<DOC>
[Cannon's Precedents -- Volume VIII]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:cannon_cclv.wais]



                            Chapter CCLV.\1\
 
                              AMENDMENTS.

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

   1. In relation to secondary motions. Sections 2824-2830.
   2. Restrictions as to offering. Sections 2831-2833.
   3. Propositions previously considered. Sections 2834-2845.
   4. Inserting and striking out. Sections 2846-2860.
   5. Amendments reported by committees. Sections 2861-2864.
   6. In relation to consideration by paragraphs. Sections 2865-
     2874.
   7. Amendment of bills generally. Sections 2875, 2876.
   8. All portions must be in order. Sections 2877.
   9. Amendments in the nature of a substitute. Sections 2878-
     2905.
   10. Amendments of title. Sections 2906-2907a.

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

  2824. The motion to postpone to a day certain is subject to 
amendment.
  An amendment may not be offered to a motion against which a point of 
order is pending.
  On May 15, 1924,\2\ the Speaker laid before the House the message 
from the President returning without his approval the bill (H. R. 7959) 
providing adjusted compensation for veterans of the World War.
  The message having been read, Mr. Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, moved 
that consideration be postponed until Monday next, to be taken up on 
that day immediately after the reading and approval of the Journal.
  Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, raised a question of order against 
the motion.
  Mr. Elton Watkins, of Oregon, asked recognition to offer an amendment 
to the motion.
  The Speaker \3\ said:

  The gentleman can not do that while a point of order is pending.

  After debate, the Speaker ruled:

  The situation seems clear to the Chair. The gentleman from Ohio has 
made a motion to postpone to a day certain action on the President's 
veto. Now, the Constitution, as the Chair has already read, provides 
that ``the House shall proceed to consider it.'' If that meant that the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Supplementary to Chapter CXXV.
  \2\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 8663.
  \3\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 2825
House should proceed immediately to vote upon it, then the action of 
the House for a great many years has been entirely wrong, because the 
House has repeatedly entertained and voted on motions to refer it to a 
committee and to postpone. It seems to the Chair that the language 
``the House shall proceed to consider it'' means that the House shall 
immediately proceed to consider it under the rules of the House, and 
that the ordinary motions under the rules of the House--to refer, to 
commit, or to postpone to a day certain--are in order. One gentleman 
suggested that such a construction put it in the hands of one gentleman 
to determine what the House shall do; but, on the contrary, it leaves 
it entirely in the hands of the House. If the House does not like the 
motion that is made, it can vote it down, and the House can have its 
will. It seems to the Chair that is an exact compliance with the 
Constitution and is also the action which allows the House entire 
freedom of action. So the Chair overrules the point of order.

  2825. For the purposes of amendment, a Senate amendment has the 
status of an original bill when considered in the House, and the four 
amendments permitted by the rule may be pending simultaneously.
  On February 23, 1921,\1\ the House was considering Senate amendment 
No. 9 to the post office appropriation bill.
  The House having receded from its disagreement to the Senate 
amendment, Mr. Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, moved to concur in the 
amendment with an amendment.
  Mr. Halvor Steenerson, of Minnesota, offered an amendment to the 
amendment proposed by Mr. Madden.
  Mr. Eugene Black, of Texas, made a point of order that the amendment 
to the amendment was not in order, being in the third degree.
  The Speaker \2\ held:

  The Senate amendment is not considered as an amendment here.

  2826. The rule requiring motions to be reduced to writing on the 
demand of a Member applies to amendments as to other motions and is 
applicable in the Committee of the Whole as in the House.
  While the rules provide for the submission of amendments in writing, 
under the practice of the House they are frequently presented orally if 
no Member objects but such presentation is within the discretion of the 
Chair.
  On January 13, 1913,\3\ the post office appropriation bill was under 
consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union.
  Several amendments having been dictated to the Clerk from the floor, 
Mr. J. Hampton Moore, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that 
amendments were required to be presented in writing.
  The Chairman \4\ said:

  That is the fact, but, of course, it is of very frequent occurrence 
that a number of amendments are offered otherwise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3717.
  \2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \3\ Third session of Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 1458.
  \4\ Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, Chairman.
                                                            Sec. 2827
  The parliamentary clerk at the Speaker's table has just handed to the 
Chair the following rule:

                               ``rule xvi

  ``1. Every motion made to the House and entertained by the Speaker 
shall be reduced to writing on the demand of any Member, and it shall 
be entered on the Journal in the name of the Member making it, unless 
it is withdrawn the same day.''
  It would seem that if a Member proposes an amendment it is within the 
power of any other Member to demand that it shall be reduced to 
writing. Otherwise it seems to be in the discretion of the Chair.

  2827. Amendments must be reduced to writing on demand and the 
Committee of the Whole is not required to delay its proceedings in 
order to permit the writing of a proposed amendment even though during 
the delay thus occasioned the section to which the amendment is 
proposed may be passed in reading and so preclude consideration of the 
amendment.
  On December 8, 1919,\1\ while the bill (H. R. 8067) to establish 
standard weights and measures for the District of Columbia, was being 
read for amendment in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union, Mr. Warren Gard, of Ohio, proposed an oral amendment which 
he proceeded to dictate to the Clerk.
  The Chairman \2\ requested that the amendment be reduced to writing 
and sent to the desk.
  Mr. Gard demurred:

  I think I can state it so it can be read by the Clerk.

  The Chairman said:

  Amendments must be reduced to writing and sent to the Clerk's desk 
and read.
  The Chair is simply announcing the rule of the House. The gentleman 
can govern himself accordingly. The Clerk will read.

  Thereupon the Clerk read the succeeding section and the proposed 
amendment was no longer in order.
  2828. Amendments are required to be reduced to writing on demand in 
their entirety and if any portion of a proposed amendment remains to be 
filled in, it is not in order.
  On January 31, 1921,\3\ the bill (H. R. 15935) the river and harbor 
appropriation bill, was being considered in the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union.
  Mr. John H. Small, of North Carolina, offered an amendment 
appropriating various amounts due on certain contracts.
  A point of order raised by Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, against 
amounts proposed in the amendment being sustained, Mr. Small offered 
the amendment in modified form leaving blank spaces to be filled in by 
the Clerk with amounts as ascertained.
  Mr. Blanton made the point of order that the entire amendment must be 
reduced to writing before eligible to consideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 300.
  \2\ Philip P. Campbell, of Kansas, Chairman.
  \3\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2352.
Sec. 2829
  The Chairman \1\ sustained the point of order and said:

  The gentleman from Texas makes the point of order that the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from North Carolina is not in proper form in 
that it has not been reduced to writing in all respects.
  The Chair will request the Clerk to advise him if the amendment has 
been reduced to writing in all respects. The Clerk informs the Chair 
that it is not in due form as now offered.

  2829. Amendments are sometimes submitted orally, but on demand must 
be reduced to writing and sent to the Clerk's desk.
  On February 16, 1929,\2\ during consideration of the bill (S. 5094) 
for the deportation of aliens, Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, 
addressed the Chair and said:

  Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment: On page 4 strike out 
the ``ten'' and substitute ``five'' for it.

  Mr. Charles G. Edwards, of Georgia, raised a question of order and 
said:

  Mr. Chairman; I make the point of order that there is no amendment 
pending. The gentleman has not sent it to the desk in writing.

  The Chairman \3\ sustained the point of order and directed the Clerk 
to continue the reading of the bill.
  2830. Amendments may not be offered by proxy.
  On May 23, 1933,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 5661) to provide for the 
safer and more effective use of the assets of banks, to regulate 
interbank control, and to prevent the undue diversion of funds into 
speculative operations.
  Mr. John C. Lehr, of Michigan, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, 
explained that his colleague, Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan, who was 
unavoidably absent on account of illness, had prepared an amendment to 
the pending paragraph of the bill, and desired that it be proposed in 
his name. Mr. Lehr inquired if it would be in order for him to offer 
the amendment as proxy for his colleague, Mr. Dingell.
  The Chairman \5\ said:

  Amendments may not be proposed by proxy. The gentleman may offer the 
amendment himself.

  2831. It is not in order to offer more than one motion to amend at a 
time.
  On October 24, 1921,\6\ the bill (H. R. 8762) for refunding foreign 
obligations was being considered in the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union.
  Mr. James W. Collier, of Mississippi, offered the following 
amendment:

  Page 1, line 10, after the word ``authorized,'' insert ``to enter 
into agreements with representatives of foreign nations''; and page 2, 
at the end of section 2, insert ``Provided, That no agree-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ James W. Husted, of New York, Chairman.
  \2\ Second session Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 3617.
  \3\ Robert L. Bacon, of New York, Chairman.
  \4\ First session Seventy-third Congress, Record, p. 4044.
  \5\ Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, Chairman.
  \6\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 6701.
                                                            Sec. 2832
ment or agreements so entered into with respect to any matter herein 
authorized shall be deemed to have been completed, nor to have force 
and effect until it shall have been submitted to the Congress of the 
United States and embodies in a law passed by Congress.''

  Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, made the point of order that 
the amendment embodied two substantive propositions, and was virtually 
two amendments in that it sought to authorize a change in the language 
of the bill and also to insert an independent proviso.
  Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, took issue with this point of 
view and argued that if there was objection to the form of the 
amendment it could be reached by a demand for a division of the 
question.
  The Chairman \1\ held:

  The point of order made by the gentleman from Wisconsin occurs to the 
Chair as being well taken. The gentleman from Wisconsin makes the point 
of order that the amendment consists of two parts; that it is an 
attempt to amend two different portions of the paragraph. The point of 
order is that we can not consider both amendments at the same time.
  Permit the Chair to call the gentleman's attention to the fact that 
it appears on the face to be a little different from the usual method 
when amendments of this character are offered. This amendment seeks to 
authorize a change in the language in a part of the bill, and then 
follows that with an independent proviso. It hardly seems to the Chair 
that they can be considered together.
  The point of order is sustained by the Chair. The gentleman from 
Mississippi can decide which amendment he wishes to represent first.

  2832. A proposed amendment may not be accepted by the Member in 
charge of the pending measure, but can be agreed to only by the House.
  On December 16, 1918,\2\ during consideration of the bill (H. R. 
13366) providing for retention of uniforms and personal equipment by 
honorably discharged soldiers and sailors, an amendment was offered 
including the phrase ``persons who served in the United States Army.''
  Mr. Julius Kahn, of California, proposed to amend the amendment by 
substituting for the word ``persons'' the phrase ``enlisted men.''
  Mr. J. M. C. Smith, of Michigan, the Member in charge of the bill, 
announced that he would accept the amendment.
  The Speaker \3\ ruled:

  The gentleman from Michigan has no right to accept the amendment.

  After debate, the Speaker submitted the question to the House, and 
Mr. William W. Hastings, of Oklahoma, called attention to the 
acceptance of the amendment by the Member in charge of the bill.
  The Speaker said:

  The gentleman from Michigan had no power to accept the amendment.

  2833. On December 10, 1921,\4\ during consideration of the bill (H. 
R. 9130) for the appointment of additional judges for certain courts of 
the United States,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Horace M. Towner, of Iowa, Chairman.
  \2\ Third session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 530.
  \3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \4\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 272.
Sec. 2834
Mr. John E. Raker, of California, offered an amendment providing that 
appointment of such judges conform to section 13 of the Judicial Code.
  Mr. Andrew J. Volstead, of Minnesota, the Member in charge of the 
pending bill, said:

  The committee accepts that amendment.

  Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, made the point of order that it 
was not within the province of the Member in charge of the bill to 
accept an amendment, and it would be necessary for the committee to 
vote on the proposition.
  The Chairman \1\ held:

  The point of order made by the gentleman from Alabama is well taken. 
The Chair did not intend to have the amendment adopted merely upon the 
ipse dixit of the gentleman from Minnesota.

  2834. It is not in order to offer an amendment identical with one 
previously disagreed to.
  On March 10, 1924,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union was considered the bill (H. R. 518) to authorize the sale 
of the Muscle Shoals plant to Henry Ford.
  Mr. Olger Burtness, of North Dakota, offered an amendment, against 
which Mr. W. Frank James, of Michigan, raised the point of order that 
the amendment had been once voted on and rejected.
  In response to an inquiry from the Chairman \3\ as to whether the 
amendment was couched in the identical language in which a previous 
amendment had been offered, Mr. Burtness replied.

  The identical language, but offered to a separate section.

  After debate, the Chairman ruled:

  The gentleman from North Dakota offers an amendment which he states 
is in the identical language of that offered by the gentleman from 
Michigan, Mr. McLaughlin, at an earlier place in the bill. The Chair 
examined the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan somewhat 
carefully at the time it was offered. It seemed to be an amendment 
which was germane to the bill, more perhaps than being germane to any 
particular section. No point of order was raised to the amendment when 
it was offered as being not germane at the time. The Committee of the 
Whole had the amendment before it in a definite and concrete way. There 
would be no end to consideration of a bill in Committee of the Whole if 
an amendment could be offered and reoffered at different stages during 
the progress of the bill. The Chair therefore sustains the point of 
order.

  2835. If a proposed amendment is not susceptible to any other 
interpretation than that which might reasonably be given an amendment 
previously rejected, it is not admissible.
  On May 18, 1916,\4\ during consideration in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union of the bill (H. R. 15455) to 
establish a United States
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin.
  \2\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 3923.
  \3\ Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, Chairman.
  \4\ First session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 8273.
                                                            Sec. 2836
Shipping Board, Mr. William S. Bennet, of New York, offered the 
following amendment:

  Page 2, line 9, after the word ``possession,'' insert the words ``but 
for the purposes of this act the term `common carrier by water in 
interstate commerce' shall not include ferryboats running on regular 
routes.''

  The question being taken on agreeing to the amendment, it was decided 
in the negative, yeas 50, nays 61, and the amendment was rejected.
  Subsequently Mr. Bennet proposed this amendment:

  Page 2, line 4, after the word ``carrier,'' insert the words ``except 
ferryboats running on regular routes.''

  Mr. Edward W. Saunders, of Virginia, submitted that the amendment had 
been previously rejected and was not again in order.
  Mr. Bennet in combating the point of order said:

  If the Chair will look to the precedents, he will find that it is for 
the committee and not the Chair to say, even if there is a change of as 
much as one word.
  Mr. Chairman, this precise point was ruled upon by Speaker James G. 
Blaine in this House, and if the Chair will look he will find the 
ruling. It was made by Speaker Blaine, who was a good parliamentarian. 
He says that the change of a single word made the new amendment 
admissible.

  After extended discussion, the Chairman \1\ held:

  The Chair is familiar with that ruling. The Chair thinks the reason 
Mr. Speaker Blaine ruled that way was that on account of the particular 
language submitted at that time there was a possibility of there being 
a different meaning attached to the subsequent amendment from that 
which was attached to the first amendment. The Chair thinks certainly 
that was the view of Mr. Speaker Blaine. The Chair thinks it is clear 
to a man of good ordinary common sense that if the Chair can see that a 
second amendment is not capable of any other construction than that 
which would be given to the first amendment that it would be a waste of 
time to consider it, and for that reason the Chair will sustain the 
point of order.
  There is no doubt that Speaker Blaine was one of the greatest 
parliamentarians that ever presided over the House. As far as his 
rulings have been examined by the present occupant of the chair they 
always seemed to go to the substance, and not to the technical form. 
The present occupant of the chair is following that principle and wise 
practice now.
  On this specific matter would there be the slightest difference in 
construction if the amendment now proposed be adopted from what would 
have been if the amendment proposed a few moments ago had been adopted?
  The Chair is simply following the wise rule which provides that an 
amendment which has once been passed upon shall not be again in order 
and again be submitted. It is a well-recognized principle of 
parliamentary law, and the Chair, relying upon reason and common sense, 
will sustain the point of order.

  2836. It is not in order to offer an amendment previously rejected 
and the mere change of figures carried in an amendment already acted on 
is insufficient to relieve it of that objection.
  On December 12, 1919,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union was considering the army appropriation bill.
  A committee amendment was read by the Clerk as follows:

  For purchase of Dayton-Wright plant and real estate at Dayton, Ohio, 
$2,740,228.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, Chairman.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 496.
Sec. 2837
  The question being taken on agreeing to the committee amendment, the 
yeas were 58 and the nays were 58 and the Chairman announced that the 
amendment was not agreed to.
  After a time, Mr. Warren Gard, of Ohio, offered this amendment:

  Page 10, line 10, insert: ``For purchase of Dayton-Wright plant and 
real estate at Dayton, Ohio, $2,740,000.''

  Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, made the point of order that the 
amendment has already been passed on.
  The Chairman \1\ sustained the point of order and said:

  The point of order is sustained. There can be no question about it.
  The Chair believes that, having disposed of the subject matter of 
lines 10 and 11 by rejecting them and later having adopted amendments 
putting on two other propositions, the amendment of the gentleman from 
Ohio is not in order. The Chair believes that his amendment is 
substantially the same as the amendment which was rejected, and 
therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.

  2837. It is not in order to offer an amendment previously rejected 
but to come within the inhibition the amendment proposed must be 
identical with that previously disposed of.
  On March 12, 1920,\2\ during consideration of the bill H. R. 12775, 
the army reorganization bill, Mr. Charles C. Kearns, of Ohio, offered 
an amendment providing for a separate transportation service.
  Mr. Daniel R. Anthony, Jr., of Kansas, raised a question of order 
against the amendment on the ground that substantially the same 
amendment had been previously rejected by the Committee of the Whole.
  The Chairman \3\ ruled:

  The Chair will overrule that; it would have to be identically the 
same amendment, and this is not the identical amendment. The Clerk will 
report the amendment as modified.

  2838. It is in order to offer as an amendment a proposition similar, 
but not substantially identical, with one previously rejected.
  On June 9, 1921,\4\ during consideration of the bill (H. R. 661) to 
establish a veterans' bureau in the Treasury Department, the following 
amendment offered by Mr. Oscar E. Bland, of Indiana, was rejected.

  Page 5, line 10, after the word ``exceeding,'' strike out the work 
``fifty'' and insert in lieu thereof ``one hundred and forty.''

  Subsequently, Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., proposed this amendment:

  Page 5, line 10, after the word ``exceeding,'' strike out the word 
``fifty'' and insert the words ``one hundred.''

  Mr. Everett Sanders, of Indiana, made the point of order that the 
amendment was practically the same proposition rejected in the 
amendment proposed by Mr. Bland and was therefore not in order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, Chairman.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 4241.
  \3\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Chairman.
  \4\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2338.
                                                            Sec. 2839
  The Chairman \1\ ruled:

  The Chair thinks it would have been in order when the original 
proposition was pending to amend that amendment by a further amendment 
or by a substitute. That was not done. If it had been done, the Chair 
thinks it would then have been in order to offer a further amendment. 
But the amendment of the gentleman from Indian having been voted down, 
the Chair thinks it is in order to offer another amendment not 
substantially the same as that already voted on. The Chair therefore 
overrules the point of order.

  2839. While not in order to insert by way of amendment a paragraph 
similar to one already stricken out, an amendment will not be ruled out 
for that reason unless practically identical.
  On February 20, 1923,\2\ the House resumed consideration of the bill 
(H. R. 14270) amending the Federal farm loan act.
  The pending question, on an amendment offered by Mr. Nathan L. 
Strong, of Pennsylvania, to strike out section 5 of the bill, being 
taken, was decided in the affirmative, yeas 203, nays 117, and the 
amendment was agreed to, and section 5 was stricken out.
  Mr. Otis Wingo, of Arkansas, moved to recommit the bill to the 
Committee on Banking and Currency with instructions to report it back 
forthwith with an amendment incorporating in the bill with other matter 
certain provisions of section 5.
  Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, raised a question of order against 
the motion on the ground that the amendment carried in the instructions 
proposed to insert in the bill provisions of section 5 already stricken 
out by amendment.
  After debate, the Speaker \3\ held:

  The Chair thinks it very clear that while this does repeat some of 
the provisions already stricken out, yet it is coupled with new 
provisions in such a way as to make it quite different. The Chair 
thinks this comes within the precedents that while, of course, you can 
not insert the same matter that was stricken out, yet it must be very 
nearly identical in order to have the point of order apply. The Chair 
thinks it very clear that this, while in some measure it repeats what 
the House has already acted upon, changes it so much that the Chair 
thinks the House is entitled to say that it prefers the change or 
prefers to leave it as it was. Of course, it is matter for the House to 
decide. The Chair overrules the point of order.

  2840. Similarity of an amendment to one previously rejected will not 
render it inadmissible if sufficiently different in form to present 
another proposition.
  On January 23, 1923,\4\ while the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 314) 
proposing a Constitutional amendment regulating the issuance of tax-
exempt securities, was under consideration in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union, Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, 
proposed this amendment.

  Page 2, line 10, after the word ``State,'' insert the following 
proviso: ``Provided, This article shall not apply to or affect income 
derived from securities issued under the provisions of the Federal farm 
loan act or any amendments thereto.''

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, Chairman.
  \2\ Fourth session sixty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 246.
  \3\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \4\ Fourth session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2281.
Sec. 2841
  The amendment was rejected, and Mr. John C. Ketcham, of Michigan, 
offered the following:

  Add a new section to the resolution, to be known as section 3, to 
read as follows:
  ``Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to refer to 
securities or bonds issued under the terms of the act known as the 
Federal farm loan act.''

  Mr. Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, objected to consideration of the 
amendment on the ground that it embodied the same proposition 
previously rejected in the form of the amendment proposed by Mr. Jones.
  The Chairman \1\ held:

  The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Michigan as a new 
section in substance is similar to the amendment proposed by the 
gentleman from Texas, but in form it is not the same. It has been held 
by occupants of the Chair, including the late Mr. Speaker Clark, that a 
verbal change sometimes will make an amendment caused a deviation 
making that second amendment in order. Therefore the Chair will 
overrule the point of order.

  2841. A negative vote on an amendment does not prevent the offering 
of another amendment embodying a similar proposition in slightly 
different phraseology.
  It is for the House rather than the Chair to decide on the 
legislative effect of a proposition.
  On March 21, 1916,\2\ the House was in the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill H. R. 
12766, the army reorganization bill.
  Mr. Julius Kahn, of California, offered this amendment:

  After the expiration of two years' service in a first or subsequent 
enlistment, enlisted men serving within the continental limits of the 
United States may be furloughed to the Army reserve in the grade in 
which then serving, or may, in the discretion of the Secretary of War, 
be reenlisted for a period of seven years: Provided, however, That 
after the expiration of one year's honorable service any enlisted man 
serving within the continental limits of the United States whose 
company, troop, battery, or detachment commander shall report him as 
proficient and sufficiently trained, may, in the discretion of the 
Secretary of War, be furloughed to the Army reserve, under such 
regulations as the Secretary of War may prescribe, in which event he 
shall not be eligible to reenlist in the service until the expiration 
of his term of seven years.

  The question being taken on agreeing to the amendment, it was decided 
in the negative and the amendment was rejected.
  Thereupon Mr. Augustus P. Gardner, of Massachusetts, proposed the 
following:

  Provided, That after the expiration of one year's honorable service 
any enlisted man of the Regular Army, whose company, troop, battery, or 
detachment commander shall report him as proficient and sufficiently 
trained, may, in the discretion of the Secretary of War, be furloughed 
to the Regular Army reserve, under such regulations as the Secretary of 
War may prescribe, in which event he shall not be eligible to reenlist 
in the service until the expiration of his term of seven years.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Clifton N. McArthur, of Oregon, Chairman.
  \2\ First session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 4561.
                                                            Sec. 2842
  Mr. James Hay, of Virginia, made the point of order that the 
amendment was substantially the amendment just disagreed to by the 
House and it was not in order to again vote on the proposition.
  Mr. William S. Bennet, of New York, opposed the point of order and 
said:

  Mr. Chairman, if the Chair will take the House Manual and turn to 
page 192 he will see that under the decisions of the House if there is 
a change of even a single word, following the ruling of Mr. Speaker 
Blaine, it is not for the Chair to pass upon the competence of the 
amendment, but that is for the House. So long as the amendment is not 
identical, then the House has the right to say whether it will accept 
or reject, and, with all due respect, it is not within the province of 
the Chair. That has been held time and time again in the provisions 
cited under section 459 of the House Manual.

  The Chairman \1\ overruled the point of order.
  2842. On January 31, 1923,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union resumed consideration of the bill (H. R. 13773) to 
amend an act regulating radio communication.
  Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, proposed an amendment providing for the 
right of appeal from orders of the Secretary of Commerce, to a court of 
competent jurisdiction.
  Mr. Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, made the point of order that a 
similar amendment had previously been offered to the bill and rejected 
by the committee.
  After debate the Chairman \3\ ruled:

  A distinction should be made in passing upon the question whether the 
same provision has been acted upon heretofore, as to whether the 
amendment has been voted up or voted down. If it has been voted into 
the bill and then it is offered again, with a slight modification by 
the addition of a word or two or a phrase or clause, that would not 
entitle it to be held in order for the reason that the subject matter 
was under consideration and opportunity had been given to offer and 
have adopted any germane amendment. But where an amendment is voted 
down, as in this case, and it is again proposed with a modification 
which makes it different from the form in which it was offered before, 
the Chair holds that it is within the province of the Member to offer 
the amendment in the changed form. Therefore the Chair overrules the 
point of order.

  2843. A proposition offered as a substitute amendment and rejected, 
may nevertheless be offered again as an amendment in the nature of a 
new section.
  On April 8, 1922,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union having under consideration the Departments of State and 
Justice appropriation bill, Mr. Ben Johnson, of Kentucky, proposed as a 
new section an amendment previously offered to the preceding paragraph 
and rejected.
  Mr. James W. Husted, of New York, made the point of order that the 
amendment had just been rejected in the precise form in which now 
offered and was not again in order.
  The Chairman \5\ referred to section 5797 of Hinds' Precedents, 
holding that a proposition, though rejected when offered as a 
substitute amendment, might
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, Chairman.
  \2\ Fourth session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2781.
  \3\ William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, Chairman.
  \4\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 5211.
  \5\ Cassius C. Dowell, of Iowa, Chairman.
Sec. 2844
nevertheless be offered again as an amendment in the nature of a new 
section, and overruled the point of order.
  2844. An amendment once rejected may be again proposed at another 
place in the bill to which germane.
  On February 26, 1921,\1\ the House was considering an amendment of 
the Senate to the executive, legislative and judicial appropriation 
bill, providing for an annual bonus of $240 per annum to civilian 
employees of the Government.
  Mr. William R. Wood, of Indiana, moved to concur in the Senate 
amendment in the nature of a substitute providing for a bonus of 
varying amounts graduated in proportion to salary received, and 
exempting certain employees from the benefits of the proposed law.
  Mr. James W. Dunbar, of Indiana, moved to amend the substitute with a 
provision limiting the amount of bonus payable to employees of the 
Bureau of War Risk Insurance receiving less than $400 per annum.
  Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, as a parliamentary inquiry, asked 
if it would be in order, in event of the rejection of the amendment to 
the substitute, for Mr. Dunbar to again offer it as an original 
amendment.
  The Speaker pro tempore \2\ held it would not be in order to again 
offer the amendment to the substitute, but should the substitute be 
defeated it would then be in order to offer the same amendment to the 
Senate amendment.
  2845. A negative vote on an amendment offered to a preceding 
paragraph does not prevent the offering of a similar amendment as a new 
section.
  On May 12, 1992,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 10972) providing for the 
readjustment of pay of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps.
  Mr. Oscar E. Bland, of Indiana, offered an amendment authorizing the 
computation of 5 per cent of National Guard service by commissioned 
officers for longevity pay.
  Mr. William H. Stafford of Wisconsin, raised a question of order 
against the amendment and said:

  I wish to call the Chair's attention to the fact that on yesterday 
when section 1 was under consideration, that part which provides for 
longevity pay to which this amendment directly relates, this amendment 
in substance was offered twice in a different form and rejected by the 
committee. Twice was it offered and by this committee rejected. It is 
substantially the same amendment.

  The Chairman \4\ held:

  The Chairman is not convinced that there is delay in legislation by 
permitting the amendment to be introduced in a different form from that 
of the day before. Therefore The Chair will overrule the point of 
order.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 4001.
  \2\ Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, Speaker pro tempore.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress Record, p. 6848.
  \4\ Simeon D. Fess, of Ohio, Chairman.
                                                            Sec. 2846
  2846. A motion to strike out a paragraph being pending, and the 
paragraph then being perfected by an amendment in the nature of 
substitute, the motion to strike out necessarily falls.
  On May 12, 1922,\1\ while the bill (H. R. 10972) for readjustment of 
army pay, was under consideration in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union, Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming moved to 
strike out the pending paragraph.
  Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, offered an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute for the entire paragraph.
  The substitute having been agreed to, Mr. Joseph Walsh, of 
Massachusetts, made a point of order that the question recurred on the 
motion to strike out the paragraph.
  The Chairman \2\ ruled:

  The amendment agreed to was in the nature of a substitute, and, 
therefore the motion to strike out has no effect.
  A motion to strike out a paragraph being pending and the paragraph 
then being perfected by an amendment in the nature of a substitute, a 
motion to strike out necessarily falls.

  2847. To a motion to strike out certain words in a bill and insert 
others, a simple motion to strike out the words in the bill may not be 
offered as a substitute.
  On August 19, 1921,\3\ while the bill H. R. 8245, the revenue bill, 
was under consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union, Mr. Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, moved to strike 
out lines 12 to 17, inclusive, on page 2 of the bill, and insert a 
paragraph in lieu therof.
  Mr. Edward J. King, of Illinois, offered, as a substitute for the 
proposed amendment, the following:

  Page 2, strike out, beginning with line 12, up to and including line 
17.

  The Chairman \4\ held that the motion to strike out was not in order 
as a substitute for the motion to strike out and insert as the latter 
motion was not divisible.
  2848. 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.
  To an amendment relating to the molasses schedule in a tariff bill an 
amendment affecting the sugar schedule in the same paragraph of the 
bill is not germane.
  On May 25, 1929,\5\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union was considering the bill H. R. 2667, the tariff bill.
  Mr. Charles B. Timberlake, of Colorado, for the Committee, offered an 
amendment to strike out certain language in the molasses schedule.
  To this amendment Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, proposed to 
offer a substitute striking out additional language of the paragraph in 
the sugar schedule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 6843.
  \2\ Simeon D. Fess, of Ohio, Chairman.
  \3\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 5285.
  \4\ Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
  \5\ First session Seventh-first Congress, Record, p. 1937.
Sec. 2849
  Mr. Willis C. Hawley, of Oregon, raised a question of order against 
the substitute.
  The chairman \1\ held:

  In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New York is not in accord with the ruling made by Chairman 
Olmstead, which may be found in Volume V, section 5768, of Hinds' 
Precedents. Chairman Olmstead in effect rules that 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. Another objection that 
the Chair can see in the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York is that it is not germane to the committee amendment. The 
committee amendment affects only the blackstrap schedule. The amendment 
of the gentleman from New York affects the sugar schedule. For these 
reasons the Chair does not think the amendment to be in order and 
sustains the point of order.

  2849. The motion to strike out and insert is a perfecting amendment 
and takes precedence of a simple motion to strike out.
  A motion to strike out and insert is not in order as a substitute for 
a simple motion to strike out.
  On May 25, 1929,\2\ during consideration oft he bill H. R. 2667, the 
tariff bill, in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, Mr. Charles B. Timberlake, of Colorado, offered an amendment to 
strike out certain provision in the sugar schedule.
  To this amendment Mr. William E. Hull, of Illinois, offered a 
substitute inserting language in lieu of that proposed to be stricken 
out.
  Mr. Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, made the point of order that the 
purported substitute was not, in fact, a substitute.
  The Chairman \3\ ruled:

  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado is to strike out 
certain words. To this the gentleman from Illinois has offered a 
substitute amendment to strike out and insert.
  This is offered as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado.
  In the opinion of the Chair, a motion to strike out and insert is not 
in order as a substitute amendment to a simple motion to strike out. If 
the gentleman from Illinois had offered him amendment as a perfecting 
amendment, the present occupant of the Chair would have ruled it in 
order.
  The Chair sustains the point of order.

  2850. While it is not in order to submit for consideration by way of 
amendment a proposition previously passed on, an amendment raising the 
same question, but in other words, is admissible.
  On October 3, 1918,\4\ the House resumed consideration of the bill 
(H. R. 12404) authorizing a building for the public health service, 
coming over from the preceding day with the previous question ordered.
  A committee amendment authorizing the purchase of material in the 
open market was agreed to, and the bill was read a third time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, Chairman.
  \2\ First session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 1926.
  \3\ Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, Chairman.
  \4\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 11098.
                                                            Sec. 2851
  Mr. James W. Good of Iowa, moved to recommit the bill with 
instruction to report back forthwith with an amendment forbidding the 
purchase of material on a cost-plus basis.
  Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, made the point of order that 
amendment embodied a proposition already passed upon by the House in 
the adoption of the committee amendment just agreed to, and was not 
admissible.
  The Speaker \1\ cited a decision by Mr. Speaker Blaine on a similar 
question and overruled the point of order.
  2851. A motion to strike out an amendment just inserted is not in 
order.
  On January 5, 1921,\2\ during consideration of the sundry civil 
appropriation bill in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union, an amendment proposed by Mr. James W. Good, of Iowa, was 
agreed to providing fro transportation facilities on inland and 
coastwise waterways.
  Mr. James A. Frear, of Wisconsin, moved to strike out the amendment 
as adopted.
  The Chairman \3\ declined to recognize the gentleman for that 
purpose.
  2852. After a vote to insert a proposition in a bill it is too late 
to perfect the proposition by amendment.
  On January 24, 1928,\4\ during the consideration of the independent 
offices appropriation bill, in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union, an amendment was agreed to changing the amount of 
the United States Shipping Board fund from $12,000,000 to $13,400,000.
  Subsequently, Mr. Henry A. Cooper, of Wisconsin, offered an amendment 
proposing to change the amount to $12,300,000.
  Mr. William R. Wood, of Indiana, made the point of order that after 
the original amendment had been inserted in the bill it was then too 
late to offer amendments proposing to perfect the language embodied in 
the amendment.
  The Chairman \5\ sustained the point of order.
  2853. Words inserted by amendment may not afterwards be changed.
  It is not in order to strike out an amendment already agreed to by 
the House.
  On June 23, 1919,\6\ the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 104) for the 
appointment of clerks to Members was under consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
  An amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Accounts, reporting the bill was agreed to as follows:

  Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
  That the appropriation in the legislative, executive, and judicial 
appropriation act, approved March 1, 1919, for clerk hire for Members, 
Delegates, and Resident Commissioners may
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \2\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 999.
  \3\ Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
  \4\ First session Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 1967.
  \5\ Cassius C. Dowell, of Iowa, Chairman.
  \6\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1606.
Sec. 2854
be paid by the Clerk of the House of Representative to one or two 
persons to be designated by each Member, Delegate, and Resident 
Commissioner, the names of such persons to be placed upon the roll of 
employees, of the House of Representatives, together with the amount to 
be paid each, and Representatives and Delegates elect to Congress shall 
likewise be entitled to make such designations: Provided, That such 
person shall be subject to removal at any time by such Member, 
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner with or without cause.

  The joint resolution having been read a third time, Mr. Martin B. 
Madden, of Illinois, moved to recommit the joint resolution to the 
Committee on Accounts with instructions to that committee to report it 
back to the House forthwith with an amendment striking out all after 
the enacting clause and inserting the following:

  That hereafter each Member, Delegate, and Resident Commissioner of 
the House of Representatives shall be allowed for clerical assistance 
necessarily employed by him in the discharge of his official and 
Representative duties $3,200 per annum, payable in monthly 
installments, the name or names of such person or persons, with the 
address of each so employed, to be filed with the Clerk of the House, 
together with the amount or amounts paid or to be paid such person or 
persons.

  Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, made the point of order that the 
amendment proposed in the motion to recommit involved the striking out 
of an amendment already agreed to by the House.
  The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order and said:

  The Chair thinks the point of order is well taken; that the committee 
has already substituted an amendment for everything after the enacting 
clause, and what the committee has already inserted can not be taken 
out.
  The Chair will state that this is a peculiar situation. The Committee 
of the Whole has stricken out the entire resolution as it originally 
stood has reported a substitute. Now that substitute is an amendment, 
and the House can not strike out an amendment which already has been 
adopted by the committee and by the House.

  2854. It is not in order to strike out a paragraph previously 
inserted by amendment.
  A motion to strike out a paragraph being pending, and the paragraph 
being then perfected by an amendment in the nature of a substitute, the 
motion to strike out necessarily falls.
  To a motion to strike out certain words and insert others a simple 
motion to strike out the words in the bill may not be offered as a 
substitute.
  A motion to strike out and insert takes precedence of a simple motion 
to strike out the same language.
  On August 19, 1921, \2\ the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union was considering the bill H. R. 8245, the 
revenue bill.
  Mr. Edward J. King, of Illinois, offered an amendment to strike out 
the pending paragraph.
  Mr. Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, offered as preferential, a motion to 
strike out the pending paragraph and insert certain language in lieu 
thereof.
  The Chairman \3\ held that the motion to strike out and insert took 
precedence of the motion to strike out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 5284.
  \3\ Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
                                                            Sec. 2855
  The motion to strike out and insert being put was agreed to.
  Mr. King requested that the question then be taken on his motion to 
strike out the paragraph.
  The Chairman said:

  The amendment of the gentleman from Ohio was to strike out the 
paragraph and insert new language. That motion being carried the 
pending motion to strike out the paragraph falls.

  Mr. King moved to strike out the paragraph as amended.
  The Chairman rules:

  The motion is not in order. The rulings, in the recollection of the 
Chair, state that a committee having stricken out language and inserted 
language and substituted an entire new paragraph, that a pending motion 
to strike out falls by the action of the committee. That action upon 
the motion to strike out the entire paragraph could only be had on the 
failure of the motion to strike out and insert.

  Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, having appealed, the decision of 
the chair was sustained, yeas 110, nays 76.
  2855. 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.
  April 23, 1928, \1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union had under consideration the bill (S. 3740) for the control of 
floods of the Mississippi River and its tributaries.
  A committee amendment to section 3 of the bill was agreed to, when 
Mr. Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, offered an amendment to strike out 
section 3, including the amendment just adopted.
  Mr. Frank R. Reid, of Illinois, made the point of order that an 
amendment having been inserted in the bill, it was not in order to 
propose further disposition by amendment.
  The Chairman \2\ ruled:

  The Chair is read to dispose of any point of order. It is quite in 
order to strike out a section that has been amended and insert new 
language.

  2856. It is not in order to amend an amendment agreed to by the 
House.
  On June 28, 1922, \3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union reported to the House the bill (S. 3425) to continue 
certain land offices, with the recommendation that it be agreed to with 
an amendment closing designated land offices.
  The amendment having been agreed to by the House and the bill being 
read a third time, Mr. Louis C. Cramton, of Michigan, moved to recommit 
the bill with instructions to report it back forthwith with an 
amendment restoring the land offices affected by the amendment just 
agreed to by the House.
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, raised a question of order against 
the motion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Seventh Congress, Record, p. 7022.
  \2\ Frederick R. Lehlbach, of New Jersey, Chairman.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 9640.
Sec. 2857
  The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order and said:

  The House has adopted this amendment. It is not the act of the 
committee, but an act of the House, and after it has been adopted the 
House can not amend it.
  The Chair sustains the point of order.

  2857. After a vote to insert a new section in a bill, it is too late 
to perfect the section by amendment.
  On June 6, 1929, \2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union was considering the bill (S. 312) to provide for the 
fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses and to provide for 
apportionment of Representatives in Congress.
  Mr. John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, offered an amendment proposing a 
substitute for section 22 of the bill.
  The question being taken, on division, there appeared yeas 212, noes 
102. So the amendment was agreed to.
  Thereupon, Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, proposed an amendment 
to the new section just adopted.
  Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, made the point of order that 
amendments proposing to perfect the new section came too late after the 
vote on its adoption.
  The Chairman \3\ sustained the point of order and said:

  The point of order is well taken. The committee has agreed to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut.
  It should have been offered before it was adopted.
  The amendment is now out of order on the ground that the proposition 
to which the amendment is offered has just been agreed to, and has been 
adopted by the committee as a substitute for section 22 of the bill.

  2858. A motion to strike out certain words being disagreed to, it is 
in order to strike out a portion of those words.
  On March 21, 1930, \4\ the bill (H. R. 10288) to regulate the 
transportation of persons in interstate and foreign commerce by motor 
carriers operating on the public highways, was being considered in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
  Mr. George Huddleston, of Alabama, moved to strike out all of section 
9 of the bill.
  The amendment having been rejected, Mr. Merlin Hull, of Wisconsin, 
proposed to strike out subsection (b) of section 9.
  Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, made the point of order that the 
question of striking out the subsection had been passed on by the 
Committee in refusing to strike out the section.
  The Chairman \5\ said:

  The Chair overrules the point of order inasmuch as this strikes out a 
part of the section.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 2454.
  \3\ Carl R. Chindblom, Chairman.
  \4\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 5881.
  \5\ Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, Chairman.
                                                            Sec. 2859
  2859. In the Committee of the Whole an amendment once offered may not 
be modified except by unanimous consent.
  On January 31, 1921,\1\ during consideration of the river and harbor 
bill, Mr. John H. Small, of North Carolina, offered an amendment making 
appropriations for a number of river and harbor projects, including the 
construction of locks on the Allegheny River, with the proviso that the 
appropriation for the latter project should not be available until the 
bridges across this river at Pittsburgh had been raised to permit 
navigation.
  Subsequently, and before debate had begun on the amendment, Mr. Small 
asked to modify his amendment by striking out the proviso.
  Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, objected.
  Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, as a parliamentary inquiry, asked 
if the modification might not be made by the proponent before action on 
the amendment by the committee as a matter of right.
  The Chairman \2\ said:

  It requires unanimous consent to modify an amendment in Committee of 
the Whole, whether debate has proceeded or not.

  2860. A perfecting amendment, has precedence of a motion to strike 
out and must be first voted on when both are pending, but a member 
recognized on a motion to strike out may not be deprived of the floor 
by another member proposing a perfecting amendment.
  On April 29, 1918,\3\ the bill (H. R. 11259) relative to minerals and 
metals for war purposes, was being read for amendment in the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
  Mr. Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, being recognized moved to strike 
out the section.
  Mr. William E. Cox, of Indiana, offered as preferential, a motion to 
perfect the section proposed to be stricken out, and proceeded in 
debate.
  The Chairman \4\ said:

  The Chair wishes to make a statement as to a matter which seems to be 
somewhat misapprehended. The impression seems to prevail that anyone 
offering an amendment to perfect the text has a preferential right to 
the floor as against some one else who has been recognized and made a 
motion to strike out the section. That is a mistake. No one seeking to 
offer a perfecting amendment, has a right to recognition as against 
another who has been recognized, and moved to strike out the section or 
paragraph proposed to be perfected. There is a relation of priority in 
the matter, but it relates to the order in which the motions shall be 
submitted. No one who has obtained the floor on a motion to strike out 
a section, can be taken from its feet by another Member seeking to 
offer an amendment to perfect the text. The Member offering an 
amendment to strike out has a right to proceed with his argument to 
conclusion, and then before the motion is put if some one else wishes 
to offer a perfecting amendment, he can be recognized to submit, and 
speak to the same. Two amendments will then be pending, but under the 
rules, the perfecting amendment must be put before the amendment to 
strike out. The Chair makes this statement because there seems to be a 
misapprehension as to the relative rights of Members of the committee 
in this connection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2351.
  \2\ James W. Husted, of New York, Chairman.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 5790.
  \4\ Edward Saunders, of Virginia, Chairman.
Sec. 2861
  2861. An amendment in the nature of a substitute having been 
proposed, amendments to the original text proposed to be stricken out 
are in order and are voted on before the question is taken on the 
substitute.
  It is in order to perfect words proposed to be stricken out and a 
perfecting amendment is admissible after debate on the motion to strike 
out has begun.
  On January 9, 1919,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 13274) for the relief of 
informal war contracts.
  Mr. J. Hampton Moore, of Pennsylvania, offered a motion proposing a 
substitute for the bill.
  Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, proposed to offer an amendment 
to perfect the text proposed to be stricken out and submitted a 
parliamentary inquiry as to the status of such an amendment.
  The Chairman \2\ said:

  The Chair would state that the substitute, of course, is nothing but 
an amendment, and the Chair thinks it is in order at this time to offer 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The Chair, however, 
believes that if any of the Members have an amendment to perfect the 
text those amendments should be voted on before the vote is taken on 
the substitute.

  Mr. Stafford then asked if it would be in order to offer an amendment 
to perfect the text after a substitute had been proposed and debated.
  The Chairman replied in the affirmative.
  2862. Amendments reported by a committee are acted on before those 
offered from the floor.
  On January 7, 1919,\3\ the House was considering, as in the Committee 
of the Whole, the bill (H. R. 8625) to accept lands for the 
construction of a military road.
  While a number of amendments recommended by the Committee on Public 
Lands were still pending, Mr. Nicholas J. Sinnott, or Oregon, proposed 
to offer an amendment from the floor.
  The Speaker pro tempore \4\ declined recognition for that purpose and 
said:

  The committee amendments will be first disposed of and then the Chair 
will recognize the gentleman to offer an amendment. The Clerk will 
first report the committee amendment.

  2863. On September 21, 1917,\5\ the bill (S. 2156) to authorize 
exploration for potassium, was being considered in the House as in the 
Committee of the Whole.
  During the consideration of amendments recommended by the Committee 
on Public Lands, reporting the bill, Mr. John E. Raker, of California, 
proposed to offer an amendment from the floor.
  The Speaker \6\ said:

  The practice is to take up the committee amendments first. The Chair 
will recognize the gentleman later. The Clerk will report the next 
committee amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 1207.
  \2\ Charles R. Crisp, of Georgia, Chairman.
  \3\ Third session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 1123.
  \4\ Charles R. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker pro tempore.
  \5\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 7308.
  \6\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 2864
  2864. Amendments recommended by the committee reporting the bill are 
read following the first reading of the bill in Committee of the Whole.
  On December 3, 1918,\1\ the House resolved into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H. R. 12917) for the establishment of a sanitarium for discharged 
soldiers and sailors.
  Mr. Frank Clark, of Florida, asked unanimous consent to dispense with 
the first reading of the bill.
  Objection having been made, the bill was read in full, when the 
Chairman \2\ directed the Clerk to read the proposed committee 
amendments.
  Mr. Clark inquired if the reading of the committee amendments was 
necessary.
  The Chairman held that the reading of the committee amendments in 
full was essential and directed the Clerk to complete the reading.
  2865. Amendments recommended by the committee reporting a bill must 
be passed upon by the House and portions of the bill recommended to be 
stricken out remain in the bill until acted upon by the House and must 
be read with the remainder of the bill at the first reading, even 
though omitted in the committee print.
  A motion in the Committee of the Whole House to take up for 
consideration a designated bill is not subject to amendment and is not 
debatable.
  The Committee of the Whole House determines the order in which it 
will consider bills on its calendar.
  In the Committee of the Whole House the chairman of the standing 
committee reporting business in order on the current day is entitled to 
prior recognition to offer motions relative to the order of business, 
but such motions being rejected, the right to recognition passes to the 
leading Member in opposition.
  On Friday, February 17, 1911,\3\ on motion of Mr. George W. Prince, 
of Illinois, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House for the consideration of bill son the Private Calendar.
  Mr. Prince offered a motion to take up for consideration the bill (H. 
R. 26121) for the relief of Edward F. Kearns.
  Mr. Thetus W. Sims, of Tennessee, asked recognition to move to take 
up the bill (S. 7971), the omnibus claims bills.
  The Chairman \4\ ruled that Mr. Prince, as chairman of the Committee 
on Claims, the committee reporting bills in order on that day, was 
entitled to prior recognition to offer a motion relating to the order 
of business.
  The motion proposed by Mr. Prince to take up the bill (H. R. 26121), 
having been read by the Clerk, Mr. Sims moved to amend by substituting 
the omnibus claims bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 52.
  \2\ Martin D. Foster, of Illinois, Chairman.
  \3\ Third session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 2803.
  \4\ Frank D. Currier, of New Hampshire, Chairman.
Sec. 2866
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that the 
motion was not subject to amendment.
  The Chairman held:

  The Chair so understands. A substitute is in the nature of an 
amendment. The Chair can not see that it will expedite business any to 
entertain the motion to the gentleman to amend by substituting another 
bill, since it is just as easy to vote down the motion made by the 
gentleman from Illinois. The Chair does not think that the motion made 
by the gentleman from Illinois is either debatable or amendable.

  The question being taken on the pending motion, the yeas were 61 and 
the nays were 82, and the motion was not agreed to.
  Mr. Sims submitted that he was entitled to recognition.
  The Chairman recognized Mr. Sims who moved to take up for 
consideration the omnibus claims bill.
  Mr. Augustus P. Gardner, of Massachusetts, as a parliamentary inquiry 
desired to know if the motion was debatable.
  The Chairman said:

  The motion is not debatable.

  The motion was agreed to, and Mr. Mann demanded the reading of the 
bill in full.
  When the section relating to the French spoliation claims was 
reached, Mr. Sims called attention to the report of the Committee on 
Claims recommending that this portion of the bill be stricken out, and 
explained that it had omitted from the committee print of the bill, and 
submitted that it was not necessary to read it.
  The Chairman ruled:

  It is a part of the bill and the Clerk will continue the reading.

  2866. Bills are read for amendment in Committee of the Whole by 
sections or paragraphs and amendments are not in order until the 
reading of the section or paragraph has been completed.
  On December 18, 1917,\1\ the House resolved itself into the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of 
the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 195) to levy a war tax on excess 
profits.
  At the close of general debate the Clerk proceeded to read the bill 
amendment and had read a clause of the first paragraph when Mr. John W. 
Langley, of Kentucky, interrupted the reading and moved to strike out 
the last word.
  Mr. J. Hampton Moore, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that 
the reading of the paragraph had not been concluded and it was not in 
order to offer amendments until the paragraph had been read in full.
  The Chairman \2\ sustained the point of order and said:

  The gentleman from Pennsylvania has raised a point of order which the 
Chair thinks is well taken. The Chairman will recognize the gentleman 
from Kentucky when the first paragraph is really read.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 527.
  \2\ Walter A. Watson, of Virginia, Chairman.
                                                            Sec. 2867
  2867. In reading a bill for amendment under the five minute rule a 
paragraph is passed when an amendment proposing the adoption of a new 
section is entertained, but if such amendment is ruled out on a point 
of order, the paragraph last read is still pending.
  On March 21, 1908,\1\ the fortifications appropriation bill was under 
consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union.
  Mr. Harry L. Maynard, of Virginia, offered an amendment to the 
pending paragraph to be inserted as a new section, which was ruled out 
on a point of order.
  Mr. David A. DeArmond, of Missouri, then proposed an amendment to the 
paragraph last read.
  Mr. Walter I. Smith, of Iowa, made the point of order that an 
amendment in the form of a new section having been offered, the 
paragraph last read had been passed and it was now too late to propose 
to amend it.
  The Chairman \2\ held:

  The gentleman from Virginia having offered an amendment by a new 
paragraph if that had been entertained, the motion of the gentleman 
from Missouri would be too late beyond question; but that not having 
been entertained, it can scarcely be held that the paragraph is passed, 
and consequently the Chair overrules the point of order.

  2868. An amendment to perfect the pending section takes precedence of 
an amendment offered as a new paragraph.
  On July 19, 1919,\3\ the bill (H. R. 6810) the prohibition 
enforcement bill, was under consideration in the Committee of the Whole 
house on the state of the Union, under the five-minute rule.
  Mr. John F. Miller, of Washington, offered an amendment to be 
inserted as a new paragraph to follow the pending section.
  Mr. Edward W. Saunders, of Virginia, raised a question of order 
against the amendment on the ground that several Members desired to 
offer amendments to perfect the pending section.
  The Chairman \4\ sustained the point of order.
  2869. On September 12, 1919,\5\ the bill (H. R. 8778) to amend the 
war risk insurance act, was being considered in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union.
  Mr. Roscoe C. McCulloch, of Ohio, proposed an amendment to be 
inserted as a new section.
  Mr. Fred H. Dominick, of South Carolina, requested recognition to 
offer an amendment to perfect the pending section.
  The Chairman \6\ held:

  The Chair rules that the original section can be amended as long as 
any gentleman desires to offer an amendment to it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 3729.
  \2\ Irving P. Wanger, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
  \3\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2875.
  \4\ James W. Good, of Iowa, Chairman.
  \5\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 5328.
  \6\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Chairman.
Sec. 2870
  An amendment to perfect the text of the section would take precedence 
over an amendment offered as a new section.

  2870. During the reading of a bill for amendment, a paragraph or 
amendment when once reported may not be read a second time except by 
order of the committee.
  On January 22, 1924,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union was considering the Interior Department appropriation 
bill.
  The Clerk read a paragraph proposing to close certain land offices.
  Mr. Louis C. Cramton, of Michigan, offered an amendment providing for 
continuance of the land offices at Sacramento, California, Great Falls, 
Montana, and Alliance, Nebraska.
  Mr. Frank Clark, of Florida, asked that the paragraph and amendment 
be read as it would appear if the amendment was adopted.
  Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, objected.
  Mr. Otis Wingo, of Arkansas, made the point of order that it was in 
order for a Member to demand, as a matter of right, the reading of an 
amendment upon which he was required to vote.
  The Chairman \2\ held that a second reading was in order only by 
unanimous consent, and overruled the point of order.
  2871. A motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill with amendments 
is a proposal to suspend all rules and it is not necessary to read the 
bill in its original form.
  On June 27, 1921,\3\ Mr. Thomas B. Dunn, of New York, moved to 
suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1072) providing for rural post 
roads, with certain amendments proposed by the Committee on the Post 
Office and Post Roads, reporting the bill.
  The Clerk proceeded to read the bill as amended when Mr. Finis J. 
Garrett, of Tennessee, made the point of order that the Senate bill 
should first be read in its original form.
  The Speaker \4\ ruled:

  It seems to the Chair that the practical purpose is best effected by 
simply reading the portion of the bill which it is expected to have 
enacted, because the motion to suspend the rules does not allow more 
than one vote. In ordinary cases the Senate bill is reported and then 
the House amendments. Then the vote comes first on the amendments and 
then on the bill as amended. Of course, under a suspension there is 
only one vote, and that is on the passage of whatever has been read. 
That has been the practice, and the Chair thinks that conforms to the 
convenience of the House. Only the matter is read which the House is to 
pass upon. It seems to the Chair to be clearly a waste of time to read 
the Senate bill and then the amendments. Inasmuch as the practice is in 
the way the Chair has suggested, the Chair is disposed to rule that all 
the Clerk ought to report is the title of the Senate bill and then the 
portion that may have been left by the House committee, and the 
amendment of the House committee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 1293.
  \2\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Chairman.
  \3\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 3081.
  \4\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 2872
  2872. An amendment read for information is not pending and in order 
to be considered must again be read when the paragraph to which 
proposed is reached in the bill.
  On July 19, 1919,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union had under consideration the bill H. R. 6810, the prohibition 
enforcement bill.
  Mr. Andrew J. Volstead, of Minnesota, asked that amendments which had 
previously been read for information, be considered as pending.
  Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, made the point of order that in 
order to be considered the amendments would have to be again reported.
  The Chairman \2\ sustained the point of order.
  2873. During the reading of a bill for amendment in Committee of the 
Whole, it is not in order to interrupt the reading of a paragraph or 
section with a parliamentary inquiry.
  On August 29, 1918,\3\ the bill S. 1419, the water power bill, was 
being read for amendment in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union.
  The Clerk was reading the second section of the bill when Mr. John E. 
Raker, of California, interposed and proposed to submit a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, made the point of order that the 
reading of a section could not be interrupted by a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The Chairman \4\ sustained the point of order and directed the Clerk 
to complete the reading of the section.
  2874. A pro forma amendment must be voted on unless withdrawn.
  On April 18, 1908,\5\ the diplomatic and consular appropriation bill 
was being considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union.
  Mr. Gustav Kustermann, of Wisconsin, for the purpose of securing the 
floor in debate, moved to strike out the last word of the pending 
paragraph.
  After debate, the Chairman directed the Clerk to continue the reading 
of the bill.
  Mr. John Sharp Williams, of Mississippi, made the point of order that 
further reading of the bill was not in order until the pending 
amendment was voted on.
  The Chairman \6\ said:

  The Chair will say to the gentleman from Mississippi that the method 
by which we proceed when a motion is made to strike out the last word 
has become a custom almost, but the Chair stands corrected by the 
gentleman from Mississippi, and now announces that the pro forma 
amendment to strike out the last word will, without objection, be 
considered as having been withdrawn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2860.
  \2\ Cassius C. Dowell, of Iowa, Chairman.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 9663.
  \4\ Edwin Y. Webb, of North Carolina, Chairman.
  \5\ First session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 4926.
  \6\ Adin B. Capron, of Rhode Island, Chairman.
Sec. 2875
  2875. It is in order, by a motion to insert, to effect a transfer of 
paragraphs from the latter to the first portion of a bill.
  On December 8, 1919,\1\ during consideration in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union, of the bill (H. R. 8067) to 
establish standard weights and measures for the District of Columbia, 
Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, being recognized, said:

  Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago I submitted a parliamentary inquiry 
to the Chair, who decided that it was not in order to move a 
transposition of sections 1 and 31. I am now informed that the Chair 
thinks possibly he was inadvertent in that ruling, and in order to 
raise that question in its appropriate place, I ask unanimous consent 
to return to section 1, so that I may offer that motion.

  Whereupon, the Chairman \2\ announced:

  The Chair will announce that when the parliamentary inquiry was made 
by the gentleman from Alabama the Chair stated that a subsequent 
section could only be inserted in the portion of the bill under 
consideration by unanimous consent. The Chair thinks he was in error, 
if the matter desired to be transposed is proper for consideration at 
the portion of the bill under discussion. It has been held in the 
consideration of bills in the House that a subsequent section might be 
offered in connection with the section then under consideration. The 
Chair wants to make that statement in connection with the present 
request of the gentleman from Alabama.

  2876. The pagination and marginal numerals are no part of the text of 
a bill and, after amendment, are altered, changed or transposed by the 
clerk to conform to the amended text without order.
  On September 13, 1917,\3\ during consideration of the bill (H. R. 
5723) amending the war risk insurance act, Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
offered an amendment to be inserted after a certain word in line 15 of 
the bill.
  Mr. William W. Rucker, of Missouri, called attention to the adoption 
of an amendment which had moved this word from line 15 and as a 
parliamentary inquiry, asked if it would be necessary to modify the 
proposed amendment to conform to this change.
  The Chairman \4\ said:

  The Chair will state to both gentlemen in answer to the parliamentary 
inquiry, that this is a clerical proposition. The amendment is offered 
in the correct form and when it comes to the enrollment of the bill, 
under the rules and practice it will be properly enrolled.

  2877. Instance in which the title of a bill was amended on a day 
subsequent to its passage.
  On July 29, 1916,\5\ following the reading and approval of the 
Journal, Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, said:

   Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the House passed the bill H. R. 16912, 
granting the consent of Congress to the county commissioners of 
Trumbull County, Ohio, to construct a bridge across the Mahoning River 
in the State of Ohio. The bill was amended but the title was not 
amended, and I ask unanimous consent that the title be amended by 
striking out the words ``the county, commissioners of.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 301.
  \2\ Philip P. Campbell, of Kansas, Chairman.
  \3\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 7077.
  \4\ Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, Chairman.
  \5\ First session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 11807.
                                                            Sec. 2878
  The question being submitted to the House, there was no objection and 
the motion was agreed to.
  2878. If a portion of a proposed amendment is out of order, the whole 
of it must be ruled out.
  On February 1, 1909,\1\ the House was considering the Army 
appropriation bill in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union.
  The clerk read a paragraph making an appropriation for shooting 
ranges, including a proviso authorizing the acquisition of additional 
land for the target range at Fort Leavenworth, and further providing 
that the appropriation be immediately available.
  Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, raised a question of order 
against the paragraph.
  After debate, the Chairman \2\ ruled:

  In reference to the point of order that is raised, the Chair is of 
opinion that a certain portion of the paragraph is subject to a point 
of order, but only a certain portion. The Chair thinks that the 
acquisition of 320 acres, under the rules of the House and its 
procedure, is not subject to a point of order. The Chair will, however, 
state that the second proviso is subject to the point of order. The 
Chair refers to that portion of the section which provides that the 
funds herein provided, or so much thereof as may be necessary, shall be 
immediately available. Under that provision this appropriation should 
go on the deficiency appropriation bill; and, therefore, if the point 
of order is insisted upon against the whole paragraph, it would be 
necessary to strike it out because the second portion is obnoxious to 
the rule.

  2879. A decision as to what constitutes a substitute.
  To qualify as a substitute an amendment must treat in the same manner 
the same subject matter carried by the text for which proposed.
  On June 7, 1921,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 6611) to establish a 
veterans' bureau in the Treasury Department.
  The Clerk read:

  Such regional offices may exercise such powers for hearing complaints 
and for examining rating, and awarding compensation claims, granting 
medical, surgical, dental, and hospital care, convalescent care, and 
necessary and reasonable after care, making insurance awards, granting 
vocational training, and all other matters delegated to them by the 
director as could be performed lawfully under this act by the central 
office.

  Mr. Burton E. Sweet, of Iowa, offered this amendment:

  After the word ``powers'' insert (``as may be delegated to them by 
the director.'')

  Mr. John Jacob Rogers, of Massachusetts, proposed, as a substitute 
for the amendment, the following:

  Strike out the sentence and insert in lieu thereof the following: 
Such regional offices shall, under the control of the director, have 
the power to hear complaints, to examine, rate, and award compensation 
claims; to grant medical, surgical, dental, hospital, and convalescent 
care and necessary and reasonable after care; to make reasonable 
awards; to grant vocational training; and, if delegated to them by the 
director, may exercise such other powers as could be performed lawfully 
under this act by the central office.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 1700.
  \2\ James B. Perkins, of New York, Chairman.
  \3\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2220.
Sec. 2880
  Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, made the point of order that 
the proposition purporting to be offered as a substitute treated of a 
subject different from that under consideration and was not in fact a 
substitute but an entirely independent proposition.
  The Chairman \1\ ruled:

  The amendment of the gentleman from Iowa perfects the text with 
respect to two propositions. It strikes out no language in the text, 
but the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts strikes out all 
of the sentence. It amends the text of the bill in many particulars not 
touched at all by the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa. The Chair 
thinks that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts 
is not a substitute and sustains the point of order.

  2880. An amendment striking out language other than in the pending 
amendment is not in order as a substitute for an amendment inserting 
language.
  On May 13, 1926,\2\ the bill (H. R. 11603) to establish a Federal 
Farm Board to aid in orderly marketing and in the control and 
disposition of surplus agricultural commodities was under consideration 
in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, when Mr. 
Melvin O. McLaughlin, of Nebraska, proposed an amendment inserting a 
new provision in section 8 of the bill.
  Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, offered as a substitute for the amendment 
a proposition to strike out a portion of section 8.
  The Chairman \3\ declined to entertain the amendment and said:

  The Chair does not think the amendment will be in order until the 
perfecting amendment is disposed of. The amendment of the gentleman 
from Texas strikes out--
  The amendment of the gentleman from Nebraska did not propose to 
strike out anything, but adds to the language in the bill, and is a 
perfecting amendment.

  2881. On January 10, 1933,\4\ in the course of the consideration of 
the bill H. R. 13991, the farm relief bill, in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union, Mr. D. D. Glover, of Arkansas, 
offered this amendment:

  Page 2, line 17, after the word ``wheat'', insert a comma and the 
word ``rice.''

  Subsequently, Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, proposed a 
substitute to the amendment offered by Mr. Glover, as follows:

  Page 2, line 18, after the letters ``ble,'' strike out ``solely with 
respect to wheat, cotton, tobacco, and hogs'' and insert in lieu 
thereof the following: ``to certain commodities hereinafter 
specified.''

  Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, made the point of order that 
the amendment proposed as a substitute was not in fact a substitute, 
and was not in order.
  The Chairman \5\ sustained the point of order and said:

  The point of order is made by the gentleman from Wisconsin that this 
is not a substitute. The Chair does not think that it is a substitute 
for the pending amendment. The pending amendment seeks to include rice 
only, while the gentleman's substitute seeks to strike out certain lan-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, Chairman.
  \2\ First session Sixty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 9396.
  \3\ Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, Chairman.
  \4\ Second session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 1530.
  \5\ Lindsay C. Warren, of North Carolina, chairman.
                                                            Sec. 2882
guage in the section and insert in lieu thereof other language. The 
Chair sustains the point of order that it is not a substitute for the 
pending amendment.

  Mr. LaGuardia inquired when it would be in order for him to offer his 
proposition.
  The Chairman said:

  As soon as the Glover amendment is disposed of. The question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas.

  2882. A proposition to strike out all after the first two words of an 
amendment and insert a new text in lieu thereof was held to be an 
amendment and not a substitute.
  On April 28, 1924,\1\ the bill (H. R. 7962) to regulate rents in the 
District of Columbia, was being considered in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union.
  Mr. Florian Lampert, of Wisconsin, offered an amendment proposing to 
strike out all after the enacting clause and insert a new text.
  Mr. Henry L. Jost, of Missouri, proposed as a substitute to strike 
out all after the first two words of the pending amendment and insert 
new language.
  A question having been raised as to the order in which the pending 
amendments should be voted on, the Chairman \2\ said:

  The Chair finds on close inspection that the Jost amendment is not a 
substitute. The Chair at first blush thought it was, but on looking at 
it the Chair observed this peculiarity about the motion: It does not 
strike out all of the Lampert substitute, but says ``after the word 
`it' insert the following language.'' In other words, the amendment 
does not cut out the first two words of the Lampert substitute, and 
although that is extremely technical, yet at the same time it makes the 
Jost amendment a perfecting amendment.

  In response to an inquiry by Mr. Charles L. Abernethy, of North 
Carolina, as to whether it would be necessary to vote on the amendment 
offered by Mr. Lampert in event the amendment proposed by Mr. Jost was 
agreed to, the Chairman held:

  The passage of the Jost amendment simply amends the original 
proposition.
  It operates as an amendment of it, and then the question will arise 
on the Lampert amendment as amended.

  2883. Under the recent practice of the House the substitute provided 
for in Rule XIX has been construed as a substitute for the amendment 
and not a substitute for the text.
  A substitute can be entertained only after an amendment is pending.
  When an amendment is pending only one substitute for the amendment is 
in order.
  There may be pending simultaneously, the original text, an amendment 
to the text, an amendment to the amendment, a substitute for the 
amendment and an amendment to the substitute.
  On October 17, 1921,\3\ the House was considering the bill (H. R. 
7761) to amend the law relative to contested-election cases.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 7421.
  \2\ George S. Graham, of Pennsylvania.
  \3\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 6401.
Sec. 2884
  Mr. Frederick W. Dallinger, of Massachusetts, offered an amendment 
striking out all of section 2 of the bill and inserting other language 
in lieu thereof.
  To this amendment, Mr. Everett Sanders, of Indiana, offered an 
amendment modifying the language proposed to be inserted.
  Mr. John E. Raker, of California, proposed to offer a substitute for 
the original amendment offered by Mr. Dallinger.
  Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, made a point of order against 
the substitute proposed by Mr. Raker.
  In debating the question, Mr. Sanders said:

  Rule XIX says:
  ``And it shall also be in order to offer a further amendment by way 
of substitute, to which one amendment may be offered.''

  The Speaker \1\ held:

  That means a substitute for the amendment.

  Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, continuing debate on the pending 
point of order said:

  There is no such thing as an amendment by way of a substitute for the 
original text. A substitute is always offered in place of an amendment 
which has been offered and not for the original text.
  The original amendment was a motion to strike out and insert. Now, to 
that amendment one substitute can be offered, and there can be an 
amendment to that substitute. But gentlemen get confused by calling the 
amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts a substitute, which it is 
not. It is an amendment. A substitute can only be offered when an 
amendment has been offered.
  The word ``substitute'' as used in the rule, as gentlemen will see by 
careful reading applies to an amendment that has already been offered. 
If you read the language read by the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 
Sanders, you will see from what he read that when an amendment is 
offered only one substitute to that amendment can be offered.
  I do not see how you can offer a substitute when an amendment has not 
been offered.

  The Speaker approved:

  The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Walsh, has stated substantially 
what the Chair has been attempting to state.
  The Chair overrules the point of order.

  2884. A substitute for an entire bill should be offered after the 
reading of the first section or at the conclusion of the reading of the 
bill, and it is not in order after an intermediate section is read.
  On May 3, 1928,\2\ the bill (S. 3555) to establish a Federal Farm 
Board to aid in the orderly marketing and in the control and 
disposition of the surplus of agricultural commodities in interstate 
and foreign commerce was under consideration in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union.
  Following the reading of the second section of the bill, Mr. John C. 
Ketcham, of Michigan, moved to strike out the section and insert a new 
bill providing for the export-debenture plan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 7731.
                                                            Sec. 2885
  Mr. C. William Ramseyer, of Iowa, made the point of order that a 
substitute for the entire bill should be offered after the reading of 
the first section or at the conclusion of the reading of the bill for 
amendment.
  The Chairman \1\ sustained the point of order.
  2885. On August 23, 1922,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union had under consideration the bill (H. R. 12377) to 
create a national coal commission.
  To the pending committee amendment striking out all after the 
enacting clause and inserting a new bill, Mr. Oscar E. Bland, of 
Indiana, offered an amendment striking out all of the proposed 
amendment and substituting other language.
  Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, raised a question of order 
against the amendment proposed by Mr. Bland.
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, in discussing the point of order 
said:


  Rule XIX reads as follows:
  ``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.''
  Does not that entirely cover the question? Here is an original 
proposition before the House, the original bill, to which the committee 
has offered an amendment. An amendment may be offered to that amendment 
under this rule, and a substitute may be offered to the committee 
amendment under that rule. An amendment may be offered to the 
substitute under that rule, but the original text shall be perfected 
before these substitute amendments are voted on. Does not that 
absolutely cover the case?
  You can have pending an original proposition, an amendment to it, and 
amendment to the amendment, a substitute, and an amendment to the 
substitute. That makes five.


  The Chairman \3\ ruled:


  The text is the original proposition. The committee offers an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute. There may be a substitute for 
the committee amendment; there may be an amendment to the substitute; 
there may be an amendment to the committee amendment as the matter now 
stands. So the Chair thinks that we may proceed in order to the 
consideration of the substitute offered by the gentleman from Indiana 
for the committee amendment. And the Chair overrules the point of 
order.


  2886. The original resolution, for which a substitute is recommended 
by the standing committee reporting the same, must be read before the 
substitute is read unless such reading is dispensed with by unanimous 
consent.
  On June 6, 1911,\4\ Mr. Robert L. Henry, of Texas, from the Committee 
on Rules, reported the resolution (H. Res. 154) providing for an 
investigation of methods of tax assessments in the District of 
Columbia.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, Chairman.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 11711.
  \3\ Philip P. Campbell, of Kansas, Chairman.
  \4\ First session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 1718.
Sec. 2887
  The Clerk having read the title of the resolution, Mr. Henry 
interrupted and explained that the Committee on Rules had recommended 
the adoption of a substitute, and submitted a parliamentary inquiry as 
to whether it was necessary to read the original resolution or merely 
the substitute resolution proposed by the committee.
  The Speaker pro tempore \1\ held:


  The original resolution will first have to be read and then the 
substitute unless dispensed with.
  The gentleman from Texas asks unanimous consent that the substitute 
may be read in lieu of the original resolution. Is there objection?


  2887. There may be pending with the amendment, and the amendment to 
it, another amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to 
the substitute.
  On December 4, 1918,\2\ the bill (H. R. 12917) to provide a 
sanitarium for soldiers and sailors was under consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
  Mr. Cassius C. Dowell, of Iowa, offered an amendment striking from 
the bill the provision that the proposed sanitarium should be located 
at Dawson Springs, Kentucky.
  Mr. Halvor Steenerson, of Minnesota, offered a substitute for the 
amendment authorizing the location of the sanitarium on public land in 
Minnesota.
  Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, proposed an amendment to the substitute 
providing for the location of the sanitarium in Amarillo, Potter 
County, Texas.
  Mr. Caleb Powers, of Kentucky, raised a question of order against the 
proposition to amend the substitute on the ground that it constituted 
an amendment in the third degree.
  The Chairman \3\ overruled the point of order and said:


  The rules provide that you can have an amendment and a substitute to 
the amendment and then there can be an amendment to the original 
amendment and an amendment to the substitute all pending at one time.


  2888. While there may be pending an amendment, an amendment to it, 
and another amendment in the nature of a substitute, an amendment in 
the third degree may not be admitted under the guise of a substitute.
  On February 26, 1924,\4\ the revenue bill was being considered in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
  Mr. William R. Green, of Iowa, offered an amendment to be inserted as 
a new section providing rates of taxation on gifts, including the 
following:


  One per cent of the amount of gifts not in excess of $50,000;
  Two per cent of the amount by which the gifts exceed $50,000 and not 
to exceed $100,000.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Charles L. Bartlett, of Georgia, Speaker pro tempore.
  \2\ Third session, Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 113.
  \3\ Martin D. Foster, of Illinois, Chairman.
  \4\ First session, Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 3174.
                                                            Sec. 2889
  To this amendment Mr. Ogden L. Mills, of New York, offered an 
amendment striking out ``1 per cent'' and inserting ``2 per cent.''
  Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, proposed as a substitute for the 
original amendment that the rate be made ``one-half of one per cent.''
  Mr. Allen T. Treadway, of Massachusetts, made the point of order that 
the proposal comprised an amendment in the third degree.
  The Chairman \1\ considered the proposal an amendment to the 
amendment offered by Mr. Mills and not a substitute for the original 
amendment, and sustained the point of order.
  2889. A substitute for an amendment to an amendment is in the third 
degree and is not permissible.
  On April 12, 1926,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union was considering the bill (S. 41) to encourage and regulate 
the use of aircraft in commerce.
  A committee amendment was pending, to which Mr. George Huddleston, of 
Alabama, had proposed a perfecting amendment.
  Mr. Hoch, of Kansas, offered an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute for the perfecting amendment.
  A question of order being raised by the Chairman, on the ground that 
the substitute constituted an amendment in the third degree, Mr. Hoch 
took the position that while an amendment to the perfecting amendment 
would not be admissible, a substitute for the perfecting amendment was 
in order.
  The Chairman \3\ ruled:

  The Chair will state that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Alabama is an amendment in the second degree.
  The Chair finds the reference he had in his mind, which is in the 
Manual on page 356, reading as follows:
  ``An amendment in the third degree is not specified by the rule and 
is not permissible even when the third degree is in the nature of a 
substitute for an amendment to a substitute.''

  2890. On March 12, 1928,\4\ the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union was considering the bill (S. 2317) continuing for 
one year the authority of the Federal Radio Commission.
  To a committee amendment allocating broadcasting licenses among the 
States Mr. Wallace H. White, jr., of Maine, offered an amendment adding 
to the States the District of Columbia.
  Pending the vote on the amendment, Mr. Anthony J. Griffen, of New 
York, proposed a substitute therefor.
  Mr. Eugene Black, of Texas, made the point of order that the 
substitute amounted to an amendment in the third degree.
  The Chairman \3\ sustained the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ William J. Graham, of Illinois, Chairman.
  \2\ First session Sixty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 7328.
  \3\ Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, Chairman.
  \4\ First session Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 4588.
Sec. 2891
  2891. In considering an amendment to a committee amendment, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute for the pending amendment was 
not admitted, being in the third degree.
  On May 26, 1920,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union was considering the bill (S. 3451) for payment of claims to 
wooden-ship builders.
  The pending committee amendment provided in part:

  That the United States Shipping Board be, and it is hereby, 
authorized and directed to investigate, adjust, liquidate, and pay the 
claims of individuals, firms, or corporations who built or contracted 
to build wooden ships for the United States Shipping Board, or the 
United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation after April 6, 
1917.

  Mr. Erwin L. Davis, of Tennessee, offered an amendment to strike out 
the words ``and directed.''
  Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, proposed to offer a substitute for the 
amendment striking out the words ``authorized and directed'' and 
inserting in lieu thereof, the words ``directed to investigate and 
authorized to liquidate.''
  The Chairman \2\ held:

  The motion of the gentleman from Texas is not in order at this time.
  The Chair will read from the House Manual and Digest.
  ``An amendment in the third degree is not specified by the rule and 
is not permissible, even when the third degree is in the nature of a 
substitute for an amendment to a substitute.''
  It is a substitute.
  The Chair is of the opinion that the motion of the gentleman from 
Texas is not in order and so holds.

  Mr. Jones having appealed, the decision of the chair was sustained.
  2892. When the four amendments in order under the rule are pending, 
the vote is taken first on the amendment to the amendment and then on 
the amendment to the substitute.
  On December 10, 1920,\3\ the bill (H. R. 14461) the immigration bill, 
was being considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union.
  The Clerk read as follows:

  Except as otherwise provided in this act, from 60 days after the 
passage of this act, and until the expiration of two years next after 
its passage, the immigration of aliens to the United States is 
prohibited.

  Mr. Isaac Siegel, of New York, offered an amendment changing the 
period from 60 days to two years.
  Mr. Warren Gard, of Ohio, moved to amend the proposed amendment by 
changing the period to one year.
  Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, proposed a substitute to strike out 
``two year'' and insert ``26 months''.
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, offered an amendment to the 
substitute changing the period to fourteen months.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 7694.
  \2\ Clifton N. McArthur, of Oregon, Chairman.
  \3\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 184.
                                                            Sec. 2893
  After debate, the Chairman \1\ put the question first on the 
amendment to the substitute.
  Subsequently, the Chairman announced:

  A few moments ago an amendment was pending, and an amendment to that 
amendment, a substitute, and an amendment to the substitute. The Chair 
started to put those amendments in their usual order, putting the 
amendment to the amendment first, then the amendment to the substitute, 
then the substitute, and finally the amendment as amended, whereupon a 
storm of protest arose, joined in by such veteran parliamentarians as 
the ex-Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clark, 
the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Mann, and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Walsh. The parliamentary clerk at that time had had 
no opportunity to look up the precedents in the matter. Under such 
pressure the Chair yielded, and put the question upon the amendment to 
the substitute before putting the amendment to the amendment. In doing 
this the Chair erred. I wish to make this correction now, so that it 
will not hereafter be considered as a precedent.

  2893. On June 9, 1921,\2\ the bill (H. R. 6611) to establish a 
veterans' Bureau in the Treasury Department was under consideration in 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
  Mr. Samuel E. Winslow, of Massachusetts, moved the debate on the 
pending section and all amendments thereto be terminated in 30 minutes.
  Mr. Oscar E. Bland, of Indiana, offered as a amendment to the motion 
a proposition to limit debate to 45 minutes.
  Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York, proposed as a substitute for the 
motion to close debate in one hour.
  Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, offered an amendment to the 
substitute, providing for extension of the time to two hours.
  The Chairman \3\ said:

  The Chair holds that all the amendments that are in order have been 
offered, and the question, therefore, comes on the amendment to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana that the time for 
debate on this paragraph and all amendments thereto be closed in 45 
minutes.

  Mr. Bland inquired if the vote should not come first on the proposal 
last made to limit debate to two hours.
  The Chairman said:

  No; the first question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Indiana that debate on this section and all amendments thereto 
close at the end of 45 minutes instead of 30, as proposed by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts.
  The Chair thinks the next question in order would be a vote on the 2-
hour proposition.
  The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana to the 
motion of the gentleman from Massachusetts.

  2894. An original proposition may be perfected by amendments before 
the vote is taken on the substitute.
  On February 10, 1910,\4\ the House was considering the resolution (H. 
Res. 371) relating to the privileges of the House, to which was pending 
an amendment offered
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, Chairman.
  \2\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2328.
  \3\ Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, Chairman.
  \4\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 1750.
Sec. 2895
by Mr. R. Wayne Parker, of New Jersey, and a substitute proposed by Mr. 
Henry D. Clayton, of Alabama.
  The question having been raised by Mr. Clayton as to which of the two 
should first be voted on, the Speaker \1\ held that the amendment to 
perfect the original resolution should be disposed of before voting 
upon the substitute.
  2895. A substitute for an amendment is not voted on until after 
amendments to the amendment have been disposed of.
  On April 7, 1922,\2\ the Departments of State and Justice 
appropriation bill was under consideration in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union, under the five-minute rule.
  Mr. Edward E. Denison, of Illinois, offered an amendment prohibiting 
the expenditure of amounts appropriated by the bill in payment for 
legal service in proceedings brought to prevent labor organizations 
from striking.
  Mr. Ben Johnson, of Kentucky, proposed a substitute for the amendment 
prohibiting the expenditure of any money appropriated by the bill in 
preventing labor organizations from entering into combinations to 
better conditions of labor, or to prevent farm organizations from 
cooperating to secure a fair price for agricultural products.
  Mr. Meyer London, of New York, offered an amendment modifying the 
phraseology of the amendment.
  After debate, the Chairman was stating the question, when Mr. Johnson 
submitted that the question came first on the substitute.
  The Chairman \3\ held:

  The amendment of the gentleman from New York, Mr. London, is first in 
order. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from New York.

  The question having been put, the amendment proposed by Mr. London 
was rejected, and the Chairman announced:

  The question recurs upon the substitute of the gentleman from 
Kentucky, Mr. Johnson.

  2896. An amendment in the nature of a substitute may be proposed 
before amendments to the original text have been acted on, but may not 
be voted on until after such amendments have been disposed of.
  On June 10, 1921,\4\ while the bill (H. R. 6611) to establish a 
veterans' bureau in the Treasury Department was under consideration in 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, the Clerk 
read a section providing for payment of compensation for disabilities.
  Mr. Walter W. Magee, of New York, offered the following amendment:

  If the disabled person is so helpless as to be in constant need of a 
nurse or attendant, such additional sum shall be paid, not exceeding 
$50 a month, as the director may deem reasonable.

  Mr. Horace M. Towner of Iowa, offered the following amendment to the 
amendment:

  Strike out the figures ``$50'' and insert in lieu thereof the figures 
``$100.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 5203.
  \3\ Cassius C. Dowell, of Iowa, Chairman.
  \4\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 2404.
                                                            Sec. 2897
  Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., New York, proposed as a substitute for the 
original amendment the following:

  If and while the disability is rated as total and permanent, the rate 
of compensation shall be $100 per month.

  Mr. Towner made the point of order that it was not in order to 
propose a substitute until the pending amendments had been voted on.
  The Chairman \1\ held:

  It is in order to offer a substitute for the original amendment 
before a vote is taken upon a perfecting amendment, and when the vote 
is finally taken the vote will come first upon the perfecting 
amendment.

  2897. On May 24, 1924,\2\ the bill H. R. 9033, the farm relief bill, 
was being considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union.
  The first section having been read by the Clerk, Mr. James B. Aswell, 
of Louisiana, moved to strike out the section and insert an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute for the entire bill, with notice that if 
the motion prevailed he would move to strike out the remaining sections 
of the bill as read.
  Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, requested recognition to offer an 
amendment to the pending section, and submitted that as the proponent 
of a perfecting amendment he was entitled to precedence in recognition 
of a Member proposing to strike out the section.
  The Chairman \3\ held:

  The rule is that a perfecting amendment takes precedence over a 
substitute amendment, but if the amendment by way of substitute has 
been offered, the Member obtaining recognition, and then some one else 
subsequently obtains recognition and says he has a preferential 
amendment to offer, the preference relates only to the action by the 
committee upon the amendment and not to the method of offering it. The 
Chair will later recognize the gentleman from Texas to offer his 
amendment, but at the present time the amendment of the gentleman from 
Louisiana may be reported.

  2898. 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 
agreed to, motions will be made to strike out the remaining paragraphs 
when read.
  In reading a bill for amendment it is not in order to return to a 
paragraph already acted on.
  A point of order having been reserved and withdrawn, the Chairman 
maintained the right as a member of the committee to renew and rule 
upon it.
  On February 25, 1920,\4\ the legislative, executive, and judicial 
appropriation bill was being read for amendment in the Committee of the 
whole House on the state of the Union.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, Chairman.
  \2\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 9435.
  \3\ Everett Sanders, of Indiana, Chairman.
  \4\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3469.
Sec. 2899
  Mr. Edmund Platt, of New York, moved to strike out the pending 
paragraph and with it preceding paragraphs already passed in the 
reading of the bill, and insert in lieu thereof an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  Mr. Edward W. Saunders, of Virginia, made the point of order that it 
was too late to propose amendments to paragraphs already acted on.
  After discussion, Mr. Saunders withdrew the point of order.
  The Chairman,\1\ however, proceeded to rule, and said:

  The Chair thinks that inasmuch as this amendment strikes out the 
language already adopted in the bill and paragraphs already passed, it 
is not in order.

  Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, submitted that the point of order 
having been withdrawn it was not within the province of the chair to 
entertain it.
  The Chairman said:

  Unquestionably. The Chair is a member of the Committee of the Whole.
  It seemed to the Chair under the circumstances, the point of order 
having been made and reserved, it being so clear to the Chair that this 
amendment was not in order. The motion should not be entertained.

  Continuing, the Chairman cited section 5795 of Hinds' Precedents, and 
said:

  The Chair has that entire ruling before him, and the Chair is not 
aware of any precedent to the contrary. If any gentleman can cite to 
the Chair any precedent which will authorize the offering of an 
amendment to a paragraph that has been acted upon, the Chair will be 
glad to have the citation.
  The gentleman seeks to strike out language before the proviso 
relating to the organization of the Federal Farm Loan Bureau. The 
gentleman could have risen when the first paragraph was read and given 
notice that if that motion were agreed to he would move to strike out 
the subsequent paragraph.
  The Chair thinks it would be a very bad precedent to hold that the 
committee could go back and amend paragraphs which it has already 
adopted.

  2899. On November 13, 1919,\2\ while the bill H. R. 10453, the 
railway control bill, was under consideration in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union, Mr. Albert Johnson, of 
Washington, proposed to offer a substitute for Title III of the bill, 
embracing a number of sections.
  The Chairman \3\ said:

  The gentleman can not offer a substitute for the entire title. It 
will have to be done as the sections are read. The gentleman might 
offer the substitute to the first section in Title III.

  Mr. J. Stanley Webster, of Washington, moved an amendment, which the 
Chairman entertained, and stated as follows:

  The gentleman from Washington offers a substitute for section 300, 
just read, giving notice that if the substitute for that section is 
adopted he will move to strike the other sections from the bill. The 
Clerk will report the substitute.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Chairman.
  \2\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 8479.
  \3\ Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
                                                            Sec. 2900
  2900. On May 2, 1928,\1\ the House was in the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill (S. 
3550) to establish a Federal Farm Board to aid in the orderly marketing 
and in the control and disposition of the surplus of agricultural 
commodities.
  The Clerk having read the first section of the bill, Mr. James B. 
Aswell, of Louisiana, offered a substitute for the bill with notice 
that if the substitute was agreed to he would move to strike out 
subsequent sections as read.
  Mr. Cassius C. Dowell, of Iowa, made the point of order that 
committee amendments should be first considered, and therefore the 
proposed substitute was not in order.
  The Chairman \2\ overruled the point of order and said.

  The Chair will state to the gentlemen from Iowa that he has 
recognized the gentleman from Louisiana.
  The gentleman from Louisiana offers an amendment, which the Clerk 
will report.

  2901. When it is proposed to offer an amendment to strike out a 
section consisting of several paragraphs, of a bill which is being 
considered by paragraphs, the amendment may be moved to the first 
paragraph with notice that if it be agreed to, a similar motion will be 
made to strike out the succeeding paragraphs as they are reached.
  On February 20, 1924,\3\ the bill (H. R. 7615), the revenue bill, was 
being read for amendment in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union.
  The Clerk read severally the three paragraphs comprising section 209 
of the bill. At the conclusion of the reading of the third paragraph 
Mr. Eugene Black, of Texas, offered an amendment striking out portions 
of all three paragraphs.
  Mr. William R. Green, of Iowa, made the point of order that the first 
two paragraphs of the section had been read and the amendment came too 
late.
  The Chairman \4\ ruled:

  The Chair is constrained to rule that under the practice, where a 
bill is being read by paragraphs and it is desired to strike out the 
section, the proper thing to do is to move to strike out the section in 
the first place or to wait until the first paragraph is read and then 
move to strike it out, with notice that a similar motion will be made 
to each succeeding paragraph as it is reached. In view of the matter, 
in which I am confirmed by consultation with the parliamentarian, the 
Chair is constrained to sustain the point of order.

  2902. When it is proposed to offer a single substitute for the entire 
bill, 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 May 22, 1922,\5\ the bill (S. 2919) for the extension of the 
District of Columbia rents act, was being considered in the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 7648.
  \2\ Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, Chairman.
  \3\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 2854.
  \4\ William J. Graham, of Illinois, Chairman.
  \5\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 7417.
Sec. 2903
  Mr. Stuart F. Reed, of West Virginia, offered an amendment which the 
Clerk read as follows:

  With notice that if adopted he will move to strike out subsequent 
sections of the bill when read, namely: ``Strike out all of section 1 
and lieu thereof insert the following:
  ``That it is hereby declared that the emergency described in Title II 
of the food control and the District of Columbia rents act still exists 
and continues in the District of Columbia, and that the present housing 
and rental conditions therein require the further extension of the 
provisions of such title.''

  Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, interrupted the reading of the 
amendment and made the point of order that it was not in order at this 
time to offer a substitute for the entire bill.
  The Chairman \1\ overruled the point of order.
  2903. When it is proposed to offer a substitute for the entire bill 
the substitute may be moved to the first paragraph with notice that if 
adopted motions will be made to strike out subsequent sections as 
reached, but the motion to strike out all after the enacting clause is 
not in order until the entire bill has been read.
  On November 16, 1921,\2\ the bill (H. R. 8928) to provide for the 
classification of civilian Government positions, was under 
consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union.
  The first section of the bill having been read, Mr. William R. Wood, 
of Indiana, moved to strike out all after the enacting clause and 
insert a substitute in lieu thereof.
  Mr. Frederick, R. Lehlbach, of New Jersey, made the point of order 
that the motion was not in order until the remaining sections of the 
bill had been read and opportunity afforded to offer perfecting 
amendments.
  The Chairman \3\ ruled:

  The gentleman from Indiana has offered an amendment to strike out all 
of the bill after the enacting clause and substitute an entirely new 
bill. The first section of the bill has been read. It is clear under 
the precedent that the gentleman can not offer a motion to strike out 
all of the sections, when only the first section has been read.
  The Chair sustains the point of order.

  Thereupon, Mr. Wood moved to strike out the first section and insert 
the substitute just proposed with notice that if agreed to he would 
move to strike out remaining sections of the bill as read.
  The Chairman entertained the motion and said:

  The gentleman from Indiana offers an amendment to the first section 
to strike out the section and substitute the entire bill which he has 
sent to the desk, giving notice that he will subsequent offer motions 
to strike out the subsequent paragraphs when read. The Clerk is now 
reading the amendment offered, which would be an entire substitute, 
with notice given in the event the amendment is carried that he will 
thereafter offer motions to strike out subsequent paragraphs of the 
pending bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Chairman.
  \2\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 7818.
  \3\ Everett Sanders, of Indiana, Chairman.
                                                            Sec. 2904
  2904. Substitutes for an entire bill may be offered following the 
reading of the first paragraph or at the conclusion of the reading of 
the entire bill.
  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.
  On June 28, 1922,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union was considering the bill (S. 3425) to continue certain land 
offices.
  During the reading of the bill for amendment various modifications 
were agreed to, some striking out language and others inserting 
provisions as new paragraphs.
  The reading of the bill having been concluded, Mr. James R. Mann, of 
Illinois, offered a substitute for the entire bill which in effect 
proposed the original bill with modifications changing amendments 
previously agreed to.
  Mr. Louis C. Cramton, of Michigan, made the point of order that the 
substitute was in contravention of action already taken by the 
committee.
  The Chairman \3\ held:

  There are two methods by which substitutes for the entire bill may be 
offered. The first is to offer after the first paragraph has been read, 
a substitute for the entire bill, with the notice that with regard to 
the succeeding sections of the bill, as they are read, a motion will be 
made to strike them out. That method has been used in a good many 
instances. In that case gentleman will notice that, of course, there is 
no opportunity for amending any subsequent section of the bill, 
provided the substitute is agreed to.
  The other method is to offer the substitute for the entire bill at 
the conclusion of the reading of the entire bill as was done in this 
instance by the gentleman from Illinois. Of course, in that case all of 
the amendments that have been adopted by the committee, whatever they 
may be, are stricken out if the substitute is adopted. If the 
substitute contains in effect or in actual language some of the 
amendments that are already agreed to, that does not deprive the mover 
of the substitute of the consideration of his substitute. That applies 
practically to the case that we have before us, in the opinion of the 
Chair. No matter what the effect of this substitute may be, it is the 
right of the committee to vote down or to support the motion of the 
gentleman from Illinois. The point of order is, therefore, overruled.

  2905. 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 as a substitute for a section an amendment 
inserting the same section with modifications and omitting amendments 
to the section previously agreed to by the Committee of the Whole.
  On June 6, 1929,\3\ The House in Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union was considering the bill (S. 312) to provide for the 
fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses and to provide for 
apportionment of Representatives in Congress.
  At the close of the reading of section 22 of the bill, and after two 
amendments to the section had been adopted, Mr. John Q. Tilson, of 
Connecticut, offered as a substitute for section 22 an amendment 
practically identical with the original section with minor 
modifications, but omitting the two amendments just agreed to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 9637.
  \2\ Horace M. Towner, of Iowa, Chairman.
  \3\ First session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 2450.
Sec. 2906
  Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, made the point of order that the 
amendment in effect proposed to strike out language already inserted in 
the bill.
  The Chairman \1\ ruled:

  The Chair has examined the amendment and compared it with the text of 
section 22 and finds a considerable number of changes in form and to 
some extent in substance, which, in the opinion of the Chair, would 
make the amendment in order.
  The only question, it seems to the Chair, that might remain to be 
determined would be whether the fact that this proposed substitute 
omits some of the amendments already adopted by the committee has any 
bearing, and upon that question the Chair has a very complete and 
distinguished precedent and authority which is within the recollection 
of the present occupant of the chair. It occurred on June 28, 1922. The 
Committee of the Whole had before it a bill relating to certain land 
offices and amendments had been adopted eliminating certain such 
offices and adding others, when the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Mann--
recognized, I think, by all of us as one of the greatest 
parliamentarians and legislators in the history of this body--offered 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute which struck out everything 
after the enacting clause and inserted in lieu thereof the original 
bill as amended by amendments offered on behalf of the standing 
committee, but eliminated an amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Idaho, Mr. French, which had been adopted in the Committee of the 
Whole, and had materially changed the principal section of the bill. 
Mr. Mann stated frankly that his purpose was ``to give the committee an 
opportunity to practically pass upon this same question again, but in a 
parliamentary way and one that is in order.'' Mr. Mann stated that if 
the House should adopt the French amendment he was afraid that no 
opportunity would be afforded for voting on some of the committee 
amendments. As a matter of fact, the French amendment, which had been 
adopted by the committee, itself struck out some of the committee 
amendments which had previously been approved by the Committee of the 
Whole.

  The Chairman then read the decision \2\ by Chairman Towner and 
continued:

  While the decision of the Chair in that instance related to a 
substitute for an entire bill, in the pending case the substitute 
relates to an entire section and proposes a substitute for that 
section, and in this particular case, as the Chair has already observed 
in rulings upon section 1--and this may become important hereafter--
this bill is composed of two parts. Sections 1 to 21 relate entirely to 
the taking of the census. Section 22 relates entirely to the 
apportionment of the Members of the House among the States. So that, to 
all intents and purposes, section 22 is a bill all by itself; in fact, 
it is well known that in the Senate the census bill and the 
reapportionment bill were consolidated and section 22 is practically 
the reapportionment bill which this House passed in January of this 
year.
  Therefore the Chair is constrained to the conclusion that the 
question now before the Chair is practically on all fours with the case 
decided in 1922, and the Chair overrules the point of order.

  2906. Amendments to the title of a bill are in order after its 
passage.
  On January 21, 1930,\3\