[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14,  Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[A. Generally]
[Â§ 2. Stating and Putting the Question]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11437-11447]
 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                              A. GENERALLY
 
Sec. 2. Stating and Putting the Question

    Reaching a decision on a motion before the House or the Committee 
of the Whole involves several distinct steps. After debate has 
terminated, the Chair first states the question: ``The question

[[Page 11438]]

is on the motion offered by the Gentleman from ____.'' The Chair's 
statement defines the issue to be voted upon.(13) The Chair 
then puts the question: ``Those in favor of the motion will say aye, 
those opposed will say no.'' The type of vote is then within the 
control of the Members, who can ask for a division, recorded vote, or--
in the House--the yeas and nays.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 2.1, infra.
14. The precise rule which governs the action of the Chair--Rule 1 
        clause 5(a)--is as follows:
            ``He shall rise to put a question, but may state it 
        sitting; and shall put questions in this form, to wit: ``As 
        many as are in favor (as the question may be), say `Aye'.''; 
        and after the affirmative voice is expressed, ``As many as are 
        opposed, say `No'.''; if he doubts, or a division is called 
        for, the House shall divide; those in the affirmative of the 
        question shall first rise from their seats, and then those in 
        the negative. If any Member requests a recorded vote and that 
        request is supported by at least one-fifth of a quorum, such 
        vote shall be taken by electronic device, unless the Speaker in 
        his discretion orders clerks to tell the names of those voting 
        on each side of the question, and such names shall be recorded 
        by electronic device or by clerks, as the case may be, and 
        shall be entered in the Journal, together with the names of 
        those not voting. Members shall have not less than fifteen 
        minutes to be counted from the ordering of the recorded vote or 
        the ordering of clerks to tell the vote.'' See House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 629 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The order in which motions or questions are put to the House is 
dictated by rules, either standing or special. A standing rule may 
establish the ``regular order'' of considering issues. A special order 
reported from the Committee on Rules or otherwise brought to the House 
for consideration and adoption may specify a ``unique order'' for 
consideration of amendments.
    Rule XIX, e.g., structures the order of voting when several 
amendments are pending--an amendment tree--and also specifies that the 
title of a bill or resolution is amended only after the text is agreed 
to.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. House Rules and Manual Sec. 822 (1995). See also Ch. 27, 
        Sec. Sec. 19.4-19.6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Jefferson's Manual states that the ``natural order in considering 
and amending any paper is, to begin at the beginning, and proceed 
through it by paragraphs;'' with a ``single exception found in 
parliamentary usage.'' (16) The preamble is considered and 
amended after the text has been perfected and agreed to.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 413, 414 (1995). See also Ch. 24, 
        Sec. Sec. 9.9-9.13, supra.
17. See Sec. Sec. 2.6-2.8, supra.

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

[[Page 11439]]

Chair's Statement as Controlling

Sec. 2.1 A motion as stated by the Chair in putting the question and 
    not as stated by the Member in offering the motion, is the 
    proposition voted upon.

    On Dec. 4, 1963,(18) the House having resolved itself 
into the Committee of the Whole in order to consider a bill (H.R. 6196) 
to revitalize the cotton industry, Mr. Charles B. Hoeven, of Iowa, 
offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute requiring the 
Secretary of Agriculture to make yearly adjustments in cotton price 
supports and to conduct a research program to reduce the cost of upland 
cotton production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 23300, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following some discussion of the proposed amendment, Mr. William R. 
Poage, of Texas, moved (19) that ``all debate on this 
amendment close at 4 o'clock.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 23305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In presenting the question, however, the Chairman (20) 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Poage] moves that all debate on 
    this amendment and all amendments thereto close at 4 o'clock. The 
    question is on the motion of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Poage].

    While the motion passed, the Chair's phrasing prompted the 
following exchange:

        Mr. [M.G.] Snyder [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry. I understood the gentleman to propose that all debate on 
    this amendment close at 4 o'clock, and I understood the Chair to 
    say ``this amendment and all amendments thereto.''
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Snyder: Which is it?
        The Chairman: ``And all amendments thereto'' is the way the 
    Chair put it: ``This amendment and all amendments thereto'' is the 
    way the Chair put the question.

    Thus, the Chair's statement of the question is preeminent.

Sec. 2.2 Where a Member asks for a recorded vote in the House, but the 
    Chair interprets the request as a demand for the yeas and nays and 
    puts the question in that fashion (``Those in favor of taking this 
    vote by the yeas and nays will rise''), it is the Chair's statement 
    of the issue, not the Member's request, which governs whether one-
    fifth of a quorum or one-fifth of those present will constitute a 
    sufficient second. Since the constitutional demand for the yeas and 
    nays always takes precedence, and since the Chair himself has the 
    right to make

[[Page 11440]]

    that demand, the Chair can force the yeas and nays when he chooses 
    to do so.

    On Oct. 1, 1981, a resolution disapproving an action of the 
District of Columbia Council was before the House. When a motion was 
made to proceed to its consideration, a Member asked for a recorded 
vote on that motion. The Speaker Pro Tempore, James J. Howard, of New 
Jersey, interpreted the demand as one for the yeas and nays. The 
proceedings were as follows: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 127 Cong. Rec. 22760, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   motion offered by mr. philip m. crane

        Mr. Crane [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Philip M. Crane moves that the House proceed to the 
        immediate consideration of House Resolution 208 pursuant to 
        section 604(g) of the District of Columbia Self-Government and 
        Governmental Reorganization Act (D.C. Code, sec. 1-127(g)).

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Philip M. Crane).
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    request a recorded vote.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman asks for the yeas and 
    nays. All Members wishing the yeas and nays will rise and remain 
    standing until counted.
        The Chair will count the House.
        One hundred and fifty-seven Members are present; thirty-four 
    having stood, a sufficient number, the yeas and nays are ordered.

                               point of order

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a point 
    of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman asked for a recorded 
    vote, I believe, which requires 44 Members.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair put the question for the 
    yeas and nays. The Chair counted for the yeas and nays, the Chair 
    would inform the gentleman.
        The yeas and nays are ordered. Members will cast their vote by 
    electronic device.

Only Chair Puts Question

Sec. 2.3 Votes on questions may be put only by the Chair; and it is not 
    in order for a Member having the floor in debate to ask for a show 
    of support for a certain proposition.

    It is not within the rules for a Member, during debate, to ask his 
colleagues to show whether they support, or would support, an amendment 
or a bill drafted in a certain form. Putting the question

[[Page 11441]]

is the prerogative of the Chair and it is not in order to seek informal 
expressions of support. On May 5, 1955,(2) Chairman Robert 
L. F. Sikes, of Florida, had occasion to make such a ruling: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 101 Cong. Rec. 5778, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. A similar ruling was given by Chairman William H. Natcher, of 
        Kentucky, on Apr. 27, 1977, 123 Cong. Rec. 12548, 95th Cong. 
        1st Sess. In the 104th Congress, a similar admonition was made 
        that Members in debate should ``not conduct straw polls in the 
        House.'' Speaker Pro Tempore Robert Goodlatte, of Virginia; 141 
        Cong. Rec. p. __, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 18, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike out the necessary number of words.
        Mr. Chairman, I supported the rigid price-support program and I 
    intend to do it again today. I supported the peanut amendment last 
    year, and I did yesterday, but I am beginning to wonder whether or 
    not the victory that was accomplished on the peanut amendment 
    yesterday was not brought about at least by some people who want to 
    scuttle the entire program and see this bill defeated.
        I have noticed that most of our Republican colleagues walked 
    through the tellers yesterday in support of the peanut amendment. I 
    ask now how many of them who voted for the peanut amendment 
    yesterday will vote for this bill if the peanut amendment remains 
    in the bill? Those of you who will, please do me the favor of 
    rising in your seats.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. I object to that as being contrary to the rules. The 
    gentleman has no right to call for a rising vote.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will proceed in order.
        Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield so that I may answer his question?
        Mr. Multer: No, I will yield at this point only for a show of 
    hands or a rising by those Members on the left-hand side of the 
    aisle who will vote for this bill with the peanut amendment in it.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. The 
    gentleman is out of order, and under the rules his request should 
    be stricken from the record.
        The Chairman: The gentleman's point of order is well taken. 
    Questions can be put only by the Chair. The Chair trusts the 
    gentleman will proceed in order.

Sec. 2.4 An amendment which is ``accepted'' by the bill manager must 
    still be voted upon.

    The fact that the majority and minority managers of the bill or 
issue before the House ``accept'' the motion or amendment does not 
relieve the Chair of the necessity of stating and putting the question. 
The proceedings of Feb. 27, 1980,(4) are illustrative:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 126 Cong. Rec. 4095, 4096, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 11442]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: Page 5, immediately after 
        line 8 insert the following new subsection:
            ``(k) Up to one per centum of the funds made available to 
        Nicaragua from amounts authorized in subsection (b) shall be 
        used to make publicly known to the people of Nicaragua the 
        extent of U.S. aid programs to them. The President shall 
        periodically report to the Congress on the effectiveness of his 
        efforts to carry out this subsection.''

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, will 
    the gentleman yield?
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: I yield to the gentleman 
    from Wisconsin.
        Mr. Zablocki: I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding.
        Mr. Chairman, I sort of feel a bit embarrassed that I am 
    accepting all of these amendments, but since we are being very 
    cooperative, we have had an opportunity to read and study the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman). 
    Certainly we want to identify U.S. aid to Nicaragua. On behalf of 
    this side and on behalf of many of the majority, we accept the 
    amendment.
        Mr. Bauman: I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
    requisite number of words.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        We have not voted on the amendment.
        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
    Harkin) is entitled to move to strike the requisite number of 
    words, to debate the amendment, even though it has been accepted by 
    both sides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin).
        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: I yield to the 
    gentleman from Florida.
        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, we are about 
    to vote here in a second on this amendment, which has been 
    accepted, and I would just like to say to my colleagues that we 
    have had many days now of very fine cooperation, thorough debate on 
    many issues before us on this bill. We are down to about the last 
    amendment. I believe there is one more amendment on that side of 
    the aisle. I am not sure, but I believe that is right. And with a 
    little cooperation we can finish this bill. I would urge the 
    continued cooperation of my colleagues.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
        The amendment was agreed to.

An Amendment Identical to One Previously Adopted Must Still Be Voted 
    Upon

Sec. 2.5 Where the Committee of the Whole, pursuant to a unanimous-
    consent agreement, permitted identical amendments to two 
    propositions to be considered and debated at the same time, the 
    Chair still put the question on the two propositions separately, 
    causing the Com

[[Page 11443]]

    mittee to vote first on the perfecting amendment to the original 
    text and then on the identical amendment offered to the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute.

    On July 12, 1988,(6) the House had resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole for consideration of the Defense Savings Act, 
1988 (H.R. 4481). The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 134 Cong. Rec. 17757, 17762, 17763, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. armey

        Mr. [Richard K.] Armey [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Armey: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
        section 1. short title.

            This act may be cited as the ``Defense Savings Act of 
        1988.''
        sec. 2. closure and realignment of military installations.

            This Secretary of Defense shall-- . . .

    amendment offered by mr. porter to the amendment in the nature of a 
                      substitute offered by mr. armey

        Mr. [John E.] Porter [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Porter to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Armey: In section 4(b), 
        strike out ``The'' in the first sentence and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``Subject to paragraph (2), the''.
            At the end of section 4(b), add the following new 
        paragraph:
            (2) Not more than one-half of the professional staff of the 
        Commission shall be individuals who have been employed by the 
        Department of Defense during calendar year 1988.

        Mr. Porter: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    amendment be made in order both to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] and to 
    the committee bill.
        The Chairman: (7) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Illinois to making the amendment in order to 
    both the committee print and to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Harold L. Volkmer (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Les] Aspin [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, let me make a 
    parliamentary inquiry. Can the gentleman from Illinois offer his 
    amendment to both pieces of legislation simultaneously?
        The Chairman: Unanimous consent was given to offer the 
    amendment simultaneously to both of the pending texts, since both 
    texts are pending and open to separate amendment at any point. So 
    the amendments are now pending to both. Under parliamentary 
    procedure, the amendment will be first

[[Page 11444]]

    voted upon to the original bill and then it will be voted upon as 
    offered to the substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas. . . 
    
        Mr. Aspin: Mr. Chairman, what are we going to vote on? What is 
    the parliamentary procedure?
        The Chairman: If there is no further discussion on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois, the Chair will 
    put the question. The question will be first put as to the 
    amendment to the print, being considered as original text, and the 
    Chair will now do that.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois [Mr. Porter] to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] to the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].
        The amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    was agreed to.

Preamble Amendments

Sec. 2.6 When the Committee of the Whole has perfected the body and 
    then the preamble of a concurrent resolution and the Committee 
    rises, the Speaker puts the question on separate votes on 
    amendments and then on agreeing to the resolution (including the 
    preamble).

    On Oct. 5, 1962,(8) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a concurrent resolution 
(H. Con. Res. 570) expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to 
the then-volatile situation in Berlin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 108 Cong. Rec. 22620, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of considering the resolution, the Committee 
perfected both the body and the preamble,(9) whereupon it 
rose, and the Chairman (10) reported the resolution back to 
the House with the amendments adopted by the Committee. Under the rule, 
the Speaker (11) then ordered the previous question and 
asked if any of the Members sought a separate vote on any amendment. No 
such request having been made, the amendments were considered en gross 
and agreed to. The Chair then put the question on the concurrent 
resolution in accordance with appropriate procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at pp. 22636, 22637.
10. Samuel S. Stratton (N.Y.).
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 2.7 Where a joint resolution is reported to the House from the 
    Committee of the Whole with amendments to the body and preamble, 
    the Speaker puts the question: (1) on the amendment to the

[[Page 11445]]

    body; (2) on engrossment of the joint resolution; (3) on the 
    amendment to the preamble; (4) on the third reading of the joint 
    resolution; and (5) on passage of the joint resolution.

    On Aug. 18, 1972,(12) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a joint resolution 
(H.J. Res. 1227) to provide congressional approval of an interim 
agreement on limitation of strategic offensive arms. During the course 
of the discussion, the Committee amended both the body and the preamble 
of the resolution after which it rose (13) under the rule 
and reported the resolution back to the House with the adopted 
amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 118 Cong. Rec. 29095, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
13. Id. at p. 29126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thereafter,(14) the Speaker (15) put the 
appropriate questions in the proper procedural order as the following 
excerpt indicates:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 29127.
15. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
        The question is on the amendment to the text of the joint 
    resolution.
        The amendment to the text of the joint resolution was agreed 
    to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment of the joint 
    resolution.
        The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed.
        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment to the preamble.
        The amendment to the preamble was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the third reading of the joint 
    resolution.
        The joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, and 
    was read the third time.
        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the joint 
    resolution.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where a Senate joint resolution is 
considered in the House, the question is put separately on the preamble 
only if there are amendments to be considered thereto.

Sec. 2.8 A motion to strike all after the resolving clause of a 
    concurrent resolution does not affect the preamble thereof; and a 
    motion to strike out the preamble is properly offered after the 
    resolution has been agreed to.

    On Feb. 21, 1966,(16) the House considered a Senate 
concurrent resolution, the text of which was identical to a House-
passed resolution, differing only in that the Senate resolution carried 
a preamble. The proceedings for eliminating the preamble are carried 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 112 Cong. Rec. 3473, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk called the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 552) 
    recognizing

[[Page 11446]]

    the 50th anniversary of the chartering by act of Congress of the 
    Boy Scouts of America. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) Is there objection to 
    the present consideration of the concurrent resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There being no objection, the Clerk read the House concurrent 
    resolution, as follows:

                                H. Con. Res. 552

            Whereas June 15, 1966, will mark the fiftieth anniversary 
        of the granting by Act of Congress of the charter of the Boy 
        Scouts of America;
            Whereas the Boy Scouts of America was the first youth 
        organization to be granted a charter by Act of Congress;
            Whereas the Congress has been kept informed of the programs 
        and activities of the Boy Scouts of America through the annual 
        reports made to it each year by this organization in accordance 
        with such charter.
            Whereas these programs and activities have been designed to 
        instill in boys the moral and ethical principles, and the 
        habits, practices, and attitudes, which are conducive to good 
        character, citizenship, and health; and
            Whereas, by fostering in the youth of the Nation those 
        qualities upon which our strength as a Nation is dependent, the 
        Boy Scouts of America has made a contribution of inestimable 
        value to the welfare of the entire Nation: Therefore be it
            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That the Congress hereby pay tribute to the Boy 
        Scouts of America on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary 
        of the granting by Act of Congress of the charter of the Boy 
        Scouts of America, and expresses its recognition of and 
        appreciation for the public service performed by this 
        organization through its contributions to the lives of the 
        Nation's youth.

        The concurrent resolution was agreed to and a motion to 
    reconsider was laid on the table.
        The following committee amendment was agreed to:

            On pages 1 and 2, strike all ``Whereas'' clauses.

        Mr. [Arch A.] Moore [Jr., of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent for the present consideration of Senate 
    Concurrent Resolution 68, which is similar to House Concurrent 
    Resolution 552.
        The Clerk called the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 
    68).
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the present consideration of 
    the Senate concurrent resolution?
        There was no objection.
        There being no objection, the Clerk read the Senate concurrent 
    resolution, as follows:

                                S. Con. Res. 68

            Whereas June 15, 1966, will mark the fiftieth anniversary 
        of the granting by Act of Congress of the charter of the Boy 
        Scouts of America;
            Whereas the Boy Scouts of America was the first youth 
        organization to be granted a charter by Act of Congress;
            Whereas the Congress has been kept informed of the programs 
        and activities of the Boy Scouts of America through the annual 
        reports made to it each year by this organization in accordance 
        with such charter;
            Whereas these programs and activities have been designed to 
        instill in boys the moral and ethical principles, and the 
        habits, practices, and

[[Page 11447]]

        attitudes, which are conducive to good character, citizenship, 
        and health; and
            Whereas, by fostering in the youth of the Nation those 
        qualities upon which our strength as a Nation is dependent, the 
        Boy Scouts of America has made a contribution of inestimable 
        value to the welfare of the entire Nation: Therefore be it
            Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
        concurring), That the Congress hereby pays tribute to the Boy 
        Scouts of America on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary 
        of the granting by Act of Congress of the charter of the Boy 
        Scouts of America, and expresses its recognition of and 
        appreciation for the public service performed by this 
        organization through its contributions to the lives of the 
        Nation's youth.

        Mr. Moore: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Moore: Strike out all after the 
        enacting clause and insert the provisions of House Concurrent 
        Resolution 552 as passed.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the purpose of the gentleman from 
    West Virginia to strike out the preamble?
        Mr. Moore: My amendment would strike out the language of the 
    Senate concurrent resolution and substitute in lieu thereof the 
    language of the concurrent resolution just passed by the House.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Would the amendment of the gentleman 
    from West Virginia strike out the preamble or all after the 
    enacting clause and substitute the language of the House concurrent 
    resolution just passed?
        Mr. Moore: It would strike out all after the enacting clause.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That would not eliminate the preamble.
        Mr. Moore: Then, Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the preamble.
        The Senate concurrent resolution was agreed to and a motion to 
    reconsider was laid on the table.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the amendment of 
    the gentleman from West Virginia.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Moore moves to strike out the preamble.

        The amendment was agreed to.
        A similar House concurrent resolution was laid on the table.