[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.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------