[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 6, Chapter 21]
[Chapter 21. Order of Business; Special Orders]
[B. Motions to Suspend the Rules]
[Â§ 14. Amendments to Propositions Under Suspension]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3987-4000]
 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                    B. MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
 
Sec. 14. Amendments to Propositions Under Suspension

    The motion to suspend the rules may be used to pass a bill or 
resolution with additions, corrections, or deletions. In this 
situation, the proponent offers the motion ``I move to suspend the 
rules and pass the bill with amendments.'' He transmits the copy of the 
bill, with the amendments included therein, to the Clerk. The bill and 
amendments proposed thereto (whether reported from committee or offered 
independently by the Member making the motion) are reported (usually by 
title only) and considered as one entity, and no separate vote is taken 
on the amendments.(13) A motion to sus
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. For the motion to pass a bill with amendments, see Sec. 14.1-14.3, 
        infra. For reporting the motion, see Sec. Sec. 14.4, 14.5, 
        infra, and for the prohibition against a separate vote on 
        amendments, see Sec. 15.5, infra.
            Usually the Clerk reports only the title of a bill brought 
        up under suspension, whether or not amendments are part of the 
        motion (although the full text is printed in the Record). The 
        Chair may, however, direct the Clerk to report an amendment 
        which has not been printed in the bill (see Sec. 14.4, infra). 
        See Sec. 12.21, supra, where on a motion to suspend the rules 
        and agree to a resolution amending a Senate amendment with an 
        amendment consisting of text of a separate numbered House bill 
        the Speaker considered the reading of the resolution itself to 
        be sufficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3988]]

pend the rules and pass a bill with amendments is not. however, subject 
to amendment on the floor; and the proponent of the motion may not 
yield for amendment.(14) If it is desired, after a motion to 
suspend the rules and pass a bill has been offered, to amend the 
proposition, it is necessary to withdraw the motion and reoffer it in a 
new form.(15) The prohibition against offering amendments to 
propositions under suspension of the rules includes pro forma 
amendments and motions to strike the enacting clause.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. Sec. 14.6, 14.7, infra.
15. See Sec. 14.3, infra. For withdrawal of motions to suspend the 
        rules which are under debate, see Sec. Sec. 13.21-13.23, supra.
16. See Sec. Sec. 14.11 and 14.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion to Suspend Rules and Pass Bill With Amendment

Sec. 14.1 While it is not in order to offer an amendment to a bill 
    being considered under a motion to suspend the rules, the Speaker 
    may recognize a Member for a motion to suspend the rules and pass a 
    bill with amendments.

    On June 16, 1952,(17) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized for a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill with 
amendments and overruled a point of order against the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 98 Cong. Rec. 7287, 7288, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert L.] Doughton [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 7800) to amend 
    title I1 of the Social Security Act to increase old-age and 
    survivors insurance benefits, to preserve insurance rights of 
    permanently and totally disabled individuals, and to increase the 
    amount of earnings permitted without loss of benefits, and for 
    other purposes, with amendments that I send to the Clerk's desk.
        Mr. [Carl T.] Curtis of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order against the motion.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman make a point of order against 
    the motion to suspend the rules?
        Mr. Curtis of Nebraska: Against the motion to suspend the rules 
    and to offer an amendment. My point of order

[[Page 3989]]

     is that an amendment cannot be offered under a motion to suspend 
    the rules.
        The Speaker: This rule has been in effect for a long time. As 
    long as the Chair recognizes a Member to suspend the rules, and one 
    in charge has the right to offer the motion to suspend the rules. A 
    point of order would not lie in a case like that.
        Mr. Curtis of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard?
        The Speaker: The Chair will be glad to hear the gentleman but 
    will perhaps repeat the decision when the gentleman gets through.
        Mr. Curtis of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, I regret that situation 
    very much and perhaps I should not take the time. I shall try to be 
    brief.
        It is my contention that the procedure to suspend the rules and 
    pass a bill is that we must take the bill as is in a motion to 
    suspend the rules and by the very nature of the limited time 
    involved for debate the motion must be to pass without amendment.
        There are two or three decisions that are reported in the Fifth 
    Volume of Hinds' Precedents. I will not at this time refer to all 
    of them, but I call attention to paragraph 5322 of Hinds' 
    Precedents where it is stated in the caption:
        The motion to amend may not be applied to a motion to suspend 
    the rules.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule again.
        Suspension of the rules is a matter that can come up only twice 
    a month, either on the first and third Mondays, or the last 6 days 
    of the session if an adjournment date has been fixed. There can be 
    no amendment offered to the motion to suspend the rules and pass a 
    bill, but it is entirely in order for the Speaker to recognize a 
    Member to move to suspend the rules and pass a bill with amendments 
    and recognition for that is entirely within the discretion of the 
    Chair. The Chair can recognize a Member to move to suspend the 
    rules on the proper day and pass a bill with an amendment that has 
    been authorized by a committee, or if the Chair so desires he can 
    recognize a Member to move to suspend the rules and pass a bill 
    with his own amendment.
        The Chair overrules the point of order made by the gentleman 
    from Nebraska.
        Mr. Curtis of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry. Would it be possible to offer a substitute motion to 
    suspend the rules in reference to the motion now before the Chair?
        The Speaker: Well, the Chair would not recognize the gentleman 
    for that purpose.
        Mr. Curtis of Nebraska: Perhaps I could induce another Member 
    to offer the amendment.
        The Speaker: The Chair would not recognize any other Member to 
    make that motion.

Sec. 14.2 Under a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill with 
    amendments it is not necessary for the mover to obtain approval of 
    the amendments by the committee which reported the measure.

    On July, 17, 1950,(18) where a Member was recognized by 
Speak
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 96 Cong. Rec. 10448, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
            See Sec. 14.4, infra, for reporting a motion to suspend the 
        rules and pass a bill with amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3990]]

er Sam Rayburn, of Texas, to move to suspend the rules and pass a bill 
with amendments, the Speaker discussed such procedure in response to 
parliamentary inquiries and ruled that the amendment brought up under 
the motion need not be authorized by the committee with jurisdiction:

        Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 10) to facilitate the 
    deportation of aliens from the United States, to provide for the 
    supervision and detention pending eventual deportation of aliens 
    whose deportation cannot be readily effectuated because of reasons 
    beyond the control of the United States, and for other purposes, as 
    amended.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Unless a second is demanded 
    on the other side, I shall demand a second, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: Without objection, a second is considered as 
    ordered.
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentlemen will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: The motion that was made was to pass the bill 
    as amended. The amendments are a part of the bill as reported by 
    the committee, or what is the situation?
        The Speaker: There are some additional amendments.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Not reported by the committee?
        The Speaker: The Chair assumes that the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania who made the motion was authorized by the committee to 
    make the amendments.
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michener: Is this bill called up under a straight 
    suspension of the rules?
        The Speaker: Yes.
        Mr. Michener: Was the motion that the bill be called up under 
    suspension of the rules, together with amendments?
        The Speaker: That is correct.
        Mr. Michener: How many amendments? Under the rules, they must 
    designate the amendments.
        The Speaker: The Chair understands there are committee 
    amendments and amendments to the committee amendments.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Celler: I think the House should know whether those 
    amendments were approved by the Judiciary Committee.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walter] will 
    be able to answer that.
        Mr. Celler: I have no recollection as chairman of the Judiciary 
    Com

[[Page 3991]]

    mittee, that those amendments were approved by the committee.
        The Speaker: The gentleman at least makes a motion to suspend 
    all the rules and pass this bill with amendments, which the Chair 
    thinks is a proper motion.
        Mr. Celler: Can that motion be made to suspend the rules and 
    pass the bill with amendments, if those amendments are simply the 
    amendments of the proposer of the bill who makes the motion and not 
    amendments of the committee?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walter] made 
    the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill with amendments. 
    The Chair has recognized the gentleman for that purpose.
        Mr. Michener: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michener: I have never known a time when you could maintain 
    a motion of that type. The number of amendments must be specified, 
    not just the general statement ``with amendments.''
        The Speaker: If the gentleman insists, the Clerk will report 
    the bill as amended.
        Mr. Michener: I do not insist, but I should like to know 
    whether there is going to be at least definite amendment or whether 
    it is to be left indefinite.
        The Speaker: The Chair would assume that in the 20 minutes 
    allotted to the gentleman from Pennsylvania he would discuss the 
    amendments.

Sec. 14.3 A motion to suspend the rules having been withdrawn by 
    unanimous consent, new motion to suspend the rules and pass the 
    bill with an amendment was then made; a second was ordered and, 
    after debate, the motion was agreed to.

    On May 5, 1958,(19) unfinished business was a motion to 
suspend the rules, coming over from a previous suspension day, on which 
a second had been ordered. The motion was withdrawn in order that the 
motion could be reoffered to pass the same bill but with amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 104 Cong. Rec. 8004, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent to vacate proceedings under suspension of the rules held 2 
    weeks ago on the bill (H.R. 11414) to amend section 314(c) of the 
    Public Health Service Act, so as to authorize the Surgeon General 
    to make certain grants-in-aid for the support of public or 
    nonprofit educational institutions which provide training and 
    services in the fields of public health and in the administration 
    of State and local public health programs.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
    the bill H.R. 11414, with amendments.
        The Clerk reported the bill, as amended.

[[Page 3992]]

Reporting Motion to Suspend Rules and Pass Bill With Amendments

Sec. 14.4 Where the Chair has recognized for a motion to suspend the 
    rules and pass a bill with amendments, only the title of the bill 
    is normally read by the Clerk, and the amendments are not reported 
    separately, since the suspension procedure waives normal reading 
    requirements; but the Chair may in his discretion, where objection 
    is made to that procedure, require the reading of an amendment 
    which is not printed or otherwise available.

    On July 17, 1950,(20) a motion to suspend the rules and 
pass a bill with amendments was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 96 Cong. Rec. 10448, 10449, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 10) to facilitate the 
    deportation of aliens from the United States, to provide for the 
    supervision and detention pending eventual deportation of aliens 
    whose deportation cannot be readily effectuated because of reasons 
    beyond the control of the United States, and for other purposes, as 
    amended.

    The Clerk then reported the bill by title.
    Following a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
directed the Clerk to report the bill as amended:

        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michener: I have never known a time when you could maintain 
    a motion of that type. The number of amendments must be specified, 
    not just the general statement ``with amendments.''
        The Speaker: If the gentleman insists, the Clerk will report 
    the bill as amended.
        Mr. Michener: I do not insist, but I should like to know 
    whether there is going to be at least definite amendment or whether 
    it is to be left indefinite.
        The Speaker: The Chair would assume that in the 20 minutes 
    allotted to the gentleman from Pennsylvania he would discuss the 
    amendments.
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, is it in order 
    for me to ask that the amendments be read?
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the bill as amended.
        The Speaker indicated, in response to a further parliamentary 
    inquiry, that a separate vote was not in order on amendments 
    brought up under a motion to suspend the rules:
        Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 3993]]

        Mr. Eberharter: Will the House have an opportunity to vote 
    separately on the amendments just read? Was that only one amendment 
    that the Clerk read or was it several?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania made a motion to 
    suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended, the amendment being 
    to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert other 
    matter.
        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Eberharter: May any further amendments be offered now?
        The Speaker: No. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walter] 
    is recognized.

Sec. 14.5 While a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill with 
    certain amendments is under debate, the amendments may be reread to 
    the House, without consuming part of the time for debate, by 
    unanimous consent.

    On Sept. 7, 1959,(1) the House had under debate a 
motion, offered by Mr. Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, to suspend the 
rules and pass a bill with certain amendments. Mr. H.R. Gross, of Iowa, 
who had been recognized to demand a second and to control the debate in 
opposition to the motion, propounded a unanimous-consent request where 
Speaker pro tempore Paul J. Kilday, of Texas, indicated that the 
request would be in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 105 Cong. Rec. 17437, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gross: Would it be possible to have the amendments offered 
    by the gentleman from Tennessee read, without it coming out of his 
    time?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: By unanimous consent that could be 
    done.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    amendments be read at this time.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Iowa?
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

No Amendments to Motion To Suspend Rules and Pass Bill With Amendments

Sec. 14.6 Only those amendments included in a motion to suspend the 
    rules and pass a bill are in order to a bill being considered under 
    that procedure, and the Member making that motion may not yield to 
    other Members for further amendment.

    On Oct. 18, 1971,(2) the Chairman of the Committee on 
Edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 117 Cong. Rec. 36507, 36508, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3994]]

cation and Labor offered a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill 
with amendments:

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 923) to 
    assure that every needy schoolchild will receive a free or reduced 
    price lunch as required by section 9 of the National School Lunch 
    Act, as amended.

    Section 7 of the joint resolution, as amended, authorized the 
Secretary of Agriculture to transfer funds from a previous act for a 
new purpose, a provision which would have been subject to a point of 
order if the joint resolution were not brought up under suspension. 
Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, indicated, in response to a 
parliamentary inquiry, that an amendment offered from the floor to 
delete that provision would not be in order, and that only amendments 
included in the motion to suspend the rules were in order:

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, my 
    parliamentary inquiry is that inasmuch as section 7 of this House 
    Joint Resolution 923 would under normal circumstances and methods 
    of consideration obviously be subject to a point of order because 
    it involves a transfer of funds in an authorization bill, at what 
    point under the motion to suspend the rules could such a point of 
    order be offered?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Missouri that the motion made by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
    Perkins), itself calls for a suspension of the rules, which means 
    all the rules, and, therefore, there would be no point in the 
    consideration of the joint resolution under a suspension of the 
    rules to make that point of order.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry. Does 
    the Chair mean to inform the Members of the House that the only way 
    that we could get redress and relief from what would otherwise be a 
    point of order, would be if the committee moved to suspend the 
    rules and pass the bill with an amendment deleting that section?
        The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Missouri 
    that the joint resolution comes to the floor under a motion to 
    suspend the rules and pass it with amendments. The amendments will 
    be under consideration, but only the amendments which are embraced 
    in the motion made by the gentleman from Kentucky are in order.
        Mr. Hall: Therefore, if this motion passes and we do suspend 
    the rules, unless the gentleman making the motion yielded for the 
    purpose of an amendment there would be no way to seek relief?
        The Speaker: The Chair will inform the gentleman from Missouri 
    that the gentleman who is making the motion to suspend the rules 
    and pass this joint resolution cannot yield for the purpose of 
    further amendment.

Sec. 14.7 Where a bill and designated amendments thereto are being 
    considered under a motion to suspend the rules

[[Page 3995]]

    and pass the bill, as amended, further amendments from the floor 
    are not in order, and the Speaker will not entertain a unanimous-
    consent request to permit floor amendments to be offered.

    On Feb. 7, 1972,(3) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
stated, in response to parliamentary inquiries, that floor amendments 
could not be offered to a bill brought up, as amended, under a motion 
to suspend the rules, even by unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 118 Cong. Rec. 2882, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gross: The bill, as I understand it, is brought up under 
    suspension of the rules and therefore is not subject to amendment. 
    Is that correct?
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Gross: Then, in its present form, it cannot be amended.
        The Speaker: The gentleman to qualify, must be opposed to the 
    bill.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to it without reservation.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Gross), is 
    recognized.
        Mr. [Lawrence G.] Williams [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Williams: Is it possible to amend a bill that is brought up 
    under suspension of the rules by unanimous consent?
        The Speaker: It is not possible to amend by unanimous consent 
    if the bill is brought up under suspension of the rules.
        Mr. Williams: It is not possible.
        The Speaker: The Chair will not recognize a Member for that 
    purpose.

Floor Amendments Not in Order

Sec. 14.8 Amendments from the floor are not in order to propositions 
    being considered under suspension of the rules.

    On Dec. 21, 1973,(4) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
answered an inquiry on offering amendments to a resolution being 
offered under a motion to suspend the rules (pending a demand for a 
second on the motion):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 119 Cong. Rec. 43262, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, if the 
    rules are suspended, will then amendments be in order to the bill 
    on which it is proposed to suspend the rules and consider?
        The Speaker: The suspension of the rules, as the gentleman 
    knows, means that all rules are suspended. The resolution itself 
    orders the action which the House will take.

    Speaker Albert answered a similar inquiry, pending a motion

[[Page 3996]]

to suspend the rules and pass a bill, on Mar. 20, 1972: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 118 Cong. Rec. 8989, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Phillip M.] Landrum [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Landrum: Under the rules of suspension, is an amendment in 
    order to change the effective date of this from the last Sunday in 
    April?
        The Speaker: No amendment is in order under the suspension 
    rule.

    Another inquiry was answered on Apr. 17, 1972: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 12931.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Chet Holifield ( Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman who 
    brings the bill to the floor from our Committee on Foreign Affairs 
    whether or not it would be his intent to yield for the purpose of 
    an amendment.
        Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the rules of the House wherein 
    the gentleman would sacrifice control of the remaining time if he 
    did yield for such an amendment, but I am also aware of the 
    tradition and precedents of the House wherein we customarily strike 
    the whereases and even the nonappropriate resolves, so I merely 
    make that inquiry of the gentleman from New York.
        Mr. [Benjamin S.] Rosenthal [of New York]: I believe the 
    parliamentary inquiry would have to be answered by the Chair rather 
    than by myself.
        Mr. Hall: The gentleman is correct, of course. Mr. Speaker, 
    would it be in order for the Chair to recognize other than the 
    leadership handling the bill on the floor under these circumstances 
    for the purpose of an appropriate amendment?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will inform the gentleman 
    from Missouri that no amendments can be offered when the House is 
    considering a bill under suspension of the rules.

    On May 25, 1946, President Truman addressed a joint session of 
Congress relative to a national rail strike, and recommended the 
passage of urgent legislation to settle the strike (to, among other 
purposes, draft railroad employees into the armed services). Following 
the dissolution of the joint session, the legislation recommended by 
the President was brought up under a motion to suspend the rules, and 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, indicated the motion was not subject to 
amendment: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 92 Cong. Rec. 5754, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack].
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the 
    rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6578) to provide

[[Page 3997]]

    on a temporary basis during the present period of emergency for the 
    prompt settlement of industrial disputes vitally affecting the 
    national economy in the transition from war to peace.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [Ralph E.] Church [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Church: Is it not possible now before the bill is presented 
    that we take at least 10 minutes to read it? This bill is 6 pages 
    long and will not be subject to amendment, as I understand the 
    procedure under suspension of the rules. The bill as drafted only 
    came before us a few moments ago. Some of us have been able to 
    prevail upon the gentleman from Massachusetts to amend section 10 
    so that the following words are added ``or upon the date (prior to 
    the date of such proclamation) of the passage of the concurrent 
    resolution of the two Houses of Congress stating that such 
    provisions and amendments shall cease to be effective.''
        There may be other acceptable amendments that should be 
    included in the bill before it is offered, since it cannot be 
    amended under the parliamentary situation we find ourselves in.
        The Speaker: There will be 40 minutes in which Members may 
    familiarize themselves with the bill and it will be followed by a 
    reading of the bill also.
        Mr. Church: A further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Church: Do I understand that the bill is not subject to 
    amendment?
        The Speaker: Not under a suspension of the rules.

Sec. 14.9 A motion to suspend the rules and concur in a Senate 
    amendment to a House bill is not subject to amendment (to concur in 
    the Senate amendment with an amendment).

    On July 27, 1946,(9) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized a Member to offer a motion to suspend the rules relating to 
a House bill with a Senate amendment on the Speaker's table:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 92 Cong. Rec. 10310, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hatton W.] Sumners of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the joint 
    resolution (H.J. Res. 225) to quiet the titles of the respective 
    States, and others, to lands beneath tidewaters and lands beneath 
    navigable waters within the boundaries of such States and to 
    prevent further clouding of such titles.

    A second was demanded and considered as ordered, and the Speaker 
then ruled that the motion was not subject to amendment:

        Mr. [Sam] Hobbs [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Speaker: No amendment is in order.
        Mr. Hobbs: Mr. Speaker, I move to concur in the Senate 
    amendment with an amendment.

[[Page 3998]]

        The Speaker: That motion is not in order.
        Mr. Hobbs: Mr. Speaker, I have an agreement with the gentleman 
    from Texas that I would be permitted to offer an amendment to the 
    Senate amendment.
        The Speaker: The Chair knows nothing about that agreement. An 
    amendment to this motion is not in order.

Sec. 14.10 The Speaker stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry, 
    after recognizing a Member for unanimous consent to consider a 
    bill, that if any amendments were to be offered he would ask that 
    the bill be withdrawn and that a motion to suspend the rules and 
    pass the bill be offered, because of the vital importance that the 
    bill pass
    immediately and without amendment.

    On July 5, 1943,(10) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan, to ask unanimous consent 
for the immediate consideration of S. 35, to authorize the use for war 
purposes of silver held or owned by the United States. In explanation 
of the request, Mr. Dingell stated that it was essential, for the 
conduct of the war, that the bill be passed without amendment as soon 
as possible, to avoid disagreement with the Senate and have the bill 
enacted into law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 89 Cong. Rec. 7213, 7214, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, indicated he 
would use his power of recognition to assure the bill pass without 
amendment:

        Mr. [Frederick C.] Smith of Ohio: Will the gentleman yield for 
    a parliamentary inquiry?

        Mr. Dingell: I yield to the gentleman.
        Mr. Smith of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Smith of Ohio: It is my understanding this bill will be 
    read and will be subject to amendment, providing there is no 
    objection to its consideration under the unanimous-consent request.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct, it would be subject to 
    amendment, but the Chair is going to be very frank with the 
    gentleman. If there are going to be amendments offered to this bill 
    the Chair will request the gentleman from Michigan to withdraw his 
    request, and then the Chair will recognize the gentleman from 
    Michigan to move to suspend the rules and pass the bill. The Chair 
    thinks it vitally important that this bill pass immediately, and he 
    thinks it should be passed without amendment. The Chair will accept 
    the responsibility if it is put up to the Chair.

[[Page 3999]]

Pro Forma Amendments Not in Order

Sec. 14.11 Pro forma amendments are not in order when a bill is being 
    considered under suspension of the rules.

    On Sept. 7, 1959,(11) a motion to suspend the rules and 
pass a bill with amendments was under debate, Mr. Thomas J. Murray, of 
Tennessee, controlling the time in favor of the motion and Mr. H. R. 
Gross, of Iowa, controlling the time in opposition. Speaker pro tempore 
Paul J. Kilday, of Texas, stated that ``pro forma'' amendments would 
not be in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 105 Cong. Rec. 18438, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [ Clark E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary inquiry 
    is, Is it permissible now under the situation which has developed 
    to move to strike out the last word?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: No, it is not. The time is under the 
    control of the gentleman from Tennessee and the gentleman from 
    Iowa.

Motion to Strike Enacting Clause Not in Order

Sec. 14.12 Since the motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill is not 
    subject to amendment, a motion to strike out the enacting clause, 
    in effect a preferential amendment, is not in order.

    On June 15, 1959,(12) the House had under debate a 
motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 7650. Speaker pro tempore 
Clark W. Thompson, of Texas, ruled that a preferential motion to strike 
out the enacting clause (to obtain time for debate) was not in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 105 Cong. Rec. 10810, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    strike out the enacting clause of H.R. 7650.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That privilege is not available when a 
    bill is being considered under suspension of the rules.
        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, is there any way that a 
    Member of the House of Representatives can speak on H.R. 7650 
    before the matter is put to a vote?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Only if the gentlewoman from 
    Massachusetts chooses to yield time to the gentleman.

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, delivered a similar ruling on Aug. 
5, 1957: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 103 Cong. Rec. 13648, 85th Cong. 1st. Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 4000]]

        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, is a motion to strike out 
    the enacting clause in order at this time?
        The Speaker: A motion to strike out the enacting clause is not 
    in order under a motion to suspend the rules.