come before the amendment 
    to strike the whole title. Am I correct?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the chairman of 
    the committee that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Stark) is a perfecting amendment and will be voted 
    on first. . . .
        Mr. Stark: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent at this point 
    to withdraw my amendment and offer it later, after the gentleman 
    from Ohio offers his amendment.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from California?
        Mr. [Herman T.] Schneebeli [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, 
    reserving the right to object, I will ask what the parliamentary 
    procedure is. In the event the gentleman withdraws his amendment, 
    where do we stand?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Schneebeli) that if the unanimous-consent request 
    is approved, we are back then to the Alexander amendment, which 
    would be the amendment before the Committee, to strike the whole 
    title, and other perfecting amendments to the title, as the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania knows, would be in order one at a time.
        Mr. Schneebeli: Mr. Chairman, if it is withdrawn and we get 
    back to the Alexander amendment, does that mean other amendments of 
    a lesser tax cut would be considered first?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Schneebeli: Mr. Chairman, I object because I want to vote 
    on the Stark amendment before I vote on any other alternative 
    amendments.

Points of Order While Request Pending

Sec. 27.4 Where unanimous consent is requested that two amendments to 
    different provisions in a bill be considered en bloc, points of 
    order against such amendments may be made or reserved pending 
    agreement to the request.

    On Feb. 19, 1970,(17) he following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 4028, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 15931.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer two 
    amendments and I ask unanimous 
    consent that they be considered en bloc. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Michigan that the amendments be considered en 
    bloc?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendments as legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan, the respected 
    minority leader, reserves a point of order.

[[Page 7120]]

Point of Order Against Part

Sec. 27.5 Where several amendments are offered en bloc by unanimous 
    consent, they are considered as one amendment, and a point of order 
    against any portion thereof renders the entire amendment subject to 
    a point of order.

    On Apr. 20, 1972,(1) The following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 118 Cong. Rec. 13641, 13642, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 14070.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Les] Aspin [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments and ask unanimous consent that they be considered as 
    read.
        The Chairman: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The amendments offered by Mr. Aspin are as follows:

            Page 1, line 8, strike out ``$1,094,200,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$894,000''.
            Page 3, strike out lines 16 and 17, and redesignate the 
        succeeding paragraphs accordingly.
            Page 6, line 24, strike out ``(15)'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``(14)''.
            Page 7, line 11, strike out ``(16)'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``(15)''.
            Page 11, insert the following new section after line 25 
        (and redesignate the succeeding section accordingly):
            ``Sec. 7. The Administrator, acting through the National 
        Academy of Sciences, is authorized and directed to conduct a 
        full and complete study of the proposed Space Transport System 
        (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``Space 
        Shuttle''), and to report thereon to the Speaker of the House 
        of Representatives and the President of the Senate and the 
        Committee on Science and Astronautics of the House of 
        Representatives and the Committee on Aeronautical and Space 
        Sciences of the Senate, in order to assist the Congress in 
        determining whether and to what extent funds should be included 
        for the Space Shuttle in a subsequent authorization Act. Such 
        study shall include--
            ``(1) a determination and evaluation of the military 
        applications of the Space Shuttle; . . .
            ``(5) and analysis of whether and in what ways the 
        expenditure of an equivalent amount for housing, education, 
        mass transportation, and similar purposes might produce a 
        larger or smaller net benefit to the Nation.''

        Mr. Aspin: Mr. Chairman, today we are considering the 
    authorization for NASA, and a part of that authorization is $200 
    million for the space shuttle.
        Mr. [Olin E.] Teague of Texas: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
    yield for an inquiry?
        Mr. Aspin: Yes, I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from 
    Texas.
        Mr. Teague of Texas: Do I understand the gentleman has two 
    amendments?
        Mr. Aspin: No; they are both one amendment.
        Mr. Teague of Texas: Is it not the intention of the gentleman 
    to ask unanimous consent to have the two amendments considered 
    together?
        Mr. Aspin: I did not make such a request, but I intend for them 
    to be put together. They are on two pieces of

[[Page 7121]]

    paper, but they are supposed to be one amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair has examined the amendments and 
    determines that this is indeed more than one amendment and, without 
    unanimous consent, could not be joined. . . .
        Mr. Aspin: Mr. Chairman, I make that request at this time.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to considering the gentleman's 
    amendments en bloc?
        Mr. Teague of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to 
    object.
        Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my objection to combining the 
    amendments and then, Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
    the whole amendment.
        The Chairman: Without objection, the amendments will be 
    considered en bloc. . . .
        The gentleman from Texas will state his point of order.
        Mr. Teague of Texas: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that 
    the gentleman's amendment directs the Administrator of NASA to make 
    a study of housing and, for sure, this is not germane to the space 
    authorization bill. The last paragraph of his second amendment, I 
    assume, directs the Administrator of NASA to make a study of 
    housing. . . .
        Mr. Aspin: Mr. Chairman, what the amendment does is ask the 
    people in NASA to instruct the National Academy of Sciences to 
    conduct a study, and I would like to see a rather broader 
    application of some of these questions with reference to the money 
    being spent in the Space Agency. It does not instruct the 
    Administrator of NASA to conduct the study, but asks that the 
    National Academy of Science conduct the study and then provides for 
    a broader spectrum of the questions that they should study.
        Mr. Teague of Texas: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard further on 
    the point of order?
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas 
    (Mr. Teague).
        Mr. Teague of Texas: May I read the exact language that is in 
    the amendment. It says:

            The Administrator, acting through the National Academy of 
        Science is authorized and directed to conduct a full and 
        complete study--

        And it gets down to housing.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The final paragraph of the amendment requires studies, 
    investigations, and analyses of subjects which are not carried in 
    the bill under consideration and not even within the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on Science and Astronautics which reported this 
    bill.
        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Sec. 27.6 If a point of order is sustained against any portion of a 
    package of amendments considered en bloc to a general appropriation 
    bill, all the amendments are ruled out of order and must be 
    reoffered separately, or those which are not subject to a point of 
    order may be considered en bloc by unanimous consent.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on Sept.

[[Page 7122]]

16, 1981,(3) during consideration of H.R. 4241, the military 
construction appropriation bill for fiscal year 1982. The proceedings 
in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 127 Cong. Rec. 20735-37, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bo] Ginn [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the bill be considered as read and open to amendment 
    at any point. . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [M. Caldwell] Butler [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments, and I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be 
    considered en bloc.

        The Chairman: (4) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Virginia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection. . . .

            Amendments offered by Mr. Butler: Page 2, line 11, strike 
        out ``$1,029,519,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$1,009,276,400''.
            Page 3, line 6, strike out ``$1,404,883,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$1,354,096,100''. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas F.] Hartnett [of South Carolina]: . . . My inquiry 
    is: Is this amendment being offered as one amendment, and if it is, 
    would the point of order be in order that the amendment was not 
    properly drawn and that I was being precluded from voting for--I 
    would have to vote for or against all of them where, in fact, I may 
    want to vote for one or the other?
        The Chairman: The Chair will respond to the gentleman's inquiry 
    by stating that the gentleman from Virginia has already gotten 
    unanimous consent to offer his amendments en bloc. However, if a 
    point of order is sustained against those amendments or any portion 
    thereof, under the precedent the remaining amendments will have to 
    be reoffered, at which point the gentleman from Virginia will again 
    have to ask permission to have them offered en bloc. If that is 
    denied, then the amendments would have to be offered individually.
        Mr. Hartnett: Mr. Chairman, what you are telling me is, in 
    order for the gentleman from Virginia to offer a series of 
    amendments like that, the gentleman has to obtain unanimous consent 
    prior to doing that or, in fact, he would have to offer each one of 
    them individually?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

En Bloc Amendments Subject to Amendment

Sec. 27.7 Amendments considered en bloc (by unanimous consent) are 
    subject to germane amendment.

    On Mar. 9, 1978,(5) during consideration of H.R. 50 
(6) in the Committee of the Whole, an amendment to an 
amendment was pending which prompted the following exchange concerning 
the proposition described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 124 Cong. Rec. 6281, 6282, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ronald A.] Sarasin [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I offer

[[Page 7123]]

    amendments and ask unanimous consent that the amendments be 
    considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: (7) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Connecticut?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Sarasin: Page 58, line 3, strike 
        out ``reasonable price stability'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``the absence of inflation''.
            Page 59, strike out line 1 and everything that follows 
        through line 5, and redesignate the following paragraphs (2), 
        (3), and (4) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively. . . 
        .

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments to the amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Wright to the amendments offered 
        by Mr. Sarasin: On line 2 of the Sarasin amendment, strike all 
        that follows the word ``thereof,'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        the following: ``the effective control of inflation.''
            Page 64, line 16, strike out ``and productivity'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``productivity and reasonable price 
        stability''. . . .

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, do I 
    understand the majority leader's proposal is an amendment to the 
    amendment or is it in the form of a substitute?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to advise the 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) that the gentleman from Texas 
    (Mr. Wright) offers an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Connecticut.

Multiple Changes to Single Section Not Considered Separate Amendments

Sec. 27.8 A single amendment may make several related changes in a 
    section of a bill, and each change in the section need not be 
    considered as a separate amendment.

    On Aug. 6, 1969,(8) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 115 Cong. Rec. 22545, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H. Res. 502.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
    Committee on House Administration, I offer two amendments and ask 
    unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Hays:
            On Line 6, strike out ``$26,000;'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``$27,000;''.
            On line 7, strike out ``$25,000.'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``$26,000.''

        The Speaker: (9) The Chair will state it is not 
    necessary to ask unanimous consent to consider the amendments en 
    bloc. All the amendments relate to one section of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments to Committee Amendment and to Bill

Sec. 27.9 By unanimous consent, obtained prior to the adoption of a 
    committee amendment, a Member was per

[[Page 7124]]

    mitted to offer, en bloc, several amendments which were, in part, 
    amendatory of a committee amendment previously adopted.

    On Aug. 18, 1959,(10) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 105 Cong. Rec. 16244, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Merwin) Coad (of Iowa): Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) Is this an amendment to the 
    committee amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. James W. Trimble (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Coad: I have an amendment to the bill.
        The Chairman: The question is on the committee amendment. . . .
        Mr. Coad: Mr. Chairman, my amendment will also embrace an 
    amendment to the amendment. Is this the appropriate time to offer 
    it?
        The Chairman: May the Chair say to the gentleman from Iowa if 
    it is an amendment to the committee amendment it may be offered 
    now.
        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, in order to 
    assist and to expedite the matter, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    gentleman may be permitted to offer his amendments en bloc, which 
    necessarily go to the basic provision of section 315, also to the 
    committee amendment. . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        The committee amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. Coad: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            On page 1, line 6 after the word ``office'' add the 
        following: . . .

Amendments to Committee Amendments Not Yet Reported

Sec. 27.10 Where a Member has amendments to each of several committee 
    amendments, he must offer such amendments singly, as each committee 
    amendment is reported; and it is not in order to consider ``en 
    bloc'' amendments to committee amendments which have not been 
    reported.

    On Feb. 20, 1964,(12) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 110 Cong. Rec. 3217, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 9637.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jeffery] Cohelan [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. Cohelan: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if at this time I should 
    offer my amendments en bloc, as I have two other amendments to the 
    bill.
        The Chairman: (13) There is pending now only the 
    first committee amendment to this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Harold D. Donohue (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cohelan: Very well. I will introduce the others at the 
    appropriate time.

[[Page 7125]]

Voting Upon

Sec. 27.11 When amendments are offered and considered en bloc, by 
    unanimous consent, the question is put on all the amendments at the 
    same time in the Committee of the Whole.

    On July 18, 1969,(14) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 22082, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 15263.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that I be permitted to offer the two amendments 
    en bloc to this section. . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: As I understand it 
    the two amendments are being considered en bloc and will be voted 
    upon en bloc?
        The Chairman: (15) that is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Time Allowed for Debate on En Bloc Amendments

Sec. 27.12 Where consideration en bloc is granted, by unanimous 
    consent, of several amendments which had been printed in the 
    Record, the proponent is entitled only to five minutes of debate on 
    the amendments.

    On July 25, 1974, (16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the bill H.R. 11500, the Surface Mining 
Control and Reclamation Act of 1974, the Chair responded to a 
unanimous-consent request as described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 120 Cong. Rec. 25244, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]:  . . . I offer in addition 
    my amendments Nos. 121, 127, 118, and 142 to the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute, and I ask unanimous 
    consent that all of these amendments be considered en bloc and 
    considered as read and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: (17) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Chairman, I make the additional unanimous-
    consent request that instead of the 25 minutes to which I might be 
    entitled because of the application of rule XXIII, consisting of 5 
    minutes for each one of these amendments, notwithstanding that 
    rule, I be recognized only for 5 minutes in toto.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that 5 
    minutes on his amendments considered en bloc is all the time the 
    gentleman is entitled to in any event.

[[Page 7126]]

Special Rule Providing for Consideration of Committee Amendments En 
    Bloc

Sec. 27.13 Where a bill is being considered under a special rule 
    providing for consideration en bloc of certain committee amendments 
    printed in the bill, the Chair directs the Clerk to report the 
    amendments en bloc and they need not be offered from the floor.

    On July 8, 1975, (18) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 49 (a bill relating to petroleum reserves on 
public lands, referred jointly to the Committees on Interior and 
Insular Affairs and Armed Services) pursuant to a special rule, the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 21630, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (19) Under the rule, it shall now be 
    in order to consider en bloc the amendments recommended by the 
    Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendments:
            Page 3, between lines 19 and 20 insert the following: 
        ``TITLE I''.
            Page 3, line 20, strike out ``That in'' and insert ``Sec. 
        101. In''. . . .
            Sec. 201. (a) Chapter 641 of title 10, United States Code, 
        is amended as follows--
            (1) Immediately before section 7421 insert the following 
        new section:
        Sec. 7420. Definitions

            ``(a) In this chapter--
            ``(1) `National defense' includes the needs of, and the 
        planning and preparedness to meet, essential defense industrial 
        and military emergency energy requirements relative to the 
        national safety, welfare, and economy particularly resulting 
        from foreign military or economic actions. . . .

        Mr. [John] Melcher [of Montana] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments en bloc may 
    be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment 
    at any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Montana?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [F. Edward] Hebert [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I will not 
    offer the amendments of the Armed Services Committee as described 
    in the rule.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from 
    Louisiana that under the rule the amendments are offered and 
    presented en bloc. They have been presented.
        Mr. Hebert: Mr. Chairman, if they have been presented, under 
    the parliamentary situation I ask for a vote.
        The Chairman: Does any Member wish to debate the committee 
    amendments?
        Mr. Melcher: Mr. Chairman, I rise to explain to the House that 
    the amendments that are now before us are almost identical to H.R. 
    5919, the Armed Services bill that we have just voted down. I would 
    encourage the

[[Page 7127]]

    House to reject these amendments, so that then we could get on 
    under the rule to considering our Interior bill, H.R. 49, as 
    presented by the Interior Committee.
        The Chairman: The question is on the committee amendments.
        The amendments were rejected.

Sec. 27.14 In accordance with the procedure for considering committee 
    amendments to a bill under the five-minute rule in Committee of the 
    Whole, pursuant to a special order providing that said committee 
    amendments be considered en bloc and be considered as having been 
    read, the Chairman instructs the Clerk to designate the page and 
    line number of the amendments.

    On Aug. 2, 1977, (20) during consideration of H.R. 8444, 
the National Energy Act, the proceedings described above were as 
indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 123 Cong. Rec. 26172, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (21) The Clerk will designate the page 
    and line number of the ad hoc committee amendments, the first group 
    of the amendments recommended by the ad hoc committee to be 
    considered en bloc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 183, line 11 through page 184, line 19 . . . and on 
        page 208, line 4 through page 209, line 2, and an amendment 
        inserting on page 188, line 11, the word ``domestic'' before 
        the word ``crude''.

En Bloc Consideration Pursuant to Special Rule: Separate Vote in House

Sec. 27.15 En bloc consideration of amendments in Committee of the 
    Whole pursuant to a special order results in a vote en bloc in the 
    House upon a demand for a separate vote on those amendments in 
    their perfected form.

    On Sept. 7, 1978,(22) during consideration of H.R. 
7308,(1) the situation described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 124 Cong. Rec. 28423, 28424, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. 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.

[[Page 7128]]

        The Speaker: (2) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Thomas P. O'Neill (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. . . .
        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.

    Parliamentarian''s Note: En bloc consideration of amendments in 
Committee of the Whole pursuant to a unanimous-consent request therein 
does not result in an en bloc vote in the House upon demand for a 
separate vote, since that is an order of the Committee not binding on 
the House. Moreover, even amendments considered en bloc pursuant to a 
special rule are subject to a demand for a division of the question in 
the House if divisible, unless prohibited by the rule.

Separate Consideration Where Opposition Arises

Sec. 27.16 Where amendments are permitted en bloc by unanimous consent 
    they are normally voted upon en bloc, but where opposition develops 
    to one of the amendments during their consideration, the Chairman 
    (recognizing that the amendments could be divided for a vote) may 
    put the question separately on that amendment.

    On July 18, 1973,(3) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 19 Cong. Rec. 24682, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.J. Res. 542.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Madam Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the committee amendments may be considered 
    en bloc. . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) The question is on the committee 
    amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Martha W. Griffiths (Mich.).

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

[[Page 7129]]

        Mr. [Peter H. B.] Frelinghuysen [of New Jersey]: Madam 
    Chairman, I rise in opposition to the committee amendment on page 7 
    line 4, inserting section 9.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the other committee 
    amendments? If not the Chair will put the question on the remaining 
    committee amendments. . . .
        The remaining committee amendments were agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: All other committee amendments have been agreed 
    to. The gentleman will be recognized in opposition to the committee 
    amendment.

Division of Question Where Amendment Proposes To Strike Out Two 
    Sections

Sec. 27.17 An amendment proposing to strike out two sections of a 
    pending committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was, on 
    demand of a Member, subjected to a division of the question in 
    order to obtain separate votes on the proposals to strike out each 
    section.

    On July 25, 1974,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the bill H.R. 11500, the Surface Mining 
Control and Reclamation Act of 1974, the proceedings, described above, 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 120 Cong. Rec. 25238, 25239, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hosmer to the committee amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute: Page 252, line 15, through page 
        256, after line 19, strike out sections 404 and 405.

        The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman ask for a 
    division of the question?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hosmer: I do, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent for a 
    division of the question as to sections 404 and 405. . . .
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The question will be divided.
        The first question is upon the part of the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from California (Mr. Hosmer) referring to section 
    404.
        The portion of the amendment, referring to section 404, to the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the portion of the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hosmer) referring to 
    section 405.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Hosmer) there were--ayes 7, noes 29.
        So the portion of the amendment referring to section 405, of 
    the amendment to the amendment to the committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute was rejected.


                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
                      E. CONSIDERATION AND VOTING
 
Sec. 28. Debating Amendments

Debate Until Chair Puts Questions

Sec. 28.1 An amendment cannot be ``accepted'' by the major

[[Page 7130]]

    ity and minority managers of a bill but must be voted on, and a 
    Member may be recognized to debate the amendment for five minutes 
    by offering a pro forma amendment.

    On Nov. 18, 1981,(7) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 4995,(8) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 127 Cong. Rec. 28026, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Department of Defense appropriations for fiscal year 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, we have no 
    objection to the amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Edwards of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, we have no 
    objection to the amendment.
        Mr. [Theodore S.] Weiss [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the last word.
        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Point of order, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        Did I understand that the amendment had been accepted?
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair did not put the 
    question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stratton: Is a motion to strike the last word in order at 
    this time?
        The Chairman: Even while an amendment is pending, the gentleman 
    may be recognized for 5 minutes.

Amendments Not Debatable

Sec. 28.2 Where there was pending a committee amendment, an amendment 
    thereto, a substitute therefor and an amendment to the substitute, 
    time for debate on the amendment, the substitute, and all 
    amendments thereto having expired, votes were taken on the 
    amendment to the committee amendment and then on the amendment to 
    the substitute, after which further amendments were offered and 
    voted upon without debate.

    On Aug. 5, 1970,(10) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 27471, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 18546.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (11) . . . The question is 
    on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Lowenstein] to the committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment to the committee amendment was rejected.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The question now occurs on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Jacobs] to the 
    substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Findley].
        The amendment to the substitute amendment was rejected.
        Mr. [Sam] Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

[[Page 7131]]

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Steiger] to the 
    substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Findley].

Sec. 28.3 In some instances, amendments may be offered that are not 
    debatable.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As an example, where all time for debate on 
a section of a bill and amendments thereto has expired, amendments may 
still be offered to the section, but are voted on without debate, 
except in certain cases where a Member has caused an amendment to be 
printed in the Record pursuant to the House rules.(12) hus, 
while a perfecting amendment may be offered pending a motion to strike 
out a title, it is not debatable, except by unanimous consent, if 
offered after expiration of all debate time under a limitation unless 
printed in the Record.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 14.9, supra.
13. See Sec. 28.28, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    And rejection by the House or by the Committee of the Whole of a 
preferential motion to strike (or to recommend striking) the enacting 
clause permits the offering of proper amendments notwithstanding 
expiration of all debate time on the bill, but only amendments which 
have been printed in the Record may be debated for five minutes on each 
side.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 28.29, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion To Close Debate; When in Order

Sec. 28.4 A motion to close debate on an amendment is not in order 
    until there has been debate on the amendment (unless the proponent 
    of the amendment yields for that purpose).(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 28.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 9, 1965,(16) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 111 Cong. Rec. 16233, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Basil L.] Whitener [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Amendment offered by Mr. Whitener: . . .
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield for a unanimous-consent request?
        Mr. Whitener: I yield to the gentleman.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all 
    debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto end in 10 
    minutes.
        The Chairman: (17) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard Bolling (Mo.).

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

[[Page 7132]]

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this 
    amendment and all amendments thereto end in 10 minutes.
        For rules governing debate under the five-minute rule and the 
    effects of limitation thereon, see Rule XXIII clauses 5, 6, House 
    Rules and Manual Sec. 870-874 (101st Cong.). See, for general 
    discussion, Ch. 29, Consideration and Debate, infra.
        The Chairman: The Chair will have to advise the gentleman that 
    no such motion is in order until the gentleman from North Carolina 
    has been heard on his amendment. The gentleman from North Carolina 
    is recognized for 5 minutes.

Sec. 28.5 A motion to limit debate on an amendment, while privileged, 
    cannot be made while another Member has the floor.

    On Mar. 12, 1964,(18) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 110 Cong. Rec. 5118, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James H.] Morrison [of Louisiana]: After consideration of 
    the gentleman's amendment, could all debate on all amendments end 
    in 20 minutes?
        Mr. [August E.] Johansen [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I object. 
    . . .
        Mr. Morrison: Mr. Chairman, I move that be done.
        The Chairman: (19) The gentleman from Nebraska has 
    the floor. Does the gentleman from Nebraska yield to the gentleman 
    from Louisiana?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Glenn C.] Cunningham [of Nebraska]: No, because I wish to 
    make a statement. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 
    minutes.

Sec. 28.6 A motion to close all debate on a pending amendment and 
    amendments thereto has been interpreted to include amendments not 
    yet offered or at the desk.

    On Aug. 13, 1959,(20) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 105 Cong. Rec. 15850, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Graham A.] Barden [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    move that all debate on the amendment and all amendments thereto 
    close at 4 o'clock. . . .
        Mr. [Edwin E.] Willis [of Louisiana]: My parliamentary inquiry 
    is this: Would the suggested time of closure of debate on all 
    pending amendments--I seek an interpretation of ``all pending 
    amendments.'' Does that include amendments on the desk? . . .
        The Chairman: (21) The Chair may say that the 
    pending amendment is the Landrum-Griffin bill. Amendments thereto 
    are the amendments that are on the desk which have not yet been 
    offered. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: And that would include any 
    other amendments which may hereafter be offered?

[[Page 7133]]

        The Chairman: That would include all amendments.

Sec. 28.7 A motion to close all debate on a bill and all amendments 
    thereto under the five-minute rule is not in order when the bill 
    has not been completely read; such motion may be made only with 
    respect to that portion which has been read and on which there has 
    been debate.

    On June 4, 1975,(1) during consideration of a bill 
(2) in Committee of the Whole, a motion to close debate was 
made and the proceedings, as described above, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 16895, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. H.R. 6219, Voting Rights Act extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: . . . Mr. Chairman, I believe 
    we have an agreement to vote on the final passage of the bill at 
    6:30 and with a time limitation on certain amendments that remain, 
    so I ask unanimous consent at this time that the bill be considered 
    as read in full and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: (3) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James P.] Johnson of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        Mr. Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I so move.
        The Chairman: The motion is not in order. Only title II could 
    be closed at this time by a motion.

Motion To Limit Debate; Reservation of Time Not in Order

Sec. 28.8 A motion to limit debate on an amendment is not in order if 
    it includes a reservation of time for the committee.

    On Dec. 12, 1969,(4) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 115 Cong. Rec. 38844, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 12321.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Ayres [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on the substitute amendment and all amendments thereto close 
    at 6 o'clock with the last 5 minutes reserved to the committee.
        The Chairman: (5) The matter of the last 5 minutes 
    being reserved to the committee may not be included in the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special Rule Limiting Debate on Amendments During Further Consideration

Sec. 28.9 The Committee on Rules may report a resolution providing 
    additional procedures to govern the further consideration of a 
    measure already pending in Committee of the Whole, including 
    limiting

[[Page 7134]]

    further consideration of amendments to a total amount of time, and 
    prohibiting further debate or amendments when the limitation has 
    expired.

    On May 4, 1983,(6) the Committee on Rules Chairman, 
Claude Pepper, of Florida, called up for immediate consideration in the 
House, House Resolution 179, providing for the further consideration of 
House Joint Resolution 13, then pending in Committee of the Whole. The 
reported resolution and Chairman Pepper's comments thereon were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 129 Cong. Rec. 11036, 11037, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Pepper: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
    Rules, I call up House Resolution 179 and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 179

            Resolved, That during the further consideration of the 
        joint resolution (H.J. Res. 13) calling for a mutual and 
        verifiable freeze on and reductions in nuclear weapons, further 
        consideration of amendments to the committee amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute shall terminate at the expiration of ten 
        further hours of such consideration, and at the expiration of 
        said time the Committee of the Whole shall immediately proceed 
        to vote on any amendments pending to said substitute, and then 
        on said substitute. During such time limitation, debate on any 
        amendment to said substitute, and on any amendment thereto, 
        whether or not printed in the Congressional Record, shall 
        continue not to exceed thirty minutes, equally divided and 
        controlled by the proponent of the amendment and a Member 
        opposed thereto. After the disposition of said substitute, the 
        preamble shall be considered for amendment, debate on each 
        amendment to the preamble or on each amendment thereto shall 
        continue not to exceed thirty minutes, equally divided and 
        controlled by the proponent of the amendment and a Member 
        opposed thereto, and further consideration of amendments to the 
        preamble shall terminate at the expiration of two hours of such 
        consideration, and at the expiration of said time the Committee 
        of the Whole shall immediately proceed to vote on any 
        amendments pending to the preamble. After the disposition of 
        said amendments, it shall be in order to consider the amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute by Representative Broomfield made 
        in order by House Resolution 138 for amendment under the five-
        minute rule, debate on each amendment to the amendment or on 
        each amendment thereto shall continue not to exceed thirty 
        minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent of the 
        amendment and a Member opposed thereto, and further 
        consideration of amendments to said amendment shall terminate 
        at the expiration of two hours of such consideration, and at 
        the expiration of said time the Committee of the Whole shall 
        immediately proceed to vote on any amendments pending to said 
        amendment, and then on said amendment. During the further 
        consideration of the joint resolution, the Chairman of the 
        Committee of the Whole shall not entertain any pro forma 
        amendment offered for the purpose of obtaining time for debate 
        only. During the further consideration of the joint resolution, 
        the

[[Page 7135]]

        Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may, in his discretion, 
        announce after a recorded vote has been ordered that he may 
        reduce to not less than five minutes the period of time in 
        which a recorded vote, if ordered, will be taken by electronic 
        device on any amendment which is to be voted on without further 
        debate immediately following that fifteen-minute recorded vote. 
        In the event that an amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
        the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute to the 
        resolution is adopted, it shall not be in order to demand a 
        separate vote in the House on any other amendment adopted to 
        said committee substitute. . . .

        Mr. Pepper: Mr. Speaker, there are two essential elements 
    involved in the legislative process. One is the right to debate, 
    the other is the right to decide. We have had some 45 hours of 
    debate upon the pending resolution. This rule today is offered by 
    the Rules Committee as an instrument by which the Members of this 
    House may also enjoy the right to decide the pertinent issues 
    involved in the pending resolution.
        Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 179 provides additional 
    procedures for the consideration of House Joint Resolution 13, 
    calling for a mutual and verifiable freeze on and reductions in 
    nuclear weapons. Prior to discussing the actual provisions of this 
    rule, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss 
    the necessity for this rule.
        On March 15, 1983, the Committee on Rules ordered reported an 
    open rule allowing 3 hours of general debate on House Joint 
    Resolution 13. The rule, House Resolution 138, was adopted on March 
    16 and since that time, Mr. Speaker, the House has spent more than 
    45 hours over 5 days considering only the resolving clause of the 
    joint resolution. On April 14, Chairman Zablocki requested an 
    additional rule on House Resolution 13, but later asked the Rules 
    Committee that the meeting scheduled for April 19 be canceled after 
    he reached what he believed at that time to be an agreement to 
    finish debate on the matter.
        On April 21, the House agreed, by a vote of 214 to 194 and 
    after three attempts, to a motion that ``debate on the resolving 
    clause--to House Joint Resolution 13--and all amendments thereto 
    cease at 3:30 p.m.'' on that date. The effect of that time 
    limitation agreement was to stop further debate on the resolving 
    clause of House Joint Resolution 13 under the 5-minute rule, with 
    the exception that amendments printed in the Congressional Record 
    could be offered pursuant to clause 6, rule XXIII, allowing the 
    member presenting the amendment 5 minutes to explain his amendment, 
    and the first person to obtain the floor 5 minutes to oppose the 
    amendment. In addition, perfecting amendments could be offered 
    while such amendments were pending. However, such perfecting 
    amendments would have been decided without debate unless printed in 
    the Record.
        The Committee of the Whole again debated House Joint Resolution 
    13 on Thursday, April 28. At that time, it became apparent that the 
    House would not be able to complete consideration of the nuclear 
    freeze resolution in any reasonable amount of time. Chairman 
    Zablocki then stated his intention of asking the Rules Committee to 
    grant an additional rule of the joint resolution.
        The Committee on Rules met on Monday, May 2, to consider the 
    possi

[[Page 7136]]

    bility of granting an additional rule and again yesterday to 
    discuss further the rule and to vote on special order that we are 
    bringing before the House today.
        Let me say that during my absence last week I had left 
    authority before my departure with the able ranking majority member 
    on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Long, to 
    perform the necessary duties to allow the Rules Committee to 
    function. He subsequently met with the leadership of the House and 
    they formulated basically the rule which is presented today. It was 
    that rule which was considered on Monday and Tuesday of this week. 
    We heard several witnesses, 10 to 12 witnesses, most from the 
    minority party on that rule on Monday.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This rule has provided a model for further 
rules on complicated bills (see, for example, House Resolution 247, on 
H.R. 2760, Intelligence Authorization Amendment, reported June 29, 
1983; and House Resolution 300, on H.R. 2453, Radio Broadcasting to 
Cuba, reported Aug. 3, 1983).

Special Rule Precluding Pro Forma Amendments

Sec. 28.10 Where a bill was being considered for amendment pursuant to 
    a special ``modified closed'' rule permitting only designated 
    amendments to be offered and precluding amendments thereto, with 
    debate on each amendment limited and controlled, the Chair 
    indicated that pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate were 
    not in order.

    On May 21, 1986,(7) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 4800,(8) the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry in the circumstances described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 132 Cong. Rec. 11484, 11485, 11566, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. The Omnibus Trade Act of 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) When the Committee of the Whole 
    rose on Tuesday, May 20, 1986, all time for general debate had 
    expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been 
    read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. The amendments printed 
    in section 2 of House Resolution 456, agreed to by the House on May 
    15, 1986, are considered as having been adopted.
        No other amendments to the bill are in order except the 
    following amendments printed in the Congressional Record of May 15, 
    1986, . . . by, and if offered by the designated Members or their 
    designees, which shall be considered only in the following order, 
    shall be considered as having been read, shall not be subject to 
    amendment or to a demand for a division of the question, and each 
    amendment shall be debatable for 30 minutes, or 1 hour in the case 
    of amendments (8) and (12), the time to be equally divided and con

[[Page 7137]]

    trolled by the proponent of the amendment and a Member opposed
    thereto: . . .
        Mr. [Don] Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr Chairman, can I move to strike the last 
    word and get 5 minutes?
        The Chairman: The time is controlled by the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin [Mr. Roth, the proponent of the amendment]. The gentleman 
    has to seek time from the gentleman from Wisconsin or the gentleman 
    from Washington [Mr. Bonker, controlling time in opposition to the 
    amendment].

Allocation of Time or Recognition Following Limitation on Debate; 
    Discretion of Chair

Sec. 28.11 A limitation of debate on a bill and all amendments thereto 
    to a time certain in effect abrogates the five-minute rule; and 
    decisions regarding the division of the remaining time and the 
    order of recognition of those Members desiring to speak are largely 
    within the discretion of the Chair who may defer recognition of 
    listed Members whose amendments have been printed in the Record and 
    who are therefore guaranteed five minutes notwithstanding the 
    limitation.

    On June 4, 1975,(10) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the bill H.R. 6219,(11) a motion to 
close debate on the bill and all amendments was agreed to, and resulted 
in a division of the remaining time, as described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 16899, 16901, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Voting Rights Act extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on the bill and all amendments thereto terminate at 6:45 
    p.m.
        The Chairman: (12) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: With the permission of the committee, the Chair 
    will briefly state the situation.
        There are a number of Members who do not have amendments that 
    were placed in the record, and the Chair feels that he must try to 
    protect them somewhat, so he proposes to go to a number of Members 
    on the list so they will at least get some time. The time allotted 
    will be less than a minute.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. de la 
    Garza).

Sec. 28.12 A limitation of time for debate abrogates the five-minute 
    rule and allocation of the time remaining to Members seeking 
    recognition is within the discretion of the

[[Page 7138]]

    Chair, except that Members who had caused amendments to be printed 
    in the Record under Rule XXIII clause 6 would receive the full five 
    minutes.

    On June 26, 1975,(13) during consideration of a bill 
(14) in the Committee of the Whole, a unanimous-consent 
request to close debate on the bill and all amendments thereto was 
agreed to. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 20951, 20957, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. H.R. 8121, Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, the 
        Judiciary, and related agencies appropriation bill for fiscal 
        1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
    that all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto cease in 60 
    minutes.
        The Chairman: (15) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Iowa?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Charles A. Vanik (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The Chair will further add that all Members who 
    were standing at the time the limitation of debate was made will be 
    recognized for approximately 2 minutes each. . . .
        Mr. [Robert F.] Drinan [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, will 
    the time be limited with regard to the amendments offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Heinz) so that the other Members 
    who have filed amendments will also have a certain amount of time?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Heinz) will be recognized, and then all other 
    Members will be allotted 2 minutes, except for such amendments as 
    were printed in the Congressional Record. Every Member who has an 
    amendment that was printed in the Congressional Record will be 
    guaranteed a full 5 minutes.

Sec. 28.13 Where time for debate has been limited and the time 
    remaining has been allocated by the Chair, a Member offering an 
    amendment printed in the Record is nevertheless entitled to five 
    minutes--with five minutes in opposition--and if that debate comes 
    out of the allocated time the Chair must reduce and reallocate the 
    remaining time among the Members previously listed.

    The proceedings on June 26, 1975,(16) during 
consideration of a bill (17) in the Committee of the Whole, 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 20965, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. H.R. 8121, Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, the 
        Judiciary, and related agencies appropriations for fiscal 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (18) The time of the gentleman has 
    expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Charles A. Vanik (Ohio).

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

[[Page 7139]]

        Mr. [M. Caldwell] Butler [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    that I may be permitted to speak on my own time.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia 
    for 1 additional minute.
        Mr. Butler: Mr. Chairman, I would inquire, am I not to be 
    permitted to proceed for my full time?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Virginia 
    that the time has been reallocated because of the time taken under 
    the 5-minute rule.

Sec. 28.14 Where debate under the five-minute rule has been limited to 
    a time certain and time allocated among those Members desiring to 
    speak, the Chair may either insist that listed Members utilize 
    their time when first recognized or may, in his discretion, permit 
    a recognized Member to reserve his time with the admonition that 
    subsequent recognition would not be assured if time expired.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on Apr. 9, 
1979,(19) during consideration of H.R. 3324.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 7763, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. The International Development Cooperation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on the Bauman amendment and the 
    Solarz amendment to the Bauman amendment and all amendments thereto 
    end at 3:30 o'clock. . . .
        The request having been agreed to, the Chair announced that 
    time would be allocated among Members desiring to speak at one 
    minute each.
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (21) The Chair would advise the 
    gentleman from Illinois the amendment is not in order. There is 
    already an amendment pending to the Bauman amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Findley: May I reserve my time?
        The Chairman: If there is still time left. The Chair would 
    point out the limitation is for 3:30 p.m.

Sec. 28.15 Where the Committee of the Whole has, by unanimous consent, 
    permitted four designated amendments to be offered to a title of a 
    bill which has been passed in the reading for amendment, and has 
    limited time on those amendments to a time certain, the Chair may, 
    in his discretion, allocate in advance a portion of that time among 
    the proponent and opponent of those amendments and then allocate 
    the remaining time among other Members desiring to speak.

[[Page 7140]]

    On Jan. 29, 1980,(1) during consideration of H.R. 4788 
(2) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 126 Cong. Rec. 992-94, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. The Water Resources Development Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that titles III and IV be open to amendment at 
    any point. . . .
        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, we have passed over title III, and without 
    unanimous consent it is my understanding that the gentleman could 
    not offer any amendment to title III. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Harsha: Further reserving the right to object, could the 
    gentleman explain to me what amendments he proposes to offer to 
    title III?
        Mr. Edgar: I would be glad to. I would hope that we could 
    protect the gentleman from Montana in offering his amendment to the 
    Libby Dam, and then I have three amendments I would like to offer, 
    amendments in title III. . . .
        The Chairman: (3) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Ray] Roberts [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that all debate on title III and all amendments thereto end 
    at 4:40.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas wish to allocate 
    any portion of that time under his unanimous-consent request, 
    consistent with the discussion that took place previously?

        Mr. Roberts: Five minutes only. I think there is enough to go 
    around. I will not use my 5 minutes.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roberts)?
        Mr. Edgar: Reserving the right to object, in our colloquy we 
    had suggested that the gentleman from Montana be given at least a 
    minimum of 5 minutes and the gentleman from Washington be given 5 
    minutes. I would have no objection to that.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roberts) so 
    revise his unanimous-consent request?
        Mr. Roberts: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roberts) as revised?
        Mr. Clausen: Reserving the right to object, 10 minutes is going 
    to be allocated to the Montana project. Is the balance to be 
    divided among the Members standing, or will there be a division 
    between the majority and the minority of the remaining time?
        Mr. Roberts: If the gentleman will yield, that would be up to 
    the Chair, but we have already authorization for revision and 
    extension. We have beaten this thing over the head all day, and I 
    would certainly hope we can go ahead with it. I will certainly give 
    my attention to that.
        Mr. Clausen: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roberts)?

[[Page 7141]]

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The Chair has discretion to allocate time under 
    the unanimous-consent request. In addition to the allocation which 
    has been requested of 5 minutes for the gentleman from Montana and 
    5 minutes for the gentleman from Washington, the Chair in the 
    exercise of that discretion will allocate a total of 10 minutes to 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Edgar) on the basis that he is 
    offering three amendments, and will allocate the balance of the 
    time to those Members who are standing.
        Members standing at the time the unanimous-consent request was 
    agreed to will be recognized for 40 seconds each, with the possible 
    loss of time if there are any recorded votes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Edgar) for 10 minutes.

Sec. 28.16 In allocating time under a limitation on debate under the 
    five-minute rule, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may in 
    his discretion recognize first those Members wishing to offer 
    amendments after having equally divided the time among all Members 
    desiring to speak.

    On Nov. 18, 1981,(4) during consideration of H.R. 4995 
(5) n the Committee of the Whole, the situation described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 127 Cong. Rec. 28074, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. Department of Defense appropriation bill, fiscal year 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, there are 
    about nine amendments at the desk. I have looked at those 
    amendments. The committee will be accepting at least six or seven 
    of them. There are only two or three that may be slightly 
    controversial and subject to some slight debate.
        I would therefore believe that we can finish this bill tonight 
    and not be burdened with it tomorrow because I know full well if we 
    come in tomorrow, we will be using a whole day for what can be 
    completed in approximately half an hour here tonight.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this 
    bill and all amendments thereto end at 9:30 p.m.
        The Chairman: (6) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Members standing at the time the unanimous 
    consent request was agreed to will be recognized for 1 minute each.
        The Chair will recognize first those Members who have 
    amendments.

Sec. 28.17 Where a ``modified closed'' rule permitted only one 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute and one substitute 
    therefor, and divided a separate hour of debate on each substitute 
    between the same two Mem

[[Page 7142]]

    bers, the Chair permitted the total time to be accumulated and 
    consumed before putting the question on the substitute.

    On June 10, 1982,(7) during consideration of House 
Concurrent Resolution 352 (8) in the Committee of the Whole, 
the proceedings described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 128 Cong. Rec. 13387, 13390, 13395, 13399, 13409, 97th Cong. 2d 
        Sess.
 8. First concurrent resolution on the budget, fiscal 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) All time for general debate has 
    expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XXIII, the concurrent resolution 
    is considered as having been read for amendment and open for 
    amendment at any point. . . .
        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: . . . The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute.
        The amendment in the nature of a substitute is as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Latta: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following: . . .

        The Chairman: Under the rule, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
    Jones) will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Latta) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Jones.

    [Mr. James R. Jones, of Oklahoma, offered an amendment as a 
substitute for the amendment in the nature of a substitute as permitted 
by the rule.]

        The Chairman: Pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 
    496, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones) will be recognized for 
    30 minutes and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) will be 
    recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
    Jones).
        Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, in order to resolve the 
    technicalities, I will use 30 minutes on the Jones substitute 
    first, and the remaining 30 minutes on the Latta substitute. I 
    think we have agreed to alternate back and forth the total hour we 
    have.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Simon) a member of the committee. . . . [After debate:]
        Mr. [Ralph] Regula [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        What is the situation at the moment? Have we completed with the 
    first hour, that is, in effect, the debate on the Jones substitute?
        The Chairman: In effect, the Chair has. The Chair believes, and 
    it has been treating the time as a fungible commodity. The total 
    time has been allocated as to both amendments. In effect, the 
    gentleman from Ohio has remaining to himself to yield, 30 minutes, 
    and the gentleman from Oklahoma has 29 minutes remaining.

Sec. 28.18 Following an agreement to limit debate on an

[[Page 7143]]

    amendment and an amendment thereto to a time certain, the Chairman 
    of the Committee of the Whole may exercise his discretion and allot 
    the remaining time in several equal parts, between, for example, 
    the offerors of an amendment and an amendment to the amendment, and 
    the floor manager of the bill.

    On Apr. 13, 1983,(10) during consideration of House 
Joint Resolution 13 (11) in the Committee of the Whole, the 
situation described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 129 Cong. Rec. 8425, 8426, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Nuclear Weapons Freeze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: . . . I ask unanimous 
    consent that debate close at 6:05. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Kemp [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I object. . . .
        Mr. Zablocki: 6:15?
        The Chairman: (12) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The unanimous-consent request is agreed to and 
    debate is limited to 6:15.
        The Chair is going to exercise discretion and allot the time in 
    three equal parts to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the 
    gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) and, of course, those Members can yield 
    for purposes of debate.
        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Gingrich: Mr. Chairman, if I may express my ignorance for a 
    moment, is it, in fact, the prerogative of the Chair in that sort 
    of unanimous-consent request to then design whatever system seems 
    workable?
        The Chairman: Yet, it is. The Chair has exercised its 
    discretion in light of the circumstances and allocates 6 minutes to 
    the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach); 6 minutes to the gentleman 
    from Colorado (Mr. Brown); and 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki).

Sec. 28.19 Where the Committee of the Whole has, by unanimous consent, 
    considered the remainder of a bill as read and open to amendment at 
    any point, and has then separately limited debate on each remaining 
    title and all amendments thereto to a number of hours of debate, 
    equally divided and controlled, the Chair may, through the power of 
    recognition, continue to require debate and amendments to proceed 
    title by title.

    During consideration of H.R. 2100 (13) in the Committee 
of the

[[Page 7144]]

Whole on Oct. 3, 1985,(14) the situation described above 
occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. The Food Security Act of 1985.
14. 131 Cong. Rec. 25897, 25947, 25948, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kika] de la Garza [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, in order to 
    facilitate the debate for the rest of the day, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the remainder of the bill after this title be printed 
    in the Record, and open to amendment at any point. . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. de la Garza: Mr. Chairman, further to facilitate and 
    expedite the debate of today, I ask unanimous consent that all 
    debate on title VIII on peanuts, and all amendments thereto on that 
    title, be limited to 1 hour, the time to be divided equally between 
    the proponents and the opponents. . . .
        There was no objection.
        Mr. de la Garza: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
    debate on title XV and all amendments thereto, which is the food 
    stamps section, be limited to 1 hour, to be divided equally between 
    the proponents and the opponents, and further, that the debate on 
    the Petri amendment to title XXI be limited to 1 hour, the time to 
    be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents. . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. de la Garza: Mr. Chairman, under the unanimous-consent 
    agreement on the time and on opening the bill for amendment at any 
    point, does the Chair intend to proceed title by title?
        The Chairman: It is the intention of the Chair to proceed title 
    by title for amendments.

Sec. 28.20 Where a special order adopted by the House limits debate on 
    an amendment to be controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and 
    prohibits amendments thereto, the Chair may in his discretion 
    recognize the manager of the bill if opposed, and there is no 
    requirement for recognition of the minority party.

    On June 18, 1986,(15) during consideration of H.R. 4868 
(16) in the Committee of the Whole, the situation described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 132 Cong. Rec. 14275, 14276, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. The Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (17) Under the rule, the gentleman 
    from California (Mr. Dellums) will be recognized for 30 minutes, 
    and a Member opposed to the amendment will be recognized for 30 
    minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17.  Bob Traxler (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Will those gentlemen who are opposed to the Dellums amendment 
    kindly stand so the Chair can designate?
        Is the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Bonker) opposed to the 
    amendment?
        Mr. [Don] Bonker [of Washington]: I advise the Chair that I 
    oppose the amendment.
        The Chairman: Then the Chair will recognize the gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. Bonker) for 30 minutes in opposition to the Dellums 
    amendment.

[[Page 7145]]

        Does the gentleman from Washington wish to yield any of his 
    time or share any of his time?
        Mr. Bonker: Mr. Chairman, I would yield half the allotted time, 
    15 minutes, to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Siljander). . . .
        The Chairman: The time in opposition will be equally divided 
    between the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Bonker) and the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Siljander). . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, do I 
    understand that the process that has just taken place has given the 
    minority side one-quarter of the time.
        The Chairman: The Chair would counsel the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania in regard to his inquiry that the rule provides that a 
    Member will be recognized in opposition. The gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. Bonker) was recognized in opposition, and he shared 
    his time with your side.
        Mr. Walker: In other words, the minority, though, was not 
    recognized for the purposes of opposition. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: The Chair would state that the procedures of the 
    House are governed by its rules, but more importantly in this 
    instance, by the rule adopted by the House as reported from the 
    committee.

--Member Not Allocated Time

Sec. 28.21 Where debate has been limited on a pending title and all 
    amendments thereto and the Chair has divided the remaining time 
    among Members desiring to offer amendments or to speak, a Member 
    not allocated time may not speak in opposition to an amendment.

    During proceedings on July 25, 1974,(18) relating to 
H.R. 11500, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974, the 
Chair indicated that a time limitation imposed in Committee of the 
Whole on debate on an amendment and all amendments thereto abrogates 
the right of a Member (19) to speak for five minutes in 
opposition to an offered amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 120 Cong. Rec. 25214, 25217, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
19. See Rule XXIII clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 (101st 
        Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
    of the bill H.R. 11500, with Mr. (Neal) Smith of Iowa in the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Chairman: When the Committee rose on yesterday, titles II 
    through VIII inclusive were subject to amendment at any point, and 
    there was pending an amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Hosmer) to title II of the committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute. Before recognizing the gentleman from 
    California, the Chair will state for the information of the Com

[[Page 7146]]

    mittee of the Whole that there are 42 minutes remaining out of 50 
    minutes debate allocated to title II under the unanimous consent 
    agreement of Tuesday, July 23.
        Before the Chair recognizes the gentleman fron California, the 
    Chair will reiterate his announcement of yesterday that if listed 
    Members who have printed their amendments to title II in the Record 
    would agree to offer those amendments during the 42-minute period, 
    and to be recognized for 1 minute and 20 seconds, the Chair will 
    recognize both committee and noncommittee members for that purpose.
        The Chair will request that Members who have amendments printed 
    in the Record and who insist upon 5 minutes for debate defer 
    offering those amendments until the conclusion of the 42 remaining 
    minutes. . . .
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rousselot: In this time frame, when somebody might object 
    or support the amendment, how does he get time to do it? He does 
    not?
        The Chairman: Not unless he is on the list.
        Mr. Rousselot: In other words, if anyone wants to oppose the 
    amendment, he has no time; is that correct?
        The Chairman: Not unless the gentleman is on the list announced 
    by the Chair.

Control of Debate by Proponent of Amendment

Sec. 28.22 Where all time for debate on an amendment and all amendments 
    thereto is limited and, by unanimous consent, placed in control of 
    the proponent of the amendment and the chairman of the committee 
    (in opposition), the Chair first recognizes the proponent of the 
    amendment.

    On July 9, 1965,(20) the following statement was made by 
the Chair:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec. 16207, 16217, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 6400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (1) When the Committee rose on 
    yesterday, there was pending the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch] as a substitute for the committee 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It was agreed that all time for debate on the so-called 
    McCulloch substitute and all amendments thereto would be limited to 
    2 hours, such time to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler] and the gentleman from Ohio 
    [Mr. McCulloch]. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, the Chair 
    recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch] in support of 
    his amendment.

Pro Forma Amendment Offered by Proponent of Pending Amendment

Sec. 28.23 Under the five-minute rule the proponent of a pend

[[Page 7147]]

    ing amendment may offer a pro forma amendment thereto (for 
    additional debate time) only by unanimous consent.

    On Apr. 13, 1983,(2) The Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Joint Resolution 13,(3) the above-
stated proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 129 Cong. Rec. 8382, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
3. Nuclear Weapons Freeze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words.
        The Chairman: (4) without objection, the gentleman 
    from Georgia (Mr. Levitas) is recognized for 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Georgia 
    (Mr. Levitas) have an amendment pending?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York is correct. The 
    gentleman from Georgia has an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute to the text pending.
        Mr. Stratton: Well, is it proper to strike the last word on 
    one's own amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman asked for recognition, and without 
    objection, he was recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Stratton: I just wanted to make sure the amendment was 
    still pending.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Sec. 28.24 A Member who has been recognized for five minutes in support 
    of his amendment in Committee of the Whole may offer a pro forma 
    amendment to his amendment to gain an additional five minutes only 
    by unanimous consent.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on Mar. 18, 
1986,(5) during consideration of H.R. 4151.(6) 
the proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 132 Cong. Rec. 5257, 5260, 5261, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
6. The Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Anti-terrorism Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Walker:
            (1) in the section heading, strike out ``effective date of 
        entitlements'' and insert in lieu thereof ``special budget act 
        rules for entitlements''; and
            (2) strike out the period at the end of the section and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following: ``, and shall be

[[Page 7148]]

        effective for any fiscal year only to the extent or in the 
        amounts provided in appropriation Acts.'' . . .

        After Mr. Walker's initial remarks in support of the amendment, 
    the following proceedings took place:
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
    of words.
        The Chairman: (7) is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Gerald D. Kleczka (Wis.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel A.] Mica [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, the normal 
    procedure is each individual is allowed to speak for one time, is 
    it not?
        The Chairman: By unanimous consent, the gentleman can be 
    recognized for another period of time.
        Mr. Mica: Mr. Chairman, I will not object at this time.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania?
        There was no objection

    Parliamentarian's Note: Occasionally, the proponent of an amendment 
has sought recognition as a matter of right ``in opposition to a pro 
forma amendment'' offered by another Member in order to gain an 
additional five minutes, on the assumption that in such case he is not 
amending his own amendment but is complying with the five-minute rule 
by speaking in opposition to another Member's amendment.

Putting Question Before Time Expires

Sec. 28.25 Where there is pending an amendment to a bill, an amendment 
    thereto, a substitute therefor and an amendment to the substitute, 
    and debate on those amendments has been limited to a time certain 
    but has not yet been consumed, the Chair may, at his discretion, 
    put the question on the amendment to the original amendment after 
    ascertaining that no Member previously listed to speak desires to 
    debate that amendment.

    On July 27, 1970,(8) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 25813, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 17654.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: Would it be in order 
    that we might have a vote now on the Burke amendment?
        The Chairman: (9) If there are no other speakers on 
    the list that the Chair has that was taken down at the time of the 
    request of the gentleman from California (Mr. Sisk) to limit debate 
    then that would be in order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: The Chair means if 
    there are no further speakers on the Burke amendment; does he not?
        The Chairman: That is correct; on the Burke amendment. In order 
    to

[[Page 7149]]

    clarify the question, are there other speakers on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Burke) to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    O'Neill)? Are there any other speakers on that amendment? If not, 
    the Chair at this time will put the question.

Debate on Amendments Printed in Record (Rule XXIII, clause 6)

Sec. 28.26 Where under a time limitation only five minutes of debate is 
    available in opposition both to an amendment and to a substitute 
    therefor printed in the Record, one Member cannot simultaneously be 
    recognized for 10 minutes in opposition to both amendments, but 
    must be separately recognized on each amendment, with preference of 
    recognition being accorded to members of the committee reporting 
    the bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 1872 (10) in the Committee 
of the Whole on June 27, 1985, (11) the situation described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The Defense Department authorization bill, fiscal 1986.
11. 131 Cong. Rec. 17799-802, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. Markey: Insert the following new 
        section at the end of title X (page 200, after line 4). . . .

        Mr. [Vic] Fazio [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fazio as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Markey: Insert the following new 
        section at the end of title X (page 200, after line 4). . . .

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and the 
    amendment to the amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Badham [of California]: Mr. Chairman, at this 
    time, I would ask a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (12) The gentleman will 
    state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Badham: My inquiry is that since there were two offerings, 
    an amendment and an amendment to the amendment in the form of a 
    substitute, would the opposition now be exercising its prerogative 
    in using 10 minutes in opposition to both?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: That is correct, except that the 
    gentleman from New York rose in opposition to the Markey amendment. 
    There would be 5 minutes of debate left in opposition to the Fazio 
    substitute.
        Mr. Badham: Then if I, at this time, ask to speak in opposition 
    to the Markey amendment, would that be in order and could time be 
    used consecutively?

[[Page 7150]]

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New York rose in 
    opposition to the Markey amendment.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, I rose in opposition to both 
    amendments, both the Markey amendment and the Fazio amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state first the 
    gentleman can only rise in opposition to one amendment at a time, 
    and when he rose, the Chair understood him to rise first in 
    opposition to the Markey amendment. That leaves only 5 minutes in 
    opposition to the Fazio substitute amendment.

Sec. 28.27 Amendments printed in the Congressional Record are debatable 
    for 10 minutes after the expiration of a limitation on debate under 
    the five-minute rule in Committee of the Whole.

    The principle stated above was the basis of the following exchange, 
which occurred on May 31, 1984,(13) during consideration of 
H.R. 5167 (14) in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 130 Cong. Rec. 14657, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
14. Defense Department authorization bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on the bill and amendments thereto be completed in 1 hour.
        The Chairman: (15) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Price).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Berkley] Bedell [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bedell: Is it correct that Members having amendments that 
    are printed in the Record will have 10 minutes?
        The Chairman: If they came after the limitation is imposed, 
    yes, the gentleman is correct.

Sec. 28.28 While a perfecting amendment may be offered pending a motion 
    to strike out a title, it is not debatable, except by unanimous 
    consent, if offered after expiration of all debate time under a 
    limitation unless printed in the Record.

    On July 29, 1983, (16) during consideration of H.R. 2957 
(17) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings 
described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 129 Cong. Rec. 21678, 21679, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. International Monetary Fund Authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William N.] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (18) Is the amendment printed in the 
    Record?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Patman: Yes, it is.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Patman: Strike line 13 on page 18 
        and

[[Page 7151]]

        all that follows through line 8 on page 28.

        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    perfecting amendment to title III at the desk which I offer.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez: On line 18, 
        page 19, strike out ``6,310.8 million Special Drawing Right'' 
        and insert in lieu thereof ``1,750 million Special Drawing 
        Rights''. . . .

        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, this is a perfecting amendment to 
    the Patman amendment which strikes title III.
        The Chairman: The Chair would inquire of the gentleman from 
    Texas whether this perfecting amendment has been printed in the 
    Record.
        Mr. Gonzalez: No, Mr. Chairman, it has not been printed in the 
    Record.
        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: I have a point 
    of order, Mr. Chairman. I think that the amendment is not in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair would state that the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) is a perfecting 
    amendment to title III. As such, it takes precedence over a motion 
    to strike. It is in order. . . .
        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, is it not the 
    case that when a Member offers a perfecting amendment to an 
    amendment such as is the case before us now, he should be 
    recognized for 5 minutes to explain his amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the rules do not 
    provide for any debate after a limitation of time on any amendment 
    which has not been previously printed in the Record.
        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
    be permitted to explain my amendment.
        Mr. [Doug] Barnard [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I object.

Sec. 28.29 Rejection by the Committee of the Whole or by the House of a 
    preferential motion to strike the enacting clause permits the 
    offering of proper amendments notwithstanding expiration of all 
    debate time on the bill, but only amendments which have been 
    printed in the Record may be debated for five minutes on each side.

    On July 29, 1983,(19) the proposition described above 
was demonstrated during consideration of H.R. 2957,(20) in 
the Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 129 Cong. Rec. 21675, 21676, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. The International Monetary Fund Authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Chairman: (1) The Clerk will report the 
    preferential motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Lott moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the bill back to the House with the rec

[[Page 7152]]

        ommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out. . . .

        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Earlier today, Mr. Chairman, a request was made for unanimous 
    consent to limit debate to 12 o'clock. That was defeated. Later it 
    was put in the form of a motion and that carried, limiting the 
    debate to 12 o'clock today. That, therefore, closed debate past the 
    hour of 12 o'clock.
        Now, a motion to rise is being made by the minority whip. Does 
    that foreclose now the offering of further amendments should that 
    motion to rise carry?
        The Chairman: If the preferential motion to strike the enacting 
    clause carries, further amendments would not be in order. . . .
        Mr. [Ronald E.] Paul [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, if this motion 
    were to fail, whose amendments will be protected? Only those who 
    have amendments printed in the Record, or anybody who has an 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: Under the rule, if this motion is defeated, any 
    amendment printed in the Record could be offered and debated for 5 
    minutes on each side. Any other germane amendment could also be 
    offered but no debate would be allowed.

Sec. 28.30 The guarantee of 10 minutes of debate on amendments printed 
    in the Record inures to an amendment offered as a substitute for 
    another amendment, rather than as an original amendment, where 
    offered in the precise form printed.

    Although an amendment printed in the Record to assure debate time 
under Rule XXIII, clause 6 was not drafted as a substitute for another 
amendment, 10 minutes of debate was permitted on a substitute amendment 
offered to the precise point in the bill as previously printed in the 
Record. The proceedings of June 26, 1979,(2) during 
consideration of H.R. 3930, the Defense Production Act Amendments of 
1979, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 125 Cong. Rec. 16681, 16682, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: Page 8, after line 13 add the 
    following new subsection and renumber the subsequent sections 
    accordingly:
        (g)(1) The Secretary of Energy is hereby authorized to 
    designate a proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock facility as a 
    priority synthetic project pursuant to the procedures and criteria 
    provided in this section. . . .
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered 
    as read and printed in the Record. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, I wish to make a point of order. Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment which I had offered and had printed in the Record would 
    be an appropriate substitute amendment for the amendment

[[Page 7153]]

    offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall). Under the time 
    limitation, if I understand correctly, I have 5 minutes to offer 
    that amendment.
        The Chairman: (3) That is correct if offered in the 
    proper form. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: The question I would put to the Chair as a 
    parliamentary inquiry is: Does, then, my amendment become 
    appropriate to this amendment and give me the right to 5 minutes to 
    discuss my amendment?
        The Chairman: If the gentleman were to offer his amendment as a 
    substitute for this amendment in the form printed in the Record, he 
    would, indeed, have the 5 minutes guaranteed to him under the rule.

Sec. 28.31 To be guaranteed five minutes of debate on an amendment 
    printed in the Record under Rule XXIII clause 6, notwithstanding a 
    limitation of debate, the published amendment must properly 
    indicate the proposition under consideration to which such 
    published amendment is intended to be offered.

    On Sept. 28, 1976,(4) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 15,(5) motion to limit debate was 
agreed to which prompted parliamentary inquiries regarding the effect 
of that limitation on amendments which had been printed in the Record. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 122 Cong. Rec. 33081, 33082, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter] Flowers [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute and all 
    amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes.
        The Chairman: (6) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Flowers). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [T]he motion was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Abner J.] Mikva [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, if any Member 
    has had an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    printed in the Record, that Member would, of course, be protected 
    by the rule and would be allowed to speak for 5 minutes?
        The Chairman: If the amendment had been printed in the proper 
    form, the gentleman is correct. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas N.] Kindness [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, to clarify 
    the previous parliamentary inquiry, if an amendment was published 
    in the Record as an amendment to be offered to H.R. 15 and not as 
    an amendment to the substitute, I take it that the Member offering 
    the amendment would not be protected at this stage of the 
    proceedings?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Sec. 28.32 Pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6, only that Member who offers 
    an amendment

[[Page 7154]]

    which he has had printed in the Record is guaranteed five minutes 
    of debate notwithstanding a time limitation, and that right does 
    not inure to another Member who may offer the amendment.

    On June 1, 1976, (7) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 12169,(8) the above-described 
proceedings occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 122 Cong. Rec. 16044, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. Federal Energy Administration extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on all amendments to the bill and all amendments thereto 
    end at 5:30. . . .
        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman 
    from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) had to leave. I am going to offer an 
    amendment that he was going to offer. It was printed in the Record.
        Will I be permitted to do this?
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from New York that only those Members who have had their 
    amendments printed in the Record will be protected. Only those 
    Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Horton: It was in the Record, but it was not under my name. 
    It was an amendment of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd). I 
    would offer it in his absence.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from New York 
    that the Member who places the amendment in the Record must offer 
    it for there to be debate on the amendment under clause 6 of rule 
    XXIII.

Sec. 28.33 Printing an amendment in the Record pursuant to Rule XXIII 
    clause 6 merely permits 10 minutes of debate thereon 
    notwithstanding a limitation of time if the amendment has been 
    properly offered, and does not permit the offering of an amendment 
    not otherwise in order under the rules.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(10) during consideration of a bill 
(11) in the Committee of the Whole, an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute was offered and the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 11491, 11499, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. H.R. 6096, Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Edgar: Strike out everything after the enacting clause and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:
            That this Act may be cited as the ``Vietnam Humanitarian 
        Assistance and Evacuation Act of 1975.''

[[Page 7155]]

            Sec. 2. The President is directed to evacuate from South 
        Vietnam within ten days of the enactment of this Act the 
        following categories of persons:
            (1) United States citizens;
            (2) dependents of United States citizens and of permanent 
        residents of the United States; and
            (3) Vietnamese nationals eligible for immigration to the 
        United States by reason of their relationships to United States 
        citizens. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on this substitute amendment and all amendments 
    thereto close at 4 p.m.
        The Chairman: (12) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania would 
    preclude many of us from offering amendments which had heretofore 
    been dropped into the hopper and printed in today's Record in 
    compliance with the rules, will we be granted the set-aside 5 
    minutes to present our amendments inasmuch as the substitute 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Edgar) 
    would extinguish our right to offer an amendment at that point?
        The Chairman: If the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Edgar) is agreed 
    to, the stage of amendment would have been passed and no further 
    amendments would be in order to the bill.

Sec. 28.34 An amendment must be offered in the precise form in which it 
    was printed in the Congressional Record to guarantee its proponent 
    time for debate notwithstanding a limitation imposed in Committee 
    of the Whole.

    On July 25, 1974,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill,(14) the following 
proceedings occurred with regard to an amendment that was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 120 Cong. Rec. 25253, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
14. H.R. 11500, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Philip E.] Ruppe [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ruppe to the committee amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute: Page 282, line 14, after the 
        period insert the following words: ``The general elevation of 
        the overall mined area may be lower than its original 
        elevation. . . .

        The Chairman: (15) The Chair will ask the gentleman, 
    Was this printed in the Record?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ruppe: Something was printed in the Record similar to it, 
    but I have changed the language somewhat.
        The Chairman: It must be identical. If the amendment was not 
    printed in the Record there can be a vote on the amendment but 
    there will be no time for debate.

[[Page 7156]]

        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Ruppe) to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.

Sec. 28.35 While clause 6 of Rule XXIII permits any Member who has 
    printed an amendment in the Record five minutes of debate thereon 
    notwithstanding time limitations imposed by the Committee of the 
    Whole, the amendment must be offered in the precise form in which 
    it was printed in the Record to guarantee its proponent time for 
    debate, and an amendment printed in the Record to be offered to 
    original text is not protected by the rule when offered in 
    different form as an amendment to a pending substitute.

    On July 22, 1974,(16) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the bill, H.R. 11500, the Surface Mining Control 
and Reclamation Act of 1974, an inquiry was addressed to the Chair 
regarding debate on amendments which had been printed in the 
Congressional Record. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 120 Cong. Rec. 24453, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ken] Hechler of West Virginia: A parliamentary inquiry, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hechler of West Virginia: If the substitute is adopted, 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii, would it be out of order to 
    have amendments to that section? . . .
        The Chairman: Once the substitute is adopted, then a vote would 
    be on the Hosmer amendment as amended by the substitute. Prior to 
    the vote on the substitute, however, there could be amendments to 
    the substitute. . . .
        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: If that is the case, how 
    would one key in the amendments to the substitute, inasmuch as the 
    substitute is basically a Xerox copy of section 201, with its 
    original line numbers on some pages starting at line 18 and ending 
    on line 13 and at other pages going to other delineations?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the amendments must be 
    drafted as an amendment to the substitute, rather than to a section 
    of the committee amendment. . . .
        Mr. Hechler of West Virginia: What about those Members who have 
    had their amendments printed in the Record; would they then be 
    entitled to transfer the 5 minutes to which they are eligible under 
    the rules to amendments to the substitute?
        The Chairman: Debate on such amendments, assuming a limitation 
    of time, would only be in order if the amendments were properly 
    offered in the precise form in which they had been printed in the 
    Record, and if the amendments had not been printed in the Record as 
    amendments to the sub

[[Page 7157]]

    stitute, then debate would not be permitted.

    Later, in proceedings (18) relating to the same bill, 
H.R. 11500, Mr. Joseph M. McDade, of Pennsylvania, sought to offer an 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 120 Cong. Rec. 25232, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., July 25, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McDade: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment 
    offered as a substitute for the amendment to the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McDade to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Ruppe as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. 
        Seiberling to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute: Page 249, strike out lines 15 through 16 and insert 
        in lieu thereof the following:
            (3) appropriations made to the fund, or amounts credited to 
        the fund, under subsection (d). . . .

        The Chairman: (19) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania that the time has been set. The 
    gentleman is not on the list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McDade: Mr. Chairman, may I say that I have this amendment 
    printed in the Record. It has been printed for about 10 days.
        The Chairman: This is an amendment drafted as an amendment to 
    the Ruppe substitute, whereas the amendment which the gentleman 
    caused to be printed in the Record was drafted as an amendment to 
    the committee amendment.

--Where Special Rule Limits Consideration

Sec. 28.36 When the Committee of the Whole is operating under a special 
    order limiting consideration of all amendments to a number of hours 
    of consideration, and the Committee rises during that time 
    immediately following the offering of an amendment, that amendment 
    remains pending when the Committee resumes its sitting and 
    subsequent amendments may be offered only after its disposition and 
    during the time remaining for consideration of all amendments; no 
    amendments may be offered thereafter, since the special order 
    terminates consideration and overrides Rule XXIII clause 6, which 
    would otherwise guarantee additional time for amendments printed in 
    the Record.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on Apr. 9, 
1986,(20) during consideration of H.R. 4332 (the Firearms 
Law Reform Act). The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 132 Cong. Rec. 6896, 6897, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 7158]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hughes to the amendment, as 
        amended, offered by Mr. Volkmer as a substitute for the 
        Judiciary Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
        amended: Page 7, line 10, strike out ``shall not apply'' and 
        all that follows through ``firearms'' in line 2 on page 8, and 
        insert in thereof the following: ``shall not apply to the sale 
        or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a State 
        other than a State in which the licensee's place of business is 
        located. . . .

        Mr. [William J.] Hughes [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I yield 
    the balance of my time, and move that the Committee do now rise.
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman yields back the 
    balance of his time and moves that the Committee rise. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Charles B. Rangel (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles] Roemer [of Louisiana]: Is it the position of the 
    House, Mr. Chairman, that when we rise and meet tomorrow, the 
    Hughes amendment pending now would begin the debate?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Louisiana is exactly correct.
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Volkmer: When we come in tomorrow and the Committee begins 
    to act on the bill, we will have only the time left under the 5 
    hours for amendments, is that not correct?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Volkmer: Which right now is approximately 1 hour?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Volkmer: And then the rest of the amendments, are they cut 
    off? Or do we go ahead for those that are in the Record and vote on 
    them after 5 minutes each?
        The Chairman: There will not be any amendments that would be in 
    order after the conclusion of the 5-hour consideration.

Scope of Debate on Pro Forma Amendment

Sec. 28.37 Debate in the Committee of the Whole under the five-minute 
    rule is confined to the subject and, if the point of order is 
    raised, a Member may not under a pro forma amendment discuss a 
    section of the bill not immediately pending. (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Pro forma amendments are those phrased to make some superficial 
        change in a bill--such as ``to strike the last word''--where 
        the underlying purpose is to obtain time for debate or to offer 
        an explanation, no actual change in the bill being 
        contemplated. Such amendments are discussed in Sec. 2, supra. 
        See, especially, Sec. 2.4, supra, discussing the scope of 
        debate on a pro forma amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 28.38 Debate on a pro forma amendment must be confined to the 
    portion of the bill to which the pro forma amendment has been 
    offered.

[[Page 7159]]

    On June 21, 1974, (3) during consideration of a bill in 
the Committee of the Whole, the Chair made the ruling described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 120 Cong. Rec. 20595, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 15472, agriculture, environment and consumer 
        appropriations, fiscal 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Pierre S.] du Pont [of Delaware]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I am taking this time now for fear that when we 
    get down to the end of the bill there will be a limitation of time, 
    and I will not have the opportunity to explain the amendment that I 
    intend to offer on the last page of the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, I intend to offer an amendment to set a maximum 
    limit on the appropriations under this bill to $12.7 billion. . . .
        Mr. [John E.] Moss [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Moss: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that I must insist 
    upon the regular order, and the regular order is not being 
    observed. There has been no unanimous-consent request to proceed 
    out of order, and the House is now proceeding out of order. So I 
    call for the regular order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will proceed in the regular order.
        Mr. [H. John] Heinz [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. du Pont: I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Heinz: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        I am afraid the intent---
        Mr. Moss: Mr. Chairman, I insist on the regular order, and the 
    regular order is the point of the bill where we are now reading. It 
    is not a point to be reached at a later time. I insist upon the 
    regular order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. The gentleman in the 
    well received permission to strike out the last word and then 
    proceeded to discuss an amendment to be offered to the last section 
    of the bill. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is not discussing a 
    part of the bill that is pending.
        The point of order is sustained.

Sec. 28.39 Where a special order adopted by the House permitted the 
    offering of a non-germane amendment which would then be subject to 
    both pro forma amendments for debate and to four designated 
    amendments (which in turn would also be subject to pro forma 
    amendments), the Chair indicated that pro forma debate on the 
    broader subject of the original amendment could be had although one 
    of the substantive amendments thereto might be pending.

    On Oct. 17, 1979, (5) The Committee of the Whole having 
under

[[Page 7160]]

consideration S. 832 (6) pursuant to a special order, the 
Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry as described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 125 Cong. Rec. 28643-45, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (7) Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk 
    will now read the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    recommended by the Committee on House Administration now printed in 
    the reported bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
        section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
        U.S.C. 439c) is amended by striking out ``and'' after ``1977'' 
        and by inserting after ``1978'' the following: ``, and 
        $8,998,823 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980''. . . 
        .

        The Chairman: If there are no amendments to the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute, the Chair will recognize 
    the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] to offer the amendment made 
    in order by the rule. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, under the rule 
    is it possible to offer pro forma amendments on the bill proper 
    after the gentleman from Wisconsin and his friends have offered 
    their amendments?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman from 
    Minnesota [Mr. Frenzel] that pro forma amendments would be in order 
    at that time.

Sec. 28.40 While normally under the five-minute rule debate on a pro 
    forma amendment may relate either to a pending amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute or to a perfecting amendment thereto (as not 
    necessarily in the third degree), where a special rule permitted 
    the offering of both perfecting amendments in the second degree and 
    of pro forma amendments to the substitute when perfecting 
    amendments were not pending, the Chair permitted pro forma 
    amendments during pendency of perfecting amendments but, in 
    response to a point of order, required that debate be related 
    solely to the perfecting amendment.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on May 26, 
1982 (8) during consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 
345, the first concurrent resolution on the budget. The proceedings in 
the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 128 Cong. Rec. 12088, 12090, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike 
    the requisite

[[Page 7161]]

    number of words not because I intend to speak to the amendment of 
    the gentleman from Michigan, but instead to take this time in 
    concert with colleagues who care very much about what the Latta 
    amendment does to housing. Not for housing, but to housing. . . .
        Mr. [James H.] Quillen [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    understood we were debating the Conyers amendment, and I did not 
    hear permission to speak out of order.
        Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Chairman, my remarks go to the Latta 
    substitute, and I believe that is pending before the committee.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair will have to state that 
    the matter that is pending is the Conyers amendment, and that 
    debate should be germane to the Conyers amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chairman insisted that debate proceed 
in an ``orderly fashion'', that once a perfecting amendment was 
offered, debate under the five-minute rule be confined thereto, and not 
to one of the three underlying substitutes pending simultaneously. 
Separate debate on those substitutes was to be permitted only between 
consideration of numbered perfecting amendments.

Sec. 28.41 Where a special order permits both the offering of specified 
    perfecting amendments in a certain order and pro forma amendments, 
    the Chair has discretion to recognize Members to offer pro forma 
    amendments to debate the underlying text between consideration of 
    perfecting amendments.

    On May 26, 1982, (10) The Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Concurrent Resolution 345, (11) 
the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding the 
circumstances described above. The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 128 Cong. Rec. 12141, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. First concurrent resolution on the budget, fiscal 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: At the appropriate time 
    after we have completed this amendment, I will seek to strike the 
    last word to make other comments that may be of interest to 
    Members.

        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Madigan: Is the procedure that has just been suggested by 
    the gentleman from California one that would be in order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will entertain pro forma amendments 
    between amendments.
        Mr. Madigan: Further pursuing my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Chairman,

[[Page 7162]]

    how would the gentleman from California be able to be recognized to 
    speak in behalf of something that he says he is not going to offer?
        The Chairman: Between amendments, no amendment is pending. That 
    is why a pro forma amendment presumably to one of the substitutes 
    will be allowed. It provides an opportunity for discussion between 
    amendments.

Pro Forma Amendments After Expiration of Time

Sec. 28.42 Where a limitation on debate under the five-minute rule on 
    an amendment and all amendments thereto has expired, no further 
    debate is in order and a Member may not gain time for debate by 
    offering a pro forma amendment ``to strike the last word.''

    On Aug. 2, 1978,(13) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 12514,(14) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 124 Cong. Rec. 23947, 23954, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
14. The International Security Assistance Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on the pending amendment and all amendments thereto 
    end at 4 o'clock.
        The Chairman: (15) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Members standing at the time the motion was made 
    will be recognized for 1 minute and 20 seconds each. . . .

    After the time had expired, another Member sought recognition.

        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Lagomarsino) rise?
        Mr. [Robert J.] Lagomarsino [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    move to strike the last word.
        The Chairman: The Chair will inform the gentleman that no 
    further debate is in order at this time.

Limiting Debate Only on Substitute

Sec. 28.43 Where a substitute has been offered for an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute, and the Committee of the Whole limits 
    debate on the substitute and all amendments thereto, such 
    limitation does not apply to amendments which may be offered to the 
    original amendment in the nature of a substitute.

    On Sept. 29, 1965,(16) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 111 Cong. Rec. 25426, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 4644.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (17) . . . When the Committee rose 
    there was pending a

[[Page 7163]]

    substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Sisk) for the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from New York (Mr. Multer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [B. F.] Sisk: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a unanimous-
    consent request.
        Mr. Chairman, in order to expedite the business of the House--
    and after some 3 days of debate it seems to me the time has come to 
    move along--I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the Sisk 
    amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes. . . .
        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer: Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment to 
    be offered to the Multer amendment. Would that come out of the time 
    reserved for the closing of debate on the Sisk amendment, if that 
    is offered--in other words, if someone offers an amendment to the 
    Multer amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from New 
    York that as the Chair understood the request of the gentleman from 
    California, it was that all debate on the Sisk substitute and all 
    amendments thereto close in 20 minutes and that, therefore, would 
    not preclude the offering of any amendments to the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York.

Debate on Amendment in Nature of Substitute or Amendments Thereto

Sec. 28.44 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a bill and amendments thereto, the Chair indicated 
    in response to parliamentary inquiries: (1) that a motion to limit 
    debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute and all 
    amendments thereto was in order although the bill itself had not 
    been read; (2) that amendments printed in the Record would be 
    debatable for 10 minutes notwithstanding the limitation; and (3) 
    that all Members would be allocated equal time under the limitation 
    regardless of committee membership but that Members seeking to 
    offer amendments could be first recognized.

    On June 10, 1976,(18) during consideration of a bill 
(19) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to 
several parliamentary inquiries regarding a motion to limit debate. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 122 Cong. Rec. 17380, 17381, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. H.R. 13367, a bill to amend and extend the State and Local Fiscal 
        Assistance Act of 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on the Brooks amendment and all amendments thereto end by 6 
    p.m. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, is there 
    any reason for the Clerk to read? I do not remember the bill being 
    open at any point to amendment.

[[Page 7164]]

        The Chairman: (20) The motion of the gentleman from 
    New York, as the Chair understood it, was that all debate on the 
    Brooks amendment and all amendments thereto end at 6 p.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: So that the motion is in order?
        The Chairman: The motion is in order. It is limited to the 
    Brooks amendment and amendments thereto. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, of course I 
    believe it is understood that this does not apply to any amendments 
    that are printed in the Congressional Record?
        The Chairman: Under the rules of the House, it does not apply 
    to those amendments. . . .
        Mr. [J. J.] Pickle [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, under the proposed 
    time limitation, would the Chair tend to recognize a Member who is 
    not a member of the committee? For instance, the gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. Adams) has an important amendment, and if he is not 
    recognized within the time limitation, would the chairman of the 
    committee let the gentleman be recognized? . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that under limitation of 
    time committee members no longer have priority in seeking 
    recognition. Time is equally allocated.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair would ask that Members with 
    amendments to be offered seek recognition first, and the Chair 
    would request that Members attempt to address themselves to the 
    amendments.

Sec. 28.45 Where there is pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, a substitute therefor, an amendment to the original 
    amendment and an amendment to the substitute, a Member may be 
    recognized to debate the amendment to the substitute either prior 
    or subsequent to the first vote on the amendment to the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute.

    On Oct. 1, 1974,(1) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a resolution,(2) the Chair responded to 
a parliamentary inquiry as described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 120 Cong. Rec. 33338, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. H. Res. 988, to reform the structure, jurisdiction, and procedures 
        of House committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, do I understand correctly that the 
    Thompson amendment is to the Hansen substitute, and that no other 
    amendment would be in order to that amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute until the Thompson amendment is voted upon?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to inform the gentleman that 
    he is correct. No additional amendments to the Hansen amendment in 
    the nature

[[Page 7165]]

    of a substitute are in order until the Thompson amendment is voted 
    on.
        Further, the Chair would like to advise the gentleman that no 
    additional amendments to the Martin substitute are in order until 
    the Sullivan amendment (thereto) is voted upon. . . .
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, would I be protected in supporting 
    the Sullivan amendment if I should wait and postpone asking for 
    recognition until after the Thompson amendment has been disposed 
    of?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to inform the gentleman that 
    he has a choice but that he can at this time debate the Sullivan 
    amendment, and the Chair would recognize the gentleman for that 
    purpose.

Sec. 28.46 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, a substitute therefor and an amendment to the 
    substitute, and debate had been limited on the substitute and all 
    amendments thereto but not on the original amendment or amendments 
    thereto, the Chair indicated that (1) further amendments to the 
    substitute or modifications of the substitute by unanimous consent 
    must await disposition of the pending amendment to the substitute; 
    (2) amendments to the original amendment could be offered and 
    debated under the five-minute rule and would be voted on before 
    amendments to the substitute; (3) amendments to the substitute 
    could be offered and voted upon without debate unless printed in 
    the Record pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6; and (4) the question 
    would not be put on the substitute until all perfecting amendments 
    to it and to the original amendment were disposed of.

    On Feb. 5, 1976,(4) during consideration of H.R. 9464, 
the Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1976, there was pending an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute (the Krueger amendment); a substitute 
therefor (the Smith amendment); and an amendment to the substitute (the 
Eckhardt amendment). A unanimous-consent request was made to limit 
debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 122 Cong. Rec. 2646-48, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    strike the requisite number of words.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the 
    Smith amendment and all amendments thereto terminate immediately 
    upon the conclusion of consideration of the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt). . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, as I understood 
    it, the unanimous-consent request of the gen

[[Page 7166]]

    tleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) was that all debate on the Smith 
    substitute amendment cease after the disposition of the Eckhardt 
    amendment.
        The Eckhardt amendment would be the pending business then, and 
    immediately after the determination of the Eckhardt amendment, we 
    would vote on the Smith amendment. Is that not correct? . . .
        The Chairman: (5) Not necessarily, because there 
    could be an amendment to the Krueger amendment, which would be 
    debatable. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Before we vote on the Smith substitute, amendments to the 
    Krueger amendment are debatable if offered. . . .
        The point that the Chair is trying to make, regardless of what 
    agreements are reached, is that until the Krueger amendment is 
    finally perfected to the satisfaction of the Committee, the Chair 
    cannot put the question on the Smith substitute.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: The Chair cannot put the question on the 
    Smith amendment?

        The Chairman: The Chair cannot put the question on the Smith 
    substitute until the Krueger amendment is perfected to the 
    satisfaction of the Committee.
        There has been no limitation of debate on the Krueger amendment 
    or amendments thereto. The basic parliamentary situation is that we 
    have a substitute amendment for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, the Krueger amendment. Both of those are subject to 
    amendment, but both must be perfected before the Chair can put the 
    question on the substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: With respect to the unanimous-consent 
    request of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the Eckhardt 
    amendment is still to be voted upon, and then there are to be no 
    other amendments to the Smith amendment?
        The Chairman: There is to be no further debate on such 
    amendments. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, if my time still applies, I 
    would like to ask the Chair to state the circumstances. If I may, 
    before the Chair does that, I would like to ask the question this 
    way: As the situation stands at this moment, the Krueger amendment 
    is still perfectable by amendments under the normal course of time, 
    and there is no limitation on the Krueger amendment.
        The Smith amendment, however, can be perfected only by the vote 
    on the Eckhardt amendment, and then if there are other amendments 
    to the Smith amendment there is no debate time remaining on those 
    amendments.
        Is that correct?
        The Chairman: Unless they are printed in the Record.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: And if they are printed in the Record, the 
    debate time is 5 minutes per side pro and con. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: That is correct. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, it is, however, a fact that the 
    gentleman may have an amendment at the desk and it may be voted on 
    without debate under the unanimous-consent request?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

[[Page 7167]]

        Mr. [Robert] Krueger [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Krueger: Mr. Chairman, there are still those of us who are 
    not certain of the parliamentary situation. I am among them.
        Mr. Chairman, my question is this: We will vote first on the 
    Eckhardt amendment to the Smith substitute?
        The Chairman: That is right.
        Mr. Krueger: Following that, there will then be a vote without 
    further debate on the Smith substitute, or no?
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot say, because if there were 
    amendments printed in the Record, there can be both an amendment 
    offered and debate on the amendment. If there were no amendments 
    that were qualified for debate by being printed in the Record, they 
    could not be offered and voted on without debate.
        But if they are offered to the Krueger amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute, they would both be considered and would be 
    debatable under the 5-minute rule. . . .
        The 5-minute rule applies only to amendments to the Smith 
    amendment which has been printed in the Record. Other amendments to 
    the Smith amendment do not have debate time; they are just voted 
    on. . . .
        Mr. [Benjamin A.] Gilman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the Krueger amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute. My amendment has been printed in the Record.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Krueger immediately after 
        section 26 of the Natural Gas Act (as added by section 208) 
        insert the following:

        ``treatment of rates and charges for natural gas sold to senior 
                                    citizens

Sec. 25. (a) The Commission shall prohibit any natural-gas company from 
    selling or otherwise supplying natural gas to any local natural gas 
    company which increases the rates for natural gas sold to senior 
    citizens. . . .

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana] (during the 
    reading): Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
        The point of order lies to the fact that the amendment now 
    being read is to the Krueger amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and is not in order until there has been a disposition 
    of the Eckhardt amendment to the Smith substitute.
        The Chairman: The Chair has stated that any amendment to the 
    Krueger amendment in the nature of a substitute may now be offered 
    and is debatable.
        Mr. Waggonner: But, Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not in order 
    until there has been a disposition of the Eckhardt amendment to the 
    Smith substitute which is now under consideration.
        The Chairman: This amendment takes precedence. This amendment 
    takes precedence over the amendment to the substitute amendment. 
    That is what the Chair has been trying to say now, repeatedly. The 
    amendment that

[[Page 7168]]

    has precedence is an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, and this is the amendment that is now before the 
    committee. . . .
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Iowa (Mr. Smith) as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger).
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Eckhardt) there were--ayes 33, noes 35.
        So the amendment to the substitute amendment for the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute was rejected.

--Limitation on Debate on Amendment in Nature of Substitute But Not on 
    Original Text

Sec. 28.47 Where there is a time limitation on debate on a pending 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute and all amendments thereto, 
    but not on the underlying original text, debate on perfecting 
    amendments to the original text proceeds under the five-minute rule 
    in the absence of another time limitation thereon; and even where 
    debate on the substitute was, under the limitation, to end at a 
    time certain, the time remaining for debate may, by unanimous 
    consent, be determined and reserved to follow disposition of the 
    perfecting amendments, without regard to the agreed upon time 
    certain.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on Apr. 13, 
1983,(6) during consideration of House Joint Resolution 13 
(dealing with nuclear weapons freeze). The proceedings in the Committee 
of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 129 Cong. Rec. 8402-04, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    perfecting amendment at the desk to section 2 of House Joint 
    Resolution 13.
        The Chairman: (7) the Chair will advise that 
    perfecting amendments to the underlying text are in order at this 
    time while the Levitas amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    pending. But the Chair will also point out that if any Member is 
    recognized to offer a perfecting amendment at this time, debate 
    will not be limited on the perfecting amendment and the vote will 
    first come on the perfecting amendment and on any potential 
    amendments thereto before the question is put on the Levitas 
    substitute. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: . . . (I)f the gentleman 
    from Georgia's motion is granted or his request is granted, the 
    limitation that has been set on debate would no longer prevail; is 
    that correct?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the 
    limitation

[[Page 7169]]

    of debate applies only to debate on the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Levitas) 
    which is now pending. . . .
        Mr. Levitas: Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. Levitas: Mr. Chairman, I will seek recognition for debate 
    on the amendment if I may ask a parliamentary inquiry before I do.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Levitas: My parliamentary inquiry is this. The perfecting 
    amendment which I have just offered is now available for debate 
    under the 5-minute rule without any time constraints?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Levitas: The time limitation that was originally agreed to 
    for termination of debate on the pending substitute to end at 3 
    o'clock, that was the focus of the time limitation.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Levitas: My parliamentary inquiry is this: Would it be in 
    order to request unanimous consent to preserve the time of those 
    Members who had time allocated to them under the original 
    limitation so that their time would be preserved at the conclusion 
    of the disposition of the pending amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman or any other Member could request 
    unanimous consent for that purpose.
        Mr. Levitas: A further parliamentary inquiry: Would it be in 
    order after this amendment is explained to seek a time limitation 
    on debate of the pending amendment?
        The Chairman: That would be in order.
        Mr. Levitas: Well, under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I 
    will make a unanimous-consent request that after the question is 
    put on the pending amendment, that the time remaining under the 
    original time limitation on the substitute will be made available 
    to the Members who have such time allocated to them. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Georgia?
        There was no objection.

Debate on Motion To Strike Out May Proceed Before Perfecting Amendment 
    Is Offered

Sec. 28.48 Although the motion to strike out and insert is in order 
    while a motion to strike out is pending, when a Member's motion to 
    strike out has been reported he is entitled to speak thereto before 
    another Member is recognized to offer a motion to strike out and 
    insert.

    On Sept. 30, 1965,(8) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 111 Cong. Rec. 25696, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 10281.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Broyhill of North Carolina: On 
        page 38,

[[Page 7170]]

        strike out line 9 and all that follows through line 5 on page 
        39. . . .

        Mr. [Robert J.] Corbett [of Pennsylvania]: I wish to propose a 
    substitute for the amendment. Shall I offer that now, or after the 
    gentleman is recognized to speak on his amendment?
        The Chairman: (9) the Chair will state that the 
    gentleman's substitute amendment (to strike and insert) will be in 
    order and may be offered after the gentleman from North Carolina 
    (Mr. Broyhill), has used his time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John H. Dent (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 28.49 While a motion to strike a pending portion of a bill will be 
    held in abeyance until perfecting amendments to that portion are 
    disposed of, a Member who has been recognized to debate his motion 
    to strike may not be deprived of the floor by another Member who 
    seeks to offer a perfecting amendment; after the Member so 
    recognized has completed his five minutes in support of his motion 
    to strike, but before the question is put on the motion to strike, 
    the perfecting amendment may be offered and voted upon.

    On Oct. 31, 1975, (10) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill, (11) the proceedings, described 
above, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 34564, 34565, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. H.R. 10024, Depository Institutions Amendments of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rousselot: Beginning on page 10, 
        line 18, strike all that follows through page 188, line 10. . . 
        .

        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: I believe that 
    under the rules of the House since this amendment involves a motion 
    to strike the title, that perfecting amendments that are at the 
    desk take precedence over such a motion to strike a title. Is that 
    not correct?
        The Chairman: (12) That is true, if any are offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Spark M. Matsunaga (Ha.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. St Germain: I believe there are amendments pending.
        Mr. [John Joseph] Moakley [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    might state that I was standing when the Chairman recognized the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot), and I have a perfecting 
    amendment at the desk.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from California, Mr. Rousselot, is pending now, 
    and that the gentleman from California has been recognized. The 
    gentleman may offer his perfecting amendment after the gentleman 
    from California has completed his five minutes in support of his 
    amendment to strike.

[[Page 7171]]

Debate Where Amendment Is Offered, Withdrawn, and Then Reoffered

Sec. 28.50 Upon reintroduction of an amendment that has, by unanimous 
    consent, been withdrawn in the Committee of the Whole, the Member 
    is entitled to debate his amendment for a second five-minute 
    period.

    On May 3, 1956, (13) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 102 Cong. Rec. 7439, 84th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 10875, the Soil Bank Act of 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Noah M.] Mason [of Illinois]: Under the rules of the House 
    does a man get two 5-minute discussions of the same amendment?
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman withdrew his 
    amendment, and it has been offered again. The gentleman from Maine 
    is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. J. Percy Priest (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate After Adoption of Substitute to Amendment

Sec. 28.51 Under the five-minute rule, no debate may intervene after a 
    substitute for an amendment has been adopted and before the vote on 
    the amendment as amended, except by unanimous consent, since the 
    amendment has been amended in its entirety and no further 
    amendments including pro forma amendments are in order.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on Oct. 18, 
1983, (15) during consideration of H.R. 3231.(1) 
The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 129 Cong. Rec. 28185, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. Export Administration Act Amendments of 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chairman Pro Tempore: (2) The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Bonker), as 
amended, as a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Roth), as amended. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. George E. Brown, Jr. (California).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Toby] Roth [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    240, noes 173, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 19, as follows. . 
    . .
        So the amendment, as amended, offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. [Edwin V.W.] Zschau [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike the last word.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Without objection, the gentleman from 
    Cali

[[Page 7172]]

    fornia (Mr. Zschau) is recognized for 5 minutes.
        There was no objection.

Debate on Remaining Portions of Divisible Amendment

Sec. 28.52 Where the question has been put on the first portion of a 
    divisible amendment, further debate on the remaining portion may be 
    had under the five-minute rule before the Chair puts the question 
    thereon.

    On Aug. 4, 1983,(3) The Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 2230, (4) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 129 Cong. Rec. 23134, 23142, 23143, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. The Civil Rights Commission Act of 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Edwards of California: Page 2, 
        line 2, insert ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 2''.
            Page 2, line 4, strike out ``1998'' and insert ``1988'' in 
        lieu thereof.
            Page 2, after line 4, insert the following:
            ``(b) Section 104(c) of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (42 
        U.S.C. 1975c(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
        ``During the period which begins on the date of the enactment 
        of the Civil Rights Commission Act of 1983 and ends on 
        September 30, 1988, the President may remove a member of the 
        Commission only for neglect of duty or malfeasance in 
        office.''.

        Mr. [James F.] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, 
    pursuant to the rule, I demand a division of the question. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair would point out to the 
    gentleman that the amendment really contains three parts, the 
    second being, on page 2, line 4, to strike out ``1998'' and insert 
    ``1988''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Morris K. Udall (Arizona).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The first part is, on page 2, line 2, to insert ``(a)'' after 
    ``Sec. 2''.
        Then the third part is the insertion of a new subsection (b) 
    dealing with the removal of commissioners before the term of 
    office.
        The Chair would propose to put the question first only on the 
    date change, and then on the remainder of the amendment which 
    constitutes in effect one proposition. . . .
        The question now is on that portion of the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from California (Mr. Edwards) dealing with the date 
    change from ``1998'' to ``1988.''. . .
        [The portion of the amendment dealing with the date change from 
    ``1998'' to ``1988'' was agreed to.]
        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    understand the vote that was just taken was on the first part of a 
    divided question. My inquiry is: Is it in order at this time for 
    there to be any further debate on the second portion of the 
    question that has been divided?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that further 
    debate

[[Page 7173]]

    would be in order under the 5-minute rule until the Chair puts the 
    question.
        Mr. Levitas: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
    number of words.

Debate Under Reservation of Objection

Sec. 28.53 Unanimous consent is not required to adopt an amendment to a 
    pending amendment, and the Chair may decline to permit debate to 
    proceed under a reservation of objection to such unanimous-consent 
    request and require debate to proceed under the five-minute rule.

    On Feb. 24, 1977, (6) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 11,(7) an amendment was offered to 
a pending amendment. The proceedings, described above, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 123 Cong. Rec. 5327, 5329, 5330, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act 
        Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. [Parren J.] Mitchell of Maryland: Madam Chairman, I offer an 
amendment.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: Page 2, line 
        23, insert ``(1)'' immediately before ``Notwithstanding.''
            Page 3, line 7, strike out the quotation marks and the 
        period immediately following the quotation marks.

            Page 3, immediately after line 7, add the following:
            ``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no grant 
        shall be made under this Act for any local public works project 
        unless at least 10 per centum of the dollar volume of each 
        contract shall be set aside for minority business enterprise. . 
        . .

        Mr. [Robert A.] Roe [of New Jersey]: Madam Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland 
    (Mr. Mitchell) and ask unanimous consent that it be adopted.
        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Madam Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, I would like to know exactly the language of 
    the gentleman's amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Roe to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: In lieu of the Mitchell amendment 
        insert the following:
            Page 3, in lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted after 
        line 7, insert the following:
            ``(2) Except to the extent that the Secretary determines 
        otherwise, no grant shall be made under this Act for any local 
        public works project unless the applicant gives satisfactory 
        assurance to the Secretary that at least 10 per centum of the 
        amount of each grant shall be expended for minority business 
        enterprises. For purposes of this paragraph, the term `minority 
        business enterprises' means a business at least 50 percent of 
        which is owned by minority group members. . . .

        The Chairman: (8) Is there objection to the 
    unanimous-consent request of

[[Page 7174]]

    the gentleman from New Jersey to amend the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Maryland?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Harsha: Madam Chairman, reserving the right to object, I 
    want to try to clarify this. . . .
        The Chairman: Rather than proceed under the gentleman's 
    reservation of objection, the Chair will treat the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New Jersey to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Maryland as pending and proceed under the 5-
    minute rule, so that debate can then take place in the proper way. 
    . . .
        Mr. Roe: Is it possible for others who desire to do so to 
    reserve the right to object?
        The Chairman: The Chair will put the question on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New Jersey to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Maryland, unless further Members desire to 
    debate the issue under the 5-minute rule.
        The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Roe) is recognized for 5 
    minutes on his amendment. . . .
        Mr. [James J.] Howard [of New Jersey]: Madam Chairman, I would 
    ask the Chair if unanimous consent was granted for the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New Jersey to be before the House.
        The Chairman: That was not necessary. It is still an amendment 
    to an amendment which is pending business to be voted on by the 
    committee.

Separate Debate Time on Points of Order

Sec. 28.54 The proponent of an amendment against which a point of order 
    has been reserved may not reserve a portion of his time under the 
    five-minute rule to oppose any points of order if made, as separate 
    debate time is permitted on points of order at the discretion of 
    the Chair.

    When the Committee of the Whole is proceeding under the five-minute 
rule, debate on points of order against an amendment is within the 
discretion of the Chair and does not come out of the debate time 
allotted as to the merits of the amendment. Thus, on Aug. 1, 
1975,(9) the Chair (10) indicated that it was not 
necessary to reserve debate time to address a point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 26945, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7014, Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975.
10. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: Strike out Title 
        III, as amended, and reinsert all except for Section 301, as 
        amended.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, the thrust of this amendment 
    is to strike from the bill the provisions of

[[Page 7175]]

    the Staggers pricing amendment, section 301, by revising title III 
    to strike the whole title and to reinsert all in the title, except 
    section 301.
        Mr. Chairman, may I speak on the amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman has been recognized for 5 minutes, 
    so the gentleman may proceed.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, may I reserve 2 minutes of my 
    time to speak on the points of order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will recognize the gentleman to speak 
    on the points of order at the appropriate time.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I have not yet made the point of 
    order. I reserved it.
        The Chairman: The Chair has recognized the gentleman from Ohio 
    to speak on the gentleman's amendment for 5 minutes. Then the 
    gentlemen who reserved the points of order may press them or they 
    may not.

Unanimous-Consent Requests Charged Against Remaining Time

Sec. 28.55 Where debate is limited by motion to a time certain, 
    parliamentary inquiries and unanimous-consent requests made pending 
    the motion or after it is agreed to come out of the total remaining 
    time, and can be extended only by unanimous consent.

    The proposition stated above was the basis of the following 
proceeding, which occurred on Oct. 3, 1985, (11) during 
consideration of H.R. 2100 (12) in the Committee of the 
Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 131 Cong. Rec. 25986, 25995, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. The Food Security Act of 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter B.] Jones of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that, for all amendments introduced and those pending, all debate 
    on this particular section of cargo preference shall end at 4:45.
        The Chairman: (13) Is the gentleman moving to limit 
    debate on section 1141 and all amendments thereto?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Only those pertaining to cargo 
    preference, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Would that include new sections following section 
    1141?
        Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am confining 
    my motion to cargo preference, the two amendments pending and those 
    anticipated, and I had in mind the gentleman's amendments when I 
    added 15 minutes to the original request. . . .
        Mr. [Doug] Bereuter [of Nebraska]: Since I have six or seven 
    amendments that would be covered by the chairman's motion, Mr. 
    Chairman, do I then have, outside of this time limit, 5 minutes for 
    discussion, or 10 minutes in the case of opposition? And the time 
    for votes, does that come outside of the 1 hour or within?
        The Chairman: If the amendments have not been offered within 
    the timeframe which the gentleman from North Carolina has 
    suggested, then the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) would 
    have 5 minutes in support of each amendment, if they have been 
    printed in the Congressional Record, and 5 minutes in opposition 
    also. . . .

[[Page 7176]]

        Mr. [Glenn] English [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, would it be 
    proper under the procedures of the House for a limitation upon the 
    English-Roberts-Smith proposals to end at, say, 4:30, and any other 
    amendments that may arise to end by 5:00?
        The Chairman: Overall time can be limited by motion. Allocation 
    of time may be made under a unanimous-consent request. . . .
        The gentleman can move to limit debate on the Smith amendment 
    and all amendments thereto.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Bereuter) there were--ayes 39, noes 12.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Jones] 
    still has the time.
        Mr. [Eligio] de la Garza [II, of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman from North Carolina yield?
        Mr. Jones of North Carolina: I yield to the gentleman from 
    Texas.
        Mr. de la Garza: Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman to yield for 
    the purpose of making a parliamentary inquiry as to how the time 
    will be apportioned.
        The Chairman: The Chair is unclear as to how many Members are 
    interested in speaking on this amendment, although he has an idea, 
    and will continue under the 5-minute rule unless there can be some 
    agreement reached that the time should be apportioned among those 
    Members who are standing as the Chair speaks. The Chair has the 
    authority to do that, and it would be, I think, fair to the 
    committee members that the Chair allocate that time to members 
    standing.
        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    unanimous-consent request.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time that has 
    just been allotted by the successful motion be divided equally 
    between the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee and the 
    Agriculture Committee, and that the time allocated to each be 
    divided equally between the majority and the minority.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Illinois?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] and 
    the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Jones] will each have 15 
    minutes if they desire to control such time, and the gentleman from 
    Illinois [Mr. Madigan] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. (Norman 
    F.) Lent] will each have 15 minutes. . . .
        Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, it seems according 
    to the official timer that we are down to 3\1/2\ minutes. According 
    to my records, we have approximately 7 minutes. I understand that 
    during the debate on the time limitation, that that was charged to 
    me, to our side.
        The Chairman: The Chair would point out to his dear colleague 
    and friend, the gentleman from North Carolina, that what was 
    charged were these unanimous-consent requests. The reason they were 
    charged is that under the motion that the gentleman made,

[[Page 7177]]

    the time expires at 4:45. In order for us to fulfill the 15-minute 
    requirement, the Chair had to take the time out of that.
        If the gentleman asks to extend the time the Chair can do that 
    by unanimous consent.

Special Rule Providing for Five-Minute Vote on Amendments After 
    Recorded Vote Ordered

Sec. 28.56 Where a special order governing consideration of a bill in 
    Committee of the Whole provided that the Chairman could announce 
    after a recorded vote had been ordered that he would reduce to not 
    less than five minutes the period of time in which a recorded vote 
    by electronic device, if ordered, would be taken on any amendment 
    which was to be voted on without further debate immediately 
    following that 15-minute vote, the Chair indicated that, if Members 
    reserved debate time on such amendment, he would be unable to order 
    a five-minute vote on the amendment, since debate could intervene 
    between the votes.

    On May 4, 1983, (14) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 13, calling for a mutual and verifiable freeze on and 
reductions in nuclear weapons, there were pending an amendment to an 
amendment, and an amendment to a substitute therefor. The Chairman 
(15) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 129 Cong. Rec. 11063, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the Members that with 
    respect to the time for voting, if any time is reserved on a second 
    amendment on which a recorded vote is ultimately ordered, the 
    Chairman does not have the discretion to order that to be taken 
    within 5 minutes unless all debate has been used.
        So the Chair would inquire of the gentleman from Illinois, with 
    respect to the second Zablocki amendment on which a . . . vote will 
    occur, does the gentleman choose to use at this time the 1 minute 
    remaining in opposition to that Zablocki amendment? . . .
        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Chairman, is my understanding correct that if the time that 
    is reserved is not yielded back, we cannot have a 5-minute vote on 
    the amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair has discretion under the rule to order 
    a 5-minute vote on a subsequent amendment only if there is no 
    intervening debate, so the Chair would be unable to order a 5-
    minute vote on a subsequent amendment if a recorded vote is ordered 
    on the first amendment, if any Member has reserved his time on the 
    subsequent amendment which is pending, because then there would be 
    intervening debate.

[[Page 7178]]

        Mr. Zablocki: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        After the vote, if there is a reservation of time and those who 
    have reserved their time have yielded back, could we then have a 5-
    minute vote?
        The Chairman: No; the Chair would have to order the 5-minute 
    vote in advance.
        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, did I understand that the gentleman 
    from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) reserved his time?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise that the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has reserved his 1 minute remaining on the 
    second Zablocki amendment, that is, the Zablocki amendment to the 
    Courter substitute, which would be the second vote taken. So the 
    answer is, yes, he has reserved his 1 minute.

Offering Amendment in Time Yielded for Debate

Sec. 28.57 An amendment may not be offered in time yielded for debate 
    only.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 13.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
     F. EFFECT OF CONSIDERATION OR ADOPTION; CHANGES AFTER ADOPTION
 
Sec. 29. Introduction; Adoption of Perfecting Amendment, Generally

    Generally, it is not in order to amend an amendment previously 
agreed to.(17) Nor is it in order to re-offer an amendment 
previously agreed to, or rejected (see Sec. 35, infra), but to be 
precluded, an amendment must be practically identical to the 
proposition previously considered.(18) And the concept 
embodied in an amendment can be addressed by a subsequent amendment, 
although such language may be inconsistent with the earlier amendment 
previously agreed to.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 29.2, infra.
18. See Sec. 29.1, infra.
19. See Sec. 29.21 et seq., infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So while it is not in order to strike out an amendment already 
agreed to, it is in order by way of amendment to strike out a greater 
substantive part of a paragraph which includes the adopted 
amendment.(1) Similarly, an amendment proposing to strike 
out a section which has been partially perfected is in 
order.(2) Moreover, after a section has been partially 
perfected by amendments, it is in order to move to strike such section 
as amended and insert a new one therefor.(3)

[[Page 7179]]

And it is in order to propose as an amendment for an entire section, by 
way of a motion to strike out and insert, an amendment inserting the 
same section with modifications and omitting amendments to the section 
that have been previously agreed to.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 17.31, supra.
 2. See Sec. 17.29, supra.
 3. See Sec. 16.14, supra.
 4. See Sec. 16.14, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In fact, it is in order to propose an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute for a bill and thereby omit amendments to the bill that have 
been previously agreed to by the Committee of the Whole.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 32.14, supra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Identical Language

Sec. 29.1 In order for an amendment to be ruled out of order on the 
    ground that the substance contained therein has already been passed 
    upon by the House, the language thereof must be practically 
    identical to that of the proposition already passed upon.

    On Feb. 9, 1937,(6) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 81 Cong. Rec. 1061, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.J. Res. 96, relating to foreign trade agreements. See also 81 
        Cong. Rec. 9272, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 18, 1937, where the 
        Chairman, Jere Cooper [Tenn.], seemed to indicate that, while 
        it is not in order to consider the same amendment twice, any 
        change in the language of an amendment will preclude its being 
        ruled out of order as having already been considered. The 
        question arose with respect to a contention that a proffered 
        amendment was, in effect and meaning, a repetition of one 
        already before the Committee of the Whole.
            And see 88 Cong. Rec. 6213, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., July 15, 
        1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Frank] Crowther [of New York]: . . .
        Mr. [Jere] Cooper [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment. The subject matter has already been 
    covered by amendments previously acted upon in the consideration of 
    the bill. . . .
        . . . There is no substantive difference between this amendment 
    and language heretofore incorporated in amendments previously 
    offered and considered.
        The Chairman: (7) . . . In the opinion of the Chair 
    this amendment is not at all identical with amendments of a similar 
    character which have been considered by the Committee this 
    afternoon. There may or may not be a substantial difference, but 
    the Chair has no manner or means of making a decision on that point 
    at this time. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Crowther] does not 
    offer an identical amendment to one previously considered; 
    therefore, in the opinion of the Chair, the amendment is in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. James M. Mead (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment to Amendment Previously Agreed To

Sec. 29.2 It is not in order to amend an amendment pre

[[Page 7180]]

    viously agreed to, nor is it in order to amend text already 
    stricken by adoption of an earlier amendment.

    On June 22, 1961,(8) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 107 Cong. Rec. 11093, 11097, 11101, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 6028.
            See also 115 Cong. Rec. 26586, 26588, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Sept. 23, 1969; and 112 Cong. Rec. 18411, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Aug. 5, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                         title i--new housing programs

                      Housing for moderate-income families

            Sec. 101. (a) Section 221 of the National Housing Act is 
        amended by--
            (1) inserting before the text of such section a section 
        heading as follows: . . .
            (2) striking out subsection (a) and inserting in lieu 
        thereof the following: . . .

        Mr. [Albert] Rains [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rains: Page 58, strike out line 7 
        and all that follows down through page 70, line 5, and insert 
        the following:

                     ``housing for moderate income families

            ``Sec. 101. (a) Section 221 of the National Housing Act is 
        amended by--
            ``(1) inserting before the text of such section a section 
        heading as follows: . . .
            ``(2) striking out subsection (a) and inserting in lieu 
        thereof the following: . . .''

        The Chairman: (9) The question recurs on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Gordon L.] McDonough [of 
        California]: On page 60, lines 7 through 9, strike out ``a 
        public body or agency other than a public housing agency.''

        Mr. Rains: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that we have already passed the section. 
    This is part of title I.
        The Chairman: That section has been stricken, and an amendment 
    would be out of order.
        The amendment was offered to a section which was stricken by 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama, which has now 
    been adopted by the Committee. The amendment, therefore, is out of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. McDonough: Does the language which was inserted as the 
    result of the amendment include the language that was previously in 
    the bill in reference to the public bodies?
        The Chairman: That is not within the knowledge of the Chair. 
    The Chair does not know.
        Mr. McDonough: If the Chair please, if it is, I think my 
    amendment would be in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair rules that an amendment offered to 
    insert language which has now been changed is out of order. If the 
    gentleman has an amendment to offer to the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Alabama, that also is out of order. . . .

[[Page 7181]]

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: If we have adopted a 
    complete substitute are not amendments in order to any language in 
    the substitute?
        The Chairman: Not at this time. . . . The amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Alabama has now been adopted.

Sec. 29.3 When a perfecting amendment is agreed to, further amendment 
    of text stricken by that amendment is not in order.

    On Apr. 18, 1962,(10) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 108 Cong. Rec. 6913, 6914, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 11289.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                    title iv

               Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army

            For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
        research, development, test, and evaluation, including 
        maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of facilities 
        and equipment, as authorized by law, $1,317,000,000, to remain 
        available until expended.

        Mr. [Elford A.] Cederberg [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    three amendments, and I ask unanimous consent that they be 
    considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: (11) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendments offered by Mr. Cederberg, of Michigan:
            On page 28, line 2, strike out ``$1,317,000,000'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``$1,318,000,000.''
            On page 28, line 16, strike out ``$3,480,900,000'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``$3,483,900,000.''
            On page 49, strike out lines 18 through 22. . . .

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Michigan [Mr. Cederberg].
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Stratton as a substitute to the 
        amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
        Cederberg]: Page 49, line 21, strike out ``15'' and insert 
        ``30.''. . .

        Mr. Stratton: There is a question regarding the parliamentary 
    situation, since the amendments are proposed en bloc with respect 
    to section 540 and other sections, and there is some question as to 
    whether, in the event the Cederberg amendment is defeated, section 
    540 would still be properly open to amendment.
        Mr. [Walter H.] Judd [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Judd: Mr. Chairman, if the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Cederberg] is voted on and defeated, 
    will not the gentleman from New York [Mr. Strat

[[Page 7182]]

    ton] then be in order to offer his amendment changing 15 percent to 
    30 percent?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that in his opinion at the 
    time the bill was read the gentleman from New York could at that 
    point offer his amendment, which is now offered as a substitute.
        Mr. Judd: Then I would suggest to my colleague from New York 
    that to withdraw his amendment will give us a chance to clarify the 
    matter, by permitting us to vote on the Cederberg amendment first, 
    and then on his amendment if that amendment is not adopted.
        Mr. Stratton: In view of the ruling of the Chair, and as I 
    understand it, the Chair ruled that my substitute amendment would 
    still be in order, I will be glad to withdraw my amendment and will 
    support the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan.
        However, my impression is that we do not have the votes.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that in his opinion the 
    amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Stratton], would be 
    in order only in the event that the Cederberg amendment, which is 
    now pending, is voted down.

        Mr. Stratton: That was my understanding of the ruling, Mr. 
    Chairman, and with that assurance I ask unanimous consent that the 
    substitute amendment be withdrawn.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New York?
        There was no objection.

    Similarly, it has been held that when an amendment to a substitute 
amendment has been adopted, the provisions inserted by the amendment 
cannot be further amended.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 31.17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 29.4 The Chairman indicated that if a point of order were raised 
    at the proper time to an amendment proposing to amend an amendment 
    already agreed to, it would be sustained by the Chair (based on the 
    principle that a figure changed by amendment cannot be thereafter 
    amended).

    On June 28, 1967,(13) The following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 113 Cong. Rec. 17754, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 10340.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Richard L.] Roudebush [of Indiana]: 
    On 
    page 1, line 5, strike out the 
    amount ``$4,992,182,000'' and insert 
    in lieu thereof the amount ``$4,982,182,000''. . . .
        Mr. [Joseph E.] Karth [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, my inquiry 
    is whether or not the figure on line 5, page 1, can be further 
    amended inasmuch as it has already been amended?
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair will state, if a timely 
    point of order is made, the Chair will respond to the gentleman's 
    parliamentary inquiry that line 5 on page 1 cannot be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John J. Flynt (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 29.5 To a pending committee amendment to a bill being

[[Page 7183]]

    considered in Committee of the Whole there may be offered an 
    amendment and a substitute, but if the committee amendment is 
    agreed to it is not then subject to further amendment.

    On June 1, 1972,(15) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 118 Cong. Rec. 19458, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 13918.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, if 
    the committee amendment is adopted, is it then possible to amend 
    the committee amendment with regard to that portion of the bill 
    having to do with the pending committee amendment?
        The Chairman: (16) If the committee amendment is 
    agreed to, it is not subject to further amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Waggonner: Is a substitute to the committee amendment in 
    order at this point?
        The Chairman: An amendment to the committee amendment or a 
    substitute is in order.

Sec. 29.6 An amendment cannot directly change text previously changed 
    by the adoption of a committee amendment.

    On June 18, 1969,(17) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 115 Cong. Rec. 16275, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6543.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, if the 
    amendments are adopted that are the committee amendments to the 
    bill, then would amendments by Members be in order to those 
    sections that were amended?
        The Chairman: (18) They would be unless they amended 
    the committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Jack Brooks (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments Changing Amendments Previously Agreed To En Bloc

Sec. 29.7 Where, pursuant to a special order, amendments en bloc to 
    several titles of a bill have been agreed to, a further amendment 
    which would (1) amend portions of the amendments already agreed to 
    en bloc or (2) amend unamended portions of a previous title already 
    passed in the reading is not in order, the bill not being open to 
    amendment at any point.

    On July 12, 1983,(19) it was illustrated that, while it 
may be in order to offer an amendment to the pending portion of a bill 
which not only changes a provision already amended but also changes an 
unamended pending portion of the bill, it is not in order merely

[[Page 7184]]

to amend portions of a bill that have been changed by amendment or to 
amend unamended portions that have been passed in the reading and are 
no longer open to amendment. While title III of the committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute was under consideration, the proceedings 
in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 129 Cong. Rec. 18771, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Steve] Bartlett [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair wishes to inquire of 
    the gentleman from Texas, is the gentleman from Texas offering 
    these amendments en bloc?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bartlett: These amendments are not offered en bloc, Mr. 
    Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: Could the gentleman from Texas identify which 
    amendment it is?
        Mr. Bartlett: The amendment begins, ``Strike out the item 
    agreed to in the amendment relating to page 50, line 3, of the 
    bill.''
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bartlett: Strike out the item 
        agreed to in the amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez relating to 
        page 50, line 3, of the bill and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following item:
            Page 50, line 3, strike out ``$729,033,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$549,949,000''.
            Strike out the item agreed to in the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Gonzalez relating to page 50, line 8, of the bill. . . .
            Page 106, strike out line 17 and all that follows through 
        page 117, line 22 (striking title III). . . .
            Strike out the item agreed to in the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Gonzalez relating to page 106, line 3, of the bill.
            Strike out the item agreed to in the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Gonzalez relating to page 106, line 8, of the bill.
            Strike out the item agreed to in the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Gonzalez relating to page 117, lines 19 through 22, of the 
        bill. . . .

        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        In the first place, this amendment attempts to perfect and 
    change the provisions of the bill that have already been perfected 
    under my amendment by nature of a substitute, the amendment 
    previously approved by the committee. As such I believe the 
    amendment is not in order and I raise a point of order against it.
        In addition, the amendment attempts to amend title II which has 
    already been passed in the reading and, therefore, for those two 
    basic reasons I wish to interject this point of order against the 
    pending amendment. . . .
        Mr. Bartlett: Mr. Chairman, I would comment that my amendment 
    is broader in scope than the Gonzalez amendment as it would strike 
    all of title III and strike section 231 of the bill which relates 
    to the 235 assistance, and my amendment is broader in scope than 
    merely the previously adopted Gonzalez amendment.
        The Chairman: With one exception, and that is the portion of 
    the amend

[[Page 7185]]

    ment that begins on page 106 striking title III, these amendments 
    en bloc seek either to amend portions of the Gonzalez amendment 
    already agreed to en bloc or to amend unamended portions of the 
    bill contained in title I and title II which have been passed in 
    the reading.
        Thus since the bill is not open at any point, the amendments en 
    bloc are not in order and the Chair sustains the point of order.
        Are there further amendments to title III?
        If not, the Clerk will designate title IV.

Amendment to Part of Bill Previously Amended

Sec. 29.8 The text of a bill perfected by amendment cannot thereafter 
    be amended.

    On Feb. 7, 1964,(1) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 110 Cong. Rec. 2489, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]: I make the parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Chairman, to find out whether, if the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Arkansas is adopted, that then becomes open to 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (2) Not after it is adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 29.9 While it is not in order to amend an amendment already agreed 
    to, the adoption of a perfecting amendment to a section does not 
    preclude the offering of further perfecting amendments to other 
    portions of the section or amendments broader in scope encompassing 
    other portions of the section as well as the perfected portion.

    On Dec. 13, 1973,(3) the following statement was made by 
the Chair:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 119 Cong. Rec. 41261, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11450.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (4) What the situation is--and the 
    Chair has tried to state this situation clearly a time or two 
    before--if an amendment to a section is adopted, then that 
    constitutes final action on that particular piece of that section 
    and that particular amendment cannot be further amended. But if 
    then there is an amendment offered to another part of that section, 
    that amendment might well be in order. But the basic point is that 
    the committee cannot amend something that has just been adopted. In 
    other words, if there is an amendment to a section which affects 
    the language of a portion of that section, if that is adopted then 
    that concludes the matter with regard to the language changed in 
    that portion of that section; but if there are other portions of 
    that section which are not affected by that amendment then they are 
    still open to amendment. A further amendment broader in scope

[[Page 7186]]

    than that adopted would still be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Entire Section Rewritten

Sec. 29.10 The Chair may refuse to recognize a Member to offer an 
    amendment to a section after that section has been changed in its 
    entirety by amendment.

    On June 22, 1961,(5) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 107 Cong. Rec. 11093, 11097, 11100, 11101, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. 
        Under consideration was H.R. 6028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                         Title I--New Housing Programs

                     Housing for moderate--income families

            Sec. 101. (a) Section 221 of the National Housing Act is 
        amended by--
            (1) inserting before the text of such section a section 
        heading as follows: . . .

    The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Albert] Rains [of Alabama]: Page 
        58, strike out line 7 and all that follows down through page 
        70, line 5, and insert the following: . . .

        The Chairman: (6) The question recurs on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was agreed to.

    In response to inquiries about the effect of adoption of the Rains 
amendment, the Chairman stated:

         . . . The gentleman from Alabama moved to substitute the 
    entire language in section 101, and the House has now done just 
    that, so amendments thereto are out of order.

    Subsequently, the following exchange took place: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 107 Cong. Rec. 11102, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John V.] Lindsay [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair has just ruled that all amendments to 
    section 101 are out of order.

--Second Amendment Broader in Scope

Sec. 29.11 An amendment striking out an entire section and inserting 
    new text is in order if it makes germane changes in the section, 
    and it may displace perfecting amendments which have been adopted 
    to portions of that section which are less comprehensive in scope.

    On July 22, 1974, (8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the bill H.R. 11500, Surface Mining Control 
and Reclamation Act of 1974, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 120 Cong. Rec. 24594, 24596, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Patsy T.] Mink [of Hawaii]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment

[[Page 7187]]

    as a substitute for section 211 of the committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Mink to the committee amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute: On page 184, line 10, strike 
        entire section 211 and insert the following new section 211:

                 environmental protection performance standards

            Sec. 211. (a) Any permit issued under any approved State or 
        Federal program pursuant to this Act to conduct surface coal 
        mining operations shall require that such surface coal mining 
        operations will meet all applicable performance standards of 
        this Act, and such other requirements as the regulatory 
        authority shall promulgate.
            (b) General performance standards shall be applicable to 
        all surface coal mining and reclamation operations and shall 
        require the operator as a minimum to--
            (1) conduct surface coal mining operations so as to 
        maximize the utilization and conservation of the solid fuel 
        resource being recovered so that reaffecting the land in the 
        future through surface coal mining can be minimized;
            (2) restore the land affected to a condition at least fully 
        capable of supporting the uses which it was capable of 
        supporting prior to any mining, or higher or better uses of 
        which there is a reasonable likelihood, so long as such use or 
        uses do not present any actual or probable hazard to public 
        health or safety or pose any actual or probable threat of water 
        diminution or pollution, and the permit applicants' declared 
        proposed land use following reclamation is not deemed to be 
        impractical or unreasonable, inconsistent with applicable land 
        use policies and plans, involves unreasonable delay in 
        implementation, or is violative of Federal, State, or local 
        law;
            (3) assure that any temporary environmental damage will be 
        contained in the permit area . . .
            (10) refrain from the construction of roads or other access 
        ways up a stream bed or drainage channel or in such proximity 
        to such channel so as to seriously alter the normal flow of 
        water;
            (11) restore the topsoil or the best available subsoil 
        which has been segregated and preserved . . .
            (c) The following performance standards shall be applicable 
        to steep-slope surface coal mining and to mining operations 
        which create a plateau with no highwall remaining in such a 
        manner as to otherwise meet the standards of this subsection 
        and shall be in addition to those general performance standards 
        required by this section . . .
            (1) No spoil, debris, soil, waste materials, or abandoned 
        or disabled mine equipment may be placed on the natural or 
        other downslope below the bench or cut created to expose the 
        coal seam except that where necessary spoil from the initial 
        block or short linear cut necessary to obtain access to the 
        coal seam may be placed on a limited specified area of the 
        downslope. . . .
            (e) The regulatory authority may impose such additional 
        requirements as he determines to be necessary. . . .

    Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
order against the substitute offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii 
(Mrs. Mink) on the ground that it is a subterfuge, a distortion of the 
rules, that is being attempted here.

        There are 16 pages of this document, which, but for a few 
    changes, are iden

[[Page 7188]]

    tical to the language that is already in the bill. . . .
         . . . (T)his is in effect an attempt to cut off the Members' 
    rights to offer amendments by making the parliamentary situation 
    confused and ambiguous. . . .
        The Chairman [Mr. Neal Smith of Iowa]: The Chair is ready to 
    rule.
        The Chair states that a similar question was before the 
    Committee yesterday, as put forth by the gentleman from California. 
    The amendment does make changes in this particular section of the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The fact that 
    the section is 16 pages instead of 1 paragraph long is really of no 
    moment. If the gentlewoman from Hawaii wishes to offer an amendment 
    in this form and there is no question of germaneness, then it is in 
    order. Accordingly, the Chair overrules the point of order. . . .
        Mr. [Sam] Steiger of Arizona: . . .
        Yesterday there was some confusion over an amendment that was 
    offered by the gentleman from Wyoming on behalf of the gentleman 
    from West Virginia (Mr. Slack) as to the nature of the language on 
    line 9 or line 12 of section 211.
        In the 16 pages offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii there is 
    a return to line 9 of the language offered by the gentleman from 
    Wyoming (Mr. Roncalio) on behalf of the gentleman from West 
    Virginia (Mr. Slack). . . .
        I would also point out to the Chair that, in effect, what the 
    gentlewoman from Hawaii is doing is not only obfuscating the 
    problem, but making a rather devious attempt to resubmit what we 
    had already determined yesterday by a vote of record of this House 
    to be the will of the House, which is now attempted to be 
    circumvented. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that an amendment striking 
    an entire section and inserting new language can replace a 
    perfecting amendment which has been adopted to that section by the 
    Committee, and if it is a more comprehensive amendment, that would 
    not preclude the amendment from being offered.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: . . . At what point are we unable to 
    further perfect an already perfected amendment when it occupies 
    over one-half of the new material or less than one-half or perhaps 
    two-thirds of the new material? . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that it would depend upon 
    the scope of the adopted amendments at the time the amendment is 
    offered.

--Entire Title Changed

Sec. 29.12 Where there is pending a motion to strike out a title of a 
    bill and a perfecting amendment (changing the entire title) is then 
    offered and agreed to, the motion to strike the title falls and is 
    not voted upon, and further perfecting amendments to the title are 
    no longer in order.

    On Sept. 23, 1975, (9) The Committee of the Whole having 
under

[[Page 7189]]

consideration a bill, (10) the proceedings, described above, 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 29827, 29829, 29835, 29836, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. H.R. 7014, Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis] Frey [Jr., of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, for the third 
    time, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Frey: Page 356, line 6, strike out 
        title VIII and all that follows through page 365, line 18. . . 
        .

        Mr. [John E.] Moss [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a perfecting amendment to the title.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Moss: Page 356, strike out line 7 
        and all that follows down through line 18 on page 365 and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:
            Sec. 801. (a) The Comptroller General may conduct 
        verification audits with respect to the books and records of--
            (1) any person who is required to submit energy information 
        to the Federal Energy Administration, the Department of the 
        Interior, or the Federal Power Commission pursuant to any rule, 
        regulation, order, or other legal process of such 
        Administration, Department, or Commission. . . .

        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    233, noes 162, not voting 38. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair wishes to announce that 
    the amendment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frey) falls 
    because an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the title 
    was adopted. The Frey amendment, therefore, would not be voted on. 
    . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, was the 
    amendment introduced as a substitute for the Frey amendment or was 
    it introduced as an amendment to the pending title of the bill?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state the amendment was introduced 
    as an amendment in the nature of a substitute striking out the 
    title and inserting new language. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frey) was a motion to strike the title. 
    Since the title in its present form has been changed in its 
    entirety the motion to strike falls and is not in order (Cannon's 
    VIII, Sec. 2854).
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is 
    this: Is an amendment to title VIII now in order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the title has been 
    amended in its entirety and no amendment to it is in order.

--One of Several Amendments, Offered Seriatim, Ruled Out of Order; 
    Unanimous Consent To Delete Amendment

Sec. 29.13 Where a portion of a title of a bill has been altered by 
    amendment, further amendments to that portion are not in order; 
    accordingly, on one occasion, where a

[[Page 7190]]

    title of a bill was open for amendment at any point and an 
    amendment was offered altering several provisions within that title 
    including a provision previously altered by amendment, a point of 
    order against the amendment was sustained and by unanimous consent 
    the amendment was altered to delete reference to that portion 
    already amended.

    On Oct. 9, 1975, (12) during consideration of H.R. 200 
(13) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings 
described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 121 Cong. Rec. 32588-90, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Marine Fisheries Conservation Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Waggonner: Page 29, strike out 
        line 5 and all that follows thereafter down through line 2 on 
        page 32 and insert the following:. . .
            (a) Commencement of Negotiations.--
            The Secretary of State, upon the request of and in 
        cooperation with the Secretary, shall initiate and conduct 
        negotiations with any foreign nation in whose fishery 
        conservation zones, or its equivalent, vessels of the United 
        States are engaged, or wish to be engaged, in fishing, or with 
        respect to anadromous species or Continental Shelf fishery 
        resources as to which such nation asserts management authority 
        and for which vessels of the United States fish, or wish to 
        fish. . . .

        The Chairman: (14) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Waggonner).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was agreed to.
        Mrs. [Millicent H.] Fenwick (of New Jersey): Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick: . . .

            Page 30, line 6, strike out ``the'' and all that follows 
        thereafter up to and including line 8, and substitute in lieu 
        thereof the following: ``any such ships of those countries 
        deemed to be in noncompliance within the meaning of paragraphs 
        (1)(A) and (1) (B) of this subsection from continuing their 
        fishing activities'';
            Page 31, line 4, strike subsection (c);
            Page 31, line 18, strike subsection (d);
            Page 33, line 1, strike Sec. 206.

        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order. We have already amended page 30, and this amendment 
    would purport to amend page 30. . . .
        It comes too late.
        Mrs. Fenwick: No, no; it is still germane--the part that starts 
    on page 31 striking subsection (c); page 31, line 18, striking 
    subsection (d); and page 33, line 1, striking section 206.
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentlewoman from New 
    Jersey that the part of the amendment that appears on page 30 would 
    not be in order at this time. The balance of the amendment would be 
    in order. Without objection, the amendment is modified

[[Page 7191]]

    to delete reference to that portion of title II already amended.
        There was no objection.

--Amendment in Nature of Substitute for Perfected Text, Distinguished

Sec. 29.14 While it is in order to offer an amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute for a bill which has the effect of modifying several 
    perfecting amendments to the bill which have been agreed to, it is 
    not in order to offer perfecting amendments which only change those 
    portions of the bill which have already been perfected by 
    amendment.

        On July 12, 1977, (15) the Committee of the Whole 
    having under consideration H.R. 5023, (16) the Chair 
    sustained a point of order against an amendment as described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 22499, 22511, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. A bill amending statute of limitations provisions relating to 
        claims by the United States on behalf of Indians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (17) The Clerk will report the second 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 1, lines 5 and 6: Strike ``twenty 
        one years'' and insert ``after December 31, 1981''.

        Mr. [William S.] Cohen [of Maine]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cohen to the committee amendment: 
        On page 1, line 7 strike ``after December 31, 1981'' and insert 
        ``after July 18, 1979''.

        [The Cohen amendment to the committee amendment was adopted, 
    and the committee amendment, as amended, agreed to.]
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the next committee 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 1, lines 9 and 10: Strike 
        ``twenty one years'' and insert ``on or before December 31, 
        1981''. . . .

        Mr. Cohen: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the committee 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cohen to the committee amendment: 
        On page 2, lines 1 and 2, strike ``on or before December 31, 
        1981'' and insert ``on or before July 19, 1979''.

        [The amendment to the committee amendment was agreed to.]
        The Chairman: The question is on the committee amendment as 
    amended.
        The committee amendment as amended was agreed to.
        Mr. Foley: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute 
    for the bill. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Foley as a substitute for the 
        (bill): Page 1, line 7, strike out ``December 31, 1981''.

[[Page 7192]]

        Page 2, line 2, strike out ``December 31, 1981'' and insert in 
    lieu thereof the following: ``July 18, 1979, except that no such 
    action which accrued in accordance with such subsection shall be 
    brought by the Attorney General on the basis of matters referred to 
    him by a Federal agency or department unless such referral was made 
    before July 18, 1977''. . . .
        Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: . . . I make a point 
    of order against the amendment in that the substitute now offered 
    by the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Foley, is in effect, the 
    same, and identical to the so-called Foley substitute which was 
    just debated by the Committee and was rejected. I further object in 
    that there is no new matter involved in it at all. It does not 
    broaden nor does it narrow the thrust of the bill. Therefore it is 
    a matter that has already been acted upon by the Committee and 
    should not be allowed to be debated inasmuch as it is out of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley) 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Foley: Mr. Chairman, it is the intention of the gentleman 
    from Washington to offer the text of the bill with the following 
    exceptions as a substitute.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the amendment would 
    have to be drafted in that form and in its present form it merely 
    changes the amendments which have already been agreed to by the 
    Committee of the Whole, and the point of order is sustained.

Sec. 29.15 An amendment in the nature of a substitute is in order after 
    an entire bill has been read and perfecting amendments have been 
    adopted thereto, as long as such perfecting amendments have not 
    changed the bill in its entirety.

    On Sept. 29, 1977, (18) the Committee of the Whole 
having completed general debate on H.R. 7010, (19) an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered which prompted a 
unanimous-consent request to withhold such amendment pending 
consideration of the committee amendments. The proceedings were as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 123 Cong. Rec. 31542, 31543, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. Victims of Crime Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20) When the Committee rose on 
    Wednesday, September 14, 1977, all time for general debate on the 
    bill had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H.R. 7010

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled,

      amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. railsback

        Mr. [Thomas F.] Railsback [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

[[Page 7193]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Railsback: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:

                                  short title

            Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Elderly Victims 
        of Crime Act of 1977''. . . .

        Mr. [James R.] Mann [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois may withhold the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute while we consider the 
    committee amendment.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from South Carolina?
        Mr. [Mickey] Edwards of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Railsback: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Railsback: Mr. Chairman, in offering the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute, do I lose my right to offer that substitute 
    if the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mann) has the opportunity 
    to deal with the committee amendments first?
        The Chairman: No; it could be offered at the end of the bill 
    once the entire bill has been read.
        Mr. Railsback: But it could not be offered after the committee 
    amendments are dealt with?
        The Chairman: The committee amendments would not change the 
    whole bill, so an amendment in the nature of a substitute could be 
    offered.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The committee amendments on this bill began 
in section 2, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
therefore initially in order prior to consideration of any committee 
amendments.

Sec. 29.16 To a proposition which is open to amendment at any point 
    under the five-minute rule, an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute is in order notwithstanding adoption of perfecting 
    amendments if another amendment in the nature of a substitute has 
    not been adopted.

    An example of the principle stated above occurred on May 2, 
1979,(1) during consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 
107 (2) in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 125 Cong. Rec. 9556, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2.  The first concurrent resolution on the Budget, fiscal 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Parren J.] Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, House Concurrent 
    Resolution 107 is a little different from the other budget 
    resolutions that we have handled in the past in that a portion of

[[Page 7194]]

    it focuses in on fiscal year 1979 budget, and another portion 
    focuses in on fiscal year 1980 budget. I have a substitute 
    amendment which I want to offer to House Concurrent Resolution 107 
    which embraces both 1979 and 1980. We have just finished Mr. 
    Simon's amendment which dealt specifically with 1979.
        I want to make sure that there will be nothing to preclude me 
    from offering my amendment at some later point in this debate.
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman 
    that, as he knows, the concurrent resolution is open to amendment 
    at any point. The gentleman's amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute would be in order providing that another amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute was not adopted. If another amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute has not been adopted, the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Mitchell) would be in 
    order.

Motion To Strike Previously Amended Section

Sec. 29.17 A motion to strike a section of a bill, if adopted, strikes 
    the entire section including a provision added as a perfecting 
    amendment to that section.

    On Sept. 29, 1975, (4) during consideration of a bill 
(5) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to 
parliamentary inquiries as described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 30772, 30773, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. H.R. 8630, Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Chairman, in order to perfect the amendment 
    which was just passed, is it not necessary for this body to vote no 
    on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Derwinski) which is now before the House?
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot respond to the inquiry as the 
    gentleman stated it, but if the gentleman's inquiry is whether or 
    not the motion offered by the gentleman from Illinois, if agreed 
    to, would strike the entire section including the part that the 
    gentleman from Arkansas has perfected, the answer of the Chair 
    would be ``yes.'' . . .
        Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: Did I understand the Chair 
    to rule that even though the pending amendment of the gentleman 
    from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) is an amendment to strike the entire 
    section, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas was a 
    perfecting amendment to this section, that the gentleman's 
    amendment if it now carries would not strike the entire section 
    including the new language inserted by the gentleman from Arkansas?
        The Chairman: The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois

[[Page 7195]]

    (Mr. Derwinski) would strike the entire section including the 
    language offered by the gentleman from Arkansas and agreed to by 
    the Committee.

Sec. 29.18 If a pending motion to strike a section is defeated, the 
    provisions of that section as amended by perfecting amendments 
    would remain in the bill.

    On Sept. 29, 1975, (7) during consideration of a bill 
(8) in the Committee of the Whole, several parliamentary 
inquiries relating to the situation described above were directed to 
the Chair. After an amendment offered by Mr. Bill Alexander, of 
Arkansas, had been agreed to, a motion to strike the section as 
perfected was offered by Mr. Edward J. Derwinski, of Illinois. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 30772, 30773, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. H.R. 8630, Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Alexander: I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (9) the gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Chairman, in order to perfect the amendment 
    which was just passed, is it not necessary for this body to vote no 
    on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Derwinski) which is now before the House?
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot respond to the inquiry as the 
    gentleman stated it, but if the gentleman's inquiry is whether or 
    not the motion offered by the gentleman from Illinois, if agreed 
    to, would strike the entire section including the part that the 
    gentleman from Arkansas has perfected, the answer of the Chair 
    would be ``yes.''. . .
        Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: Did I understand the Chair 
    to rule that even though the pending amendment of the gentleman 
    from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) is an amendment to strike the entire 
    section, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas was a 
    perfecting amendment to this section, that the gentleman's 
    amendment if it now carries would not strike the entire section 
    including the new language inserted by the gentleman from Arkansas?
        The Chairman: The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) would strike the entire section including 
    the language offered by the gentleman from Arkansas and agreed to 
    by the Committee. . . .
        Mr. [John] Buchanan [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman 
    from Illinois has stated that the subsidy would remain in the bill, 
    notwithstanding the action voted by the committee; is that correct?
        I am saying, Mr. Chairman, that if the Derwinski amendment now 
    before us is voted down, the subsidy would remain, according to the 
    language as it stands.
        The Chairman: Section 2 would be amended by the Alexander 
    amendment.

[[Page 7196]]

--Motion To Strike Perfected Text and Insert That Same Text With One 
    Omission Thereby Undoing One of Several Perfecting Amendments

Sec. 29.19 An amendment to strike out the pending title of a bill and 
    reinsert all sections of that title except one is not in order 
    where that section has previously been amended in its entirety.

    On Aug. 1, 1975,(10) during consideration of a bill 
(11) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair, in response 
to a point of order, held that an amendment merely striking out 
language previously agreed to was not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 26945-47, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. H.R. 7014, Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: Strike out Title 
        III, as amended, and reinsert all except for Section 301, as 
        amended.

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of 
    order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Eckhardt: . . . [A]lthough it may have been appropriate to 
    offer a substitute for all of title III, this amendment does not 
    restate the language which should have been contained in such 
    substitute. If the gentleman has attempted to offer a substitute 
    which comprised the language adopted by this committee in sections 
    302, 303, 304, 305, 306, and 307, it would have been incumbent upon 
    him to reduce the same to writing and to introduce it in such a 
    manner that we would have had a complete amendment before us 
    instead of in effect offering at this late date, after a new 
    section 301 was adopted, a motion to strike that section 301. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: . . . In pressing the 
    point of order, I must commend my colleague, the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Brown), for a most masterful piece of draftsmanship. 
    Nevertheless, his draftsmanship and his display of rare talent to 
    the contrary notwithstanding, the gentleman's draftsmanship does 
    violate the rules. What the gentleman attempts to do here is simply 
    to undo an amendment which was previously agreed to by the House. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I will say that 
    this does not place before the House the same question that existed 
    prior to the vote on the Staggers amendment. This places before the 
    House the question of whether this title, with all the amendments 
    taken together as they have been added to the title, except the 
    Staggers amendment, should now be accepted. It does in fact raise a 
    different question. . . .
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, the posture is this: The bill 
    contained section 301, stricken by the Wilson amendment, at which 
    point the Krueger amendment was offered as an amendment to 
    reinstate section 301.

[[Page 7197]]

    The Staggers amendment was then offered as a substitute to replace 
    the Krueger amendment.
        Therefore, we completed 301, we acted upon 301, and had a 
    complete body of law on 301.
        It was at that time that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) 
    might have attacked the Staggers amendment and sought to defeat it 
    or, actually, the Krueger amendment, as amended by the Staggers 
    amendment. He did not do so, other than to merely vote against it. 
    Of course, that was the proper way to attack it, but what he is 
    attempting to do now is merely to come in at this late point and 
    seek to strike an amendment which was adopted by the House. Section 
    301 was at that time completed.
        Mr. Chairman, he is not offering here a substitute in any 
    proper form. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I would like to cite from page 
    351 of Deschler's Procedure in the House of Representatives, 
    section 28.9, as follows:

            After agreeing to several amendments to section 1 of a 
        bill, the Committee of the Whole agreed to a motion to strike 
        out and insert a new section which included some of the 
        amendments agreed to, but omitted one of them. . . .

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The fact of the matter is that the original section 301 has 
    been stricken from the bill and replaced by another section 301, 
    and the (pending) amendment in effect deletes the new 301. The 
    gentleman's amendment makes no change in the original text of title 
    III. Under the rules and the practice of the House of 
    Representatives, it is not in order to strike out an amendment that 
    has been adopted or to offer an amendment in the form of the 
    pending amendment which accomplishes solely that result--Cannon's 
    VIII, Sec. 2851-54.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the points of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The citation presented by Mr. Brown (found 
in Sec. 30.11, infra) can be differentiated from the situation here 
under discussion. The amendment cited by Mr. Brown included changes in 
original text as well as deletion of the one perfecting amendment.

Negating Amendment Previously Adopted

Sec. 29.20 While the Committee of the Whole may not strike out an 
    amendment previously agreed to, it may consider
    a subsequent amendment which has the effect of negating a 
    proposition previously agreed to.

    On Aug. 23, 1967, during consideration of the Foreign Assistance 
Act of 1967,(13) an amendment was adopted which limited the 
availability of all authorizations in the bill to a single fiscal year. 
The amendment stated: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 12048.
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 23699, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. The amendment was agreed 
        to id. at p. 23706.

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

[[Page 7198]]

        Amendment offered by Mr. (Ross) Adair (of Indiana): On the 
    first page, immediately after line 4, insert the following:

            Sec. 2. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, is 
        amended by inserting immediately after the first section 
        thereof the following new section:
            ``Sec. 2. Limitation on Fiscal Year Authorizations.--
        Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, nothing in 
        this Act authorizes appropriations for the fiscal year 1969.''

    On the next day, an amendment was offered to a later section of the 
bill: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See 113 Cong. Rec. 23934, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 24, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) If there are no further 
    amendments to this section of the bill, the Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                        title vi--alliance for progress

            Sec. 106. Title VI of chapter 2 of part I of the Foreign 
        Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, which relates to the 
        Alliance for Progress, is amended as follows: . . .
            (b) Section 252, which relates to authorization, is amended 
        as follows:
            (1) Strike out ``and for each of the fiscal years 1968 and 
        1969, $750,000,000' and substitute ``for the fiscal year 1968, 
        $650,000,000, and for the fiscal year 1969, $750,000,000''. . . 
        .

    Amendment offered by Mr. Adair: On page 17, beginning in line 15, 
strike out ``for the fiscal year 1968, $650,000,000, and
for the fiscal year 1969, $750,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof the 
following: ``for the fiscal year 1968, $578,000,000''. . . .
To such amendment, an amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Armistead I.] Selden [Jr., of 
    Alabama] to the amendment offered by Mr. Adair: Immediately after 
    the matter proposed to be inserted add the following: ``, and, 
    notwithstanding section 2 of this Act, for the fiscal year 1969 
    $750,000,000''.

    Subsequently, after a substitute amendment and amendment thereto 
had been offered, the following proceedings took place: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 113 Cong. Rec. 23938, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: . . . When action is 
    completed with respect to both the amendment, and the amendment to 
    the amendment, the substitute, and the amendment to the substitute, 
    would then an amendment to line 17 be in order, which would state 
    ``notwithstanding the provisions of section 2 of this act''?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state if the pending amendments 
    were voted down, an amendment to do that would be in order. . . .
        Mr. [Harold R.] Collier [of Illinois]: My parliamentary inquiry 
    is this: Mr. Chairman, in that event, would amendments throughout 
    the balance of the sections of this bill, phrased on the order set 
    forth by the gentleman from Florida, be in order, thereby 
    rescinding the action taken by the House yesterday?

[[Page 7199]]

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Committee may do so 
    if it so desires.

Consistency of Amendment With One Previously Adopted

Sec. 29.21 While an amendment may not change an amendment already 
    agreed to, it is in order to insert language immediately following 
    the adopted amendment, and the Chair will not rule on the 
    consistency of that language with the adopted amendment.

    In 1973, during consideration of the Energy Emergency 
Act,(18) an amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
amended to require the President to regulate allocation of petroleum 
products for public school transportation between the student's home 
and the school closest thereto. A further amendment permitting 
allocations within an area in which students are required to be 
transported as a result of lawful action by school authority was held 
in order as not directly changing the text previously amended. The 
amendment as to which an issue was raised stated: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 11450.
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 41701, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 14, 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas] to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: On 
    page 7, line 21, add the following language:

            (1) Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit allocation of 
        refined petroleum products for student transportation within an 
        area in which students are required or directed to be 
        transported as the result of lawful action by the appropriate 
        school board or school authority.

        The following discussion ensued: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 20. Id. at p. 41702.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: . . . Let me point out 
    first that the amendment seeks not to amend the bill itself but, 
    rather, to amend the amendment offered by me yesterday and adopted 
    by the House. The amendment is offered to page 7, line 21.
        The amendment further amends a section of the bill already 
    amended, again violating the rules of the House. . . .
        Mr. Eckhardt: . . . Mr. Chairman, the amendment does not touch 
    any language in the Dingell amendment but adds a new subparagraph 
    (1) to the bill which takes care of the specific matter the 
    gentleman from Texas was speaking about in the well.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (1) . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John J. McFall (Calif.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair would refer to a ruling by Mr. Price of Illinois in 1967 
which stated that while the Committee of the Whole may not strike out 
an amendment previously agreed to, it may adopt a subsequent amendment 
which has the effect of negating a propo

[[Page 7200]]

sition previously amended, and in response to the parliamentary inquiry 
at that time the Chair stated the Committee of the Whole may, if it 
desires to do so, adopt inconsistent amendments, but the Chair does not 
rule on the consistency of the amendments.

Sec. 29.22 Although the Committee of the Whole had agreed to an 
    amendment changing language of a section of existing law, an 
    amendment to add language to the same section of the bill was held 
    in order even though inconsistent with
    the amendment previously agreed to.

    On May 14, 1958,(2) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 104 Cong. Rec. 8714, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 12181, to amend the Mutual Security Act of 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. (Michael A.) Feighan (of Ohio): . . .
        (3) On page 3, immediately below line 7, insert the following:
        ``(b) Section 143 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as 
    amended, which relates to assistance to Yugoslavia, is amended to 
    read as follows:
        `` `Sec. 143. Assistance to Yugoslavia.--Notwithstanding any 
    other provision of law, no assistance under this title or any other 
    title of this act shall be furnished to Yugoslavia after the 
    expiration of 90 days following the date of the enactment of the 
    Mutual Security Act of 1958, unless the President finds and so 
    reports therefor, (1) that there has been no change in the 
    Yugoslavian policies. . . .' ''
        The amendment was agreed to.
        Amendment offered by Mr. [Paul A.] Fino [of New York]: . . . 
    (o)n page 3, immediately below line 7, insert the following:
        `` `(b) Section 143 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as 
    amended, is amended to read as follows:
        `` 'Sec. 143. Termination of Aid to Yugoslavia, Poland, India, 
    and Egypt.--No assistance shall be furnished under this act to 
    Yugoslavia, Poland, India, and Egypt after the date of enactment of 
    the Mutual Security Act of 1958.'' '

    Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
order against the amendment . . . (on) the ground that the Committee of 
the Whole has just perfected with an amendment to the section which he 
is again attempting to amend.

        The Chairman: (3) If the gentleman will read the 
    amendment, the amendment proposes a further perfection of the bill. 
    It is in addition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Ohio, which was adopted by the Committee a moment ago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 29.23 The Chair will not rule out an amendment as being

[[Page 7201]]

    inconsistent with an amendment previously adopted, as the 
    consistency of amendments is a question for the House and not the 
    Chair to determine.

    On Oct. 31, 1975,(4) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill,(5) the Chair made the ruling as 
described above. After the following amendment by Mr. Rousselot had 
been adopted, the proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 34552, 34553, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. H.R. 10024, Depository Institutions Amendments of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendments offered by Mr. (John H.) Rousselot (of 
        California): On page 6, line 23, immediately following the word 
        ``bank'', insert a comma, and strike all that follows through 
        the end of line 23. . . .
            (2) Section 5(A)(b) of the Home Owners' Loan Act of 1933 
        (12 U.S.C. 1425(a)(b) is amended by inserting, at the end 
        thereof, the following new sentence: ``In the case of any 
        member of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, the Federal Home 
        Loan Bank Board may establish a reserve ratio or the equivalent 
        thereof for negotiable order of withdrawal accounts (as defined 
        by section 5(b) of this Act), which may be set at a level 
        different from that applicable to demand deposits.''. . .

        Mr. J. William Stanton [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. J. William Stanton: On page eight, 
        after line eighteen add the following new paragraph:
            (g) Section 5A of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act as amended 
        (12 U.S.C. 1425a) is amended by adding a new subsection thereto 
        as follows:
            ``(g) Each member institution shall maintain reserves 
        against its negotiable order of withdrawal accounts, in 
        currency and coin or in balances in a Federal Reserve bank in 
        such ratios as shall be determined by the Board of Governors of 
        the Federal Reserve System.''. . .

        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, 
    the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. J. William Stanton) 
    addresses itself to section 5A of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, 
    as amended (12 U.S.C. 1425a), et cetera.
        We have just, immediately preceding this, amended section 5A of 
    the Federal Home Loan Bank Act of 1933 (12 U.S.C. 1425a), as 
    amended. In other words, we have just addressed ourselves to the 
    point that is contained in the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Ohio.
        Therefore, I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it would be 
    inconsistent at this point to consider this amendment since the 
    subject matter has already been dealt with. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Spark M. Matsunaga (Hawaii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is not going to rule on the consistency or 
    inconsistency of the amendment.
        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. J. William Stanton) offers an 
    amendment which is different from the amendment offered previously 
    by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot).

[[Page 7202]]

        There is no question of germaneness involved here.
        Accordingly, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 29.24 The Chair overruled a point of order against an amendment 
    adding a new subsection to a bill where the point of order was 
    based on the grounds that the amendment was inconsistent with an 
    amendment already adopted by the Committee of the Whole changing a 
    different portion of the bill.

    The proceedings of Sept. 15, 1977,(7) illustrate the 
principle that the Chair does not rule on the consistency of a proposed 
amendment with an amendment already adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole, if the proposed amendment does not directly change the amendment 
previously adopted. During consideration of H.R. 3744, the Fair Labor 
Standards Act of 1977, the following amendment was agreed to: 
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See 123 Cong. Rec. 29440, 29441, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Id. at pp. 29431, 29436.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Erlenborn: . . . Page 4, line 18, 
    redesignate ``Sec. 2. (a)(1)'' as ``Sec. 2. (a)'', and beginning 
    with line 20 strike out everything through line 21 on page 5 and 
    insert in lieu thereof:
        ``(1) not less than $2.65 an hour during the year beginning 
    January 1, 1978, not less than $2.85 an hour during the year 
    beginning January 1, 1979, and not less than $3.05 an hour after 
    December 31, 1979, except as otherwise provided in this section;''.

    Subsequently, another amendment was offered:

        Mr. Phillip Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Phillip Burton: Page 9, insert 
        after line 5 of the following:
            (b) Section 6 (29 U.S.C. 206) is amended by adding at the 
        end the following:
            ``(9)(1) Every employer shall pay to each of his employees 
        who in any workweek is engaged in commerce or in the production 
        of goods for commerce, or is employed in an enterprise engaged 
        in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, wages 
        at the following rates: during the period ending December 31, 
        1977, not less than $2.30 an hour, during the year beginning 
        January 1, 1978, not less than $2.65 an hour, during the year 
        beginning January 1, 1979, not less than 52 per centum of the 
        average hourly earnings excluding overtime, during the twelve-
        month period ending in June 1978, of production and related 
        workers on manufacturing payrolls, during the year beginning 
        January 1, 1980, and during each of the next three years, not 
        less than 53 per centum of the average hourly earnings 
        excluding overtime, during the twelve-month period ending in 
        June of the year preceding such year, of production and related 
        workers on manufacturing payrolls. . . .

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: . . . I must first say I 
    have had only a few minutes to look at the amendment which is 
    thrown together

[[Page 7203]]

    rather hastily in an attempt, as the gentleman said, to get a 
    recount on the issue of indexing, but, Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that the Committee has 
    voted on the issue of indexing, has expressed its will, and this is 
    an amendment which merely would have the House again vote on the 
    same issue already disposed of. . . .
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Phillip Burton) simply adds a new subsection to the end of the 
    section. In the opinion of the Chair the amendment is germane. As 
    to whether or not it is inconsistent with the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Erlenborn) adopted a few moments ago, 
    the Chair cannot rule upon that. The Chair holds the amendment to 
    be germane and not to directly change the amendment already 
    adopted. The point of order is overruled.

Consistency of Amendment With Another Part of Bill or With Prior 
    Amendments

Sec. 29.25 An amendment is not subject to a point of order that its 
    provisions are inconsistent with a section of the bill already 
    considered under the five-minute rule.

    The ruling of the Chair on Nov. 13, 1967, was to the effect that an 
amendment to a section of a pending bill which limits the amount which 
may be expended under one part of the bill is in order, notwithstanding 
the fact that the Committee of the Whole has previously considered a 
section of the bill which established a total authorization figure for 
the whole bill as well as authorization limits for each part 
thereof.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 8.18, supra, for further discussion of the proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 29.26 The Chair does not rule on the consistency of amendments; 
    and, while it is not in order to offer an amendment to directly 
    change an amendment already agreed to, an amendment in the form of 
    a new section to the bill and germane thereto may be offered 
    notwithstanding its possible inconsistency with an amendment 
    previously adopted.

    On July 31, 1975,(11) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the bill H.R. 7014,(12) a point of order 
was made against an amendment as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 26224, 26225, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 7204]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wright: On page 223, immediately 
        before line 4, insert the following:

                     marginal well recovery pricing policy

            Sec. 302 (a) In the interest of promoting maximum recovery 
        and eliminating waste, there is hereby created a category known 
        as ``marginal wells'', and, for purposes of oil pricing policy, 
        oil produced from these wells shall be treated as ``new crude 
        petroleum'' as defined under Sec. 212.72 of Title 10 of the 
        Code of Federal Regulations. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, it is with 
    great regret that I make a point of order against the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Texas, a learned member of the 
    committee. . . .
        The point of order is that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright) essentially seeks to redo or undo 
    matters attended to in the Staggers amendment of yesterday, printed 
    at page 25855 of the Congressional Record. . . .
        The amendment here would apply to classification of production 
    from properties which are covered in the Staggers amendment in 
    8(c)(1), and in which, in that section, a $5.25 pricing ceiling 
    would be applied.
        As I understand the rules, Mr. Chairman, amendments which 
    should have been offered to amendments previously offered are not 
    in order by reason of the fact that they should have been offered 
    at a time earlier to other amendments upon which the House has 
    acted.
        In a sense, Mr. Chairman, what the amendment here does, or 
    seeks to do, is to alter actions taken earlier by the House with 
    regard to pricing and with regard to the categories of oil which 
    were mentioned by me. . . .
        Mr. Wright: . . . The amendment which I offered, Mr. Chairman, 
    would be a separate section of the bill which would create a new 
    category not described in the amendment which we acted upon 
    yesterday, nor described in the section just passed.
        I think, Mr. Chairman, to follow the argument of the gentleman 
    from Michigan to its logical conclusion would be to say that we 
    could not at this juncture introduce any amendment which would bear 
    upon the production of oil in this country, upon the theory that we 
    had acted on that and dealt with old oil and new oil in the 
    amendment agreed to yesterday, since all oil, obviously, must fall 
    within the category of either old oil or new oil. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order made by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Dingell) against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
    (Mr. Wright) would be of some merit if the amendment were offered 
    to the new section 301--that is, to the amendment which was agreed 
    to on yesterday. But as the gentleman from Texas points out, his 
    amendment provides for a new section which is otherwise germane in 
    every way to the title of the bill in its amended form, and the 
    Chair does not rule on consistency of amendments.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

[[Page 7205]]

Anticipatory Ruling as to Effect of Adoption

Sec. 29.27 The Chair declines to make anticipatory rulings and will not 
    prejudge the propriety of amendments at the desk as to whether they 
    will be preempted by adoption of a pending amendment until they are 
    offered.

    On Dec. 18, 1979,(14) during consideration of H.R. 
5860,(15) in the Committee of the Whole, the proposition 
described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 125 Cong. Rec. 36794, 36801, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Authorizing loan guarantees to the Chrysler Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brademas to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: 
        Strike line 7, page 5, through line 7, page 9, (section 4(a)(4) 
        through section 4(d)) and replace with the following:
            (4) the Corporation has submitted to the Board a 
        satisfactory financing plan which meets the financing needs of 
        the Corporation as reflected in the operating plan for the 
        period covered by such operating plan, and which includes, in 
        accordance with the provisions of subsection (c), an aggregate 
        amount of nonfederally guaranteed assistance of not less than 
        $1,930,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [Mickey] Edwards of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk to section 4 of the Moorhead substitute as 
    does the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Weaver). Would our amendments 
    be in order if the Brademas amendment passes?

        The Chairman: (16) The Chair will have to examine 
    them if and when offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adoption of Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 29.28 While it is not in order to further amend an amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute for several paragraphs which has been 
    offered following the reading of the first paragraph and agreed to, 
    it is in order to insert language which does not directly change 
    the adopted amendment immediately thereafter, where the Clerk has 
    not yet read the next paragraph of the bill which would be stricken 
    out in conformity with the adopted amendment.

    The following proceedings, which took place on Oct. 1, 
1974,(17) illustrate the principle that, although an 
amendment may not change an amendment already agreed to, it is in order 
to

[[Page 7206]]

insert language immediately following the adopted amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 120 Cong. Rec. 33364, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 16900, supplemental appropriation bill, fiscal 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Marjorie S.] Holt [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Holt: On page 6, line 11, strike 
        out the period, insert a semicolon, and the following:
            Provided further, That none of these funds shall be used to 
        compel any school system as a condition for receiving grants 
        and other benefits from the appropriations above, to classify 
        teachers or students by race, religion, sex, or national 
        origin. . . .

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I raise 
    a point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (18) The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    will state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Flood: Mr. Chairman, I direct the attention of the Chair to 
    page 6 of the bill, and the Chair will find there that the Roybal 
    amendment which was just adopted by the committee strikes out 
    everything on page 6 down to and including line 11. That being the 
    case, this amendment now is too late, and if presented should have 
    been presented to the Roybal amendment, and therefore I think that 
    a point of order should lie in that it is too late under the 
    circumstances.
        The Chairman: The Chair would observe that the Clerk had not 
    begun to read at line 12 on page 6, so that this portion of the 
    bill is still open for amendment, the Roybal substitute for the 
    language appearing in the bill as presented by the committee, would 
    conclude at the same point on line 11.
        Therefore the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
    Maryland (Mrs. Holt) would insert language at the end of the Roybal 
    language, and would not directly change that language and therefore 
    would be in order.
        The point of order is overruled.

Adoption of Amendment Adding New Section

Sec. 29.29 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair indicated 
    that the adoption of an amendment adding a new section to a bill 
    would preclude further amendment to the pending section.

    On Mar. 20, 1975,(19) during consideration of a bill 
(20) in the Committee of the Whole, a parliamentary inquiry 
was addressed to the Chair and the proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 7666, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. H.R. 4296, emergency price supports for 1975 crops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Peyser: Page 3, immediately after 
        line 16, insert the following new section:
            ``Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, there 
        shall be no acreage allotment, marketing quota or price support 
        for rice effective with the 1975 crop of such commodity.''

[[Page 7207]]

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington] reserved a point of order 
    on the amendment.
        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Symms: Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment to section 2 
    of the bill. Will this amendment preclude the offering of the next 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: It will if the amendment is agreed to.

Adoption of Amendment Improperly Offered, Where No Point of Order 
    Raised

Sec. 29.30 While a motion to strike out a paragraph of a pending 
    section and insert new language is ordinarily a perfecting 
    amendment to that section, thereby precluding the offering of 
    another perfecting amendment to that section during its pendency, 
    where no point of order has been raised against another more 
    limited amendment that is offered subsequently, the Chair may treat 
    it as a perfecting amendment to that paragraph so that the vote 
    thereon is taken first; and when the improperly offered amendment 
    is adopted, the vote is taken on the motion to strike and insert.

    On Mar. 21, 1975,(2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill,(3) the proceedings, 
described above, occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 121 Cong. Rec. 7950, 7952, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. H.R. 4485, the Emergency Middle-Income Housing Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick: Page 11, strike out 
        lines 1 through 12 and insert in lieu thereof:
            ``(d) Not more than 50 per centum of the aggregate mortgage 
        amounts approved in appropriation Acts may be allocated (1) for 
        use with respect to existing previously occupied dwellings 
        which have not been substantially rehabilitated and (2) for use 
        with respect to new, unsold dwelling units the construction of 
        which commenced prior to the enactment of this Act. Not more 
        than 10 per centum of the aggregate mortgage amounts approved 
        in appropriation Acts may be allocated with respect to dwelling 
        units with appraised values in excess of $38,000.''. . .

        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. AuCoin: On page 11, 
        line 1, strike out ``25'' and insert in lieu thereof ``30''.
            On page 11, line 3, insert ``with respect to existing units 
        and'' immediately after ``use.''

        The Chairman: (4) The Chair will treat this 
    amendment as a perfecting

[[Page 7208]]

    amendment to the paragraph of the bill and it will be voted on 
    first. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the perfecting amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Oregon (Mr. AuCoin).
        The perfecting amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey.
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Does the Chairman mean the amendment, as amended?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. AuCoin) was a 
    perfecting amendment to section 9(d) on page 11, line 1 through 
    line 8. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
    (Mrs. Fenwick) is an amendment which would strike all of the 
    language in the paragraph of the bill and substitute her language. 
    . . .
        Mr. Ashley: . . . Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ashley: It is on this basis, Mr. Chairman, that I 
    misunderstood the parliamentary situation. I had thought that the 
    gentleman's amendment was in the nature of a substitute. Inasmuch 
    as the gentleman's amendment was adopted, is it also the fact that 
    the amendment of the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick) was 
    adopted?
        The Chairman: Yes, thereby deleting the language which 
    contained the perfecting amendment of the gentleman from Oregon.

    On a subsequent recorded vote, the amendment offered by Mrs. 
Fenwick was rejected.

Adoption of Amendment to Substitute

Sec. 29.31 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a bill, an amendment thereto, a substitute therefor 
    and an amendment to the substitute, the Chair indicated that 
    adoption of the amendment to the substitute would preclude further 
    amendment to those portions of the substitute so amended.

    On June 10, 1976,(5) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill,(6) the Chair responded to 
several parliamentary inquiries regarding the above-described 
circumstances. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 122 Cong. Rec. 17344-52, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. H.R. 13367, a bill to extend and amend the State and Local Fiscal 
        Assistance Act of 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 7209]]

            Amendments offered by Mr. John L. Burton to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Horton as a substitute for the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Brooks: In the substitute 
        offered by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Horton, strike out 
        everything after the first section thereof down through section 
        4 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

                                   definition

            Sec. 2. As used in this Act the term ``the Act'' means the 
        State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Would the Chair explain the 
    parliamentary situation so that we understand what it is that we 
    have before us.
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair will attempt to state 
    what the situation is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pending is the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered 
    by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks), to which is pending an 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
    Fountain), and there is also pending an amendment offered as a 
    substitute by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Brooks).
        Finally, we have pending amendments offered by the gentleman 
    from California (Mr. John L. Burton) to the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) as a substitute for the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Brooks). . . .
        The order in which (the amendments) would be dealt with would 
    be first the Fountain amendment, then the Burton amendments, and 
    then the Horton substitute amendment. . . .
        Mr. Horton: The question I would like to pose is with regard to 
    the amendment that has just been offered to the Horton substitute 
    by the gentleman from California (Mr. John L. Burton). As I 
    understand it, the amendment is such that the Horton substitute 
    would not be open for amendment except as it relates to that 
    portion that contains the entitlement, section 6.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that in the 
    event of the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from California, the new text inserted by the amendment would not 
    solely be subject to further amendment. The portion of the 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from New York not amended by 
    the gentleman's amendment would be subject to further amendment.

Sec. 29.32 The adoption of a perfecting amendment to a substitute for 
    an amendment does not preclude the consideration of further 
    perfecting amendments to the substitute which seek to change 
    additional portions of text not already perfected.

    On July 2, 1980,(8) during consideration of H.R. 7235, 
the Rail Act of 1980, the Chair indicated that a pending substitute 
would

[[Page 7210]]

be open to further amendment whether or not a pending amendment to the 
substitute was adopted. The Chair stated, however, that he could not 
respond to a hypothetical question as to whether a particular 
amendment, not submitted in writing, would be in order following 
adoption of the amendment to the substitute. The discussion was as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 126 Cong. Rec. 18299, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, let me ask, 
    if this amendment were agreed to, would it still be in order to 
    move to strike the entire intrastate section of the Madigan 
    substitute?
        This would apparently be a perfecting amendment with respect to 
    that matter, and an amendment to strike, I would think, would be in 
    order. I would like to know the answer to that question.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair will state that the 
    Madigan substitute still has to be voted on regardless of the 
    outcome of this amendment, and it is open for amendment after this 
    amendment has been disposed of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, the question I am asking, though, 
    is this: If this amendment were agreed to as a perfecting amendment 
    to the Madigan amendment respecting intrastate rates, would it then 
    be in order to strike the whole section limiting the exercise by a 
    State commission of intrastate rate authority?
        The Chairman: The Chair would have to state to the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) that it would depend, in the Chair's 
    judgment, on what form the amendment would take. The Chair knows of 
    no such amendment, sees no such amendment, and, therefore, finds it 
    difficult to answer the gentleman's question.

Adoption of Amendment to Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 29.33 The adoption of an amendment to a pending amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute precludes further amendment merely to that 
    portion of the said substitute already amended.

    On Dec. 18, 1979,(10) the proposition stated above was 
illustrated during consideration of H.R. 5860 (11) in the 
Committee of the Whole when a parliamentary inquiry was directed to the 
Chair. The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 36794, 36801, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Authorizing loan guarantees to the Chrysler Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brademas to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: 
        Strike line 7, page 5, through line 7, page 9, (section 4(a)(4) 
        through section 4(d)) and replace with the following:
            (4) the Corporation has submitted to the Board a 
        satisfactory financing

[[Page 7211]]

        plan which meets the financing needs of the Corporation as 
        reflected in the operating plan for the period covered by such 
        operating plan, and which includes, in accordance with the 
        provisions of subsection (c), an aggregate amount of 
        nonfederally guaranteed assistance of not less than 
        $1,930,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bethune: If the Brademas amendment is agreed to--as I 
    understand it, it runs from page 5 of the Moorhead substitute, line 
    7, all the way to page 9, line 7--would it then foreclose a 
    particular amendment to any of the sections that are within that 
    area of the substitute?
        The Chairman: Amendments only to those sections would be 
    precluded.

Adoption of Perfecting Amendments to Amendment as Not Precluding 
    Substitute or Amendments to Substitute

Sec. 29.34 The adoption of a perfecting amendment to a (committee) 
    amendment does not preclude the offering of a substitute for the 
    original amendment, as perfected.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on Sept. 13, 
1979,(13) during consideration of H.R. 4040 (14) 
in the Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 24427, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. The Defense Department appropriation bill, fiscal 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (15) The Clerk will report 
    the next committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 3, line 2, strike out 
        ``$7,515,500,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$7,515,400,000''.

        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Price to the committee amendment: 
        On page 3, line 2, in lieu of the matter proposed to be 
        inserted by the committee amendment, insert ``$6,790,400,000''. 
        . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The question is on the amendment to 
    the committee amendment.
        The amendment to the committee amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. [Vic] Fazio [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the committee amendment, as amended.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fazio as a substitute for the 
        committee amendment as amended: Page 3, line 2, strike out 
        ``$7,515,500,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$6,456,400,000''.

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order. . . .

[[Page 7212]]

        I understood that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Price) had 
    just offered an amendment that changed the figure of $7,515,500,000 
    to $6 billion--something else, and that was accepted by the 
    committee.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The committee amendment, as amended, 
    has not yet been agreed to, and it is open and subject to a 
    substitute amendment.
        Mr. Stratton: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Price) offered 
    an amendment that begins with $6 billion?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Price) offered an amendment to the committee amendment, and that 
    figure was for $6,790,400,000.
        Mr. Stratton: And that has not been accepted?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: And that was agreed to.
        Mr. Stratton: That was agreed to, so the amendment of the 
    gentleman from California is to what figure then?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman is substituting for the 
    original committee amendment, as amended.
        The Chair has overruled the point of order. . . .
        Mr. [Richard H.] Ichord [of Missouri]: I want to make sure in 
    making my point of order that I understand what is going on. I 
    distinctly heard the chairman announce that the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Illinois without objection, is adopted.
        Then the gentleman from California arose saying he had a 
    substitute amendment. If the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Illinois was adopted, that figure has been amended and would be 
    subject to a point of order, and I make that point of order that he 
    is amending a figure already amended by the gentleman from 
    Illinois.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair has indicated that the 
    technical amendment offered by the chairman of the committee to the 
    committee amendment has been accepted.
        The committee amendment, as amended, has not yet been accepted 
    and, therefore, is subject to a substitute amendment. That is what 
    the gentleman from California is offering at the present time.

Sec. 29.35 The adoption of perfecting amendments to an amendment do not 
    preclude the offering of further amendments to a substitute for an 
    amendment.

    On May 16, 1979,(16) during consideration of H.R. 39, 
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979, the Chair 
responded to a parliamentary inquiry as indicated above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 11369, 11420, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John B.]) Breaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Breaux to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by the Committee on Merchant 
        Marine and Fisheries: Page 278: Strike out all after line 2

[[Page 7213]]

        on page 278 through line 9 on page 622 and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following: . . .

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: My parliamentary inquiry 
    is, in the event that the pending Breaux amendment to the Breaux-
    Dingell substitute is adopted, would that preclude further 
    amendments to the pending Udall-Anderson substitute?
        The Chairman: (17) It would not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adoption of Amendment Not Printed in Record as Required

Sec. 29.36 Where a bill is being considered under a special order 
    requiring amendments to be printed in the Record, and the Chair 
    inadvertently permits the offering of an unprinted amendment which 
    is adopted, those proceedings may be vacated only by unanimous 
    consent.

    The circumstance stated above was the basis of the following 
proceedings which occurred on Oct. 1, 1985,(18) during 
consideration of H.R. 2100 (19) in the Committee of the 
Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 131 Cong. Rec. 25463, 25464, 25467, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. The Food Security Act of 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Berkley] Bedell [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment that takes care of some concerns that the Committee on 
    Ways and Means had.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. Bedell (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
    Record.
        The Chairman: (20) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Iowa?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Bedell: Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the 
    committee.
        Mr. [Kika] de la Garza [of Texas]: I thank my colleague for 
    yielding.
        Mr. Chairman, this takes care of a jurisdictional conflict 
    between our committee and the Committee on Ways and Means. After 
    diligent effort between the staffs and the respective chairmen, the 
    end result is this amendment which would satisfy the Committee on 
    Ways and Means and would do no harm to our committee version, and I 
    would urge the Members to accept it. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Bedell).
        The amendment was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    wanted to raise a problem that I have discovered where we have had 
    an amendment adopted here just a few minutes (ago) that was not 
    eligible for consideration under the rule. It is my understanding 
    that the Bedell amendment that was adopted to this section a few 
    minutes ago had not been printed in the Record in a timely fashion, 
    so under the rule, it was not eligible for consideration on the 
    floor except by unanimous consent.

[[Page 7214]]

        In fact, we did not have a unanimous-consent request for that 
    amendment, so therefore it should not have been considered under 
    the regular procedures. Given that situation, it seems to me that 
    the House should not be acting upon an amendment at this point that 
    is based upon perfecting language that was offered that was not in 
    fact eligible for consideration on the House floor.
        If I might, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    proceedings be vacated under which the Bedell amendment to this 
    section was adopted.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania?
        Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.

Agreement to One Portion of Divisible Amendment; Further Debate on 
    Remainder

Sec. 29.37 Where the question has been put on the first portion of a 
    divisible amendment, and that portion agreed to, further debate on 
    the remaining portion may be had under the five-minute rule before 
    the Chair puts the question thereon.

    On Aug. 4, 1983,(1) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 2230,(2) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 129 Cong. Rec. 23134, 23142, 23143, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. The Civil Rights Commission Act of 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Edwards of California: Page 2, 
        line 2, insert ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 2''.
            Page 2, line 4, strike out ``1998'' and insert ``1988'' in 
        lieu thereof.
            Page 2, after line 4, insert the following:
            ``(b) Section 104(c) of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (42 
        U.S.C. 1975c(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
        ``During the period which begins on the date of the enactment 
        of the Civil Rights Commission Act of 1983 and ends on 
        September 30, 1988, the President may remove a member of the 
        Commission only for neglect of duty or malfeasance in 
        office.''.

        Mr. [James F.] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, 
    pursuant to the rule, I demand a division of the question. . . .
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair would point out to the 
    gentleman that the amendment really contains three parts, the 
    second being, on page 2, line 4, to strike out ``1998'' and insert 
    ``1988''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Morris K. Udall (Arizona).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The first part is, on page 2, line 2, to insert ``(a)'' after 
    ``Sec. 2.''
        Then the third part is the insertion of a new subsection (b) 
    dealing with the removal of commissioners before the term of 
    office.
        The Chair would propose to put the question first only on the 
    date change, and then on the remainder of the amendment which 
    constitutes in effect one proposition. . . .

[[Page 7215]]

        The question now is on that portion of the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from California (Mr. Edwards) dealing with the date 
    change from ``1998'' to ``1988.''. . .
        (The portion of the amendment dealing with the date change from 
    ``1998'' to ``1988'' was agreed to.)
        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    understand the vote that was just taken was on the first part of a 
    divided question. My inquiry is: Is it in order at this time for 
    there to be any further debate on the second portion of the 
    question that has been divided?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that further 
    debed by the gentleman from California (Mr. John L. Burton) is a 
    further amendment adding new language at the end of the Brooks 
    amendment, as amended. . . .
        Mr. [Benjamin S.] Rosenthal [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
    as amended.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rosenthal to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Brooks, as amended: at 
        the end of the Brooks amendment, as amended, insert the 
        following new section:

                             population adjustment

            Sec. 17. Section 109(a)(1) of the State and Local Fiscal 
        Assistance Act of 1972 is amended by inserting immediately 
        before the period at the end thereof the following: ``, except 
        that the Bureau of the Census shall make available to the 
        Secretary data to correct for any substantial and systematicat 
        p. 16045.

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Page 10, 
    after line 4, insert the following:

         limitation on discretion of the administrator with respect to 
                          submission of energy actions

            Sec. 3. Section 5 of the Federal Energy Administration Act 
        of 1974 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
            ``(c) The Administrator shall not exercise the discretion 
        delegated to him pursuant to section 5(b) of the Emergency 
        Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 to submit to the Congress as 
        one energy action any amendment under section 12 of the 
        Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 which exempts crude 
        oil or any refined petroleum product or refined product 
        category from both the allocation provisions and the pricing 
        provisions of the regulation under section 4 of such Act.''

    A further amendment was subsequently offered:

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Eckhardt: Page 10, after line 4, 
        insert the following:

           limitation on discretion of the president with respect to 
                       delegation of certain authorities

            Sec. 3. Section 8(h) of the Federal Energy Administration 
        Act of 1974 is amended by adding before the period at the end 
        thereof the following: ``, except that the President may not 
        redelegate or terminate the delegation of those functions as 
        pertain to the submission of energy actions relating to an 
        amendment under section 12 of the Emergency Petroleum 
        Allocation Act of 1973 which had been delegated to the 
        Administrator on or before May 1, 1976, pursuant to section 
        5(b) of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973.''. . .

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, if I understand 
    the thrust of the amendment offered by

[[Page 7216]]

    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt), it amends an amendment 
    which the committee has already adopted, by additionally 
    prohibiting the President from redelegating or terminating the 
    delegations of functions that we have already modified in the 
    previous Eckhardt amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Eckhardt) provides for an additional section at the end of the 
    committee bill. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
    (Mr. Eckhardt) does not directly amend the first Eckhardt 
    amendment, which also added another section at the end of the bill.
        Therefore, the point of order is overruled.

Sec. 29.39 While an amendment may not change an amendment already 
    agreed to, it is in order to insert germane language immediately 
    following the adopted amendment, and the Chair will not rule on the 
    consistency of that language with the adopted amendment.

    On June 10, 1976,(7) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 13367,(8) a point of order was made 
against an amendment and the Chair ruled as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 122 Cong. Rec. 17381, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. A bill to extend and amend the State and Local Fiscal Assistance 
        Act of 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
    amended.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Adams to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Brooks, as amended: Add 
        at the end of the Brooks amendment as amended the following new 
        section: Sec. 14. Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
            (1) allocations among States of amounts authorized by any 
        provision of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 
        as amended by the preceding provisions of this Act . . . shall 
        be made only to such extent or in such amounts as are provided 
        in advance by appropriation Acts. . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        (A)s I understand the reading of the amendment, it has to do 
    with entitlement. The Brooks substitute had a provision with regard 
    to entitlement, the Fountain substitute had provisions for 
    entitlement, and now again this is an attempt to change the 
    entitlement provision. Therefore, it is my position that this is 
    out of order and should not be offered. . . .
        Mr. Adams: Mr. Chairman, this is a germane amendment, as 
    provided under the rule. It provides for a new section. It is a 
    limitation on what was in the substitute. It does not amend the 
    same section and, therefore, it is in order.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).

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

[[Page 7217]]

        The Chair cites Deschler's Procedure, chapter 27, section 
    27.11:

            While an amendment may not change an amendment already 
        agreed to, it is in order to insert language immediately 
        following the adopted language, and the Chair will not rule on 
        the consistency of that language with the adopted amendment.

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
    Adams), does add new language at the end of the Brooks amendment, 
    as amended.
        The Chair, in accordance with the precedent, will not rule on 
    the consistency of that language and holds that the amendment is 
    germane and, therefore, the Chair will overrule the point of order.

--Previously Adopted Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 29.40 Although an amendment which has been adopted to an amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute may not be further amended, another 
    amendment adding language at the end of the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute may still be offered.

    On June 10, 1976,(10) during consideration of a bill 
(11) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a 
point of order against an amendment as described above. The proceedings 
were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 17368-75, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. H.R. 13367, a bill to extend and amend the State and Local Fiscal 
        Assistance Act of 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (12) . . . The Chair will first put 
    the question on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
    Carolina (Mr. Fountain) to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [The Fountain amendment was adopted.]
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. John L. Burton to the amendment in 
        the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Brooks, as amended: 
        At the end of the Brooks amendment, as amended, add the 
        following:

                         funds for property tax relief

            Sec. 11. Section 123(a) of the Act is amended by inserting 
        after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) it will obligate at least 20% of the funds received 
        under subtitle A during each entitlement period beginning on or 
        after January 1, 1977, to specifically decrease taxes on real 
        property;''. . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I would like 
    the Chair to explain the parliamentary procedure. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from New 
    York that it is the understanding of the Chair that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. John L. Burton) is a 
    further amendment adding new language at the end of the Brooks 
    amendment, as amended. . . .

[[Page 7218]]

        Mr. [Benjamin S.] Rosenthal [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
    as amended.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rosenthal to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Brooks, as amended: at 
        the end of the Brooks amendment, as amended, insert the 
        following new section:

                             population adjustment

            Sec. 17. Section 109(a)(1) of the State and Local Fiscal 
        Assistance Act of 1972 is amended by inserting immediately 
        before the period at the end thereof the following: ``, except 
        that the Bureau of the Census shall make available to the 
        Secretary data to correct for any substantial and systematic 
        undercounting of the residents of any State and the Secretary 
        shall utilize such data to the extent that it represents a 
        reliable and uniform count of such residents''.

        Mr. Horton: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Horton: Mr. Chairman, the point of order is that there has 
    already been a substitute to the Brooks amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute, which has been adopted. Therefore, it is out of order 
    to offer another substitute to the Fountain amendment that was 
    adopted to the Brooks substitute. . . .
        Mr. Rosenthal: . . . The gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) 
    would have been correct if this were an amendment to an existing 
    substitute that had already been adopted. However, this amendment 
    adds a new section to the Brooks amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, section 17. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Rosenthal) is not a substitute or an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute. It adds new language at the conclusion of the Brooks 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Sec. 29.41 If a perfecting amendment to an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, striking out all after the short title and inserting a 
    new text, is adopted, further amendments to the text which has been 
    perfected are not in order, but amendments are in order to add new 
    language at the end of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    as amended.

    On May 16, 1979,(13) during consideration of H.R. 39 
(14) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings 
described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 11369, 11420, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

[[Page 7219]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Breaux to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by the Committee on Merchant 
        Marine and Fisheries: Page 278: Strike out all after line 2 on 
        page 278 through line 9 on page 622 and insert in lieu thereof 
        the following: . . .

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman from Arizona will 
    state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Udall: Mr. Chairman, in the event that the pending 
    amendment of the gentleman from Louisiana, which has been offered, 
    is adopted, would that foreclose further perfecting amendments to 
    the so-called Breaux-Dingell substitute?
        The Chairman: This pending amendment could not be further 
    amended, but additional language could be added at the end of the 
    Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute.

Amendment Changing Both Amended and Unamended Portions of Text or 
    Amendment

Sec. 29.42 While it is not in order to amend merely that portion of a 
    pending text which has already been changed by amendment, an 
    amendment changing not only the amended portion but also parts of 
    the original text not yet amended would still be in order.

    On May 2, 1979,(16) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Concurrent Resolution 107, (17) 
the above-stated proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 9530, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. The first concurrent resolution on the Budget, fiscal 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (18) The gentleman will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California: Mr. Chairman, if the Simon 
    amendment affects the spend-out rate for the national defense 
    category, Number 050 in fiscal year 1980; therefore, if it is 
    adopted, does that mean that any further amendments to the national 
    defense category for fiscal year 1980 would not be in order?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Charles H. Wilson) that on a previous budget 
    resolution the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bolling) 
    in occupying the chair ruled on a similar question. The Chair will 
    paraphrase a portion of the ruling on that occasion as follows:
        While it is not in order to amend merely that portion of a 
    pending text which has already been changed by amendment, an 
    amendment changing

[[Page 7220]]

    not only the amended portion but also parts of the original text 
    not yet amended would still be in order.

Sec. 29.43 An amendment to an amendment is not subject to amendment 
    while pending (as in the 3rd degree), and if adopted precludes 
    further amendments only changing the text which has been perfected; 
    but after adoption amendments are in order which add language to an 
    unamended portion (at the end) of the original amendment as 
    amended.

    On May 16, 1979,(19) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 39,(20) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 11422, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to 
    ask a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Weaver: Mr. Chairman, this amendment we have before us is 
    not amendable?
        The Chairman: That is correct. It does not preclude----
        Mr. Weaver: New sections?
        The Chairman (continuing): Amendments added to the end of the 
    Merchant Marine bill.

        Mr. Weaver: But the language in it cannot be amended, cannot be 
    further perfected?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Weaver: If we find imperfections in the bill, in this 
    amendment, they could not then further be changed? The 
    imperfections would have to stand; is that correct?
        The Chairman: Direct amendments would be precluded; but the 
    gentleman from Oregon or any Member could offer amendments at the 
    end of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries bill.

Amendment Striking Out Language of Adopted Amendment Plus Additional 
    Language

Sec. 29.44 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and an amendment thereto, the Chair indicated in 
    response to a parliamentary inquiry that adoption of the perfecting 
    amendment would not preclude the offering of another perfecting 
    amendment striking out the language inserted by the adopted 
    amendment plus additional language in the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute (and inserting new matter).

    On Sept. 11, 1974,(2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the

[[Page 7221]]

Whole of a bill,(3) the Chair responded to a parliamentary 
inquiry regarding the offering of an amendment, as described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 120 Cong. Rec. 30648, 30649, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. H.R. 13565, the nonnuclear energy source research and development 
        program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert W.] Kastenmeier [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Kastenmeier to the amendment in 
        the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Udall: On page 29, 
        after line 11, insert the following:
            ``(c) The Administrator, when he determines that the public 
        interest will be served thereby, may waive all or any part of 
        the rights of the United States in favor of a nonprofit 
        educational institution. . . .

        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, if the 
    amendment now pending should pass would it nevertheless still be in 
    order for an amendment of this nature to be offered; namely, that 
    the entire section 7 be stricken and that the matter be subject to 
    a study?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (4) The amendment as 
    suggested by the gentleman from California would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 29.45 Although it is not in order to propose to strike out an 
    amendment already agreed to, an amendment striking out not only an 
    amendment previously agreed to but also additional portions of the 
    bill is in order.

    Where the first section of a title of a bill being read by titles 
was modified by striking that section and inserting new language an 
amendment to strike that section and two additional sections of that 
title not so altered was held in order. The proceedings on Aug. 1, 
1975,(5) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 121 Cong. Rec. 26947, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7014, Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: Strike out sections 
        301, 302, 303.
            Renumber the succeeding sections of title III accordingly. 
        . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman . . . I renew 
    simply the point of order that I had made earlier against the prior 
    amendment by observing that this is again an attempt to undo 
    actions taken already by the House, as the Chair well noted when it 
    ruled just now on the prior attempt to remove section 301, which 
    failed. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not 
    stand on the same point that the previous amendment stood on. This 
    amendment

[[Page 7222]]

    strikes two additional sections, sections 302 and 303. The present 
    section 303 in the title has not been touched by amendment during 
    the amending process, the prohibition on pricing facts being sent 
    to the President, and is a section which has not been amended by 
    the Committee of the Whole during consideration of title III. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I believe the 
    gentleman from Ohio misconceives the basis of the original point of 
    order, since this amendment includes the striking of a section of 
    the bill that has been completed, and has been amended and 
    completed and includes another section of the bill that has been 
    amended and completed. It is for those reasons subject to a point 
    of order. The fact that it may include other matter that has not 
    been amended and completed does not free it from the objection 
    raised on the first point of order.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As to the argument on the amendment by the gentleman from 
    Texas, the Chair feels that it will disagree with that.
        The Chair now refers to volume 8, page 446, section 2855 of 
    Cannon's Precedents (where) it states that while an amendment which 
    has been agreed to may not be modified, a proposition to strike 
    that language from the bill with other language of the original 
    text is in order.
        Some language of the original text remains in section 303. 
    Therefore the point of order raised by the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Dingell) is not good, and the Chair overrules the point of 
    order.

Sec. 29.46 While an amendment which has been agreed to may not be 
    modified, an amendment to strike it from the bill together with 
    other language of the original text and to insert new text is in 
    order.

    In the instance set out below, during consideration of a bill 
(7) in the Committee of the Whole, an amendment which had 
previously been agreed to was stricken. The amendment, agreed to on 
Sept. 29, 1975, stated: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 8603, Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1975.
 8. 121 Cong. Rec. 30767, 30772, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Page 
    12, strike out line 20 and all that follows through page 13, line 
    6, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

            Sec. 2. (a)(1) Section 2401(a) of title 39, United States 
        Code, is amended to read as follows:
            ``(a)(1) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Postal Service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, such 
        sums as may be necessary to enable the Postal Service to carry 
        out the purposes, functions, and powers authorized by this 
        title.''. . .

    On Oct. 30,(9) the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 34415.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Hanley [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 7223]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hanley: Strike out section 2, as 
        amended, in its entirety, and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following:
            Sec. 2. (a) Section 2401 (b)(1)(G) of title 39, United 
        States Code, is amended to read as follows:
            ``(G) for each fiscal year after fiscal year 1984, an 
        amount equal to 5 percent of such sum for fiscal year 1971, 
        except that the Postal Service may reduce the percentage 
        figure, including a reduction to 0, if the Postal Service finds 
        that the amounts are no longer required to operate the Postal 
        Service in accordance with the policies of this title.
            (b) Paragraph 2 of subsection (b) of section 2401 of title 
        39, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
            ``(2)(A) As further reimbursement to the Postal Service for 
        public service costs incurred by it, there is authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Postal Service for the period commencing on 
        July 1, 1975, and ending on September 30, 1976, an amount not 
        to exceed $1.5 billion. . . .

        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order that 
    the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanley) is not in order in that it 
    seeks to change an amendment that has been previously adopted in 
    the Committee of the Whole. . . .
        Mr. Hanley: Mr. Chairman, in opposition to the point of order, 
    while it is generally true that an amendment once agreed to may not 
    be modified, the parliamentary situation at the present time 
    dictates otherwise.
        I cite from section 28.6 of chapter 27 of Deschler's Procedure 
    in the U.S. House of Representatives:

            Sec. 28.6. While an amendment which has been agreed to may 
        not be modified, an amendment to strike it from the bill with 
        other language of the original section and insert new text is 
        in order. 118 Cong. Rec. 16843, 16852, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., May 
        11, 1972 [H.R. 7130].

    It appears clear, then, that my amendment is indeed in order. . . .

        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Alexander) has made a point of order against the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanley) on the basis that 
    section 2 has been amended and, thus, further amendments thereto 
    are not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On September 29, 1975, the Committee adopted the Alexander 
    amendment to section 2 of the bill. At that time the Chairman noted 
    that the amendment was a perfecting amendment to section 2, 
    altering parts thereof and leaving other provisions unchanged. 
    While it would not be in order at this time to offer an amendment 
    to the Alexander amendment, nevertheless, an amendment striking 
    from the bill that amendment together with other language of the 
    original bill and inserting new text is in order and, therefore, 
    the point of order is overruled.

Reoffering Amendment Previously Offered and Adopted as Amended by a 
    Substitute

Sec. 29.47 While it is not in order to offer an amendment merely 
    changing the text of a proposition perfected by

[[Page 7224]]

    amendment or to offer an amendment identical to one which has been 
    defeated, a Member may re-offer an amendment which he has 
    previously offered and which has been adopted as amended by a 
    substitute, where the amendment is more extensive than the 
    substitute which was adopted in its place.

    On Apr. 27, 1977, the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration the first concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
1978, House Concurrent Resolution 195. Mr. Otis G. Pike, of New York, 
offered a perfecting amendment (11) which struck out certain 
figures and inserted others in their place, with respect to provisions 
relating to such items as total new budget authority; appropriate level 
of total budget outlays; appropriate level of the public debt; increase 
in the statutory limit on public debt; budget authority and outlays for 
national defense; and a category, ``allowances,'' a portion of which 
related to pay increases for certain executive employees and federal 
judges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 12483, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Omar Burleson, of Texas, offered an amendment (12) 
as a substitute for the Pike amendment, which affected most, but not 
all, of the figures in the Pike amendment. The Burleson amendment, and 
the Pike amendment as so amended, were agreed to.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 12485.
13. Id. at pp. 12503, 12504.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently, Mr. Pike offered an amendment (14) that 
was in its scope and effect substantially the same as the amendment he 
had previously offered. (It should be noted that technical changes had 
been made in the figures of the amendments so that they were in 
conformity with amendments adopted after the Pike amendment as amended 
by the Burleson substitute.) He explained the effect of his proposed 
amendment as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 12521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Pike: Mr. Chairman, when we entered the Chamber yesterday, 
    the Budget Committee had a budget resolution which called for a 
    deficit of $64.3 billion. At the moment we have a resolution which 
    calls for a deficit of $68.6 billion. In 2 days we have added $4.3 
    billion to the deficit. Mr. Chairman, everybody talks about 
    national priorities, and obviously we have different views of what 
    our national priorities are. It is obvious that things for defense 
    and for veterans are high on our list of national priorities, and 
    things for the benefit of social welfare programs are low on our 
    list of national priorities, because that is the way we voted here. 
    Frankly, I have

[[Page 7225]]

    voted against all of the amendments which increased the budget and 
    increased the budget deficit, and I am a little embarrassed that I 
    am again offering an amendment which reduces the budget and reduces 
    the budget deficit. This is the same amendment which I offered 
    earlier. It reduces spending in two categories--allowances and 
    defense--a total of $130 million, which is the amount of the 29 
    percent or 28 percent pay raise which people in those categories 
    outside of the Congress got. We have discussed it already. The 
    committee accepted it once. It got wiped out by the Burleson 
    amendment.

    After debate on the Pike amendment, the amendment was rejected.

Special Rule Permitting Amendments Which Change Portions of Amendments 
    Previously Agreed To

Sec. 29.48 While under general procedure an amendment may not be 
    offered which directly changes an amendment already agreed to, 
    where the House has adopted a special rule permitting amendments to 
    be offered even if changing portions of amendments already agreed 
    to that principle does not apply.

    Where the House had adopted a special rule permitting amendments to 
be offered although changing portions of the text of amendments already 
agreed to, the Chair overruled a point of order against an amendment 
changing provisions already amended. The proceedings of Nov. 30, 
1982,(15) in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 128 Cong. Rec. 28049, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 3809, Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Markey [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Markey: In section 114(a)(3), 
        strike out ``and legislature'' and insert in lieu thereof ``or 
        legislature''.
            In section 115(a), strike out ``and legislature'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``or legislature''. . . .

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on the amendment. . . .
        [T]he point of order is that the language that we adopted on 
    yesterday has already amended the sections and has stricken out 
    ``legislature,'' and thus this amendment would not be in order, 
    since it is action on amendments and sections that have already 
    been amended. . . .
        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I think 
    the amendment is clearly in order, because under the rule that was 
    adopted for consideration of this bill, House Resolution 601, on 
    page 3, in lines 14, 15, and 16, it says: ``and all such amendments 
    shall be in order even if changing portions of the text of said sub

[[Page 7226]]

    stitute already changed by amendment.'' . . .
        The Chairman: (16) Is there any further discussion 
    on the point of order? If not, the Chair will rule pursuant to the 
    rule that was adopted on page 3, lines 14 through 16, it clearly 
    states that all such amendments shall be in order even if changing 
    portions of the text of said substitute already changed by 
    amendment. And therefore, the point of order is not well taken, and 
    it is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special Rule Making Two Amendments in Order But Not Waiving Points of 
    Order Against Second Following Adoption of First

Sec. 29.49 During consideration of a special order reported from the 
    Committee on Rules providing a ``modified open'' rule ``making in 
    order'' only two amendments to a particular section of a bill, but 
    not waiving points of order against the second offered amendment 
    following adoption of the first, the Chair recognized the minority 
    leader to request unanimous consent to permit the offering of a 
    minority Member's amendment notwithstanding its possible change of 
    an amendment already adopted (the last adopted amendment to be 
    reported to the House).

    On Oct. 19, 1983,(17) during consideration of House 
Resolution 329 in the House, the proceedings described above occurred 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 129 Cong. Rec. 28307, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: I should like to alert 
    the other side to my making a rather unusual, a very unusual 
    unanimous-consent request, and it would be this, Mr. Speaker: that 
    I ask unanimous consent that during the consideration of H.R. 2968 
    in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Robinson of Virginia be 
    permitted to offer, as his amendment to section 108 provided for in 
    House Resolution 329, an amendment to strike out that section in 
    its entirety and insert a new section, even if an amendment to 
    strike out that section in its entirety and insert a new section 
    has already been adopted, and that only the last such amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute for the section, which has been adopted, 
    shall be reported back to the House.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A special order ``making in order'' an 
amendment offered by a designated Member but not specifically waiving 
points of order does not permit consideration of the amendment unless 
in conformity with the general rules of the House. In the above case, 
the unanimous consent request to permit consideration of the amendment 
was objected to by the manager of the special order on the

[[Page 7227]]

basis that it constituted a major change in the special order reported 
from the Committee on Rules.

Rejection of Amendment Made in Order by Special Rule Which Prohibited 
    Further Amendment in Event Amendment Was Adopted

Sec. 29.50 Where a special order adopted by the House makes in order an 
    amendment to strike out a portion of a bill and to insert new text, 
    and prohibits amendments to that amendment or further amendments 
    changing that portion of the bill if the designated amendment is 
    adopted, further amendments to that portion of the bill, including 
    a motion to strike, are in order if the designated amendment is 
    rejected.

    On Sept. 14, 1978,(18) the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole responded to several parliamentary inquiries concerning the 
procedure for offering amendments under the special rule providing for 
consideration of the bill H.R. 8729.(19) The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 124 Cong. Rec. 29477, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Aircraft Noise Reduction Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William A.] Steiger [of Wisconsin]: . . . If the amendment 
    from the Committee on Ways and Means is adopted, is a motion to 
    strike title III in order?
        The Chairman: (20) It would not be in order in that 
    event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Steiger: If the amendment from the Ways and Means Commitee 
    is rejected, is a motion to strike title III in order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that in the 
    event the pending Ways and Means Committee amendment made in order 
    under the rule were to be rejected, then germane amendments to 
    title III would be in order, including a motion to strike.

Rejection of Substitute and Amendment Thereto

Sec. 29.51 Where the House adopts an amendment to a substitute and then 
    rejects the substitute, the amendment to the substitute also falls.

    On Apr. 29, 1947,(1) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 93 Cong. Rec. 4232, 4233, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.J. Res. 153, relating to relief assistance to the people 
        of countries devastated by war.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (2) the question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Mundt]to the Colmer 
    substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. George B. Schwabe (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was agreed to.

[[Page 7228]]

        The Chairman: The question is on the Colmer substitute as 
    amended by the Mundt amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Karl E.] Mundt: So that we can clear up the situation, may 
    I inquire of the Chair if it is not true that if we should now vote 
    down the Colmer amendment it would also vacate the amendment which 
    we just approved so overwhelmingly?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

Substitute for Senate Bill

Sec. 29.52 Where the Committee of the Whole had adopted several 
    committee amendments to a Senate bill, an amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute for the entire bill which was similar to the Senate 
    version of the bill but contained corrective changes was held to be 
    in order.

    On Apr. 21, 1948,(3) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 94 Cong. Rec. 4711, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was S. 
        1641, Women's Armed Services Reserve Bill for 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mrs. [Margaret Chase] Smith of Maine: 
    Strike out all after the enacting clause of Senate 1641 and insert 
    in lieu thereof the following:

            That this act may be cited as the ``Women's Armed Services 
        Reserve Act of 1948.'' . . .

        Mr. [Overton] Brooks [of Louisiana]: The Committee just voted a 
    committee amendment which strikes out the amendment proposed by the 
    gentlewoman from Maine, and which approves the House Armed Services 
    Committee version of this bill. Now, is it in order to vote again 
    on the Senate version of the bill, which has been stricken out by 
    the House under those circumstances?

        The Chairman: (4) The Chair understands the 
    amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Maine is different from 
    the Senate version or the House bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Gordon Canfield (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rejection by House of Amendment Reported From Committee of the Whole; 
    Effect on Underlying Perfecting Amendment

Sec. 29.53 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, (5) the Committee of the Whole having 
re

[[Page 7229]]

ported a bill (6) back to the House with amendments, the 
proceedings described above occurred as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 122 Cong. Rec. 25425-27, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. H.R. 8401, the Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (7) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 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.
        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 be

[[Page 7230]]

    fore 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.

    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.

Motion To Recommit With Instructions

Sec. 29.54 A motion to recommit may not include instructions to modify 
    an amendment previously agreed to by the House in the absence of a 
    special rule permitting a motion to recommit with or without 
    instructions.

    On Apr. 5, 1967, (8) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 113 Cong. Rec. 8441, 8442, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H. Res. 221.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio] moves to recommit the 
        resolution (H. Res. 221) to the Committee on House 
        Administration with instructions to report the resolution 
        forthwith with the following amendment: On page 1, line 5, 
        strike out ``$350,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$400,000.'' . . .

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against the motion to recommit on the

[[Page 7231]]

    grounds that the House has just adopted the committee amendment to 
    cut the amount from $400,000 to $350,000. The gentleman now offers 
    a motion to recommit to restore it from the $350,000 to $400,000 
    and it is clearly out of order. . . .
        The Speaker: (9) The Chair will call attention to 
    that fact that the previous question was ordered and the amendments 
    were adopted by the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is not in order to do indirectly by a motion to recommit 
    with instructions that which may not be done directly by way of 
    amendment.
        An amendment to strike out an amendment already adopted is not 
    in order. The subject matter of the motion to recommit has already 
    been passed upon by the House.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Amendment Relating to a Previous Enactment

--Amendment to Resolution Previously Adopted

Sec. 29.55 The House, by resolution, amended a resolution previously 
    adopted and enlarged the investigative jurisdiction of a standing 
    committee for the 85th Congress.

    The following proceedings took place on Mar. 14, 1957: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 103 Cong. Rec. 3722, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                              House Resolution 197

            Resolved, That House Resolution 99, 85th Congress, is 
        amended by striking out the words ``within the United States''. 
        . . .

        Mr. (Howard W.) Smith of Virginia: . . . Mr. Speaker, the 
    Committee on Rules so far this session has not granted foreign 
    travel privileges to any committee. We have, however, included in 
    the resolution the right to visit any offshore territories and 
    possessions. Inadvertently that was omitted from the resolution of 
    the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee and this merely 
    corrects that oversight. It is unanimously approved by the 
    Committee on Rules. . . .
        The resolution was agreed to and a motion to reconsider was 
    laid on the table.

--Similarity of Amendment to Bill Already Passed

Sec. 29.56 A point of order against an amendment to a bill cannot be 
    based on the ground that the provisions of the amendment have 
    already been passed by the House as part of another bill.

    On June 20, 1962, (11) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 108 Cong. Rec. 11211, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11222.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: Page 
    2, line 13, after line 12, strike out lines 13, 14, and 15 and 
    insert the following: . . .
        Mr. [H. Carl] Andersen of Minnesota: May I ask the gentleman 
    from

[[Page 7232]]

    Wisconsin if this is not the same amendment that has already been 
    passed on by the House and is now lying over in the Senate in the 
    form of a separate bill?
        Mr. Reuss: The language of this is identical.
        Mr. Andersen of Minnesota: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order that this particular amendment has already cleared the House 
    and is awaiting action in the other body which does not care to act 
    upon the matter. It has no place in the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) . . . The question raised by the 
    gentleman from Minnesota was raised when the same question came up 
    last year. The Chairman at that time overruled the point of order 
    holding that it was germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order is overruled.

Sec. 29.57 The Committee of the Whole and not the Chair decides whether 
    it should adopt an amendment consisting of the exact language 
    agreed to in a bill previously passed by the House.

    On May 13, 1946, (13) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 92 Cong. Rec. 4957, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        S.J. Res. 159, extension of the Selective Training and Service 
        Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Dewey] Short [of Missouri]: Strike 
    out all after the enacting clause of Senate Joint Resolution 159 
    and insert the following: . . .
        Mr. [Walter G.] Andrews of New York: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment just offered by the gentleman 
    from Missouri on the ground that the exact language in another bill 
    has been acted on favorably by the House.
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair states to the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Andrews) that that is a matter for the Committee 
    to pass on, not the Chairman. The Chair overrules the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
     F. EFFECT OF CONSIDERATION OR ADOPTION; CHANGES AFTER ADOPTION
 
Sec. 30. Adoption of Amendment as Affecting Motions To Strike or To 
    Strike or To Strike and Insert

Adoption of Perfecting Amendment as Affecting Vote on Pending Motion To 
    Strike Text

Sec. 30.1 Where there is pending a motion to strike out a title of a 
    bill and a perfecting amendment (changing the entire title) is then 
    offered and agreed to, the motion to strike the title falls and is 
    not voted upon, and further perfecting amendments to the title are 
    no longer in order.

    On Sept. 23, 1975,(15) the Committee of the Whole having 
under

[[Page 7233]]

consideration a bill,(16) the proceedings, described above, 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 29827, 29829, 29835, 29836, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
            For further discussion of circumstances in which a vote may 
        or may not be taken on a pending motion to strike, after 
        perfecting amendments to the text have been agreed to, see Sec. 
        17, supra.
16. H.R. 7014, Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis] Frey [Jr., of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, for the third 
    time, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Frey: Page 356, line 6, strike out 
        title VIII and all that follows through page 365, line 18. . . 
        .

        Mr. [John E.] Moss [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a perfecting amendment to the title.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Moss: Page 356, strike out line 7 
        and all that follows down through line 18 on page 365 and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:
            Sec. 801. (a) The Comptroller General may conduct 
        verification audits with respect to the books and records of--
            (1) any person who is required to submit energy information 
        to the Federal Energy Administration, the Department of the 
        Interior, or the Federal Power Commission pursuant to any rule, 
        regulation, order, or other legal process of such 
        Administration, Department, or Commission. . . .

        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    233, noes 162, not voting 38. . . .
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair wishes to announce that 
    the amendment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frey) falls 
    because an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the title 
    was adopted. The Frey amendment, therefore, would not be voted on. 
    . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, was the 
    amendment introduced as a substitute for the Frey amendment or was 
    it introduced as an amendment to the pending title of the bill?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state the amendment was introduced 
    as an amendment in the nature of a substitute striking out the 
    title and inserting new language. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frey) was a motion to strike the title. 
    Since the title in its present form has been changed in its 
    entirety the motion to strike falls and is not in order (Cannon's 
    VIII, Sec. 2854).
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is 
    this: Is an amendment to title VIII now in order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the title has been 
    amended in its entirety and no amendment to it is in order.

Sec. 30.2 Where there is pending a motion to strike out a section, and 
    a perfecting amendment (to strike the section and insert new 
    language) is then offered and agreed to,

[[Page 7234]]

    the motion to strike the section falls and is not voted upon, and a 
    renewed motion to strike the section is not in order since the 
    section has been amended in its entirety.

    On Sept. 24, 1975,(18) during consideration of a bill 
(19) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry regarding the proceedings described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 30092, 30097, 30098, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
            For further discussion of circumstances in which a vote may 
        or may not be taken on a pending motion to strike, after 
        perfecting amendments to the text have been agreed to, see Sec. 
        17, supra.
19. H.R. 6844, Consumer Product Safety Commission Improvements Act of 
        1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McCollister: Page 20, strike out 
        lines 8 through 22. Redesignate the succeeding sections 
        accordingly. . . .

        Mr. [John E.] Moss [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Moss: Page 20, strike out lines 8 
        through 22 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

                                compliance tests

            Sec. 11. Section 7(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act 
        (15 U.S.C. 2056(a)) is amended (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after 
        ``(a)''. . . . and (3) by adding at the end the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(2) No consumer product safety standard promulgated under 
        this section shall require, incorporate or reference any 
        sampling plan. . . .

        Mr. [Lionel] Van Deerlin [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Bob Bergland (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Van Deerlin: Pending before the Committee is a substitute 
    amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Moss) to section 11 
    of the bill having to do with the system of sampling.
        My parliamentary inquiry is this. In the event that the 
    Committee votes favorably on the Moss substitute to this section, 
    would there then be an ensuing vote on the McCollister motion to 
    strike, or would we then be finished with the activities for this 
    evening, it being the intention to rise as soon after 6 o'clock 
    p.m. as possible?
        The Chairman: The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Nebraska would not be voted on in the event the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from California (Mr. Moss) is sustained. . . .
        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, if 
    the Moss amendment were to be adopted, would a motion to strike 
    then be in order?
        The Chairman: The answer is ``no.'' The motion to strike would 
    fall.
        Mr. Broyhill: I am talking about a new motion to strike.
        The Chairman: No, it would not. The section would have been 
    amended in its entirety.

[[Page 7235]]

Sec. 30.3 While the adoption of an amendment changing all the text of a 
    section precludes a vote on a pending motion to strike out that 
    section, the motion to strike will still be voted on where the 
    perfecting amendment to the section changes some but not all of 
    that text.

    On Sept. 29, 1975,(21) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 8630,(1) several parliamentary 
inquiries were directed to the Chair, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 121 Cong. Rec. 30770, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
            For further discussion of circumstances in which a vote may 
        or may not be taken on a pending motion to strike, after 
        perfecting amendments to the text have been agreed to, see Sec. 
        17, supra.
 1. Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Derwinski: If the Alexander substitute is agreed to, what 
    is the effect of the substitute on my original amendment to section 
    2 of the bill?
        The Chairman: In answer to the gentleman's parliamentary 
    inquiry, the gentleman will state that if the Alexander perfecting 
    amendment is agreed to, it appears that the gentleman's motion to 
    strike might not be voted on.
        Mr. Derwinski: Section 2 would then remain in the bill?
        The Chairman: Section 2 would remain in the bill as amended by 
    the gentleman's perfecting amendment. . . .
        The Chair would like to make a clarification on the ruling it 
    made earlier. It now appears to the Chair that the perfecting 
    amendment of the gentleman from Arkansas does not perfect or 
    replace the entire section 2 of the bill; that even if the 
    gentleman's amendment is agreed to there would still be a vote on 
    the motion of the gentleman from Illinois to strike the entire 
    section; so with that clarification of the Chair, are there further 
    amendments?
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, may we 
    have a reclarification of the Chairman's ruling, because that is 
    different than what the Chair said a minute ago?
        The Chairman: That is what the Chair was stating, if the 
    gentleman will allow the Chair to restate it. After the amendment 
    of the gentleman from Arkansas is voted upon, should it be agreed 
    to by the Committee, then the question before the Committee would 
    be the motion to strike offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Derwinski). That would then be voted upon. If the gentleman's 
    amendment is voted down, we would likewise have a vote on the 
    motion of the gentleman from Illinois.

--Vote on Pending Motion To Strike Text After Portion of Text Has Been 
    Amended

Sec. 30.4 The adoption of a perfecting amendment to a por

[[Page 7236]]

    tion of the text of a bill does not preclude a vote on a pending 
    motion to strike out that entire text as amended.

    The ruling of the Chair on Oct. 5, 1972,(3) was that the 
vote on a pending motion to strike out a section of a bill is not 
precluded by the adoption of a perfecting amendment which does not 
change the entire text of that section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 118 Cong. Rec. 34130, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 16656.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ordinarily, of course, if a motion to strike out a section or 
    paragraph and insert new language is agreed to, a pending amendment 
    proposing to strike out the entire section or paragraph falls and 
    is not voted upon.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. 31.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Striking Out Larger Portion of Text Including Adopted Amendment

Sec. 30.5 While it is not in order to strike out an amendment already 
    agreed to, it is in order to strike out a larger portion of the 
    paragraph which includes the amendment and insert a new paragraph 
    of different meaning.

    On May 2, 1940,(5) the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 86 Cong. Rec. 5451, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 5435, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. See 
        also Sec. 30.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Ramspeck [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the gentleman is undertaking to strike out of 
    the bill language which the gentleman from Virginia has just 
    written into it.
        Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: I strike out 
    additional language, too. I have not offered any amendment at all 
    to the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman makes the point of 
    order that the proposed amendment of the gentleman from Mississippi 
    seeks to strike out the amendment that was just adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Claude V. Parsons (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whittington: Mr. Chairman, I answered that by saying that I 
    propose to strike out the language of the bill, and that point of 
    order is not well taken. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . (T)he Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 30.6 It is not in order to strike out an amendment previously 
    agreed to, but other words of the title, including the amendment, 
    may be stricken to insert language of a different meaning.

    On June 22, 1960,(7) the following amendment was offered 
to a bill (8) to amend the Agricultural Acts of 1938 and 
1949:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 106 Cong. Rec. 13874, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. 30.5, 
        supra.
 8. H.R. 12261.

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

[[Page 7237]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. (Albert H.) Quie [of Minnesota]: 
        On page 15, line 15, after the words ``Title II'', strike out 
        the rest of line 15, lines 16 through 26, all of pages 16, 17, 
        18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and lines 1 through 15 on page 23, and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:

                                 ``Feed Grains

            ``Sec. 201. This Act may be cited as the `Payment-in-Kind 
        Act of 1960'.
            ``Sec. 202. Effective beginning with the 1961 crops, the 
        Secretary is directed to formulate and carry out a payment-in-
        kind program with respect to wheat. . . .''
A substitute amendment was offered: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 106 Cong. Rec. 13875, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. (H. Carl) Andersen of Minnesota as 
        a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Quie: On page 15, 
        after line 16, insert:
            ``Sec. 201. (a) As soon as practicable after the enactment 
        of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct a referendum of 
        producers. . . .''
The Andersen substitute (as amended) was adopted; then the Quie 
amendment as amended by the substitute was agreed to.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 13880.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the next day,(11) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 106 Cong. Rec. 14061, 14062, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., June 23, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Gerald T.] Flynn [of Wisconsin]: 
        On page 15, line 15, strike out all of title II commencing with 
        the word ``Title'' on line 15 and continuing through the word 
        ``1965'' on line 15 of page 23, and insert the following:

                         ``Title II--General Provisions

            ``Sec. 201. This Act may be cited as the `Agricultural 
        Production Stabilization Through Conservation Act.'
            ``202. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the 
        Congress to eliminate the recurrence in the future of 
        burdensome surpluses of agricultural production. . . .''

        Mr. Andersen of Minnesota: Is the gentleman's amendment in 
    order at this point after the substitute for the Quie amendment has 
    been adopted?
        The Chairman: (12) It is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Frank N. Ikard (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Andersen of Minnesota: And its effect would be to undo 
    everything that we did yesterday?
        The Chairman: The Chair does not pass on the effect of 
    amendments.

Sec. 30.7 While an amendment which has been agreed to may not be 
    modified, an amendment to strike it from the bill with other 
    language of the original section and insert new text is in order.

    On May 11, 1972,(13) during consideration of a bill 
(14) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 118 Cong. Rec. 16848, 16852, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
14. H.R. 7130.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois to the 
    amendment

[[Page 7238]]

    in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Erlenborn: Page 2, 
    line 13. Strike out ``$2 an hour'' and insert in lieu thereof the 
    following: ``$1.80 an hour. . . .''
        So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    was agreed to. . . .
        Amendment offered by Mr. [Watkins M.] Abbitt [of Virginia] to 
    the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
    Erlenborn of Illinois: Page 2, strike out lines 5 through 22 and 
    insert in lieu thereof the following:

            Sec. 101. (a) Section 6(a) (29 U.S.C. 206(a)) is amended by 
        striking out ``(a) Every employer'' and all that follows 
        through paragraph (1) and inserting in lieu thereof the 
        following: . . .

        Mr. [John N.) Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, I now have a copy of the 
    amendment. It apparently does amend the same language that the 
    Anderson language has just amended. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair would like to read from 
    page 13 of the Cannon's Procedure, 1957 edition. . . . It is not in 
    order to--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        strike out an amendment already agreed to, but other words of 
        the paragraph, including the amendment, may be stricken out to 
        insert a new paragraph of different meaning.

        The amendment strikes out the entire section and inserts new 
    language.
        The Chair rules that the amendment is in order and overrules 
    the point of order.

Sec. 30.8 While an amendment which has been agreed to may not be 
    modified by further amendment, a motion to strike that amendment 
    together with other language in the original bill is in order.

    On Jan. 21, 1976,(16) where a sentence in a section of a 
bill had been amended, a further amendment to that section striking the 
language inserted by the previous amendment and striking additional 
language of the section was held in order. An amendment was first 
offered by Mrs. Patsy T. Mink, of Hawaii:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 122 Cong. Rec. 502, 507, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 6721, to amend the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. Mink: Mr. Chairman, I offer a technical amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Mink: On page 23, delete lines 8 
        through 11, and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``coal 
        within the tract. Public hearings in the area shall be held by 
        the Secretary prior to the lease sale.
            ``(D). No lease sale shall be held until after the notice 
        of the proposed offering for''.

        Mrs. Mink: Mr. Chairman, this is a simple technical amendment 
    deleting words that would require some interpretation and 
    evaluation, and change of the term ``approval of a lease'' to 
    ``lease sale'' since that has a technical definition. I believe 
    there is no objection from the other side.
        The Chairman: (17) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Charles H. Wilson [Calif.].

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

[[Page 7239]]

        The amendment was agreed to. . . .
        Mr: [Philip E.] Ruppe [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ruppe: Delete the sentences which 
        begin and end on: Page 21, line 19 to Page 22, line 5; page 23, 
        line 8 through line 9; page 26, line 9 through 11; and page 19, 
        line 23 to page 20, line 4.
            Adding the following new section 8 and renumber subsequent 
        sections accordingly:
            ``Sec. 8(a). In preparing land-use plans, the Secretary of 
        the Interior or, in the case of lands within the National 
        Forest System, the Secretary of Agriculture shall consult with 
        appropriate State and local officials, and shall provide an 
        opportunity for public hearing on proposed land-use plans prior 
        to their adoption, if requested by any person having an 
        interest which is, or may be, adversely affected by the 
        adoption of such plans.
            (b) Prior to a lease sale, the Secretary of the Interior 
        shall consult with appropriate State and local officials. . . .

        Mrs. Mink: Mr. Chairman, I make the same point of order on this 
    amendment that I made before, since it includes page 23, line 8 
    through line 9, which has already been amended by the committee.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ruppe) 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Ruppe: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering is much broader, 
    I believe, than simply the language that was offered initially by 
    the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) in her amendment, because 
    my amendment would strike out all of the named sections. It, 
    therefore, constitutes a substantial change, one far beyond that of 
    the perfecting amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii 
    (Mrs. Mink).
        I would refer to Deschler's Procedure, page 350, item 27.12, 
    and I will read as follows:

            While it is not in order to amend an amendment already 
        agreed to, the adoption of a perfecting amendment to a section 
        does not preclude the offering of further perfecting amendments 
        to other portions of the section or amendments broader in scope 
        encompassing other portions of the section as well as the 
        perfected portion.

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        In addition to Deschler's Procedure, Cannon's Precedents 
    (volume 8, section 2855) provides that while an amendment which has 
    been agreed to may not be modified, a motion to strike it from the 
    bill with other language in the original section is in order.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order. The amendment 
    is in order.

Committee Amendments Adding New Sections at End of Bill

Sec. 30.9 Where committee amendments adding new sections at the end of 
    a bill have been adopted, an amendment proposing to strike out a 
    section of the original bill and the new sections is not in order.

[[Page 7240]]

    On Mar. 10, 1971,(18) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 117 Cong. Rec. 5856-58, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 4246.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 2, after line 5, add the 
        following:
            ``Sec. 3. The Economic Stabilization Act of 1970 (title II 
        of the Act of August 15, 1970 (Public Law 91-379)) is amended 
        by inserting at the end thereof the following new section:
            ``Sec. 207. Authorization for appropriations. . . .''

        The committee amendment was agreed to. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 2, following section 3 add the 
        following:
            ``Sec. 4. . . .''

        The committee amendment was agreed to. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Garry E.] Brown of Michigan: Page 
        1, strike out line 8 and all that follows thereafter down 
        through page 2, line 18, and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following:
            ``Sec. 2. The Economic Stabilization Act of 1970 (title II 
        of the Act of August 15, 1970 (Public Law 91-379)), is amended 
        to read as follows: . . .''

        Mr. [Wright) Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, my point of order 
    is this: That we have passed, in the consideration of this bill, 
    the part of the bill to which an attempt is being made to offer an 
    amendment to the bill; therefore, it is not in order. It has been 
    passed--rather, I mean the whole bill has been read. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Michigan: . . . Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that 
    the amendment I am offering on this occasion is to the very part 
    that goes to sections 2, 3, and 4, in effect, because it replaces 
    it with a totally different section 2.
        Now, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that should the point of 
    order raised by the gentleman from Texas be sustained, I will then 
    merely offer a further amendment which will strike sections 3 and 
    4, which then clearly goes to the very section we are dealing with.
        The Chairman: (19) . . . The amendment of the 
    gentleman from Michigan is offered to section 2, which had been 
    read, and to which amendments have been adopted. Two additional 
    committee amendments, sections 3 and 4, have also been agreed to. 
    The amendment of the gentleman from Michigan comes too late and the 
    Chair sustains the point of order made by the gentleman from Texas. 
    . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. George W. Andrews (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Brown of Michigan: Page 1, strike 
        out line 8 and all that follows thereafter.

                               Point of Order

        Mr. Patman: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment comes too late. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, to 
    the extent that my amendment strikes out all of section 2 including 
    sections 3 and 4 and all the rest of the bill, it had to relate to 
    what is before the House at the present time.

[[Page 7241]]

        The Chairman: . . . The amendment comes too late since it is an 
    amendment to a section of the bill that has been passed.

Committee Amendment Adding New Paragraph to Subsection

Sec. 30.10 Where a committee amendment has added a new paragraph to a 
    subsection, it is not in order to subsequently offer an amendment 
    that merely strikes out that new paragraph.

    On Oct. 9, 1985,(20) it was demonstrated that it is not 
in order to offer an amendment merely striking out an amendment 
previously agreed to. The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 131 Cong. Rec. 26952, 26956, 26957, 99th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 3008, the Federal Pay Equity Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the remaining committee amendment to section 7 is 
    as follows:

            Committee amendment: page 13, after line 9, add the 
        following:
            (4) Also included under subsection (a)(2) shall be the 
        Commission's determination as to whether any portion of any 
        differential identified under subsection (b)(1) which cannot be 
        accounted for by the application of job-content and economic 
        analyses may be inconsistent with the general policy expressed 
        in section 2(a) that sex, race, and ethnicity should not be 
        among the factors considered in determining any rate of pay. . 
        . .

        Mr. [Charles W.] Stenholm [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offered 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Stenholm: In section 7(c), strike 
        out paragraph (4). . . .

        Ms. [Mary Rose] Oakar [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point 
    of order at this time. I appreciate the work that the gentleman and 
    I have done together on this issue, and we were happy to meet some 
    of his concerns, but the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Texas [Mr. Stenholm] proposed to amend the committee amendment to 
    section 7 previously agreed to.
        Accordingly, it is not in order. I call to the Chair's 
    attention section 27.1 of chapter 27 of Deschler's Procedure which 
    provides, quote:

            ``It is fundamental that it is not in order to amend an 
        amendment already agreed to.''

        Mr. Chairman, at this time, although I do look forward to 
    working with the gentleman before we have final passage, I insist 
    on my point of order. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair then would be prepared to 
    rule.
        According to precedents, chapter 27, section 28.1 it is not in 
    order to offer an amendment merely striking out an amendment 
    previously agreed to.
        Therefore the Chair would rule that the amendment of the 
    gentleman is out of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The same purpose, that of striking the 
inserted committee amendment, could be achieved by rejecting

[[Page 7242]]

that committee amendment on a separate vote in the House, thereby 
deleting the inserted language.

New Section as Including and Omitting Amendments Previously Agreed To

Sec. 30.11 After agreeing to several amendments to section 1 of a bill, 
    the Committee of the Whole agreed to a motion to strike out and 
    insert a new section which included some of the amendments agreed 
    to, but omitted one of them.

    On Sept. 2, 1964, during consideration of a bill (21) 
extending and amending the law regarding the ``Food and Peace'' 
program, an amendment (1) offered by Mr. Paul Findley, of 
Illinois, was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. H.R. 12298.
 1. See 110 Cong. Rec. 21424, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the amendment was to require congressional 
appropriation for grants of United States-owned foreign currencies. In 
explaining the amendment, Mr. Findley quoted from a Senate report 
relating to the same provision as found in a Senate bill:

        The purpose of this amendment is to provide the same degree of 
    control over grants of U.S.-owned foreign currencies as is provided 
    in the regular foreign assistance legislation over dollar grants; 
    also to coordinate all foreign assistance grants and to assure that 
    grants of foreign currencies are used in place of dollar grants 
    rather than being supplementary thereto. Further the making of such 
    grants subject to congressional appropriation control. . . 
    .(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 21425.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other amendments to section 1 of the bill were adopted. On the next 
day,(3) the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 110 Cong. Rec. 21587, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 3, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rooney of New York: Strike out all 
        of section (1) and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``That 
        the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, 
        as amended, is further amended as follows: . . .''

        The Chairman: (4) he Chair feels that the author of 
    the amendment should explain the amendment and the Chair recognizes 
    the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rooney] on his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rooney of New York: . . . This pending substitute for 
    section 1 substantially contains the bill as it has been approved 
    up to this point, including the amendments of the gentleman from 
    Ohio [Mr. Oliver P. Bolton], and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Roosevelt], with one exception, and

[[Page 7243]]

    that is exclusion of the so-called Findley amendment adopted 
    yesterday.
        I must be frank and say that I supported the Findley amendment 
    on yesterday. Today I find that I cannot support it for the reason 
    that in South Vietnam 90 percent of the local currency funds 
    generated under title I sales, Public Law 480, is used to support 
    the military effort there. In view of this situation in Vietnam, 
    Mr. Chairman, if we adopt the pending substitute for section 1 of 
    the bill we will not only approve all the amendments adopted up to 
    now, except the so-called Findley amendment, but also strike out at 
    page 2 of the bill the controversial matter in lines 13 to 25 
    inclusive and at page 3 of the bill lines 1 to 14 inclusive.
        The Rooney amendment was agreed to.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 110 Cong. Rec. 21591, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 3, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perfecting Amendment Affecting Part of Section as Not Precluding Other 
    Amendments, Including Amendment Striking Whole .

Sec. 30.12 The Chair has indicated that the adoption of a perfecting 
    amendment affecting part of a section would not preclude an 
    amendment proposing to strike out the entire section, nor would it 
    preclude further perfecting amendments to other portions of the 
    section or a motion to strike out the section and insert new text.

    On Dec. 12, 1973,(6) he following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 119 Cong. Rec. 41166, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11450.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, as I 
    understand it this is a perfecting amendment to section 120. I have 
    previously indicated, and have filed it with the Clerk, that I will 
    offer a motion to strike section 120, the so-called antitrust 
    section. My question is this: If a vote occurs upon the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Texas and the section is perfected or 
    not perfected by his amendment, am I precluded from moving to 
    strike section 120 at a later time in the proceedings?
        The Chairman: (7) Regardless of the outcome on the 
    amendment now pending, the gentleman will not be precluded from 
    making a motion to strike at another time because this is a 
    perfecting amendment that does not deal with the whole of the 
    section. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, if the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington should not 
    succeed and someone else should offer another amendment to section 
    120, will that amendment be precluded by this perfecting amendment?
        The Chairman: Not necessarily. The Chair will answer the 
    gentleman by saying that section 120 is a long section. Other 
    amendments to the section might still be offered. But in the event

[[Page 7244]]

    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas is adopted a 
    further amendment to that particular portion of the language might 
    be precluded. But other parts of the language in that particular 
    section would still be open to amendment.
        Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, suppose the amendment were a 
    complete substitute for section 120.
        The Chairman: It would still be in order.

    Similarly, it has been held that, while an amendment which has been 
agreed to may not be modified, a proposition to strike it from the bill 
with other language of the original text is in order.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See, for example, Sec. 30.6, infra; see also 107 Cong. Rec. 16059, 
        87th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 16, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 30.13 The adoption of a committee amendment perfecting a section 
    of a bill does not preclude the offering of a motion to strike the 
    entire section.

    On Dec. 8, 1975,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering committee amendments to H.R. 8631 (10)) when a 
parliamentary inquiry was directed to the Chair. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 39067, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. A bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) The Clerk will report the next 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 8, line 7, after the word 
        ``greater:'' insert ``Provided That in the event of a nuclear 
        incident involving damages in excess of that amount of 
        aggregate liability, the Congress will thoroughly review the 
        particular incident and will take whatever action is deemed 
        necessary and appropriate to protect the public from the 
        consequences of a disaster of such magnitude: And provided 
        further,''. . . .

        Mr. [Jonathan B.] Bingham [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, if this 
    committee amendment is agreed to, will the gentleman from New 
    York--this gentleman--still be in a position to offer an amendment 
    to strike the entire section?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York will be advised that 
    his right to offer an amendment will be protected, and he can offer 
    it if the committee amendment is agreed to. . . .
        The committee amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. Bingham: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bingham: Page 7, beginning with 
        line 21, strike out all down through line 19 on page 8, and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:
            Sec. 6. Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
        amended, is amended by striking out subsection e.

--Perfecting Amendment Affecting Part of Section as Not Precluding 
    Amendment To Strike Unamended Portion

Sec. 30.14 A perfecting amendment to a portion of a section

[[Page 7245]]

    having been adopted while a motion to strike out the section was 
    pending, another perfecting amendment (to strike out the remainder 
    of the section not yet perfected) could be offered and voted on 
    prior to the motion to strike the section.

    On Sept. 29, 1975,(12) during consideration of a bill 
(13) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to 
parliamentary inquiries as described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 121 Cong. Rec. 30772, 30773, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H.R. 8630, Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I will 
    try to propound a proper parliamentary inquiry. . . . My original 
    amendment was to strike section 2 in its entirety. We have just 
    accepted striking from line 20, section 2, through line 6 on page 
    13. Is an amendment in order at this point to strike the remainder 
    of that section?
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair will respond to the 
    gentleman by saying that an amendment would be in order to strike 
    so much of the section that was not amended by the gentleman from 
    Arkansas' amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Hanley [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, just a point 
    of information to clarify this vote for the benefit of all Members, 
    the understanding is that the adoption of the Derwinski amendment 
    would have the effect of nullifying the Alexander amendment, and in 
    so doing reverting back to present law; am I correct?
        The Chairman: The motion of the gentleman from Illinois would 
    strike the entire section, including that section as amended by the 
    gentleman from Arkansas.

    Parliamentarian's Note: If the perfecting amendments that were the 
subject of Mr. Derwinski's inquiries were both adopted, the section 
would have been amended in its entirety, and the motion to strike would 
then fall.

Adoption of Amendment Inserting Language at End of Paragraph

Sec. 30.15 The Chair has indicated that the adoption of a perfecting 
    amendment inserting language at the end of a paragraph would not 
    preclude further perfecting amendments to the original paragraph or 
    an amendment striking the entire perfected paragraph and inserting 
    new language.

    On June 15, 1972,(15) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 118 Cong. Rec. 21105, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 15417.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank E.] Evans of Colorado: . . . In the event the 
    amendment of

[[Page 7246]]

    the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) passes, 
    thereby limiting the expenditures under title I to that which was 
    spent the last fiscal year, thereafter, after the adoption of the 
    gentleman's amendment, would it be in order to offer an amendment 
    to increase the sum of money contained in the bill for title I.
        The Chairman: (16) If the amendment were agreed to, 
    the Chair would inform the gentleman from Colorado that further 
    amendments to the paragraph would still be in order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will say that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) is an amendment to the paragraph, a 
    perfecting amendment, and if that amendment is agreed to an 
    amendment striking and inserting a whole new paragraph would still 
    be in order.

Adoption of Conforming Amendments

Sec. 30.16 Where the Committee had agreed to an amendment striking out 
    certain words and had made conforming amendments to succeeding 
    sections of the bill, the Chair held that a subsequent motion, 
    altering the conforming changes already adopted, was not in order.

    On Sept. 23, 1969,(17) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 115 Cong. Rec. 26586-89, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 12549.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. [Wayne N.] Aspinall [of 
        Colorado]:
            On page 1, lines 3 to 6, strike out ``Fish and Wildlife 
        Coordination Act is amended by redesignating section 5A as 
        section 5B and by inserting immediately after section 5 the 
        following new section:
            ``Sec. 5A. (a). . . .
            On page 2, line 13, strike out `` `(b)'' and insert ``Sec. 
        2.''
            On page 3, line 1, strike out `` `(c)(1)'' and insert 
        ``Sec. 3.''
            On page 3, line 5, strike out ``by and with the advice and 
        consent of the Senate.''. . .
            On Page 4, line 1, strike out `` `(B)'' and insert ``(b)''.
            On page 4, line 10, strike out `` `(C)'' and insert 
        ``(c)''.
            On page 4, line 17, strike out `` `(D)'' and insert 
        ``(d)''.
            On page 4, line 21, strike out `` `(E)'' and insert 
        ``(e)''.
            On page 4, line 24, strike out `` `(4)'' and insert ``Sec. 
        6.''
            On page 5, line 1, strike out `` `(5)'' and insert ``Sec. 
        7.''
            On page 5, line 3, strike out `` `(A)'' and insert ``(a)''.
            On page 5, line 7, strike out `` `(B)'' and insert ``(b)''.
            On page 5, line 11, strike out ``avoided.' '' and insert 
        ``avoided.''

        Mr. Aspinall: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that these 
    amendments are satisfactory to the committee having jurisdiction 
    over this legislation. Most of them are technical. However, there 
    are three or four amendments which are substantial in their effect.
        The first amendment has reference to the Fish and Wildlife 
    Coordination Act. This language is deleted in order that this new 
    legislation can stand on its own and will not be tied to an exist

[[Page 7247]]

    ing program. The subject matter of the bill relates to all 
    environmental classes, and therefore its enactment as an amendment 
    to this act is not appropriate and should be changed.
        The second important amendment has to do with the question of 
    Senate confirmation. Requirements for Senate confirmation of 
    members of the Council is deleted by my amendment. I see no reason 
    for Senate confirmation of a Presidential council of this nature. 
    In fact, I think it dilutes the importance of the council. I think 
    it means, if you take it as I read it, that this House is giving 
    the Senate in the membership of the proposed council a great deal 
    of its own prerogative in the establishment of the Council itself.
        The amendments were agreed to. . . .

            Amendment offered by Mr. (Emilio Q.) Daddario (of 
        Connecticut): On page 1, strike lines 3 through 6 and insert 
        the following:
            ``That (a) This Act may be cited as The Environmental 
        Quality and Productivity Act of 1969.
            Sec. (b)(1). The Congress, recognizing that man depends on 
        his biological and physical surroundings for food, shelter, and 
        other needs . . . and recognizing further the profound 
        influences of population growth, high-density urbanization, 
        industrial expansion, resource exploitation, and new and 
        expanding technological advances . . . on the quality of life 
        available to the American people; hereby declares that it is 
        the continuing policy . . . of the Federal Government to use 
        all practicable means, consistent with other essential 
        considerations of national policy, to improve and coordinate 
        Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end 
        that the Nation may--
            ``(A) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as 
        trustee of the environment for succeeding generations;
            ``(B) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, 
        and estheti cally and culturally pleasing surroundings; . . .
            ``(E) achieve a balance between population and resource use 
        which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing 
        of life's amenities; and
            ``(F) enhance the quality of renewable resources and 
        approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable 
        resources. . . .
            ``Sec. (c) The Congress authorizes and directs that the 
        policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States, to 
        the fullest extent possible, be interpreted and administered in 
        accordance with the policies set forth in this Act, and that 
        all agencies of the Federal Government--
            ``(1) utilize to the fullest extent possible a systematic, 
        interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use 
        of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design 
        arts in planning and in decision-making. . . .
            ``(3) include in every recommendation or report on 
        proposals for legislation and other Federal actions 
        significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a 
        finding by the responsible official that--
            ``(A) the environmental impact of the proposed action has 
        been studied and considered. . . .

                             conforming amendments

            On page 2, line 13, strike out `` `(b)'' and insert ``2''.
            On page 3, line 1, strike out `` `(c)(1)'' and insert 
        ``3A''. . . .
            On page 4, line 1, strike out `` `(B)'' and insert 
        ``(ii)''.
            On page 4, line 10, strike out `` `(C)'' and insert 
        ``(iii)''.

[[Page 7248]]

            On page 4, line 17, strike out `` `(D)'' and insert 
        ``(iv)''.
            On page 4, line 21, strike out `` `(E)' and insert ``(v)''.
            On page 4, line 24, strike out `` `(4)'' and insert 
        ``(D)''. . . .
            On page 5, after line 19, insert new sections f, g, and h, 
        as follows:
            ``Sec. f. The annual reports submitted to the Congress 
        pursuant to section 2 of this Act shall be referred by the 
        Speaker to each standing committee of the House of 
        Representatives that has jurisdiction over any part of the 
        subject matter of the reports. . . .
            ``Sec. h. There are authorized to be appropriated to carry 
        out the provisions of this Act not to exceed $300,000 for 
        fiscal year 1970, $500,000 for fiscal year 1971, and $1,000,000 
        for each fiscal year thereafter.''

        Mr. Aspinall: After the bill has been perfected by the so-
    called Aspinall amendment, the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Connecticut is offered as an amendment to that amendment as 
    such, after it has been adopted by the House.
        If the amendment were offered as a substitute, then I could not 
    object to it, so far as that is concerned. But I object to it as 
    purely an amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) . . . The Chair upholds the point 
    of order of the gentleman from Colorado that the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Connecticut attempts to amend an amendment already 
    agreed to and is not in order. The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Richard D. McCarthy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Had it not been for the conflict between 
the conforming amendments, the Chair might have permitted the Daddario 
motion to strike out and insert, since it struck out more than the 
words previously stricken by the Aspinall amendment.



                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
     F. EFFECT OF CONSIDERATION OR ADOPTION; CHANGES AFTER ADOPTION
 
Sec. 31. Adoption of Motion To Strike Out; To Strike Out and Insert

Adoption of Amendment Striking Out Section as Vitiating Prior Adoption 
    of Perfecting Amendments to Section

Sec. 31.1 A motion to strike a section of a bill, if adopted, strikes 
    the entire section including a provision added as a perfecting 
    amendment to that section.

    On Sept. 29, 1975,(19) during consideration of a bill 
(20) in the Committee of the Whole, a perfecting amendment 
had been adopted. Pending was a motion to strike the section carrying 
the perfected text. The Chair responded to parliamentary inquiries, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 30772, 30773, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. H.R. 8630, Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

[[Page 7249]]

        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Chairman, in order to perfect the amendment 
    which was just passed, is it not necessary for this body to vote no 
    on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Derwinski) which is now before the House?
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot respond to the inquiry as the 
    gentleman stated it, but if the gentleman's inquiry is whether or 
    not the motion offered by the gentleman from Illinois, if agreed 
    to, would strike the entire section including the part that the 
    gentleman from Arkansas has perfected, the answer of the Chair 
    would be ``yes.''. . .
        Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: Did I understand the Chair 
    to rule that even though the pending amendment of the gentleman 
    from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) is an amendment to strike the entire 
    section, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas was a 
    perfecting amendment to this section, that the gentleman's 
    amendment if it now carries would not strike the entire section 
    including the new language inserted by the gentleman from Arkansas?
        The Chairman: The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) would strike the entire section including 
    the language offered by the gentleman from Arkansas and agreed to 
    by the Committee.

--Perfecting Amendments Not Reported to House

Sec. 31.2 Adoption by the Committee of the Whole of an amendment 
    striking out a section of a bill vitiates the Committee's prior 
    adoption of perfecting amendments to that section, and only the 
    motion to strike out is reported to the House.

    On Feb. 5, 1974,(2) during consideration in the House of 
a bill (3) reported back from the Committee of the Whole, 
the Speaker responded to a parliamentary inquiry as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 120 Cong. Rec. 2078, 2079, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. 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: (4) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Robert G.] Stephens [Jr., of Georgia]: Which amendment are 
    we voting on, Mr. Speaker? The amendment adopted in the Committee 
    of the Whole?

[[Page 7250]]

        The Speaker: 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. [Lawrence G.] Williams [of Pennsylvania]: 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 answer is ``no.'' If the Wylie amendment is 
    defeated, the House will have before it the bill as reported by the 
    committee, without any amendment to section 1. . . .
        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.

Sec. 31.3 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,(5) the Committee of the Whole having 
reported a bill (6) back to the House with amendments, the 
proceedings described above occurred as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 122 Cong. Rec. 25425-27, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. H.R. 8401, the Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (7) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 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.
        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?

[[Page 7251]]

        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.

    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 privi

[[Page 7252]]

leged 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.

Inserting Language Similar or Identical to Stricken Language

Sec. 31.4 It is not in order to insert by amendment language identical 
    to that previously stricken out by amendment.

    On Mar. 14, 1940,(8) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 86 Cong. Rec. 2904, 2905, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 7079, relating to appointment of additional district 
        and circuit judges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: 
    Page 2, line 3, after ``New York'', insert ``and one who shall be a 
    district judge for the northern and southern districts of 
    Florida.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that that particular language has already been stricken 
    out of the bill by action of the committee. . . .
        The Chairman: (9) . . . The Committee of the Whole 
    acted on a committee amendment striking out this identical 
    language; therefore, the point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Richard M. Duncan (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.5 It is in order to insert by amendment language similar, but 
    not identical, to that previously stricken out by amendment.

    On Mar. 14, 1940,(10) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 86 Cong. Rec. 2907, 2908, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 7079, relating to appointment of additional district 
        and circuit judges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: 
    Page 1, line 10, before the word ``one'' insert ``one for the 
    northern and southern districts of Florida.''. . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: That has already been voted 
    upon by the Committee and has been stricken from the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair believes that while 
    there is some similarity, there is sufficient difference to justify 
    submission of the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Richard M. Duncan (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.6 While it is not in order to reinsert precise language

[[Page 7253]]

    stricken by amendment, an amendment similar but not identical to 
    the stricken language may be offered if germane to the pending 
    portion of the bill, and the Chair will not rule on the propriety 
    of such an amendment prior to its being offered.

    On July 23, 1975,(12) during consideration of a bill 
(13) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair 
(14) responded to a parliamentary inquiry as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 121 Cong. Rec. 24386, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H.R. 7014, Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975.
14. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, if the Wilson amendment is adopted 
    and the section is stricken from the bill and we rise, can we come 
    back tomorrow and put a similar section back in the bill with 
    different numbers, or under the rules could we not replace that 
    section at all?
        The Chairman: The Chair will have to tell the gentleman that 
    the Chair can only determine germaneness after examination of the 
    proposal. Therefore, the Chair cannot say whether or not any 
    proposals that were offered would be in order, but an amendment 
    different from the text stricken could be in order if germane. The 
    Chair simply cannot state what proposal.
        Mr. McCormack: So a proposal could be in order that would put 
    in a new price formula tomorrow, even if the Wilson amendment were 
    passed today?
        The Chairman: The Chair finds it extraordinarily difficult to 
    anticipate anything, but the Chair can conceive of a circumstance 
    in which that would be true.

Sec. 31.7 While it is not in order to perfect language which has been 
    stricken, an amendment may be offered to insert new language which 
    is germane to the bill and not identical to the language stricken.

    On Sept. 2, 1976,(15) during consideration of H.R. 13636 
(extension of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration Act), and 
following the adoption of an amendment striking certain language in the 
bill, an amendment was offered by Mrs. Millicent Fenwick, of New 
Jersey, to strike certain words from the portion of the bill that had 
been deleted. She stated her intention to be to restore the language of 
the bill with only certain words, as indicated, stricken. A 
parliamentary inquiry was made by Mr. Robert McClory, of Illinois:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 122 Cong. Rec. 28941, 28942, 28958, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McClory: . . . I made my parliamentary inquiry as to 
    whether or

[[Page 7254]]

    not it was appropriate to reinsert language which had already been 
    deleted.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair will state that 
    language which has been stricken cannot be inserted; but other 
    language can be inserted that is germane to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Benjamin S. Rosenthal (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.8 While it is not in order to offer an amendment to a pending 
    amendment to insert language identical to language which has been 
    stricken from the amendment, any change in substance in the words 
    sought to be inserted allows the amendment to be offered, such as 
    the change of the word ``shall'' to the word ``may.''

    On Apr. 9, 1979,(17) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 3324,(18) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 125 Cong. Rec. 7761, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. The International Development Cooperation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
amendment to the amendment, as amended.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rousselot to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Bauman, as amended: Immediately after the last sentence 
        of subsection (a) of section 533 of the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Bauman, as amended, add the following:
            (b) In furtherance of the purposes of this section and the 
        foreign policy objectives of the United States the President 
        may appoint a team of impartial observers to observe elections 
        in southern Africa. . . .
            (c) of the amounts authorized to be appropriated to carry 
        out the purposes of this section, $20,000,000 may be made 
        available to the government of Zimbabwe/Rhodesia which is 
        installed in that nation as a result of the election held in 
        April 1979, which election may be evaluated and reported upon 
        by observers as provided for in this section. . . .

        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment just offered by the gentleman 
    from California is out of order on the ground that it is virtually 
    identical to the amendment which was just overwhelmingly rejected 
    by the House, in that it does provide for $20 million in foreign 
    aid to Rhodesia for these observers. It is essentially identical to 
    the amendment we just rejected and, therefore, it should be ruled 
    out of order.

        The Chairman: (19) Does the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Rousselot) desire to be heard on the point of 
    order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rousselot: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have made some changes and 
    substituted the word ``may'' for ``shall.'' It is a substantive 
    change, and I believe it is in order on the basis of the way I have 
    submitted it.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?

[[Page 7255]]

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Only to point out that 
    the previous language was mandatory. The previous language in the 
    amendment voted down was mandatory insofar as the allocation of 
    funds, and in this case it is totally discretionary, a fundamental 
    change in the character of the amendment. Therefore, I do not think 
    the point of order is well taken. . . .
        The Chairman: Is there any further discussion on the point of 
    order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair has compared the language in the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot) to the language just 
    stricken from the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland 
    (Mr. Bauman) as a result of the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from New York. The rule is that identical or substantially 
    identical language cannot be inserted after an amendment striking 
    substantially identical language has been adopted.
        In reading the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California, the Chair notes certain changes in language which the 
    Chair does not believe to be substantial in nature; however, in 
    section (c) which is added by the amendment, the change of the word 
    ``shall'' to the word ``may'' appears to the Chair to be a change 
    of substance, a material change in the substance of the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from California, different from that which 
    appeared in the original text of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Maryland.
        Consequently, it is the opinion of the Chair that it is in 
    order for the amendment to be offered and the point of order is 
    overruled.

Amendment Inserting Language in Stricken Paragraph

Sec. 31.9 Where an amendment has been adopted striking out language in 
    a bill, a perfecting amendment to the language already stricken out 
    comes too late and is not in order.

    The Chair in this instance held that, where the Committee of the 
Whole has adopted an amendment striking out several consecutive 
paragraphs in a bill, an amendment proposing to insert language in a 
paragraph which has been stricken comes too late and is not in the 
proper form.
    On July 16, 1973, during consideration of a bill 20 to 
amend and extend the Agricultural Act of 1970, the following amendment 
(1) as agreed to.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 8860.
 1. See 119 Cong. Rec. 23970, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. Id. at p. 23972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. (Bob) Bergland [of Minnesota]: Page 
    27, line 4, strike out on page 27 all of line 4 and the remainder 
    through page 36 line 15. . . .

    Subsequently, an amendment was offered, as follows: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 23983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Page 32, 
    imme

[[Page 7256]]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    diately after line 22, insert the following new paragraph: . . .

The following exchange then took place: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 23984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles M.] Teague [of California]: Mr. Chairman, am I not 
    correct that this amendment comes within the section which was 
    stricken from the bill? . . .
        The Chairman: (5) . . . [T]he amendment does go to 
    the portion of text which has been stricken and is not in order in 
    the form offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Offered To Perfect Language That Had Been Stricken; No Point 
    of Order Made

Sec. 31.10 It is not in order to propose an amendment to perfect 
    language in a bill which has been previously stricken by amendment, 
    but where no point of order was made the Chair put the question on 
    the amendment even though its adoption would have no effect.

    On Sept. 2, 1976,(6) during consideration of a bill 
(7) in the Committee of the Whole, an amendment to 
previously stricken language was pending, which resulted in several 
parliamentary inquiries being directed to the Chair. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 122 Cong. Rec. 28939, 28941, 28942, 28957, 28958, 94th Cong. 2d 
        Sess.
 7. H.R. 13636, Extension of the Law Enforcement Assistance 
        Administration Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wiggins: On page 16, line 2, 
        strike ``(a)'' and on lines 10 through 24, and on page 17, 
        lines 1 through 5, strike the whole of section 108 (b) and (c).

        The Chairman: (8) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Wiggins). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Benjamin S. Rosenthal (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [T]he amendment was agreed to.  . . .
        Mrs. [Millicent] Fenwick [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick: On page 16, line 16, 
        strike ``and'' following ``physical'' and on page 16, line 17, 
        strike out ``services'' and on page 17, line 3, following 
        ``physical'' strike out ``and services''. . . .

        Mr. [Charles E.] Wiggins [of California]: . . . [T]he 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey is offering to amend a section of the 
    bill which has been deleted by an earlier amendment.
        If, in fact, that is the amendment, it is rather late for me to 
    make a point of order with respect to it, but we are amending 
    something which is not in the bill to be amended.
        The Chairman: The Chair has examined the Wiggins amendment,

[[Page 7257]]

    which struck out, on page 16, lines 10 to 24, down through line 5 
    on page 17. For that reason, in response to the gentleman's 
    parliamentary inquiry, the gentlewoman's amendment would have no 
    effect.
        Mrs. Fenwick: Mr. Chairman, I should have included in my 
    amendment the restoration of the original phraseology, omitting 
    only those three or four words.
        The Chairman: Would the gentlewoman perhaps seek unanimous 
    consent to withdraw her amendment, and at her leisure and 
    prerogative redraft the amendment consistent with the situation the 
    bill is in as of now?
        Mrs. Fenwick: Mr. Chairman, I do so.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey? . . .
        Mr. [Robert] McClory [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I object. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick). . . .
        Mr. Wiggins: Mr. Chairman, if I understood the Chairman's 
    ruling on the previous parliamentary inquiry, there is nothing to 
    be amended and we are voting on nothing.
        The Chairman: In respect to the gentleman's very thoughtful 
    parliamentary inquiry, the Chair has previously stated that the 
    amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey would in fact 
    be null and void. But under the parliamentary situation and the 
    objection of the gentleman from Illinois, the Chair has no choice 
    but to put the question on the amendment, and the members of the 
    Committee will make such decision as they deem appropriate under 
    these circumstances. . . .
        Mr. McClory: Mr. Chairman, did I understand accurately the 
    request of the gentlewoman, that she wanted to reinsert the 
    language except for these words?
        The Chairman: The gentlewoman's request was to withdraw the 
    amendment and she would offer another amendment, which is her total 
    prerogative.
        Mr. McClory: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the 
    gentlewoman withdrawing the amendment.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey?
        Mr. [James R.] Mann [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I object 
    to the unanimous consent request.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
    from New Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick).
        The question was taken; and the Chairman being in doubt, the 
    Committee divided, and there were--ayes 23, noes 20.
        So the amendment was agreed to.

Adoption of Motion To Strike and Insert as Precluding Vote on Pending 
    Motion To Strike

Sec. 31.11 If an amendment to strike out a section or paragraph and 
    insert new language is agreed to, and is coextensive with a pending 
    amendment proposing to

[[Page 7258]]

    strike out the section or paragraph, such motion to strike falls 
    and is not voted on.

    On Sept. 15, 1970,(9) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 116 Cong. Rec. 31840, 31845, 31846, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 17654.
            For further discussion of circumstances in which a vote may 
        or may not be taken on a pending motion to strike following 
        adoption of a perfecting amendment, see Sec. Sec. 16 and 30, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Sam M.] Gibbons [of Florida]: On page 
    41 strike all of section 120, lines 1 through 23, inclusive. . . .

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: On 
    page 41, strike out line 1 through line 23 and insert the 
    following:

            Motions in the House to Dispose of Nongermane Amendments 
        Between the Two Houses to House or Senate Bills or Resolutions. 
        . . .

        [The O'Hara amendment was agreed to.]
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. Have we voted on the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons)?
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair would like to inform 
    the gentleman from Missouri that since the amendment to strike and 
    insert of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara) was adopted, 
    that means that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
    (Mr. Gibbons) the motion to strike, that is, falls as a result of 
    the adoption of the first amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, on July 12, 1951, the Chair indicated that, if a motion 
to strike out a paragraph and insert new language is agreed to, a 
pending amendment proposing to strike out the paragraph falls and is 
not voted upon. On that date, a bill (11) was under 
consideration to amend the Defense Production Act of 1950. An amendment 
was offered as follows: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 3871.
12. 97 Cong Rec. 8073, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Howard H.] Buffett [of Nebraska]: 
    Page 8, line 25, strike out all of subsection (e). . . .

A further amendment was offered: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 8077.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan] as a 
    substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Buffett: Page 8, line 
    25, strike out subsection (e) and insert in lieu thereof the 
    following:  . . .

The following proceedings then took place:

        Mr. [Jacob K.] Javits [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment perfecting the language sought to be stricken by the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Buffett) . . 
    .
        Amendment offered by Mr. Javits: On page 9, line 1, after the 
    word ``de

[[Page 7259]]

    fense'', insert ``and upon the certification of the Director of 
    Defense Mobilization that it is required for the national defense 
    and is not otherwise obtainable.''14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 8084.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (15) . . . Under the rules the 
    perfecting amendment will be voted upon first; the motion to strike 
    out and insert will be voted upon next; and, should the amendment 
    by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Wolcott) be adopted, the motion 
    made by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Buffett) would 
    fall.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
16. 97 Cong. Rec. 8090, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adoption of Amendment To Strike Out and Insert as Precluding Motion To 
    Strike Same Text

Sec. 31.12 The adoption of an amendment to strike out a subsection of a 
    bill and insert new provisions would preclude the offering of an 
    amendment to strike out that subsection.

    On Dec. 17, 1970,(17) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 42228, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 19446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: May I inquire of the 
    Chair as to whether or not, if the Mink amendment presently before 
    the committee is adopted an amendment would be in order to strike 
    that section?
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman that the Mink amendment proposes to strike subsection (c) 
    and insert new language. If that amendment is adopted it would not 
    then be in order to strike subsection (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. James C. Corman (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.13 Adoption of an amendment striking out certain words and 
    inserting new text precludes the offering of a subsequent motion to 
    strike out that text.

    On July 25, 1974,(19) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill,(20) the Chair advised that a 
motion to strike out a title, as described above, was not in order. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 120 Cong. Rec. 25240, 25241, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
20. H.R. 11500, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Udall to the committee amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute: Strike page 268, line 19, 
        through page 271, line 24, and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following:
            Sec. 601. (a) With respect to Federal lands within any 
        State, the Secretary of Interior may, and if so requested by 
        the Governor of such State, shall review any area within

[[Page 7260]]

        such lands to assess whether it may be unsuitable for mining 
        operations. . . .

        The Chairman: (21) . . . The question is on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall) to the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute was agreed to.
        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I now offer 
    my amendment to delete title VI.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from 
    California that the entire title has been amended by the Udall 
    amendment and at this point an amendment to strike the title would 
    not be in order.

Adoption of Amendment To Strike Out and Insert as Precluding Further 
    Amendment

Sec. 31.14 When an amendment striking out certain language and 
    inserting other provisions has been adopted, it is not in order to 
    further amend the provisions so inserted.

    On Mar. 16, 1960,(1) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 106 Cong. Rec. 5755, 5762, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 8601.
            See also 107 Cong. Rec. 11093-98, 11100-03, 87th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., June 22, 1961; and 107 Cong. Rec. 8117, 8120, 87th Cong. 
        1st Sess., May 16, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George] Meader [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, as I 
    understand the situation, we are now considering the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara), which strikes 
    out certain language on pages 5 and 6 which relates to provisional 
    voting. If the O'Hara amendment is adopted, would it be in order to 
    strike out the language just approved by the committee or would 
    that be the end of any consideration of the provisions relating to 
    provisional voting.
        The Chairman: (2) In reply to the parliamentary 
    inquiry of the gentleman, the Chair will state that the so-called 
    O'Hara amendment to the substitute amendment, as the Chair 
    understands it, does strike out the language which the gentleman 
    has just mentioned and inserts other language, therefore, if the 
    amendment is agreed to the amendment cannot be further amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Similarly, on Feb. 7, 1964,(3) the 
    Chairman,(4) responding to inquiries by Mr. James 
    Roosevelt, of California, indicated that, if a motion to strike out 
    all after the first word of text and insert a new provision is 
    agreed to, the language thus inserted cannot thereafter be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 110 Cong. Rec. 2489, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7152.
 4. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Even Where Title Is Open to Amendment at Any Point

Sec. 31.15 Where an amendment striking out a section and in

[[Page 7261]]

    serting new language has been adopted, it is not in order to 
    propose a further amendment to that section; thus, it is not in 
    order to further amend a section which has been amended in its 
    entirety, even where the title containing that section is open to 
    amendment at any point pursuant to a special rule providing for 
    reading for amendment by titles.

    On July 18, 1974,(5) during consideration of a bill in 
the Committee of the Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 120 Cong. Rec. 24108, 24109, 24113, 24114, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 11500, Surface Mining Control and 
        Reclamation Act of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hosmer to the committee amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute: Page 142, line 3. Strike out 
        ``Sec. 101.; and insert a ``Sec. 101.'' to read as follows:
            Sec. 101. The Congress finds that--
            (a) the extraction of coal by underground and surface 
        mining from the earth is a significant and essential activity 
        which contributes to the economic, social, and material well-
        being of the Nation. . . .

        The Chairman: (6) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hosmer) to the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Are there further amendments to title I?
        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Symms: On page 143, following line 
        11, add a new subsection (f), as follows:
            Every resident of the United States of America has a right 
        to the benefit of full production. . . .

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that this is an amendment to 
    section 101 in title I, which has already been amended in its 
    entirety, and therefore the amendment is not in order. . . .
        Mr. [William M.] Ketchum [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        . . . I do not recall, but I believe I have been here the whole 
    time, and I do not recall when the bill was originally read that it 
    was going to be read section by section. I had understood it was to 
    be read title by title, and we could amend it at any point at that 
    time.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the bill is being read 
    title by title.
        Mr. Ketchum: Then why, Mr. Chairman, may I ask, is the 
    gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Symms) not able to offer his amendment to 
    section 101.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that that is because section 
    101 of title I has been amended in its entirety, and therefore a 
    further amendment to that section would not be in order.

[[Page 7262]]

--Where Proposed Amendments Have Been Printed in Record

Sec. 31.16 Adoption of an amendment, as amended, which changes an 
    entire section precludes further amendments to that section, even 
    where such amendments have been printed in the Record pursuant to 
    the rule (7) which guarantees 10 minutes of debate on 
    amendments printed one calendar day in advance of floor 
    consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Rule XXIII clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 874 (101st Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 22, 1974,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill (9) the Chair responded to 
several parliamentary inquiries as to the effect of the adoption of an 
amendment, as described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 120 Cong. Rec. 24459, 24460, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. H.R. 11500, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on the pending Hosmer amendment and the Mink substitute 
    for that amendment and all perfecting amendments to either close at 
    40 minutes past 4 o'clock. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object for 
    the purpose of making a parliamentary inquiry, as I understand 
    there are a number of us who do have amendments to the bill itself 
    or which are appropriate to the substitute amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from Hawaii or the gentleman from California.

        Now, what is the ruling of the Chair with regard to the 
    limitation of time on section 201? Are those amendments published 
    in the Record foreclosed from the 5-minute rule by reason of the 
    debate here, or foreclosed by expiration of the time under the 
    clock, if the time does expire from even offering an amendment?
        The Chairman: If section 201 of the bill is later open to 
    amendment due to adverse disposition of the Mink substitute and the 
    Hosmer amendment, then those rights would obtain; but those rights 
    would be foreclosed if no further amendments to section 201 were in 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: The provisions of the rule relating to 5 minutes 
    of time for a Member where he has published his amendment in the 
    Record in appropriate fashion will not be protected if either the 
    Mink amendment or the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Hosmer is 
    adopted; am I correct?
        The Chairman: If the substitute is adopted to the Hosmer 
    amendment and then the Hosmer amendment as amended by the 
    substitute is adopted, further amendments to section 201 could not 
    be offered. Therefore, there would be no further amendments 
    appropriate. . . .

[[Page 7263]]

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, is it not true 
    that if, under the gentleman's motion, an amendment--I am now 
    giving a hypothetical situation--the Mink substitute for that 
    portion of the Hosmer amendment were to prevail, and the Hosmer 
    amendment would be defeated, is it not true that the rest of that 
    section which the Mink substitute does not pertain to would be 
    proper to amend at any point?
        The Chairman: If the entire section has been amended, further 
    amendments to that section would not be in order.
        Mr. Hays: Not if the Hosmer substitute were defeated, it would 
    not be true, would it? Just to section 201?
        The Chairman: If the Mink substitute is adopted, the vote would 
    then recur on the Hosmer amendment since it is a substitute for the 
    entire amendment. If the Hosmer amendment were then adopted, 
    section 201 would not be open to amendment.

--Amendment to Substitute as Precluding Further Amendment to Substitute 
    .

Sec. 31.17 A substitute amendment having been amended by striking out 
    certain language therein and inserting a new provision, the portion 
    of the substitute which is so altered cannot be further amended.

    On Mar. 15, 1960,(11) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 106 Cong. Rec. 5644, 5645, 5655, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 8601.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert W.] Kastenmeier [of 
        Wisconsin]: On page 1, line 8 of the McCulloch substitute, 
        before the word ``In'', insert ``(e)(1)(A)'' and on page 1 of 
        the McCulloch substitute strike out ``that any person has been 
        deprived'' on line 9 and all that follows down through the last 
        page of such substitute, and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following: . . .

        Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]: If the Kastenmeier 
    amendment prevails, would it then become subject to amendment?
        The Chairman: (12) No; the Kastenmeier amendment is 
    an amendment to the pending substitute for the amendment provided 
    under the rule and it would not be subject to amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subsequent Amendment Enlarging Scope of Changes Made by First Amendment

Sec. 31.18 Although it is not in order to propose an amendment changing 
    the precise language of an amendment already agreed to, the 
    adoption of a ``perfecting'' amendment to strike out and insert 
    does not preclude the offering of another amendment to strike out 
    and insert which goes beyond the changes made by the first 
    amendment.

[[Page 7264]]

    On June 29, 1972,(13) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 118 Cong. Rec. 23406-08, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 15692.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 3, at the beginning of lines 12, 
        16, and 23, and on page 4, at the beginning of lines 5 and 9, 
        insert quotation marks; and on page 4, at the end of line 10, 
        strike out the quotation marks.

        The committee amendment was agreed to. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 4, line 3, insert ``a bona fide'' 
        immediately after ``and''.

        The committee amendment was agreed to. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 4, line 13, strike out ``, if 
        any,''.

        The committee amendment was agreed to. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. (William A.) Barrett (of 
        Pennsylvania): Page 4, line 6, strike out ``, at the option of 
        the loan applicant.''
            Page 4, strike out lines 9 through 16 and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following: ``rehabilitation, or replacement cancel 
        the principal of the loan, except that the total amount so 
        canceled shall not exceed $2,500, and make the balance of such 
        loan, if any, at an interest rate of 1 per centum per annum''. 
        . . .

        Mr. [Thomas M.] Rees [of California]: The gentleman is offering 
    an amendment to an area that has already been approved. The 
    committee has already approved the language on page 4.
        The Chairman: (14) The amendment that is now being 
    offered goes beyond the committee amendment which has been 
    considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. B.F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.19 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair indicated 
    that adoption of an amendment striking out a paragraph and 
    inserting new language would eliminate a perfecting amendment 
    already adopted to that paragraph.

    On Mar. 21, 1975,(15) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill,(16) the proceedings, 
described above, occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 7950, 7952, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. H.R. 4485, the Emergency Middle-Income Housing Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Millicent] Fenwick [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I am 
    not sure but that I have let the time go by, but I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick: Page 11, strike out 
        lines 1 through 12 and insert in lieu thereof:
            ``(d) Not more than 50 per centum of the aggregate mortgage 
        amounts approved in appropriation Acts may be allocated (1) for 
        use with respect to existing previously occupied dwellings 
        which have not been substantially rehabilitated and (2) for use

[[Page 7265]]

        with respect to new, unsold dwelling units the construction of 
        which commenced prior to the enactment of this Act. Not more 
        than 10 per centum of the aggregate mortgage amounts approved 
        in appropriation Acts may be allocated with respect to dwelling 
        units with appraised values in excess of $38,000.''. . .

        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. AuCoin: On page 11, 
        line 1, strike out ``25'' and insert in lieu thereof ``30''.
            On page 11, line 3, insert ``with respect to existing units 
        and'' immediately after ``use.''

        The Chairman: (17) The Chair will treat this 
    amendment as a perfecting amendment to the paragraph of the bill 
    and it will be voted on first. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the perfecting amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Oregon (Mr. AuCoin).
        The perfecting amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey.
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: . . . Mr. Chairman, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ashley: It is on this basis, Mr. Chairman, that I 
    misunderstood the parliamentary situation. I had thought that the 
    gentleman's amendment was in the nature of a substitute. Inasmuch 
    as the gentleman's amendment was adopted, is it also the fact that 
    the amendment of the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick) was 
    adopted?
        The Chairman: Yes, thereby deleting the language which 
    contained the perfecting amendment of the gentleman from Oregon.

 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
     F. EFFECT OF CONSIDERATION OR ADOPTION; CHANGES AFTER ADOPTION
 
Sec. 32. Amendments in Nature of Substitute; Substitute Amendments

Adoption of Amendment in Nature of Substitute, Generally

Sec. 32.1 Where an amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed 
    to, further amendment is not in order.

    The principle stated above was the basis of the following 
proceeding which occurred on Mar. 26, 1985,(18) during 
consideration of House Resolution 100 (19) in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 131 Cong. Rec. 6274, 6275, 99th Cong. 1st Sess. The principle has 
        often been relied upon. As a further example, see, in addition 
        to the precedents that follow, the proceedings of Aug. 7, 1964, 
        at 110 Cong. Rec. 18608, 18609, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Providing investigative funds for House committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph M.] Gaydos [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of

[[Page 7266]]

    the Committee on House Administration, I call up a privileged 
    resolution (H. Res. 100) providing amounts from the contingent fund 
    of the House for expenses of investigations and studies by standing 
    and select committees of the House in the 1st session of the 99th 
    Congress, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 100

            Resolved, That there shall be paid out of the contingent 
        fund of the House in accordance with this primary expense 
        resolution not more than the amount specified in section 2 for 
        investigations and studies by each committee named in such 
        section, including expenses--
            (1) in the case of a committee named in section 3, for 
        procurement of consultant services under section 202(i) of the 
        Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. . . .

        The Speaker: (20) The Clerk will report the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute: Strike 
        out all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu thereof:

        That there shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the 
    House in accordance with the primary expense resolution not more 
    than the amount specified in section 2 for investigations and 
    studies. . . .
        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, if 
    the procedure that is being talked about here now is adopted, does 
    that have the effect of precluding the offering of an amendment to 
    the resolution so as to establish a freeze of this funding?
        The Speaker: The Chair would answer in the affirmative, that if 
    the amendment offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    prevails, no further amendment is in order.

Sec. 32.2 Where an amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill 
    has been agreed to, further amendments are not in order.

    On Nov. 7, 1975,(1) during consideration of a bill 
(2) in the Committee of the Whole, objection was raised to 
the offering of an amendment and the Chair ruled as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 35528, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. H.R. 6346, Rural Development Act Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken: and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Sebelius) there were--ayes 38, noes 33.
        So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. [Charles] Rose [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an additional brief amendment.
        Mr. [Keith G.] Sebelius [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair will state that no 
    further amendments are in order. The amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute has been adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Tom Bevill (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the rule, the Committee rises.

[[Page 7267]]

Effect on Amendments Printed in Record

Sec. 32.3 Where debate has been closed on a pending amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute and all amendments thereto, adoption of that 
    amendment would cause the stage of amendment to be passed and 
    amendments, even though printed in the Record, could not thereafter 
    be offered to the bill.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(4) during consideration of a bill 
(5) in the Committee of the Whole, an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute was offered and the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 11491, 11499, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. H.R. 6096, Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Edgar: Strike out everything after the enacting clause and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:
            That this Act may be cited as the ``Vietnam Humanitarian 
        Assistance and Evacuation Act of 1975.''
            Sec. 2. The President is directed to evacuate from South 
        Vietnam within ten days of the enactment of this Act the 
        following categories of persons:
            (1) United States citizens;
            (2) dependents of United States citizens and of permanent 
        residents of the United States; and
            (3) Vietnamese nationals eligible for immigration to the 
        United States by reason of their relationships to United States 
        citizens. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on this substitute amendment and all amendments 
    thereto close at 4 p.m.
        The Chairman: (6) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania would 
    preclude many of us from offering amendments which had heretofore 
    been dropped into the hopper and printed in today's Record in 
    compliance with the rules, will we be granted the set-aside 5 
    minutes to present our amendments inasmuch as the substitute 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Edgar) 
    would extinguish our right to offer an amendment at that point?
        The Chairman: If the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Edgar) is agreed 
    to, the stage of amendment would have been passed and no further 
    amendments would be in order to the bill.

Effect on Amendment Made in Order by Special Rule

Sec. 32.4 A resolution reported from the Committee on Rules

[[Page 7268]]

    which merely makes in order the consideration of a particular 
    amendment (in the nature of a substitute) but does not waive points 
    of order or otherwise confer a privileged status upon the amendment 
    does not, in the absence of legislative history establishing a 
    contrary intent by that committee, alter the principles that 
    recognition to offer an amendment under the five-minute rule is 
    within the discretion of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    and that adoption of one amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    precludes the offering of another.

    On May 23, 1978,(7) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Resolution 1188,(8) the above-
stated proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 124 Cong. Rec. 15094-96, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. Providing for consideration of H.R. 10929, Department of Defense 
        Authorization for Fiscal Year 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 1188

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to 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 (H.R. 39). . . . It shall be in order to consider the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
    Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill as an original 
    bill for the purposes of amendment, said substitute shall be read 
    for amendment by titles instead of by sections and all points of 
    order against said substitute for failure to comply with the 
    provisions of clause 5, rule XXI and clause 7, rule XVI, are hereby 
    waived, except that it shall be in order when consideration of said 
    substitute begins to make a point of order that section 805 of said 
    substitute would be in violation of clause 7, rule XVI if offered 
    as a separate amendment to H.R. 10929 as introduced. If such point 
    of order is sustained, it shall be in order to consider said 
    substitute without section 805 included therein as an original bill 
    for the purpose of amendment, said substitute shall be read for 
    amendment by titles instead of by sections and all points of order 
    against said substitute for failure to comply with the provisions 
    of clause 7, rule XVI and clause 5, rule XXI are hereby waived. It 
    shall be in order to consider the amendment printed in the 
    Congressional Record of May 17, 1978, by Representative Carr if 
    offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
    Committee on Armed Services. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) . . . The . . . rule 
    requested makes in order the substitute of Representative Carr 
    printed in the Congressional Record of May 17, 1978. Under the open 
    rule,

[[Page 7269]]

    Mr. Carr would already be entitled to offer his amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute. Although this provision in the rule does 
    not give Mr. Carr special or preferred status under the rule, it 
    does indicate the Rules Committee's desire to have all the diverse 
    viewpoints on the DOD legislation available for consideration by 
    the House. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I would like 
    to put a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair regarding the language 
    on page 2 of the rule, line 24, through line 4 on page 3. It 
    appears to me that the making in order of the offering of a 
    substitute to the committee amendment by the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Carr) is nothing more than an expression of the right 
    of any Member of the House to offer such amendment at any time in 
    the Committee of the Whole. My question to the Chair is whether or 
    not the appearance of this language in the rule in any way changes 
    the right of the Chair to recognize members of the committee in 
    order of seniority at the Chair's discretion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The recognition will be a matter for 
    the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House to determine. . . 
    .
        Mr. Bauman: My specific question, Mr. Speaker, was whether or 
    not this varies the precedents regarding recognition and confers 
    upon the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Carr) some special status as 
    opposed to the Chair's recognizing other members of the Committee 
    on Armed Services handling the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It would still be up to the Chairman 
    of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union to 
    determine the priorities of recognition. . . .
        Let the Chair respond by stating that the rules of the House 
    will apply and will not be abridged by reason of the adoption of 
    this rule. If another amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    should have been adopted, it would not perforce thereafter be in 
    order to offer an additional amendment, whether it be the Carr 
    amendment or any other.
        As the Chair interprets the inclusion of the language referred 
    to in the rule, it confers no special privilege upon the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute referred to as the Carr substitute. 
    It presumes and makes in order such language as an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute. Beyond that, it does not foreclose 
    consideration of any other germane language that otherwise would be 
    in order. . . .
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: . . . (I)f along the way 
    a substitute is adopted other than that offered by the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Carr) then at the end of our consideration the 
    substitute of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Carr) would not be 
    in order; is that correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair believes the gentleman from 
    Missouri (Mr. Volkmer) has correctly stated the parliamentary 
    situation, if any amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    adopted, then additional amendments would not be in order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Section 805 of the committee substitute 
related to troop withdrawals from Korea, a matter unrelated to the bill 
and beyond the jurisdiction of

[[Page 7270]]

the Armed Services Committee; the Committee on International Relations 
successfully urged the Rules Committee to render that section alone 
subject to a point of order, while protecting the consideration of the 
remainder of the substitute as original text. (Since a point of order 
against any portion of an amendment renders the entire amendment 
subject to a point of order, language was necessary in the rule to 
allow the consideration of a new amendment without the offending 
section.)

Amendment by Motion To Recommit Not Allowed

Sec. 32.5 Where the House has adopted an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, such amendment cannot be further amended by way of a 
    motion to recommit; and, in the absence of a special rule, only a 
    simple motion to recommit would be in order.

    On May 4, 1960,(10) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 106 Cong. Rec. 9416, 9417, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
            See also 108 Cong. Rec. 826, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 24, 
        1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, earlier in 
    the day I addressed a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair to which 
    response was made. The parliamentary inquiry went to the question 
    as to whether or not, as the Senate bill has been reported by the 
    committee, a motion to recommit with instructions would be in 
    order. Mr. Speaker, to further clarify the matter, the committee 
    struck out all after the enacting clause of the Senate bill and 
    substituted a complete amendment, which I take it would be offered 
    if and when the bill were to be read for consideration. Under those 
    circumstances, Mr. Speaker, and in view of the fact that what some 
    of us refer to as the administration bill, introduced by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Kilburn] is now on the calendar, the 
    parliamentary inquiry is whether or not under the rules of the 
    House a motion to recommit with instructions would be in order in 
    order that a record vote could be had on such amendment as a 
    substitute.
        The Speaker: (11) . . . On further examining the 
    rules and precedents of the House, under the situation as it 
    exists, when we go into the Committee of the Whole and the 
    amendment is adopted, and then agreed to in the House, the rules 
    are that a motion to recommit with instructions will not be in 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proceedings Vacated by Unanimous Consent To Permit Pro Forma Amendment

Sec. 32.6 Where an amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill 
    has been adopted in Committee of the Whole, the

[[Page 7271]]

    stage of amendment is passed and further amendments, including pro 
    forma amendments for debate, are not in order; but on occasion, 
    where the Committee of the Whole has adopted an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute, the Chair, by unanimous consent, has 
    vacated that section to allow a Member to offer a pro forma 
    amendment.

    On May 13, 1977,(12) the Committee of the Whole having 
agreed to an amendment in the nature of a substitute to a 
bill,(13) the Chair, by unanimous consent, vacated the 
proceedings to permit a Member to offer a pro forma amendment. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 123 Cong. Rec. 14622, 14625, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H.R. 6810, Intergovernmental Antirecession Assistance Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) Are there further amendments?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Elizabeth Holtzman (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Hearing none, the question is on the committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute, as amended.
        The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
    amended, was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the committee rises.
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Madam Chairman, I 
    was seeking recognition by the Chair.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the 
    Chair had put the question on the committee amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute. There were no further amendments and, under the 
    rule, the committee rises.
        Mr. [L. H.] Fountain [of North Carolina]): Madam Chairman, I 
    would like to say that I was standing and was prepared to make a 
    statement about an amendment which I was going to offer but can no 
    longer offer because I was not recognized.
        The Chairman: Without objection, the Chair will vacate the 
    proceedings so as to permit the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
    Fountain) to make a statement.
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Fountain) 
    is recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
        Are there further amendments? If not, the question is on the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
        The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
    amended, was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the Committee rises.

Amendment to Original Text Precluded

Sec. 32.7 An amendment to the text of a resolution comes too late when 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute for such text has 
    already been agreed to.

[[Page 7272]]

    On Mar. 22, 1967,(15) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 113 Cong. Rec. 7679-82, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.J. Res. 428.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Committee Amendment

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert the 
        following:
            ``That the Congress supports the concept of a Latin 
        American Common Market. . . .''

        The committee amendment was agreed to. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. (Durward G.) Hall (of Missouri): 
        On page 6, line 18, after the period insert, ``No significant 
        additional resources contained or referred to herein shall be 
        made available to carry out the provisions of this resolution 
        until such time as the war in South Vietnam has ended.''. . .

        Mr. [Armistead I.] Selden [of Alabama]: The Committee has 
    already acted on the resolving clauses. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    Chair will point out that the Committee has already adopted the 
    resolving clause amendment to the body of the resolution and 
    consequently the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri 
    comes too late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.8 Adoption of a committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, as amended by a substitute, precludes further amendment 
    to the committee amendment and to the bill.

    On June 17, 1970,(17) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 20206, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 17070.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, it has 
    been said here on the floor by the chairman of the committee that 
    if the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright) 
    or an amendment thereto should pass, then there will be further 
    amendments introduced by the managers to the other provisions of 
    the bill that have been stricken by the Wright amendment. I 
    disagree.
        . . . I do not see how there can be any amendment to any other 
    provision of the present bill once those provisions are stricken 
    and action is taken by this House inserting the Wright amendment 
    for all the provisions after the enacting clause of the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair will state that if the 
    Wright amendment [a substitute] is adopted, then the vote would 
    recur on the committee amendment as amended by the Wright 
    amendment. If that were adopted, under the rule the Committee would 
    rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.9 Where a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
    being read for amendment as an original bill and there was pending 
    thereto an amendment in the nature of a substitute, the Chair 
    indicated that the committee amendment would

[[Page 7273]]

    not be open to further amendment upon the adoption of the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute therefor, and in that event and upon 
    adoption of the committee amendment as amended, the stage of 
    amendment would be passed.

    On May 11, 1972,(19) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 118 Cong. Rec. 16862, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7130.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: If the Erlenborn 
    amendment prevails, will the original bill then be open for 
    amendment at any point?
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair will answer the 
    gentleman. If the Erlenborn substitute as amended is adopted, the 
    vote will then occur on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, the Dent bill, so-called, as amended by the Erlenborn 
    substitute, and at the conclusion of that vote, if it is agreed to, 
    the Committee will rise and report to the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.10 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and a substitute therefor, the Chairman indicated that 
    adoption of the substitute would preclude further amendment to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.

    On July 18, 1973,(1) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 119 Cong. Rec. 24668, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.J. Res. 542.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Madam Chairman, my 
    parliamentary inquiry is this: As I understand it, there is an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute pending as offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Dennis) and there is pending the 
    substitute of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett) and that 
    there are several amendments to the Dennis substitute.
        In order to bring the others in order, the disposition of the 
    Bennett version would have to be acted upon first?
        Is that not correct?
        The Chairman: (2) Any amendments which are offered 
    to the Dennis amendment in the nature of a substitute will have to 
    be voted upon before the substitute for the Dennis amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute is voted upon. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Martha W. Griffiths (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would like to point out that if the committee votes 
    on the Bennett amendment and the Bennett amendment prevails, there 
    will be no further opportunity to amend the Dennis amendment.

Sec. 32.11 A substitute for a committee amendment having been agreed 
    to, it is too late to offer an amendment to the committee amendment 
    or to the substitute.

[[Page 7274]]

    On Nov. 28, 1941,(3) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 87 Cong. Rec. 9201, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 5990, the price control bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The substitute amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: (4) The question now is on the 
    committee amendment as amended by the substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] McIntyre [of Wyoming]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: As I understand the 
    situation, Mr. Chairman, the substitute for the committee amendment 
    has been adopted. The only amendment which would have been in order 
    was an amendment to the substitute. Inasmuch as the substitute has 
    been adopted, it is now too late to offer an amendment to the 
    committee amendment.
        The Chairman: That is correct.

Amendments to Remainder of Original Bill

Sec. 32.12 Where the Committee of the Whole adopts an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute for an entire bill, the remaining paragraphs 
    of such bill are not subject to amendment.

    On Apr. 29, 1949,(5) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 95 Cong. Rec. 5335, 5336, 5355, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 2032, the National Labor Relations Act 
        of 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, if this 
    amendment which is offered as a substitute for the Wood bill should 
    carry, is it not true that since it strikes out all after the 
    enacting clause of the Wood bill, that then there would be no 
    further amendments in order to the Wood bill?
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman is correct, if this 
    amendment should be adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point of Order Against Amendment in Nature of Substitute Containing 
    Appropriation Is in Order Following Adoption of Substitute Therefor

Sec. 32.13 Under Rule XXI clause 5, a point of order against an 
    amendment containing an appropriation can be raised ``at any time'' 
    during its pendency, even in its amended form, though the point of 
    order is against the amendment as amended by a substitute and no 
    point of order was directed against the substitute prior to its 
    adoption.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(7) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 6096,(8) a point of order was 
raised against an

[[Page 7275]]

amendment and the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 11512, 11513, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) . . . (T)he question is on the 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) to 
    the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Edgar).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it. . . .
        So the substitute amendment for the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that my substitute is not in order at this time 
    because of the Eckhardt substitute, and I reserve a point of order 
    according to rule XXI (clause 5) (10) of our rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 846a (101st Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania will have to 
    state his point of order at this time. The point of order, as the 
    Chair understands, was against the Edgar amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute, as amended by the Eckhardt substitute?
        Mr. Edgar: That is correct. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair will read clause 5 of rule XXI of 
    the 94th Congress. The Chair will state that the Chair does not 
    believe it is that which was cited by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Edgar):

            No bill or joint resolution carrying appropriations shall 
        be reported by any committee not having jurisdiction to report 
        appropriations, nor shall an amendment proposing an 
        appropriation be in order during the consideration of a bill or 
        joint resolution reported by a committee not having that 
        jurisdiction. . . .

        Is the gentleman now referring to the same language which the 
    Chair has just read?
        Mr. Edgar: We are referring to the same language which the 
    Chair has read. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I only want to 
    make it clear that I am raising the point of order that this point 
    of order is made too late. I wish to reiterate the statement that I 
    made before. The point of order is too late and, therefore, it is 
    itself not in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.

        The Chair did not read the entirety of that section. The 
    section ends

            A question of order on an appropriation in any such bill, 
        joint resolution, or amendment thereto, may be raised at any 
        time.

        Accordingly, the rule under which this legislation was 
    considered waived points of order against the original bill. It did 
    not waive points of order against the amendment. The rule does 
    provide that the point of order may be raised at any time (Deschler 
    chapter 25, section 3.2).
        The point of order is sustained. The Edgar amendment, as 
    amended, is now ruled out of order.
        The Clerk will read.

Amendment in Nature of Substitute Affecting Amendments Previously 
    Adopted

Sec. 32.14 It is in order to propose an amendment in the nature

[[Page 7276]]

    of a substitute for a bill and thereby omit amendments to the bill 
    previously agreed to by the Committee of the Whole.

    On Aug. 25, 1949,(11) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 95 Cong. Rec. 12258, 12259, 12262, 12263, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. 
        Under consideration was H.R. 6070, to amend the National 
        Housing Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment offered by Mr. [Brent] Spence [of 
        Kentucky] as [an amendment in the nature of] a substitute for 
        the bill: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert 
        the following: ``The act may be cited as the `housing 
        amendments of 1949,'. . .''

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. The amendment offered by the 
    committee for all purposes and effects reconsiders everything that 
    was passed by the Committee of the Whole on yesterday. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair will state that it can 
    be offered at any time because the entire bill is open to 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Mike Mansfield (Mont.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As to the point of order raised by the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Marcantonio], the Chair will state that he has studied the 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Kentucky, and there are 
    substantive changes in it relative to changes of dates and other 
    clerical matters.
        The Chair would like to call attention to volume VIII of 
    Cannon's Precedents, section 2905, which reads as follows:

            A substitute for an entire bill may be offered only after 
        the first paragraph has been read or after the reading of the 
        bill for amendment has been concluded.
            It is in order to propose a substitute for a section of the 
        amendment with the same section with modification, and omitting 
        amendments to the section previously agreed to by the Committee 
        of the Whole.

        On the basis of this decision, the Chair is constrained to 
    overrule the point of order.

Sec. 32.15 Where the Committee of the Whole had adopted several 
    committee amendments to a Senate bill, a substitute for the entire 
    bill similar to the Senate bill but containing corrective changes 
    was held in order.

    On Apr. 21, 1948,(13) a Senate bill relating to the 
status of women in the armed forces was under consideration. The House 
Committee on Armed Services had reported the bill with a large number 
of committee amendments, changing the bill from one providing both 
regular and reserve status for women in the service to one which 
provided only reserve status. The committee

[[Page 7277]]

amendments were agreed to. Mrs. Margaret Chase Smith, of Maine, then 
offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the entire bill, 
in effect proposing that the House adopt the Senate version. Certain 
corrective changes were included to make the bill conform with 
legislation enacted since the Senate acted on the original bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 94 Cong. Rec. 4711, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was S. 
        1641, the Women's Armed Services Reserve Bill of 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Overton Brooks, of Louisiana, made a point of order against the 
Smith amendment, stating that, since the Committee of the Whole had 
adopted the committee amendments, it had already, in effect, rejected 
the Smith proposal to adopt the Senate version. The Chairman 
(14) overruled the point of order, noting that the Smith 
amendment was different from either the Senate or House version of the 
bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Gordon Canfield (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perfecting Sections That Are Proposed To Be Stricken Under Terms of 
    Substitute

Sec. 32.16 While it is not in order to further amend an amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute for several paragraphs which has been 
    agreed to, a perfecting amendment to a paragraph of the bill 
    proposed to be stricken out (in conformity with the purpose of the 
    adopted substitute) may be offered while the motion to strike out 
    is pending, and the perfecting amendment is first voted upon.

    On June 15, 1972,(15) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See, generally, 118 Cong. Rec. 21106, 21118-22, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. 
        Under consideration was H.R. 15417.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William D.] Hathaway [of Maine]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment to the paragraph of the bill just read which is a single 
    substitute for several paragraphs of the bill dealing with the 
    Office of Education, and I hereby give notice that if the amendment 
    is agreed to I will make motions to strike out the remaining 
    paragraphs beginning with line 14 on page 19. . . .(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 21106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the amendment was agreed to. . . .(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 21118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hathaway: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the paragraph 
    beginning on line 16, page 20. . . .(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 21119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (19) Without objection, the motion is 
    agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, I would like to make a parliamentary inquiry. 
    . . .
        . . . I have an amendment at the desk which would, on page 21, 
    line 1, strike out the words after ``1974'' down

[[Page 7278]]

    through the word ``Act'' on line 3. Is it possible to offer that 
    amendment now that the Hathaway amendment has been adopted?
        The Chairman: It is possible.

                       amendment offered by mr. quie

        Mr. Quie: Mr. Chairman, I offer that amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Quie:
            On page 21, line 1, strike out all that follows after 
        ``1974'' through the word ``Act'' on line 3. . . .

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the first amendment 
    offered by Mr. Hathaway on page 19, was to the paragraph beginning 
    on line 7 and that amendment was a substitute amendment, and was 
    agreed to.
        Now we still have to read each one of the paragraphs of the 
    bill duplicated or modified by the Hathaway amendment, and a 
    perfecting amendment to those paragraphs is in order even though a 
    motion to strike out is first offered.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 118 Cong. Rec. 21119, 21120, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, my point of 
    order is if a motion to strike has been made, is it not then out of 
    order to try to amend the paragraph that the motion to strike 
    applies to?
        The Chairman: The Chair would have to rule that a perfecting 
    amendment is in order although a motion to strike is pending.

    The Chair took the view that the Quie amendment was a perfecting 
amendment:(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Id. at p. 21120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Quie: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Quie: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that my 
    amendment does nothing to the Hathaway amendment with the exception 
    that it strikes out the language on line 1, page 21, after 1974 
    down through the word ``act.''
        The Chairman: The gentleman is partly right and partly wrong.
        The motion to strike now pending applies to line 16 on page 20 
    to line 8 on page 21. The original Hathaway amendment has been 
    disposed of. This is a subsequent amendment, which is a motion to 
    strike. The gentleman from Minnesota can perfect the paragraph by 
    striking out the lines which have been read in his amendment. He is 
    entitled to a vote on it as a perfecting amendment, and the Chair 
    is ready to put the question on the perfecting amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Quie).
        The amendment was rejected.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion to strike the 
    language on page 20, line 16.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 21122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adoption of Substitute: Vote Recurs on Adoption of Amendment as Amended

Sec. 32.17 The adoption of a substitute amendment is not conclusive and 
    a vote on the adoption of the amendment

[[Page 7279]]

    as amended by the substitute is necessary.

    On Mar. 28, 1940,(2) the following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 86 Cong. Rec. 3611, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 9007, labor-security appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Fitzpatrick [of New York]: If the substitute is 
    adopted, then will we vote on the Collins amendment?
        The Chairman: (3) After that the committee will vote 
    on the Collins amendment as amended by the substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Frank H. Buck (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.18 If a substitute amendment is adopted, the question recurs on 
    the amendment as amended by the substitute; but if the substitute 
    is rejected, the amendment is open to further amendment.

    On Dec. 3, 1941,(4) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 87 Cong. Rec. 9395, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 4139, to further expedite national defense programs with 
        respect to naval construction, etc., by providing for the 
        investigation and mediation of labor disputes in connection 
        therewith.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: I desire to know if the 
    first vote is on the Smith substitute as amended, to the Ramspeck 
    amendment to the Vinson bill?
        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William P. Cole, Jr. (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cochran: Now I want to know if the Smith substitute is 
    adopted, if the vote then comes on the Ramspeck amendment as 
    amended by the Smith substitute?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct again. . . .
        Mr. Cochran: I would like to make one further parliamentary 
    inquiry. If the Smith substitute is voted down, we then remain in 
    Committee of the Whole and consider the Ramspeck bill, open to 
    amendment under the 5-minute rule?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri is correct 
    throughout.

Sec. 32.19 Where there is pending an amendment and a substitute 
    therefor, amendments to the substitute may be offered prior to the 
    vote on the substitute, but the vote recurs immediately upon the 
    amendment as amended, upon adoption of the substitute.

    On July 22, 1974 (6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill, the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 120 Cong. Rec. 24453, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11500, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. [Ken] Hechler of West Virginia: A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
Chairman.

[[Page 7280]]

        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hechler of West Virginia: If the substitute is adopted, 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii, would it be out of order to 
    have amendments to that section? I would like to make that 
    parliamentary inquiry prior to the ruling of the Chair.
        The Chairman: Once the substitute is adopted, then a vote would 
    be on the Hosmer amendment as amended by the substitute. Prior to 
    the vote on the substitute, however, there could be amendments to 
    the substitute.

Sec. 32.20 Where a substitute for an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute has been agreed to, the question recurs immediately upon 
    the amendment as amended by the substitute, and further perfecting 
    amendments to the amendment are not then in order.

    On Feb. 5, 1976, (8) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 9464, (9) the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry as described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 122 Cong. Rec. 2648, 2649, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (10) The question is on the amendment, 
    as amended, offered as a substitute by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
    Smith) for the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.  Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the substitute amendment, as amended, for the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute to the committee amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute, was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger) as 
    amended to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        . . . [I]t is my understanding that at this stage, since the 
    Smith substitute amendment has been agreed to narrowly, that there 
    are no further amendments to the Krueger amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute since it was a complete substitute, is that correct?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

Sec. 32.21 Following the adoption of a substitute for an amendment, the 
    vote recurs immediately on the amendment as amended, and no further 
    amendments to the amendment are in order.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on Feb. 25, 
1980,(11) during consideration of H.R. 6081, Special Central 
American Assistance Act of 1979.

[[Page 7281]]

The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 126 Cong. Rec. 3628, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was 
    agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The substitute has been adopted 
    and is no longer amendable. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: The gentleman was under the impression that a 
    perfecting amendment could still be offered.
        The Chairman: . . . Is the gentleman's amendment a perfecting 
    amendment to the original amendment?
        Mr. Bauman: Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The substitute has been agreed to and, 
    consequently, perfecting amendments to the original amendment are 
    not now in order.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Lagomarsino), as amended.

--No Intervening Debate

Sec. 32.22 Under the five-minute rule, no debate may intervene after a 
    substitute for an amendment has been adopted and before the vote on 
    the amendment, as amended, except by unanimous consent, since the 
    amendment has been amended in its entirety and no further 
    amendments including pro forma amendments are in order.

    On Oct. 18, 1983, (13) during consideration of H.R. 3231 
(14) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings 
described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 129 Cong. Rec. 28185, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. Export Administration Act Amendments of 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (15) The question is on 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
    Bonker), as amended, as a substitute for the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Roth), as amended. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. George E. Brown, Jr. (California).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Toby] Roth [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    240, noes 173, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 19, as follows: . 
    . .
        So the amendment, as amended, offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. [Edwin V.W.] Zschau [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike the last word.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Without objection, the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Zschau) is recognized for 5 minutes.
        There was no objection.

[[Page 7282]]

Adoption of Amendment as Amended by Substitute Precludes Further 
    Amendment Thereto

Sec. 32.23 When an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    entire bill, offered immediately after the reading of title I, was 
    pending, the Chair advised that (1) if the amendment were rejected 
    title I would still be pending, and (2) if the amendment were 
    agreed to it would not be subject to further amendment.

    On Sept. 29, 1965,(16) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 111 Cong. Rec. 25437, 25438, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 4644.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (17) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Multer). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer: Mr. Chairman, is it not a fact that 
    the parliamentary situation is that if the Multer amendment, as 
    amended by the Sisk amendment, is rejected, we will then have 
    before us the bill, H.R. 4644, as reported by the discharge 
    petition?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from New York 
    in the event what he has described happens, then title I of the 
    bill H.R. 4644, will be before the Committee for further action. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, in the event 
    that the matter now before the Committee carries and the Multer 
    amendment, as amended by the Sisk substitute, is adopted, would it 
    be in order to offer amendments to that substitute?
        The Chairman: It would not be in order.

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

Sec. 32.24 Where a proposed substitute for an amendment is itself 
    amended and then agreed to as amended, the rejection of the 
    original amendment as amended by the substitute does not preclude 
    reoffering, as an amendment to text, the same proposition as 
    initially contained in the substitute.

    In the 86th Congress, during the consideration of H.R. 8601, a bill 
to enforce voting rights, Mr. William M. McCulloch, of Ohio, offered 
the provisions of H.R. 11160 as a substitute for the amendment of Mr. 
John V. Lindsay, of New York, which contained the provisions of H.R. 
10035, made in order under a special rule (H. Res. 359). Mr. 
McCulloch's substitute, which provided for the court appointment of 
voting referees, was amended by the amendment of Mr. Robert W. 
Kastenmeier, of

[[Page 7283]]

Wisconsin, to provide for Presidential appointment of enrollment 
officers. The substitute, as amended, was then agreed to; the 
amendment, as amended by the substitute, was rejected. Mr. McCulloch 
then offered, as a new title to the bill, the language of H.R. 11160.

        The proceedings were as follows: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 106 Cong. Rec. 5482, 5483, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 14, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John V.] Lindsay [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

            The Clerk read as follows:
            Amendment offered by Mr. Lindsay: On page 12, immediately 
        following line 7, insert the following:

                                   ``TITLE VI

            ``Sec. 601. That section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 
        U.S.C. 1971), as amended by section 131 of the Civil Rights Act 
        of 1957 (71 Stat. 637), is amended as follows:

            ``(a) Add the following as subsection (e) and designate the 
        present subsection (e) subsection ``(f)'':
            ``In any proceeding instituted pursuant to subsection (c) 
        of this section, in the event the court finds that under color 
        of law or by State action any person or persons have been 
        deprived on account of race or color of any right or privilege 
        secured by subsection (a) or (b) of this section, and that such 
        deprivation was or is pursuant to a pattern or practice, the 
        court may appoint one or more persons (to be known as voting 
        referees) to receive applications from any person claiming such 
        deprivation as the right to register or otherwise to qualify to 
        vote at any election and to take evidence and report to the 
        court findings as to whether such applicants or any of them (1) 
        are qualified to vote at any election, and (2) have been (a) 
        deprived of the opportunity to register to vote or otherwise to 
        qualify to vote at any election, or (b) found by State election 
        officials not qualified to register to vote or to vote at any 
        election.
            ``Any report of any person or persons appointed pursuant to 
        this subsection shall be reviewed by the court and the court 
        shall accept the findings contained in such report unless 
        clearly erroneous. . . .

        Mr. Lindsay: This is H.R. 10035 verbatim, as originally 
    introduced, the voting referee bill.
        Mr. Chairman, may I say that the parliamentary situation is 
    such under the rule that the only voting referee measure at this 
    point that may be offered is the text of H.R. 10035. This is the 
    bill which provides for voting referees under the auspices and 
    supervision of the Federal courts. . . .
        If the court should find a pattern or practice of voting 
    denials, referees may then be appointed by the court in order to 
    receive applications from persons of like color who claim that they 
    also have been denied the right to vote. The point to bear in mind 
    about this amendment, and also about the substitute amendment that 
    will be offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch], for the 
    purpose of clarifying the amendment that I now offer, is this: that 
    in any area where there has been found by the court to exist a 
    pattern or practice of denials of the right to vote on 
    constitutional grounds, the matter from then on is resolved by the 
    court. A referee may be appointed by the Federal judge in order to 
    perform the normal functions that he

[[Page 7284]]

    would perform but obviously cannot perform because of the burdens 
    that would be placed upon him. It is designed to keep the matter in 
    local hands, a local Federal judge, and local Federal referees 
    appointed by the Court. . . .
        I shall say a word about the differences between this amendment 
    and the proposed substitute. They are of procedure only. The 
    substitute will ensure, by specific language, that any local, State 
    registrar who takes exception to the action of a voting referee 
    will have an opportunity to have a full judicial hearing by the 
    court if he presents a genuine issue of fact. He is given plenty of 
    notice. The Deputy Attorney General testified that even under the 
    original bill, which I have introduced by way of amendment, due 
    process would require an opportunity for a hearing. The substitute 
    will spell this out in specific language. . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Clerk will report the 
    substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
    McCulloch].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McCulloch as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Lindsay: On page 12, immediately below 
        line 7, in lieu of the text proposed to be added by the Lindsay 
        amendment insert the following:

                                   ``title vi

                                ``Voting rights

            ``Sec. 601. Section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 
        1971), as amended by section 131 of the Civil Rights Act of 
        1957 (71 Stat. 637), is amended as follows:
            ``(a) Add the following as subsection (e) and designate the 
        present subsection (e) as subsection ``(f)'':
            ``In any proceeding instituted pursuant to subsection (c), 
        in the event the court finds that any person has been deprived 
        on account of race or color of any right or privilege secured 
        by subsection (a), the court shall upon request of the Attorney 
        General, and after each party has been given notice and the 
        opportunity to be heard, make a finding whether such 
        deprivation was or is pursuant to a pattern or practice. If the 
        court finds such pattern or practice, any person of such race 
        or color resident within the affected area shall, for one year 
        and thereafter until the court subsequently finds that such 
        pattern or practice has ceased, be entitled, upon his 
        application therefor, to an order declaring him qualified to 
        vote. . . .
            `` ` The court may appoint one or more persons who are 
        qualified voters in the judicial district, to be known as 
        voting referees, to serve for such period as the court shall 
        determine, to receive such applications and to take evidence 
        and report to the court findings as to whether or not at any 
        election or elections (1) any such applicant is qualified under 
        State law to vote, and (2) he has since the finding by the 
        court heretofore specified been (a) deprived of or denied under 
        color of law the opportunity to register to vote or otherwise 
        to qualify to vote, or (b) found not qualified to vote by any 
        person acting under color of law.''. . .

    On the following day, (20) an amendment was offered to 
the substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 20. 106 Cong. Rec. 5644, 5645, 5655-58, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 15, 
        1960.

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

[[Page 7285]]

        Mr. [Robert W.] Kastenmeier [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment to the substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Kastenmeier: On page 1, line 8 of 
        the McCulloch substitute, before the word ``In'', insert 
        ``(e)(1)(A)'' and on page 1 of the McCulloch substitute strike 
        out ``that any person has been deprived'' on line 9 and all 
        that follows down through the last page of such substitute, and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following: ``that, under color of 
        law or by State action, a voting registrar or other State or 
        local official has deprived persons in any locality or area of 
        registration, of the opportunity of registration, for elections 
        because of their race or color, the Attorney General shall 
        notify the President of the United States of such finding.
            ``(B) Whenever the Commission on Civil Rights . . . finds 
        that, under color of law or by State action, a voting registrar 
        or other State or local official has deprived persons in any 
        locality or area of registration of the opportunity of 
        registration, for election because of their race or color, the 
        Commission shall notify the President of the United States of 
        such finding.
            ``(2) Upon any notification of a finding pursuant to 
        paragraph (1) of this subsection, the President is authorized 
        to establish a Federal Enrollment Office in each registration 
        district that includes the locality or area for which such 
        finding has been made and to appoint one or more Federal 
        Enrollment Officers for such district from among officers or 
        employees of the United States who are qualified voters within 
        such district. . . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kastenmeier]. . . .
        So the amendment to the substitute amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the substitute amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch], as amended. . . 
    .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, if I understand 
    the situation correctly, and I wish the Chair would explain what 
    the situation is, the Committee is now voting on the substitute 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch] to the 
    bill H.R. 10035.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, as the gentleman well knows, it 
    was made in order to consider the text of the bill H.R. 10035, as 
    an amendment to the bill H.R. 8601. The amendment was offered by 
    the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lindsay] and a substitute for that 
    amendment was offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch]. 
    The substitute amendment has been amended and the Committee is 
    about to vote upon the substitute amendment, as amended.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: In other words, we are voting on the 
    substitute amendment, and if that should be defeated, then the so-
    called Lindsay amendment will still be in order.
        The Chairman: If the substitute amendment is defeated, then the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lindsay] is 
    still before the Committee for further consideration.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: I thank the Chairman.
        The Chairman: The question is on the substitute amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch], as amended.

[[Page 7286]]

        The Committee divided, and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 179, noes 116.
        So the substitute amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question recurs on the Lindsay amendment as 
    amended by the McCulloch substitute.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Celler) there were--ayes 195, noes 155.
        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Celler and Mr. McCulloch.
        The Committee again divided and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 143, noes 170.
        So the amendment was rejected.
        Mr. [William M.] McCulloch [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McCulloch: On page 12, immediately 
        below line 7, insert the following:

                                   ``title vi

            Sec. 601. That section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 
        U.S.C. 1971), as amended by section 131 of the Civil Rights Act 
        of 1957 (71 Stat. 637), is amended as follows:
            ``(a) Add the following as subsection (e) and designate the 
        present subsection (e) as subsection ``(f)'':
            ``In any proceeding instituted pursuant to subsection (c) 
        in the event the court finds that any person has been deprived 
        on account of race or color of any right or privilege secured 
        by subsection (a), the court shall upon request of the Attorney 
        General and after each party has been given notice and the 
        opportunity to be heard make a finding whether such deprivation 
        was or is pursuant to a pattern or practice. If the court finds 
        such pattern or practice, any person of such race or color 
        resident within the affected area shall, for one year and 
        thereafter until the court subsequently finds that such pattern 
        or practice has ceased, be entitled, upon his application 
        therefor, to an order declaring him qualified to vote. . . .
            ``The court may appoint one or more persons who are 
        qualified voters in the judicial district, to be known as 
        voting referees, to serve for such period as the court shall 
        determine, to receive such applications and to take evidence 
        and report to the court findings as to whether or not at any 
        election or elections (1) any such applicant is qualified under 
        State law to vote, and (2) he has since the finding by the 
        court heretofore specified been (a) deprived of or denied under 
        color of law the opportunity to register to vote or otherwise 
        to qualify to vote, or (b) found not qualified to vote by any 
        person acting under color of law. . . .

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against this amendment for several reasons. One is that 
    the rule under which we are operating gives protection only to H.R. 
    10035 and to no other substitute proposal. In other words, the 
    original bill, the Lindsay amendment, which has already been 
    defeated, was a bill that the rule makes in order. We have already 
    voted upon this bill within the last 30 minutes. The only 
    difference between this bill and the bill we just voted down is two 
    or three very minor corrections; very minor; so minor that many of 
    us are greatly disappointed.
        Mr. Chairman, the matter has been passed upon. The House has 
    voted upon it within the last 30 minutes. I

[[Page 7287]]

    make the point of order that it cannot be reintroduced. . . .
        Mr. [Edwin E.] Willis [of Louisiana]: I want to understand very 
    clearly the bill or the proposal that the gentleman has offered. 
    This is a very simple question. Am I correct that the proposal now 
    on the desk is identical to the bill H.R. 11160 except for the 
    deletion of the language appearing on page 5, lines 9 through 13?
        Mr. McCulloch: The answer is ``Yes.''. . .
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: . . . I make the . . . point of order 
    that this amendment has been once defeated. . . .
        The Chairman: May the Chair call the gentleman's attention to 
    the fact that this has never been voted on. The language contained 
    in this amendment was a substitute for another amendment.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: It was a substitute for that and it was 
    offered yesterday afternoon by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
    McCulloch] and printed in the Record.

        The Chairman: But, I should like to remind the gentleman, as a 
    substitute for the bill made in order under the rule.

    After some further discussion of this and other points of order, 
the Chairman allowed the amendment.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Whether a proposition contained in a 
substitute may be reoffered in a different form after it has failed of 
approval depends on the circumstances. Clearly, where the actual 
proposition was never voted on because of changes made through the 
amendment process (as where a substitute for an amendment is itself 
amended, then rejected in a vote on the amendment), the proposition may 
be offered again as, for example, an amendment to text. But even actual 
rejection of the proposition contained in the substitute should not 
necessarily preclude its being offered as an amendment to text. For 
example, where an amendment is offered, and then a substitute for that 
amendment, the consideration of that substitute necessarily proceeds 
with reference only to the particular amendment to which offered. This 
may present a different question from that which would arise if the 
language of the substitute were considered with reference to the text 
of the bill. For further discussion of when a proposition that has been 
rejected may be reoffered in different form, see 8 Cannon's Precedents 
Sec. 2843.
    On the other hand, it may happen that reoffering the language of 
the substitute presents precisely the same question that has already 
been voted on. Thus, if a substitute for an amendment is agreed to (in 
effect becoming an amendment to text by supplanting the original 
amendment), and

[[Page 7288]]

then the amendment as amended by the substitute is rejected, the 
proposition contained in the substitute may not be reoffered to that 
text. In this case, the question presented by reoffering the language 
as an amendment to text would be exactly the same as that already 
disposed of.

Reoffering Amendment That Had Been Adopted as Amended by Substitute

Sec. 32.25 While it is not in order to offer an amendment merely 
    changing the text of a proposition perfected by amendment or to 
    offer an amendment identical to one which has been defeated, a 
    Member may reoffer an amendment which he has previously offered and 
    which has been adopted as amended by a substitute, where the 
    amendment is more extensive than the substitute which was adopted 
    in its place.

    On Apr. 27, 1977, the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration the first concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
1978, House Concurrent Resolution 195. Mr. Otis G. Pike, of New York, 
offered a perfecting amendment (21) which struck out certain 
figures and inserted others in their place, with respect to provisions 
relating to such items as total new budget authority; appropriate level 
of total budget outlays; appropriate level of the public debt; increase 
in the statutory limit on public debt; budget authority and outlays for 
national defense; and a category, ``allowances,'' a portion of which 
related to pay increases for certain executive employees and federal 
judges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 123 Cong. Rec. 12483, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Omar Burleson, of Texas, offered an amendment 
    (1) as a substitute for the Pike amendment, which 
    affected most, but not all, of the figures in the Pike amendment. 
    The Burleson amendment, and the Pike amendment as so amended, were 
    agreed to.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 12485.
 2. Id. at pp. 12503, 12504.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently, Mr. Pike offered an amendment (3) that was 
in its scope and effect substantially the same as the amendment he had 
previously offered. (It should be noted that technical changes had been 
made in the figures of the amendments so that they were in conformity 
with amendments adopted after the Pike amendment as amended by the 
Burleson substitute.) He explained the effect of his proposed amendment 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 12521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Pike: Mr. Chairman, when we entered the Chamber yesterday, 
    the

[[Page 7289]]

    Budget Committee had a budget resolution which called for a deficit 
    of $64.3 billion. At the moment we have a resolution which calls 
    for a deficit of $68.6 billion. In 2 days we have added $4.3 
    billion to the deficit. Mr. Chairman, everybody talks about 
    national priorities, and obviously we have different views of what 
    our national priorities are. It is obvious that things for defense 
    and for veterans are high on our list of national priorities, and 
    things for the benefit of social welfare programs are low on our 
    list of national priorities, because that is the way we voted here. 
    Frankly, I have voted against all of the amendments which increased 
    the budget and increased the budget deficit, and I am a little 
    embarrassed that I am again offering an amendment which reduces the 
    budget and reduces the budget deficit. This is the same amendment 
    which I offered earlier. It reduces spending in two categories--
    allowances and defense--a total of $130 million, which is the 
    amount of the 29 percent or 28 percent pay raise which people in 
    those categories outside of the Congress got. We have discussed it 
    already. The committee accepted it once. It got wiped out by the 
    Burleson amendment.

    After debate on the Pike amendment, the amendment was rejected.



 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
     F. EFFECT OF CONSIDERATION OR ADOPTION; CHANGES AFTER ADOPTION
 
Sec. 33. Amendments Pertaining to Monetary Figures

Amendment Changing Figure Previously Agreed Upon

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7290]]

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

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

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

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7291]]

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7292]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7293]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7294]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7295]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7296]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7297]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7298]]

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

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

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

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

Amendment Changing Total Figure

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        So the amendment was agreed to.

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

Subsequent Amendment Making Percentage Reduction of Figures in Bill

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

[[Page 7299]]

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment Imposing Dollar Limits as Modifying Amendment Already Adopted

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

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

[[Page 7300]]

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

                         Office of Economic Opportunity

                          economic opportunity program

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7301]]

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

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

[[Page 7302]]

                         Office of Economic Opportunity

                          economic opportunity program

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

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

[[Page 7303]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7304]]

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

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

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

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7305]]

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

Rejection of Amendment To Strike Figure in Appropriation Bill

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

Amendment Changing Figures: Similarity to Amendment Previously Rejected

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

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

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

[[Page 7306]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7307]]

Rejection of Amendment Considered En Bloc With Other Amendments

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7308]]

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



 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
     F. EFFECT OF CONSIDERATION OR ADOPTION; CHANGES AFTER ADOPTION
 
Sec. 34. Effecting Changes by Unanimous Consent

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

Generally

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7309]]

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

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

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

Vacating Proceedings

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

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7310]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7311]]

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

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

--Vacating Proceedings by Which Bill Passed as Amended

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

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

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

[[Page 7312]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7313]]

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


 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
     F. EFFECT OF CONSIDERATION OR ADOPTION; CHANGES AFTER ADOPTION
 
Sec. 35. Effect of Consideration or Rejection

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

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

Identical Amendment

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

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

[[Page 7314]]

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

--Floor Amendment Identical to Rejected Committee Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment Not Identical to Rejected Amendment

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

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

[[Page 7315]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7316]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7317]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

[[Page 7318]]

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

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

        The Chair overrules the point of order.

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

    On Aug. 7, 1978,(20) during consideration of H.R. 13635, 
defense appropriations for fiscal 1979, the Chair ruled that, where an 
amendment to a figure in a bill considered en bloc with other 
amendments had been rejected, no point of order would lie against a 
subsequent amendment to that figure containing a different amount and 
offered as a separate amendment, even though it was contended that the 
change in the amount was not substantial. The amendment, objected to as 
dilatory, was offered by Mr. William L. Dickinson, of Alabama:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 124 Cong. Rec. 24701, 24702, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7319]]

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

--Different in Form

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7320]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7321]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        So the amendment was rejected.

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

[[Page 7322]]

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

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

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        The amendment was rejected. . . .

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7323]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

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

        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 35.16 Mere similarity of an amendment to one pre

[[Page 7324]]

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

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

        Amendment offered by Mr. Dodd: Page 230, after line 12, insert 
    the following:
        (f) (1) The Secretary shall, by rule, prohibit the granting of 
    any right to develop crude oil, natural gas, coal, or oil shale on 
    Federal lands to any person if more than one major oil company, 
    more than one affiliate of a major oil company, or a major oil 
    company and any affiliate of a major oil company, has or have a 
    significant ownership interest in such person. The rules required 
    to be promulgated pursuant to this paragraph shall apply to the 
    granting of any such right which occurs after the 60-day period 
    which begins on the date of enactment of this Act.
        (2) For purposes of this subsection--
        (A) The term ``major oil company'' means any person who, 
    together with any affiliate of such person, produces 1.6 million 
    barrels of crude oil, natural gas liquids, and natural gas 
    equivalents per day. . . .
        (C) The term ``significant ownership interest'' means--
        (i) with respect to any corporation, 10 percent or more in 
    value of the outstanding stock or the capital assets of such 
    corporation.
        (ii) with respect to a partnership, 10 percent or more interest 
    in the profits or capital of such partnership. . . .
        Sec. 1201. (a) The Secretary of Interior shall, by rule, 
    prohibit the granting of any right to develop crude oil, natural 
    gas, coal, or oil shale on Federal lands to any person if more than 
    one major oil company, more than one affiliate of a major oil 
    company, or a major oil company and any affiliate of a major oil 
    company, has or have a significant ownership interest in such 
    person. The rules required to be promulgated pursuant to this 
    subsection shall apply to the granting of any such right which 
    occurs after the 60-day period which begins on the date of 
    enactment of this act.
        (b) For purposes of this subsection--
        (1) The term ``major oil company'' means any person who, 
    together with any affiliate of such person, produces 1.65 million 
    barrels of crude oil, natural gas liquids, and natural gas 
    equivalents per day. . . .
        (3) The term ``significant ownership interest'' means--
        (A) with respect to any corporation, 20 percent or more in 
    value of the outstanding stock or the capital assets of such 
    corporation,
        (B) with respect to a partnership, 20 percent or more interest 
    in the profits or capital of such partnership. . . .
        Mr. [Louis] Frey [Jr., of Florida]: . . . I would like to speak 
    on my point of order. On page 9 of Cannon's procedures it states as 
    follows:

[[Page 7325]]

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

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

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

        I repeat that this is a substantial change in the figures; it 
    is different in form, and therefore is in order.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

--Portion of Rejected Amendment Offered

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

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

[[Page 7326]]

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7327]]

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

--Amendment Narrower in Scope Than Rejected Amendment

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

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

--Limitation on Use of Funds

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

[[Page 7328]]

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

Rejection of Prior Amendment Striking or Changing Figure in 
    Appropriation Bill

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

[[Page 7329]]

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

    On Nov. 18, 1981,(12) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 4995,(13) the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry as described above. The proceedings were as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 127 Cong. Rec. 28048, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Department of Defense appropriation bill for fiscal year 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: If the amendment of the 
    gentleman from New York is not agreed to, would it then be in order 
    for a further amendment to the same figures to be offered relating 
    solely to the basing mode?
        The Chairman: (14) If the amendment is not agreed to 
    and the figures are not changed, further amendments to those 
    figures and to this paragraph would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rejection of Motion To Strike

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

[[Page 7330]]

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

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

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

Rejection of Motion To Strike Out and Insert

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

Rejection of Substitute as Not Precluding Motion To Strike

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

[[Page 7331]]

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

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

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

Sec. 35.26 Where a proposed substitute for an amendment is itself 
    amended and then agreed to as amended, the rejection of the 
    original amendment as amended by the substitute does not preclude 
    re-offering, as an amendment to text, the same proposition as 
    initially contained in the substitute.

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

Inclusion of Rejected Amendment in Motion To Recommit

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

[[Page 7332]]

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

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

    The proceedings were as follows:

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

Vacating Proceedings by Unanimous Consent

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

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

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

        The amendment was agreed to.

[[Page 7333]]


 
                               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.


 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
  G. HOUSE CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE OF THE 
                                 WHOLE
 
Sec. 37. Order of Consideration

Generally

Sec. 37.1 When demand is made for separate votes in the House on 
    several amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole, such 
    amendments are ordinarily read and voted on in the

[[Page 7358]]

    House in the order in which they appear in the bill as reported 
    from the Committee of the Whole--not necessarily in the order in 
    which agreed to in Committee or in which demanded in the House.

    The modern practice of considering amendments in the order in which 
they appear in the bill is illustrated by the proceedings on Aug. 9, 
1966, where a resolution making in order the consideration of a bill 
provided for separate votes in the House on amendments to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, the vote recurred in the order 
in which the amendments appeared in the bill even though the demands 
were not made in that order.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 112 Cong. Rec. 18736-39, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 14765.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, on July 24, 1968,(4) the following 
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.  114 Cong. Rec. 23093-95, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 17735. For further illustration, see 119 Cong. Rec. 
        24959, 24965, 24966, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., July 19, 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (5) The Chair will state that separate 
    votes have been demanded on the so-called MacGregor amendment on 
    page 8, the so-called Sikes amendment on page 28, the so-called 
    Poff amendment on page 28, and the so-called Latta amendment on 
    page 12. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, would the Chair 
    announce the order in which the amendments will be voted upon?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state in response to the 
    parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman from Michigan that the 
    amendments will be voted on in the order in which they appear in 
    the bill.

    But the Speaker (6) on one occasion indicated that, 
where separate votes are demanded in the House on amendments adopted in 
the Committee of the Whole, such amendments would be voted on in the 
order in which a separate vote is demanded and not the order in which 
adopted.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 7. 95 Cong. Rec. 2542, 2543, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 1731, to extend certain provisions of the Housing and 
        Rent Act of 1947, as amended. And see 111 Cong. Rec. 16280, 
        16283, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 9, 1965, where the usual 
        procedure was not strictly followed and amendments were voted 
        on in the order in which separate votes were demanded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On another occasion, amendments adopted in the Committee of the 
Whole on which a separate vote was demanded in the House were reported 
in the order in which they were adopted in the

[[Page 7359]]

Committee of the Whole. Of course, as a bill is read for amendment by 
sections, the order of adoption of the amendments would normally 
correspond to the order of sections in the bill. In this instance, the 
bill (8) under consideration was to extend the effective 
period of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, and the 
Stabilization Act of 1942, and the Committee of the Whole had by 
unanimous consent agreed that the separate sections extending each of 
the two Acts be considered together, that amendments be in order under 
the general rules of the House to any part of the resolution, and that 
the amendments to both Acts would be open to amendment at the same 
time: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.J. Res. 101.
 9. See 91 Cong. Rec. 6533, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., June 21, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (10) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, etc., That section 1 (b) of the Emergency Price 
        Control Act of 1942, as amended, is amended by striking out 
        ``June 30, 1945'' and substituting ``December 31, 1946.''

        Mr. [Paul] Brown of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that sections 1 and 2 may be considered together and that 
    amendments may be in order under the general rules of the House to 
    any part of the resolution.
        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: . . . If the unanimous 
    consent of the gentleman from Georgia is adopted will amendments to 
    the amendments to both the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as 
    amended, and the Stabilization Act of 1942, as amended, be in order 
    after the reading of section 2?
        The Chairman: Yes.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Georgia?
        There was no objection.

    Subsequently,(11) during proceedings in the House, 
amendments on which separate votes were demanded were reported, as 
directed by the Speaker, Sam Rayburn, of Texas:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 91 Cong. Rec. 6623-27, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., June 23, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the next amendment on which 
    a separate vote is demanded. The amendments will be reported in the 
    order in which they were adopted in the Committee of the Whole.

Sec. 37.2 Where separate votes are demanded in the House on amendments 
    adopted in the Committee of the Whole, such amendments are reported 
    and voted on in the order in which they appear in the bill and not 
    as offered in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Apr. 17, 1946,(12) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 92 Cong. Rec. 3936-38, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6042, the Emergency Price Control Act.

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

[[Page 7360]]

        The Speaker: (13) the Clerk will report the first 
    amendment on which a separate vote has been demanded. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Eugene] Worley [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I was under the 
    impression that the Flannagan amendment had been adopted prior to 
    the Wadsworth amendment.
        The Speaker: The amendments are being considered in the order 
    in which they appear in the bill, not as they were offered.

Sec. 37.3 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,(14) during consideration of H.R. 5167 
(15) in the House, the proposition described above occurred 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 130 Cong. Rec. 14677, 14678, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. Defense Department authorization bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The Clerk will report 
    the first amendment on which a separate vote has been demanded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 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.

[[Page 7361]]

Sec. 37.4 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,(17) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 122 Cong. Rec. 20424, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 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: (18) Without objection, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment?
        Mrs. [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.

Separate Votes on Amendments to Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 37.5 When a special rule provides for a separate vote on an 
    amendment to an amendment in the nature of a substitute reported 
    from the Committee of the Whole, the vote first recurs on the 
    amendment on which the separate vote is demanded.

[[Page 7362]]

    On July 25, 1968,(19) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 23372, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 15067.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    separate vote on the so called Scherle amendment. . . .
        The Speaker: (20) . . . Is any further separate vote 
    demanded? If not, the Clerk will report the so-called Scherle 
    amendment, on which a separate vote has been demanded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment.

--Committee Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 37.6 Where a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    reported from the Committee of the Whole with various amendments 
    thereto, and, under a rule permitting such procedure, separate 
    votes are demanded in the House on several of those amendments, the 
    Speaker puts the question first on those amendments on which a 
    separate vote is demanded, then on the amendment, as amended.

    On Oct. 6, 1966, (21) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 112 Cong. Rec. 25585-87, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 13161, a bill to strengthen and improve programs of 
        assistance for elementary and secondary schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (22) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment?
        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    separate vote on the Fountain amendment which appears on page 63 of 
    the bill, after line 9.
        The Speaker: Is a separate vote demanded on any other 
    amendment?
        Mr. [Paul A.] Fino [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    separate vote on the O'Hara amendment, the antibusing amendment. . 
    . .
        The Speaker: The Chair is not aware of that designation.
        What amendment does the gentleman from New York have in mind? 
    The gentleman's characterization does not give sufficient 
    information to the Chair. The Chair is endeavoring to protect the 
    rights of the gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Fino: Mr. Speaker, the amendment which appears on page 57. 
    . . .
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. O'Hara] offered 
    several amendments that were adopted in the Committee of the Whole. 
    The Chair is trying to ascertain the particular one that the 
    gentleman from New York has in mind. . . .
        The Speaker: It is the Chair's recollection that the gentleman 
    from Michigan [Mr. O'Hara] offered one amendment covering four 
    sections of the bill. Later he offered another, intended to cover 
    the fifth section.

[[Page 7363]]

        Will the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. O'Hara] let the Chair 
    have his opinion, and can the gentleman ascertain that the first 
    amendment was intended to cover five sections, or five provisions, 
    but covered only four, and that the gentleman then offered his 
    second amendment to carry out the intent that he had in mind?
        Is the Chair's understanding correct?
        Mr. O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, the Speaker has correctly 
    stated the matter. The first amendment applied to four of the five 
    titles of the elementary and secondary education bill passed by 
    this Congress in 1965.
        The second amendment on that subject, the last amendment I 
    offered, covered the first title of that bill that we enacted in 
    1965.
        The Speaker: Is that the amendment the gentleman from New York 
    has in mind?
        Mr. Fino: Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from New York demand a separate 
    vote on both of the amendments?
        Mr. Fino: Mr. Speaker, I do, to eliminate any confusion.
        The Speaker: Is a separate vote demanded on any other 
    amendment?
        Mr. 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: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Michigan?
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: Is a separate vote demanded on any other 
    amendment?
        If not, the Clerk will report the first amendment on which a 
    separate vote has been demanded.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 63, after line 9, insert the following:

        ``part g. compliance with section 602 of title vi of the civil 
                               rights act of 1964

            ``Sec. 171. The Commissioner of Education shall not defer 
        action or order action deferred on any application by local 
        educational agencies for funds authorized to be appropriated by 
        this Act or by any Act amended by this Act on the basis of 
        alleged noncompliance with the provisions of title VI of the 
        Civil Rights Act of 1964 unless and until, as provided by 
        section 602 of title VI, there has been an express finding on 
        the record, after opportunity for a hearing, that such local 
        educational agency has failed to comply with the provisions of 
        title VI.''

        And on line 10, strike out ``G'' and insert ``H'', and on line 
    11, strike out ``171'' and insert ``181''.
        Mr. [John] Brademas [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Brademas: Mr. Speaker, is this the so-called Fountain 
    amendment?
        The Speaker: That is correct.
        Mr. Brademas: I thank the Speaker.
        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment. . . .

        The Clerk will report the so-called O'Hara amendments on which 
    a separate vote has been demanded.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. O'Hara of Michigan: On page 63, 
        between lines 12 and 13 insert:

                           ``part h--racial imbalance

            ``Sec. 181. Section 604 of the Elementary and Secondary 
        Education

[[Page 7364]]

        Act of 1965 (containing a prohibition against Federal control 
        of education) is amended by inserting the following at the end 
        thereof and before the period: `, or to require the assignment 
        or transportation of students or teachers in order to overcome 
        racial imbalance'.''

        On page 69, after line 3, insert the following:

            ``Sec. 215. Section 301(a) of the Act of September 30, 1950 
        (Public Law 874; Eighty-first Congress) is amended by inserting 
        the following at the end thereof before the period: `, or 
        require the assignment or transportation of students or 
        teachers in order to overcome racial imbalance'.''

        The Speaker: The question is on the amendments. . . .
        Mr. Fino: Mr. Speaker, I ask for tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Speaker appointed Mr. O'Hara of 
    Michigan and Mr. Fino as tellers.
        The House divided, and the tellers reported that there were--
    ayes 263, noes 5.
        So the amendments were agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment as amended.
        The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

Substitute for Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 37.7 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, any 
    Member may demand a separate vote on the substitute and, if it is 
    adopted, the vote recurs on the committee amendment as amended by 
    the substitute.

    On Nov. 24, 1970,(1) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 116 Cong. Rec. 38715, 38723, 38724, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 16785.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (2) . . . Is a separate vote demanded 
    on any amendment to the committee amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    separate vote on the Steiger of Wisconsin amendment, commonly known 
    as the Steiger-Sikes substitute, as amended.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the amendment. . . .
        The question is on the amendment. . . .
        So the amendment was agreed to. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on the committee amendment, as 
    amended, adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
        The amendment was agreed to.

Sec. 37.8 The rule that an amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    always perfected before a vote is taken on a substitute amendment 
    is followed in the House when op

[[Page 7365]]

    erating under a special rule permitting separate votes on 
    amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole.

    In the 86th Congress,(3) during consideration of a bill 
(4) to authorize federal financial assistance to school 
construction, the Committee of the Whole had adopted, in the following 
order: (1) an amendment to section 4 of a committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute,(5) (2) then an amendment to section 
6,(6) (3) an amendment, in effect a substitute, striking out 
all after section 1 of the committee amendment [thus deleting all after 
the title],(7) and finally (4) had agreed to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended;(8) 
these amendments were then voted on in the House, under a special rule 
permitting separate votes on any amendments adopted in the Committee of 
the Whole to either the bill or the committee amendment, in the order 
in which they had been adopted.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See the proceedings at 106 Cong. Rec. 11282, 11292, 11296-98, 
        11301-03, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 26, 1960.
 4. H.R. 10128.
 5. 106 Cong. Rec. 11282, 11292, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. Id. at pp. 11296, 11297.
 7. Id. at pp. 11298, 11301.
 8. Id. at p. 11302.
 9. Id. at pp. 11302, 11303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               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.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 
