[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[C. Offering Particular Kinds of Amendments; Precedence and Priorities]
[Â§ 16. Motions To Strike Out and Insert]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6940-6953]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
 C. OFFERING PARTICULAR KINDS OF AMENDMENTS; PRECEDENCE AND PRIORITIES
 
Sec. 16. Motions To Strike Out and Insert

[[Page 6941]]



    A motion to strike out and insert is usually a perfecting 
amendment.(16) As a perfecting amendment, it takes 
precedence over a pending motion to strike out; it may be offered while 
the motion to strike out is pending and is first acted upon. 
Furthermore, if a motion to strike out an entire paragraph and insert 
new language is agreed to, a pending amendment proposing to strike out 
the paragraph falls and is not voted upon (17) under the 
theory that the House cannot change the precise text inserted by 
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 16.1, infra.
17. See Sec. 31.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A rule (18) provides that, ``a motion to strike out and 
insert is indivisible, but a motion to strike out being lost shall 
neither preclude amendment nor motion to strike out and insert.'' The 
indivisibility of a motion to strike out and insert and the principle 
that a motion to strike out should not have precedence (should not be 
voted on first) over a motion to insert, underlie the well-established 
rule that a motion to strike out is not in order as a substitute for a 
pending motion to strike out and insert.(19) Of course, a 
motion to strike out a section may be offered if a pending amendment to 
strike out the section and insert new language is 
rejected.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Rule XVI clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 793 (101st Cong.).
19. See Sec. 17.18, infra.
20. See Sec. 17.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While it is not in order to strike out an amendment already agreed 
to, it is in order to strike out a larger portion of the paragraph 
which includes the amendment and insert a new paragraph of different 
meaning.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 30.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, it is in order to propose as a substitute for a section, 
by way of a motion to strike out and insert, an amendment inserting the 
same section with modifications and omitting amendments to the section 
previously agreed to.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 81 Cong. Rec. 4805, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., May 19, 
        1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Perfecting Amendment

Sec. 16.1 An amendment to strike out and insert is a perfecting 
    amendment.

    On July 7, 1949,(3) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 95 Cong. Rec. 9064, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was S. 
        1008, to confine the application of the Federal Trade 
        Commission Act and the Clayton Act to certain pricing 
        practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John A.] Carroll [of Colorado]: Do I understand the 
    parliamen

[[Page 6942]]

    tary situation is that the committee has offered an amendment 
    striking out certain words which are contained in the parentheses?
        The Chairman: (4) Yes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. George H. Mahon (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Carroll: Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment to 
    strike out those words and insert other words to be contained in 
    that parenthetical expression. . . .
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that it is a substitute amendment and not a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair holds that this is a perfecting 
    amendment to the text and is in order at this time.

Perfecting a Substitute

Sec. 16.2 A substitute may be amended by a motion to strike out all 
    after the first clause and insert new text. Such a motion is 
    properly classed as an amendment to the substitute and not a 
    substitute.

    On Mar. 22, 1960,(5) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 106 Cong. Rec. 6288, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 8601.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [George] Meader [of Michigan] to 
        the amendment offered by Mr. Celler as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. McCulloch: On page 1 of the Celler 
        substitute strike out ``(a) Add the following as subsection 
        (e)'' and all that follows down through the last page of the 
        McCulloch substitute, and insert in lieu thereof the following: 
        . . .

        Mr. [Emanuel) Celler [of New York]: The amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Michigan is a substitute to the Celler 
    amendment. So we have a substitute to a substitute to the McCulloch 
    amendment. Therefore, I make the point of order that the amendment 
    is not in order because it is a substitute.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan strikes only a 
    part of the substitute offered by the gentleman from New York as a 
    substitute to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    McCulloch). This is clearly in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Precedence Over Motion To Strike Out

Sec. 16.3 A perfecting amendment, in the form of a motion to strike out 
    and insert, offered to the text of a bill, is in order and takes 
    precedence over a pending motion to strike out the text, and is 
    first acted upon.

    On Feb. 7, 1964,(7) during consideration of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1963 (H.R. 7152), a motion to strike a portion of text 
was offered by Mr. Basil L. Whitener, of North Carolina:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 110 Cong. Rec. 2462, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 6943]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Whitener: Strike out all language 
        commencing with line 1 on page 62 through and including line 15 
        on page 63, said language being that included under title VI.

        (Mr. Whitener asked and was given permission to proceed for 10 
    additional minutes.)

    Subsequently,(8) a perfecting amendment was offered by 
Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at pp. 2488, 2489.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Harris: On page 62, line 3, after 
        ``Sec. 601'' strike out all language through and including line 
        15 on page 63 and insert the following:
            ``Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in any law 
        of the United States providing or authorizing direct or 
        indirect financial assistance for or in connection with any 
        program or activity by way of grant, contract, loan, insurance, 
        guaranty, or otherwise, no such law shall be interpreted as 
        requiring that such financial assistance shall be furnished in 
        circumstances under which individuals participating in or 
        benefiting from the program or activity are discriminated 
        against on the ground of race, color, religion or national 
        origin or are denied participation or benefits therein on the 
        ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. All 
        contracts made in connection with any such program or activity 
        shall contain such provisions as the President may prescribe 
        for the purpose of assuring that there shall be no 
        discrimination in employment by any contractor or subcontractor 
        on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.''

    A point of order was made against the amendment: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 2489.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Arkansas is not a perfecting amendment but is an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute, and therefore is out of order as a 
    substitute to the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina, 
    which would strike out the entire title.
        The Chairman [Mr. Eugene J. Keogh of New York]: The Chair 
    points out to the gentleman from New York that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Arkansas undertakes to strike out 
    part of the language contained in title VI and to insert new 
    language; and that therefore it is in fact a perfecting amendment. 
    The point of order is overruled and the gentleman from Arkansas is 
    recognized.

    The Harris amendment was subsequently voted on and 
rejected,(10) after which a perfecting amendment was offered 
by Mr. George Meader, of Michigan, and subsequently 
rejected.(11) The Chair then stated that the question 
recurred on the Whitener motion to strike out the title. The Whitener 
amendment was rejected.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 2492.
11. Id. at p. 2497.
12. Id. at p. 2498.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Effect of Agreeing to Perfecting Amendment

Sec. 16.4 The motion to strike out and insert takes precedence

[[Page 6944]]

    as a perfecting amendment over a motion to strike out, and if the 
    perfecting amendment is agreed to, and is coextensive with the 
    motion to strike, the motion to strike out the amended text fails 
    and is not acted on.

    On Dec. 17, 1970,(13) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 42227, 42230, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 19446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

             Amendment offered by Mrs. [Patsy T.] Mink [of Hawaii]: 
        Amend section 3c on page 20 of the bill to read as follows:
            ``(c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b). . . .''

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin 
        as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mrs. Mink: On page 
        20, strike out lines 11 through 16. . . .

        The Chairman: (14) . . . The amendment offered by 
    the gentlewoman from Hawaii is a motion to strike out the 
    subsection and insert new language. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin is a motion to strike out the subsection. 
    The precedents indicate that in this situation the proponents of 
    the subsection should be given a chance to perfect it before the 
    vote is taken on striking it from the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James C. Corman (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If the Mink amendment is agreed to, the motion to strike out 
    then fails and is not voted on. If the amendment of the gentlewoman 
    from Hawaii is defeated, then the vote will recur on the motion to 
    strike.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Steiger amendment was not a proper 
substitute for the Mink amendment, but when no point of order was 
raised, the Chair properly treated the Steiger amendment as a 
perfecting amendment to the text and put the question first thereon.

Sec. 16.5 Where there is pending a motion to strike out language in a 
    bill and a preferential perfecting amendment (to strike the same 
    language and insert new language) is then offered and agreed to, 
    the motion to strike out falls and is not voted on.

    The principle stated above was the basis for the following 
proceedings which occurred on Aug. 5, 1986,(15) during 
consideration of H.R. 4428 in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 132 Cong. Rec. 19056, 19058, 19059, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Stratton to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Nichols: Strike out section 101(c) (page 14, lines 4 
        through 12). . . .

[[Page 6945]]

        Mr. [Ike] Skelton [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Skelton to the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Nichols: Page 14, strike out lines 4 
        through 12 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            (c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
        President and the Secretary of Defense may assign missions, 
        roles, and functions to the military departments . . . and 
        other elements of the Department of Defense. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (16) Does any Member rise 
    in opposition to the perfecting amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If not, the question is on the perfecting amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Nichols).
        The perfecting amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Stratton amendment to strike will 
    not be voted on, under the precedents, the text proposed to be 
    stricken having been completely amended.

Sec. 16.6 A perfecting amendment may be offered while a motion to 
    strike out is pending, and if the perfecting amendment changes all 
    the words proposed to be stricken out, the motion to strike 
    necessarily falls and is not voted on.

    On Apr. 9, 1979,(17) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 3324,(18) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 125 Cong. Rec. 7753, 7755, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. The International Development Cooperation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas B.] Evans [Jr.] of Delaware: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Evans of Delaware: Page 22, strike 
        out all of lines 13 through 20 and renumber each succeeding 
        paragraph accordingly. . . .

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki: Page 22, 
        strike out lines 13 through 20 and insert:
            ``(2) It is the sense of Congress that funds made available 
        under this chapter for countries in the Middle East are 
        designed to promote progress toward a comprehensive peace 
        settlement in the Middle East and that Syria and Jordan, to 
        continue to receive funds under this chapter, should act in 
        good faith to achieve further progress toward a comprehensive 
        peace settlement and that the expenditure of the funds will 
        serve the process of peace in the Middle East. . . .

        The Chairman: (19) The question is on the perfecting 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The perfecting amendment was agreed to.

[[Page 6946]]

        The Chairman: The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Delaware (Mr. Evans) will not be voted upon, because it is in the 
    nature of a motion to strike.

Sec. 16.7 A motion to strike out and insert language may be offered as 
    a perfecting amendment to a pending section of a bill, and is voted 
    on before a pending motion to strike that section; but, even if 
    agreed to, the perfected language is subject to being eliminated by 
    subsequent adoption of the motion to strike out in cases where the 
    perfecting amendment has not so changed the text as to render the 
    original motion to strike meaningless. Thus, agreement to a 
    perfecting amendment reducing the amount of an authorization does 
    not foreclose a vote on a pending motion to strike the 
    authorization altogether.

    On July 16, 1981,(20) during consideration of H.R. 3519 
(1) in the Committee of the Whole, an amendment was offered 
striking an amount authorized for assistance in staging a bicentennial 
celebration of the Battle of Yorktown. A subsequent amendment to the 
bill proposed to reduce the amount authorized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 127 Cong. Rec. 16057-59, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. The Department of Defense Authorization for fiscal year 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: On 
    page 59, strike lines 20 through 24 and on page 60, strike lines 1 
    through 17.
        Mr. Volkmer: Mr. Chairman, as I reviewed this bill last week 
    and came to the very end of it, the last bit of it, I find herein 
    an assistance to the Yorktown Bicentennial Celebration which will 
    take place on or about October 19, for the 200-year celebration of 
    the Battle of Yorktown. . . .
        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Peyser: Page 60, line 
        13, strike out ``$1,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$750,000''.

        The Chairman: (2) The question is on the perfecting 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Peyser).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The perfecting amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Volkmer).
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it. . . .
        Mr. [Abraham] Kazen [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    committee has had an amendment before it offered by the gentleman 
    from Missouri (Mr. Volkmer).
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

[[Page 6947]]

        Mr. Kazen: Then, Mr. Chairman, there was another amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Peyser). Was that 
    amendment a substitute amendment?
        The Chairman: It was a perfecting amendment to the bill. It was 
    not an amendment to the amendment. A motion to strike cannot be 
    amended by a substitute. . . .
        The Peyser amendment was agreed to. The net effect is that 
    there is $750,000 that is approved for the Yorktown celebration.
        Mr. Kazen: I thank the Chair.
        The Chairman: For what reason does the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Ertel) seek recognition?
        Mr. [Allen E.] Ertel: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet at the time we voted on the 
    Volkmer amendment. Have we voted for the Volkmer amendment at this 
    time to eliminate the funds for the Yorktown exposition altogether?
        The Chairman: No; the Chair will state that we are in the 
    situation where the committee adopted the Peyser amendment 
    authorizing $750,000, and then rejected the Volkmer motion to 
    strike on a voice vote.
        Mr. Ertel: Mr. Chairman, what is the effect of the Volkmer 
    amendment at this point?

        The Chairman: There was no request for a recorded vote.
        For what reason does the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Volkmer) 
    rise?
        Mr. Volkmer: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        My parliamentary inquiry is this: Has the Chair announced the 
    result of the vote on the motion to strike, which was my amendment?
        The Chairman: Yes.
        Mr. Ertel: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a division on the Volkmer 
    amendment at this point. I was on my feet at the time the vote was 
    announced.
        The Chairman: The Chair did not see the gentleman, but the 
    Chair will take the gentleman's word that he was seeking 
    recognition before the voice vote was finally announced.
        Mr. Peyser: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Peyser: Mr. Chairman, I want to be sure that I understand 
    what the situation is on the voting right now. The perfecting 
    amendment that I offered, as I understand it, was accepted and 
    passed?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Peyser: So, Mr. Chairman, now if we vote for the Volkmer 
    amendment, what are we then accomplishing? Are we then supporting 
    the moneys in the amount of $750,000 for the celebration, or are we 
    knocking out everything?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the perfected section 
    would be stricken.
        Mr. Peyser: So if we support the Volkmer amendment, everything 
    is out and if we vote no, the $750,000 is in, is that correct?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Peyser: I thank the Chair.
        The Chairman: A division has been requested on the Volkmer 
    amendment.
        Mr. Stratton: I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

[[Page 6948]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, I have a copy of the Peyser 
    amendment. It is an amendment to H.R. 3519, and it says:

            On page 60, line 13, strike out ``$1,000,000'' and insert 
        in lieu thereof ``$750,000.''

        So the Peyser amendment is an amendment to the bill and not a 
    perfecting amendment to the Volkmer amendment?
        The Chairman: It is a perfecting amendment to the bill. That 
    was the statement of the Chair.
        Mr. Stratton: And it was accepted; was it not?
        The Chairman: That amendment was accepted. But if the Volkmer 
    amendment by a vote on division should be approved, then that would 
    be eliminated. Everything would be eliminated.
        A division has been demanded on the Volkmer amendment.
        On a division (demanded by Mr. Ertel) there were--ayes 33, noes 
    60.
        So the amendment was rejected.

Sec. 16.8 While a committee amendment striking out a subsection is 
    pending, another amendment perfecting the text by striking and 
    inserting a new subsection may be offered and is voted on first, 
    and if agreed to, the amendment striking the subsection falls and 
    is not voted on, as the subsection has been amended in its 
    entirety.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on Nov. 3, 
1983,(3) during consideration of H.R. 2867, the Hazardous 
Waste Control and Enforcement Act of 1983. The proceedings in the 
Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 129 Cong. Rec. 30805, 30816, 30818, 30819, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       judiciary committee amendments

        The Clerk will report the second committee amendment 
    recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary.
        The Clerk read as follows:

             Judiciary Committee amendment: Page 33, strike out line 1 
        and all that follows through line 12, page 34.

        Mr. [William J.] Hughes [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the last word. . . .

     perfecting amendment to the judiciary committee amendment offered 
                               by mr. hughes

        Mr. Hughes: Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            . . . amendment offered by Mr. Hughes: Page 33, strike out 
        1 and all that follows down through line 12 on page 34 and 
        substitute:
            (e) Law Enforcement Authority.--(3) The Attorney General 
        shall, at the request of the Administrator [and on the basis of 
        a showing of need,] deputize qualified employees of the 
        Environmental Protection Agency to serve as Special Deputy 
        United States Marshals in criminal investigations with respect 
        to viola

[[Page 6949]]

        tions of the criminal provisions of this Act. . . .

        The Chairman: (4) The question is on the perfecting 
    amendment to the Judiciary Committee amendment offered by Mr. 
    Hughes. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Doug Barnard, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the perfecting amendment . . . was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the Judiciary Committee amendment 
    to strike subsection 11(e) falls and is not voted on, since the 
    subsection has been amended in its entirety.

Motion as Perfecting Amendment to Text, Not Substitute for Motion To 
    Strike

Sec. 16.9 A motion to strike out and insert is not in order as a 
    substitute for a simple motion to strike out.

    On May 9, 1968,(5) the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 114 Cong. Rec. 12606, 12608, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 15951, providing for uniform annual 
        observances of certain legal holidays on Mondays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Basil L.] Whitener [of North 
        Carolina]: On page 1, line 10, strike out ``Memorial Day, the 
        last Monday in May.''. . .

        Mr. [John H.] Kyl [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute 
    amendment for the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
    Carolina.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Kyl as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Whitener: On page 1, line 10, after 
        the comma, strike the remainder of the sentence and insert 
        ``May 30.''. . .

        Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, this 
    constitutes an amendment to the Whitener amendment, and the 
    Whitener amendment is to strike the whole line. Therefore you 
    cannot offer a substitute when you change it in the manner in which 
    the gentleman does.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman from Colorado makes 
    the point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    North Carolina is to strike out. The Chair feels that the proposed 
    substitute of the gentleman from Iowa to the motion to strike out 
    offered by the gentleman from North Carolina is not in order as a 
    proper substitute.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
 7. The motion to strike out and insert could, however, be offered as a 
        perfecting amendment to the text of the bill (see Sec. 16.10, 
        infra), and in that case would take precedence over the motion 
        to strike out the text and be first acted upon (see Sec. 16.3, 
        supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.10 When a motion to strike out one title of a bill being read 
    by titles is pending, a motion to strike out and insert may not be 
    offered as a substitute for the pending motion, but may be offered 
    as a perfecting amendment to the title.

[[Page 6950]]

    On Feb. 7, 1964,(8) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 110 Cong. Rec. 2462, 2488, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 7152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Basil L.] Whitener [of North 
        Carolina]: Strike out all language commencing with line 1 on 
        page 62 through and including line 5 on page 63, said language 
        being that included under title VI. . . .

        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        Mr. [George] Meader [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Meader: Is it in order to offer an amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute to the motion by the gentleman from North Carolina 
    (Mr. Whitener) to strike title VI?
        The Chairman: The answer is ``No''. . . .
        The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Harris] has offered a 
    perfecting amendment, which is in order at this time. . . .

        Amendment offered by Mr. Harris: On page 62, line 3, after 
    ``Sec. 601'' strike out all language through and including line 15 
    on page 63 and insert the following: . . .

Motion To Strike Out and Insert as Indivisible

Sec. 16.11 A motion to strike out and insert is indivisible.

    On Oct. 19, 1945,(10) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 91 Cong. Rec. 9859, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 4407, reducing certain appropriations and contract 
        authorizations available for fiscal year 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a 
    division of the question. The amendment is to strike out and insert 
    and I ask that the question be divided so that the Committee may 
    first vote on the part of the amendment which provides for striking 
    out the language included in the bill.
        The Chairman: (11) As the Chair recalls the rule, a 
    motion to strike out is not divisible. Clause 7 of the rule XVI 
    reads as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            A motion to strike out and insert is indivisible.

Defeat of Motion To Strike

Sec. 16.12 Defeat of a motion to strike out a paragraph does not 
    preclude amendments nor motions to strike out and insert.

    On May 19, 1937,(12) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 81 Cong. Rec. 4797, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6958, Interior Department appropriation for 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: This is a perfecting amendment, 
    and the committee having voted on a motion to strike out the 
    paragraph, a perfecting amendment is not in order.

[[Page 6951]]

        The Chairman: (13) The Chair invites attention to 
    clause 7 of rule 16, which provides as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            A motion to strike out and insert is indivisible, but a 
        motion to strike out being lost shall neither preclude 
        amendment nor motion to strike out and insert.

        On the basis of the rule just quoted, the point of order is 
    overruled.

Sec. 16.13 An amendment proposing to strike out a section of a bill 
    having been defeated, the proponent of such amendment may offer an 
    amendment to strike out the section and insert new language.

    On June 6, 1944,(14) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 90 Cong. Rec. 5412, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: 
    Beginning on page 2, line 6, strike out section 2 and insert. . . .
        Mr. [Dewey] Short [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it strikes out section 2, the 
    very thing that we just voted on. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) . . . This amendment . . . 
    differed from the first amendment in that this not only seeks to 
    strike out section 2 but inserts new wording for section 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.  Graham A. Barden (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Motion To Strike Out and Insert After Text Perfected by Amendment

Sec. 16.14 After a section has been perfected by amendments, it may be 
    in order to move to strike out such section as amended and insert a 
    new one therefor.

    On May 19, 1937,(16) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 81 Cong. Rec. 4805, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6958, Interior Department appropriation for 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Luce [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a 
    point of order. . . .
        This section reverses the action just taken by the Committee 
    and my point is that that cannot be accomplished except by a motion 
    to reconsider. . . .
        The Chairman: (17) . . . The gentleman from 
    Mississippi [Mr. Ford] has offered an amendment striking out the 
    entire paragraph and inserting new language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair cited (from 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2904 and 
2905) the following principles in overruling the point of order:

        A substitute offered after the reading of a bill has been 
    concluded is in order regardless of whether it includes language 
    stricken from the bill or inserted in the bill when read for 
    amendment. . . .
        It is in order to propose as a substitute for a section an 
    amendment in

[[Page 6952]]

    serting the same section with modifications and omitting amendments 
    to the section previously agreed to by the Committee of the Whole.

Not in Order as Substitute in Some Cases

Sec. 16.15 For an amendment inserting new text in a bill, a proposition 
    not only inserting similar language but also striking out original 
    text of the bill may not be in order as a substitute, where the 
    portion striking original text has the effect of broadening the 
    scope of the amendment to which it is offered and therefore 
    violating the germaneness rule.

    On Sept. 8, 1976,(18) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 10498, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 122 Cong. Rec. 29225, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 108. (a) Title I of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 and 
    following), as amended by section 107 of this Act, is further 
    amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subtitle: . 
    . .

    Amendments were offered, as follows: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at pp. 29234, 29237.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers: Page 216, after line 23, 
    insert:
        (f) The Clean Air Act, as amended by sections 306, 201, 304, 
    312, 313, 108, and 211 of this Act, is further amended by adding 
    the following new section at the end thereof:

                    ``national commission on air quality

        ``Sec 325. (a) There is established a National Commission on 
    Air Quality which shall study and report to the Congress. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Chappell [Jr., of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rogers).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Chappell as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Rogers: Page 198, line 5, after 
        section 108, strike out everything following Sec. 108 and 
        insert the following:
            Sec. 108. The Clean Air Act is amended by inserting a new 
        section 315 and renumbering succeeding sections accordingly:

                      ``national commission on air quality

            ``Sec. 315(a) There is established a National Commission on 
        Air Quality which shall study and report to the Congress on:
            ``(1) the effects of any existing or proposed policy or 
        prohibiting deterioration of air quality in areas identified as 
        having air quality better than that required under existing or 
        proposed national ambient standards on employment . . . the 
        relationship of such policy to the protection of the public 
        health and welfare as well as other national priorities such as 
        economic growth and national defense and its other social and 
        environmental effects. . . .

        Mr. [Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment offered as a substitute for my 
    amendment.

[[Page 6953]]

        The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman from Florida 
    (Mr. Rogers) wish to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rogers: Mr. Chairman, I would insist that at this time . . 
    . we should vote on my amendment and the amendment of the gentleman 
    from New Jersey first and then allow the gentleman from Florida to 
    offer his amendment as a substitute for the section.
        May I say the reason why this is not simply an amendment to the 
    Rogers amendment, or a substitute for it; rather, it goes far 
    beyond striking the Rogers amendment. It strikes the whole section 
    of the bill and simply adds the same amendment, so I would think it 
    is not germane at this time. . . .
        Mr. Chappell: Mr. Chairman, as I see the situation, the Rogers 
    amendment seeks to add a provision to section 108.
        Mr. Chairman, as I see my amendment, it is in substitute to 
    that and seeks to strike the wording of section 108 which it is 
    attempting to amend, so I think it is clearly a proper substitute 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Kentucky wish to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. [Tim Lee] Carter [of Kentucky]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I agree with the distinguished gentleman from 
    Florida (Mr. Rogers). My good friend, the chairman of the 
    subcommittee, stated that the amendment was to his amendment. His 
    amendment has not been accepted, and of course the Chappell 
    amendment does not amend it. It is an original amendment, Mr. 
    Chairman, of a substitute to section 108 of the bill. Therefore, I 
    should think it would be in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rogers) correctly stated the 
    situation. His amendment calls for a study and inserts a new 
    subsection in section 108. The Chappell amendment is much broader, 
    and does deal with the standards which are set out in this 
    particular section of the bill, while the Rogers amendment merely 
    adds the study.
        The Chair would, in support of the ruling the Chair is about to 
    make, refer to Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, 
    page 457, section 2880, wherein it is stated:

            An amendment striking out language other than in the 
        pending amendment is not in order as a substitute for an 
        amendment inserting language.

        The Chair would further point to a ruling set out on page 456 
    of the same volume, in section 2879, entitled ``A decision as to 
    what constitutes a substitute'':

            To qualify as substitute an amendment must treat in the 
        same manner the same subject matter carried by the text for 
        which proposed.

        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order, and would 
    advise the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Chappell) that his amendment 
    might be in order after the Rogers amendment and the amendment 
    thereto have been disposed of.

[[Page 6954]]