[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 24. Bills, Resolutions, and Memorials]
[A. Introductory; Various Types of Bills, Resolutions, and Other Mechanisms for Action]
[Â§ 9. Titles and Preambles]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4877-4883]
 
                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
    A. INTRODUCTORY; VARIOUS TYPES OF BILLS, RESOLUTIONS, AND OTHER 
                         MECHANISMS FOR ACTION
 
Sec. 9. Titles and Preambles

Purpose of Title

Sec. 9.1 Titles in legislation are for purposes of identification, and 
    do not affect the obvious meaning of a statute.

    On Dec. 20, 1941,(3) during consideration of S. 2082, 
the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 87 Cong. Rec. 10079, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sam] Hobbs [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I should like to 
    invoke the ruling of the Chair on that point. I may say, Mr. 
    Speaker, that this bill was identical in the House and the Senate 
    versions, but in the House committee an amendment was made in the 
    body of the bill to include other officers than originally were 
    named in the House bill, namely, the members of alien-enemy hearing 
    boards. The House committee conceived it to be wise to amend the 
    title to show that the amendment had been put in the bill, but the 
    Senate, in passing the bill, although it adopted the House 
    amendment, did not amend the title.
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: (4) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Michener: The gentleman from Alabama has not submitted a 
    parliamentary inquiry. He has asked the Chair for a legal opinion 
    on what the gentleman himself admits is debatable. Under the rules 
    of the House, the Speaker of the House is not required to render 
    legal opinions, at least without notice.
        Mr. Hobbs: I am not contending that the Speaker is required to 
    do so. I am asking as a matter of the grace and indulgence of the 
    Chair that he do so, and advise us if the Senate version be 
    adopted, the limited reference in the title would be sufficient to 
    carry the full bill as amended.
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks that the title of the bill is 
    identification more than anything else. Mr. Justice Brewer in the 
    case of Patterson v. Bank Eudora (190 U.S. 169) held--

            That the title is no part of the statute and cannot be used 
        to set at naught its obvious meaning.

[[Page 4878]]

Titles as Related to Germaneness

Sec. 9.2 The germaneness of an amendment to a bill is not determined by 
    the title of the bill; it is the body of the bill that is 
    controlling.

    On Aug. 2, 1949,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill (H.R. 29) to provide price supports 
for tung nuts, a committee amendment was reported applying the 
provisions of the act to honey. Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, raised a 
point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 95 Cong. Rec. 10639, 10640, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, since the committee amendment has no greater 
    standing than any other amendment, the title of this bill is to 
    amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, to 
    provide parity for tung nuts and for other purposes. I make the 
    point of order that the inclusion of honey is not related to the 
    bill and is, therefore, not in order.
        Mr. [Walter K.] Granger [of Utah]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Hays of Ohio: I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
        Mr. Granger: I trust the gentleman will not press his point of 
    order. We are willing to concede the point would apply, but what we 
    will have to do is take out the part of the bill that the gentleman 
    I am sure is interested in. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    title of the bill does not control. It is the body of the bill that 
    controls. When an individual proposition is added to another 
    individual proposition by amendment, even though they are in the 
    same class, they are not germane. The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John McSweeney (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment of Title

Sec. 9.3 Amendments to the title of a bill or joint resolution may be 
    considered after its passage.

    On Jan. 30, 1962,(7) several committee amendments, 
including one to the title of a bill (H.R. 4879), were offered en bloc. 
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole reminded the proponent of 
the amendments that title amendments are properly considered in the 
House following passage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 108 Cong. Rec. 1183, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.4 Amendment to titles of bills are properly presented after the 
    bill is passed and are not debatable.

    On Dec. 11, 1947,(8) during consideration in the House 
of a foreign aid bill (H.R. 4604) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 93 Cong. Rec. 11307, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles J.] Kersten of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I have an 
    amend

[[Page 4879]]

    ment to change the title of the bill, which I understand is proper.
        The Speaker: (9) That will come after the passage of 
    the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Kersten of Wisconsin: I should like to inform the 
    membership that this is an important amendment and I should like to 
    speak on it.
        The Speaker: It is not debatable.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XIX, ``Of Amendments'', specifies that 
``Amendments to the title of a bill or resolution shall not be in order 
until after its passage, and shall be decided without debate.'' House 
Rules and Manual Sec. 822 (1981).

Preambles Generally

Sec. 9.5 Where no action is taken to strike out the preamble of the 
    bill and the bill is passed, the preamble remains as a part of the 
    bill.

    On Mar. 22, 1935,(10) during consideration of a bill 
(H.R. 3896) providing for payment of world war adjusted service 
certificates, Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, raised a point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 79 Cong. Rec. 4314, 4315, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a point of order with respect to 
    the present parliamentary situation of one part of the bill, and in 
    connection therewith I ask permission of the Chair to make a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

        The Speaker: (11) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.  Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Blanton: On yesterday, after the first section of the 
    Vinson bill was read, as shown on page 4216, the gentleman from 
    Texas [Mr. Patman] moved to strike out the first section and to 
    insert his own bill as a substitute therefor, giving the usual 
    notice that, in case his amendment carried, he would move to strike 
    out the remaining sections of the Vinson bill.
        Mr. [Fred M.] Vinson of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        Mr. Blanton: I am making the point of order now.
        Mr. Vinson of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, I am making a point of 
    order to the gentleman's point of order. My point of order is that 
    the bill to which the gentleman's motion applies has been concluded 
    and is history.
        Mr. Blanton: In connection with my point of order, I am asking 
    the Chair a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The Chair will hear the point of order of the 
    gentleman from Texas.
        Mr. Blanton: Mr. Speaker, the Chair will find on this page 4216 
    of the Record for yesterday that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Patman] moved to strike out the first section of the Vinson bill 
    and offered his bill as an amendment in the way of a substitute, 
    giving proper notice that if his amendment were adopted he would 
    thereafter move to strike out all the remaining paragraphs of the 
    Vinson bill. Nothing was said about striking out the preamble of 
    the bill which preceded the first section, and it was not

[[Page 4880]]

     stricken out, although the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman] 
    objected to the reading of the preamble.
        The procedure I have outlined was followed. After the 
    substitute of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman] was voted upon 
    and adopted by teller vote in the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the state of the Union, as shown on page 4231 of the Record, the 
    gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman], asked unanimous consent that the 
    remaining sections of the Vinson bill that [followed] section 1 be 
    stricken out, and that request was granted, and the remaining 
    sections of the Vinson bill were stricken out, but the preamble, 
    which preceded the enacting clause, was left undisturbed, and 
    remained in the bill just preceding the enacting clause. No action 
    whatever was taken by the House, or by the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the state of the Union with respect to the preamble 
    except, as before stated, the gentleman from Texas objected to its 
    being read, as a preamble is never read. And, of course, unanimous 
    consent is usually requested for the preamble to be stricken out, 
    but as to this bill no such request was made.
        The parliamentary inquiry I desire to make is this: although it 
    is not usual to leave preambles in a bill that is finally passed, 
    yet the preamble to this bill is so apropos and was so well written 
    in the bill introduced by our friend, the gentleman from Kentucky 
    [Mr. Vinson], and it so well applies to the Patman bill that it 
    should stay in, and not be stricken out, and I wish to ask the 
    Chair whether or not the preamble could be stricken out except by 
    unanimous consent, or by a motion passed by the House.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from Texas 
    that the only way it can be done is by action of the House. No 
    action was taken by the House with respect to striking out the 
    preamble, so it still remains.

Preambles in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 9.6 In the Committee of the Whole the body of a concurrent 
    resolution is first considered and after the resolving clauses have 
    been read for amendment, the preamble is considered and perfected.

    On Oct. 5, 1962,(12) the Committee of the Whole, 
pursuant to a special rule (H. Res. 827), undertook consideration of a 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 570) expressing the sense of the 
Congress with respect to certain problems that had arisen in Berlin, 
Germany. The Committee first considered amendments to the body of the 
resolution before considering amendments to the preamble thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 108 Cong. Rec. 22637, 22638, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.7 Amendments to the preamble of a concurrent resolution are 
    considered and voted on in the Committee of the Whole after 
    amendments

[[Page 4881]]

    to the body of the resolution, and such amendments are voted on in 
    the House after the resolution has been adopted.

    On Oct. 30, 1945,(13) a concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
Res. 80) expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the size of the 
post-war Navy was considered in the Committee of the Whole. After the 
reading of the resolution the Clerk read the amendments to the 
resolution proposed by the committee that reported it. Mr. W. Sterling 
Cole, of New York, raised a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 91 Cong. Rec. 10202, 10203, 10205, 10206, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we are going to consider the 
    amendments to the preamble first?
        The Chairman: (14) The amendments to the preamble 
    are considered after amendments to the body of the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Butler B. Hare (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following committee amendment to the preamble was considered:

        In the preamble, page 1, fourth paragraph, strike out ``giving 
    due consideration to the security of the United States and its 
    Territories and insular possessions, the protection of our 
    commerce, and the necessity for cooperating with other world powers 
    in the maintenance of peace; and'' and insert in lieu thereof ``in 
    order to insure our national integrity, support our national 
    policies, guard the continental United States and our overseas 
    possessions, give protection to our commerce and citizens abroad, 
    and to cooperate with other world powers in the maintenance of 
    peace; and.''. . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the committee amendment to the 
    preamble.
        The amendment was agreed to.

    After consideration of the resolution the Committee rose and 
reported it back to the House:

        The Speaker: (15) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair 
    will put them en gross.
        The amendments were agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the adoption of the resolution.
        Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, on that I ask for 
    the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 347, nays 0, 
    answered ``present'' 1, not voting 83, as fol-
    lows: . . .
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment to the preamble.
        The amendment to the preamble was agreed to.

Preambles in the House

Sec. 9.8 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the

[[Page 4882]]

    Speaker stated that an amendment to the preamble of a resolution is 
    considered in the House after the adoption of the resolution.

    On June 8, 1970,(16) a resolution (H. Res. 976) 
authorizing a select committee to study recent developments in 
Southeast Asia was being considered in the House. Mr. Hugh L. Carey, of 
New York, raised a parliamentary inquiry after certain committee 
amendments had been agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 116 Cong. Rec. 18656, 18658, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, at what point did the Speaker put the committee 
    amendment which appears on page 1 to strike out the preamble?
        The Speaker: (17) That question will come after the 
    adoption of the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.9 The preamble of the simple resolution is amendable in the 
    House following the adoption of the resolution unless the previous 
    question is ordered thereon. The previous question is ordered 
    separately on the preamble of a resolution after adoption of the 
    resolution.

    On Mar. 1, 1967,(18) after the adoption of a resolution 
(H. Res. 278) relating to the right of a Representative-elect Adam C. 
Powell, of New York, to be sworn, Mr. Thomas B. Curtis, of Missouri, 
moved the previous question on the adoption of the preamble of the 
resolution. Mr. Phillip Burton, of California, raised a point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 113 Cong. Rec. 5038, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Missouri is urging a motion that duplicates 
    an action already taken by the House. The House already has had a 
    motion to close debate on the preamble and on the resolution as 
    amended.
        We have already had that vote. I make the point of order that 
    the gentlemen's request and/or motion is out of order. I think the 
    record of the proceedings of the House will indicate that the point 
    being advocated reflects accurately the proceedings as they have 
    transpired.
        The Speaker: (1) The Chair will state that the 
    previous question was ordered on the amendment and the resolution 
    but not on the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.10 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,(2) the House considered a concurrent 
resolution
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 112 Cong. Rec. 3473, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4883]]

(H. Con. Res. 552) recognizing the 50th anniversary of the chartering 
of the Boy Scouts of America. Mr. Arch A. Moore, Jr., of West Virginia, 
asked and received unanimous consent to consider a similar Senate 
resolution (S. Con. Res. 68) in lieu of the House concurrent 
resolution. Mr. Moore then offered an amendment to the Senate 
resolution striking out all after the resolving clause and inserting 
the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 552:

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) Is the purpose of the 
    gentleman from West Virginia to strike out the preamble?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Moore: My amendment would strike out the language of the 
    Senate concurrent resolution and substitute in lieu thereof the 
    language of the concurrent resolution just passed by the House.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Would the amendment of the gentleman 
    from West Virginia strike out the preamble or all after the 
    enacting clause and substitute the language of the House concurrent 
    resolution just passed?
        Mr. Moore: It would strike out all after the enacting clause.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That would not eliminate the preamble.
        Mr. Moore: Then, Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the preamble.
        The Senate concurrent resolution was agreed to and a motion to 
    reconsider was laid on the table.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the amendment of 
    the gentleman from West Virginia.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Moore moves to strike out the preamble.

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

Preamble of Joint Resolution

Sec. 9.11 The preamble of a joint resolution is properly amended after 
    the engrossment and pending the third reading of the resolution.

    On Apr. 2, 1962,(4) the House considered and agreed to a 
House joint resolution (H.J. Res. 628) along with a committee amendment 
to strike out the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 108 Cong. Rec. 5516, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House Journal records that the joint resolution was ordered 
engrossed, that the preamble was amended or stricken out, and that the 
resolution was then ordered read the third time, was read the third 
time, and passed.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H. Jour. 231 (1962).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------