[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14,  Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[D. Division of the Question for Voting]
[Â§ 44. Motions To Amend an Amendment]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11767-11769]
 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                 D. DIVISION OF THE QUESTION FOR VOTING
 
Sec. 44. Motions To Amend an Amendment

Amendments From the Floor

Sec. 44.1 An amendment containing two distinct propositions may be 
    divided, and each is subject to amendment as it is taken up for 
    consideration.

    On Aug. 17, 1951,(8) the House having resolved itself 
into the Committee of the Whole, Mr. James G. Fulton, of Pennsylvania, 
offered an amendment to the Mutual Security Act of 1951. Mr. Fulton's 
amendment called for reductions in both the military and economic aid 
to be provided pursuant to the act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 97 Cong. Rec. 10226, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [T]he Clerk read as follows:

            On page 2, line 22, section 101(a) subsection (1): Strike 
        out ``$5,028,000,000'' and insert ``$4,828,000,000.''
            On page 3, line 16, strike out ``$1,335,000,000'' and 
        insert ``$1,035,000,000.''

    Pursuant to Mr. Fulton's request, the Chairman divided the proposed 
amendment in order to provide for a ``separate vote on the military cut 
and a separate vote on the economic cut.'' Following debate, an 
amendment to the amendment was proposed, as indicated below:

        Mr. [Lawrence H.] Smith of Wisconsin: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Chairman: (9) Is it a substitute for the first 
    portion of the Fulton amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of Wisconsin: My amendment applies to both parts, Mr. 
    Chairman, but I can ask unanimous consent to offer the first part 
    to the Fulton amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman offers an amendment to the first 
    section?
        Mr. Smith of Wisconsin: Yes. . . .
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Substitute amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Wisconsin to 
        the first portion of the amendment of Mr. Fulton: Page 2, line 
        22, section 101(a), subsection (1) strike out 
        ``$5,028,000,000'' and insert ``$4,799,999,999.''

        Mr. [Walter H.] Judd [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Judd: Is it possible to divide an amendment and offer an 
    amendment to a portion of an amendment or is a division applicable 
    only in the case of voting on an amendment?

    The Chair responded to the effect that an amendment may be divided, 
and the divisible portion thereof is similarly subject to amendment. 
Unstated though implicit in the Chairman's ruling was the fundamental 
requirement

[[Page 11768]]

that every divisible question consist of two or more substantive 
propositions.

Senate Amendments

Sec. 44.2 Senate amendments are considered in their entirety, and it is 
    not in order to consider separate items contained therein.

    On May 20, 1936,(10) the House entertained the 
conference report on the Department of the Interior appropriation bill 
of 1937 (H.R. 10630). The report having been agreed to, amendments 
remaining in disagreement between the Houses were then discussed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 80 Cong. Rec. 7611, 7616, 7623, 7624, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among these was a Senate amendment which read as follows:

            Page 24, after line 21, insert the following:
            ``The following-named reclamation projects are hereby 
        authorized to be constructed, the cost thereof to be 
        reimbursable under the reclamation law:
            ``Central Valley project, California: For flood control, 
        improving and in aid of navigation, and to provide for the 
        general welfare in cooperation with the State of California, 
        and for incidental purposes, including irrigation, drainage, 
        and power production.
            ``Grand Lake-Big Thompson transmountain diversion project, 
        Colorado: To irrigate public lands of the United States and to 
        provide for the general welfare in cooperation with the State 
        of Colorado, and for incidental purposes, including the 
        irrigation of patented land, power production, and flood 
        control: Provided, That said project shall include the 
        construction and the permanent maintenance of adequate 
        compensatory or replacement reservoirs, necessary feeder 
        canals, and other incidental works at the most suitable sites 
        within said State; the water impounded by said reservoirs to be 
        used within the Colorado River Basin, and the cost of 
        constructing and maintaining such reservoirs, feeder canals, 
        and incidental works shall be included in the cost of said 
        project and be repaid by the beneficiaries of the water so 
        diverted from said basin: Provided further, That said project 
        shall be constructed and operated in such manner as to 
        continuously maintain the normal levels of the waters of said 
        Grand Lake.
            ``Carlsbad project, New Mexico: To provide for the general 
        welfare in cooperation with the State of New Mexico and for 
        incidental purposes, including irrigation and flood control.
            ``Deschutes project, Oregon: To provide for the general 
        welfare in cooperation with the State of Oregon and for 
        incidental purposes, including irrigation and flood control.
            ``Provo River project, Utah: To provide for the general 
        welfare in cooperation with the State of Utah and for 
        incidental purposes, including irrigation and flood control.
            ``Yakima project, Washington, Roza division: To provide for 
        the general welfare in cooperation with the State of Washington 
        and for incidental purposes, including irrigation and flood 
        control.
            ``Casper-Alcova project, Wyoming: To irrigate public lands 
        of the United States and to provide for the general welfare in 
        cooperation with the State of Wyoming and for incidental 
        purposes, including the irriga

[[Page 11769]]

        tion of patented lands, power production, and flood control.''

    Mr. Edward T. Taylor, of Colorado, rose to offer a motion following 
the reading of the amendment.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Taylor of Colorado moves to recede and concur in the 
        Senate amendment with an amendment as follows: ``Strike out the 
        third paragraph in said amendment, in lines 9 to 26, inclusive, 
        relating to the Grand Lake-Big Thompson transmountain diversion 
        project, Colorado.

    The Taylor motion prompted the following exchange between Mr. Fred 
N. Cummings, of Colorado, and the Speaker:

        Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (11) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cummings: Will a motion be in order to consider these items 
    separately?
        The Speaker: No; there is only one Senate amendment.
        Mr. [James P.] Buchanan [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I think the 
    House ought to vote down the motion to concur. I am going to demand 
    a division of the question (to recede and concur).