[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[E. Consideration and Voting]
[Â§ 24. Perfecting Amendments; Motions To Strike]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 7087-7099]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
                      E. CONSIDERATION AND VOTING
 
Sec. 24. Perfecting Amendments; Motions To Strike

No Preference Between Perfecting Amendments

Sec. 24.1 There may be pending but one perfecting amendment to a 
    section at a time and there are no degrees of preference as between 
    perfecting amendments.

    On Mar. 9, 1935,(21) during consideration of H.R. 6021, 
relating to home mortgage relief, an amendment was offered by Mr. 
Walter G. Andrews, of New York, to section 10 of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 79 Cong. Rec. 3291, 3294, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
            An amendment had been offered inserting a new section 11, 
        which the Chair indicated would be voted upon after perfecting 
        amendments to section 10 were disposed of.
            For an instance in which a second perfecting amendment to 
        text was considered and voted on prior to another perfecting 
        amendment, see Sec. 23.29, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment by Mr. Andrews of New York: Page 7, line 17, after 
    the word ``following'', insert a new paragraph to read as follows--
        . . .``In the appointment of agents and the selection of 
    employees for said Corporation, and in the promotion of agents or 
    employees, no partisan political test or qualification shall be 
    permitted or given consideration, but all agents and employees 
    shall be appointed, employed, or promoted solely upon the basis of 
    merit and efficiency. Any member of the Board who is found guilty 
    of a violation of this provision by the President of the United 
    States shall be removed from office by the President of the United 
    States and any agent or employee of the Corporation who is found 
    guilty of a violation of this section by the Board shall be removed 
    from office by said Board.''

    Subsequently, an amendment was offered by Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of 
Texas:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Blanton: Page 7, line 19, after the 
    word ``office'' insert ``or congressional district''. . . .
        The Chairman: (22) The Chair suggests to the 
    gentleman from Texas that the gentleman withhold his amendment 
    until the committee has disposed of the other perfecting amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Andrews].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Emanuel Celler (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Blanton: That amendment added a new section, Mr. Chairman. 
    Mine is perfecting the text of section 10. . . .
        I make the point of order that any amendment that changes the 
    text in any way or seeks to perfect it is preferential. . . .
        The Chairman: The Andrews amendment does something to the bill 
    in the way of perfecting it, and that is exactly what the 
    gentleman's amend

[[Page 7088]]

    ment does, and the committee would have two perfecting amendments 
    pending at the same time if the gentleman's amendment was offered 
    at this time. The Chair suggests that the gentleman withhold his 
    amendment.

Amendment Inserting New Section

Sec. 24.2 Perfecting amendments to a section are considered before 
    amendments proposing to insert new sections.

    On Mar. 9, 1935,(23) during consideration of a bill 
(1) relating to home mortgage relief, the following exchange 
took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. 79 Cong. Rec. 3291, 74th Cong. 1st Sess. For further discussion of 
        priorities among proffered amendments, see Sec. Sec. 15 et 
        seq., supra.
 1. H.R. 6021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (2) The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Brown] is a proposed new section to 
    follow section 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Emanuel Celler (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Then all amendments which 
    would perfect the text should be voted upon before the Brown 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: All amendments that perfect section 10 would 
    naturally come before the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Michigan [Mr. Brown]; that is correct.

Perfecting Amendment Voted On Before Amendment To Strike

Sec. 24.3 All perfecting amendments to a section of a bill must be 
    disposed of prior to the vote recurring on a pending motion to 
    strike out the section.

    On Aug. 3, 1966,(3) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 112 Cong. Rec. 18111-15, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 14765.
            For further discussion of the precedence of perfecting 
        amendments, see Sec. 15 et seq., supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Arch A.] Moore [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. Moore: Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have offered, in 
    effect, will strike the language contained in title IV of the bill 
    before us.
        Mr. [Charles McC.] Mathias [Jr., of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer a perfecting amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Under what 
    conditions can a perfecting amendment to title IV be offered by the 
    gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mathias] in view of the fact that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Moore] 
    was to strike out all of title IV. What does it perfect? Or what 
    would it then perfect?
        The Chairman: (4) Under our rules--the rules of the 
    House, and ordinary

[[Page 7089]]

    parliamentary procedure--the basic legislation is perfected before 
    there is a vote on an amendment to strike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 24.4 The vote on a perfecting amendment takes precedence over a 
    vote on a motion to strike out.

    On Oct. 20, 1967,(5) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 113 Cong. Rec. 29569, 29570, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            On page 2, line 3, strike the words ``available to'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof the words ``covered into a special fund 
        in the Treasury which when appropriated shall be available 
        until expended by''. . . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [California] to the 
        committee amendment:
            On page 2, line 2, after the period, strike out the 
        remainder of line 2 and following down through line 10. . . .

        The Chairman: (6) The Chair will state that the 
    question first (comes) on the perfecting amendment, and 
    subsequently on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Hosmer], which was in effect a motion to strike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Fernand J. St Germain (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Similarly, on May 17, 1944, the Chair stated that perfecting 
    amendments are voted on before amendments to strike 
    out.(7) The statement of the Chairman (8) was 
    as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See 90 Cong. Rec. 4616, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        S. 1767, relating to aid for the readjustment in civilian life 
        of returning war veterans.
 8. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            The amendment offered by the gentleman from South Dakota is 
        offered as an amendment to the text of the bill, therefore is a 
        perfecting amendment to the text of the bill. The vote would 
        come first on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
        Dakota in view of the fact that perfecting amendments are voted 
        upon prior to amendments to strike out.

Sec. 24.5 A perfecting amendment to the text of a bill is in order 
    pending a vote on a motion to strike out the same text and is first 
    voted on.

    On Oct. 3, 1969, (9) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 115 Cong. Rec. 28454, 28455, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 14000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Motion offered by Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: 
        On page 16, line 9, strike all of Title V. . . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana] 
        to title V: On page 17, immediately after line 13 insert the 
        following:
            Sec. 505. . . .

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: . . . How can you 
    have an amendment to a section that is to be stricken?

[[Page 7090]]

        . . . I make the point of order that the amendment is not in 
    order and is not germane to the section.
        The Chairman: (10) . . . Perfecting amendments to a 
    title in a bill may be offered while there is pending a motion to 
    strike out such title.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is well established that, where both a perfecting amendment to a 
section and a motion to strike out the section are pending, the 
perfecting amendment is first voted on. Further, the Chair may decline 
to recognize a Member offering a motion to strike out text as a 
substitute for a pending motion to perfect the same text, since a 
motion to strike is not a proper substitute for a perfecting amendment.
    On June 4, 1968,(11) for example, the following 
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 114 Cong. Rec. 15889, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 17268.
            See also, for further examples, 119 Cong. Rec. 26201, 
        26204, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., July 26, 1973; and 113 Cong. Rec. 
        26120, 26122, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 20, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (12) The Clerk will report the next 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            On page 3, line 17, after ``section'' insert. . . .

        Mr. [Porter] Hardy [Jr., of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. Would it be in order at this point to offer 
    a substitute for the committee amendment to strike out the entire 
    language beginning at line 7 through line 20?
        The Chairman: Not until we have disposed of the committee 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. Hardy: Will the committee amendment--is it not in order to 
    offer a substitute for the committee amendment?
        The Chairman: After we dispose of the pending committee 
    amendment a motion to strike out the section would be in order.

Sec. 24.6 A perfecting amendment to a paragraph may be offered while a 
    motion to strike out the paragraph is pending, and the perfecting 
    amendment is voted on first.

    On June 24, 1975,(13) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill,(14) an amendment was offered and 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 20569, 20570, 20573, 20574, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. H.R. 8070, Department of Urban Development appropriations, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Leo J.] Ryan [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The portion of the bill to which the amendment relates is as 
    follows:

                            Selective Service System

                             salaries and expenses

            For expenses necessary for the Selective Service System, 
        including ex

[[Page 7091]]

        penses of attendance at meetings and of training for uniformed 
        personnel assigned to the Selective Service System, as 
        authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 4101-4118) for civilian employees; 
        and not to exceed $1,000 for official reception and 
        representation expenses: $40,000,000: . . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ryan: Page 26, strike out line 18 
        and all that follows thereafter through page 27, line 13. . . .

        Mr. [Robert F.] Drinan [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a perfecting amendment to the paragraph of the bill which the Ryan 
    amendment seeks to strike.

        The Chairman: (15) The Clerk will report the 
    perfecting amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Drinan to the paragraph 
        which the Ryan amendment seeks to strike: On page 27, line 1, 
        strike out ``$40,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$17,672,000.''
            On page 27, line 11, strike out ``$8,300,000'' and insert 
        in lieu thereof ``$3,272,000.''. . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the perfecting amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Drinan). . . .
        (T)he perfecting amendment was rejected.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Ryan).
        The amendment was rejected.

Sec. 24.7 Where there is pending an amendment to strike out a section 
    of a bill, a perfecting amendment to that section striking out some 
    of its provisions and inserting new language is in order and is 
    first voted upon.

    On Apr. 19, 1973,(16) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 119 Cong. Rec. 13233, 13235, 13240, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was S. 502.
            See also 116 Cong. Rec. 8188, 8190, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Mar. 19, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Hanley [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hanley: Page 124, strike out line 
        10 and all that follows down through and including the line 
        following line 12 on page 125.
            Renumber succeeding sections and references thereto 
        accordingly. . . .

        Mr. [John] Buchanan [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Buchanan: Page 124, 
        strike out line 14 and all that follows down through and 
        including the line following line 12 on page 125, and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
            Sec. 149. Availability of urban system funds. . . .

        The Chairman: (17) . . . The question is on the 
    perfecting amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
    Buchanan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Morris K. Udall (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The perfecting amendment was rejected.

[[Page 7092]]

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanley).

Perfecting Amendment Added to End of Material Proposed To Be Stricken

Sec. 24.8 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair indicated 
    (1) that a perfecting amendment adding words to a paragraph would 
    be voted on before a pending motion to strike such paragraph, and 
    (2) that the adoption of the motion to strike the paragraph would 
    strike the perfecting language, if adopted, along with the rest of 
    the paragraph.

    On Feb. 24, 1977,(18) during consideration of a bill 
(19) on the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry as described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 123 Cong. Rec. 5321, 5323, 5325, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. H.R. 11, Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act 
        amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sam] Gibbons [of Florida]: Madam Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

            Page 2, strike out line 23 and all that follows down 
        through and including line 7 on page 3. . . .

        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Madam Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Harsha: Page 3, line 7, 
        after the first period insert the following:
            ``This subsection shall not apply in any case where the 
        Secretary determines it to be inconsistent with the public 
        interest, or the cost to be unreasonable. . . .

        Mr. Gibbons: Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I 
    only take the floor for the purpose of asking the gentleman from 
    Ohio to clarify his amendment. As I understand it, this amendment 
    is a substitute for my amendment. If the gentleman's amendment is 
    adopted, my amendment would be wiped out and his would, in effect, 
    be reaffirmation of the existing buy American law. . . .
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair would say to the 
    gentleman from Florida that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Ohio is a perfecting amendment to the text of the bill, and it 
    will be voted on first because of its precedence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert A.] Roe [of New Jersey]: Madam Chairman, would the 
    Chair explain the parliamentary situation?
        The Chairman: The parliamentary situation is this:
        The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons) offered an amendment 
    to strike a paragraph from the bill. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Harsha) offered an amendment which is a perfecting amendment to the 
    original bill and which, if it is adopted, would be a part of the 
    original text which the gentleman from Florida proposes to strike.
        The question would then occur on the amendment offered by the 
    gen

[[Page 7093]]

    tleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons). If the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons) were adopted, then the 
    language which had been included as a perfecting amendment would 
    also be stricken, along with the rest of the paragraph.
        The question is on the perfecting amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha).
        The perfecting amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons).
        The amendment was rejected.

    Parliamentarian's Note: An amendment adding a new sentence at the 
end of a section which is proposed to be stricken is considered a 
perfecting amendment and is first voted on.

--Motion To Strike Not Proper Substitute for Amendment Changing a 
    Figure

Sec. 24.9 Perfecting amendments to a paragraph are disposed of prior to 
    amendments to strike out the paragraph, and a motion to strike out 
    is not a proper substitute for a perfecting amendment merely 
    changing a figure.

    On June 25, 1974,(1) during consideration of a bill 
(2) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair ruled as 
described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 120 Cong. Rec. 21038, 21039, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. H.R. 15544, Treasury Department, Postal Service and Executive 
        Office appropriations, fiscal 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John T.] Myers [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Myers: On page 14, lines 16 and 
        17, strike $1,000,000 and substitute $250,000.

        Mr. Myers: Mr. Chairman, it seems to be the mood of the 
    committee this afternoon to make cuts. This would simply restore 
    the funds for the Commission on the Review of the National Policy 
    Toward Gambling back to last year's level. . . .
        Mr. [C. W.] Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Young of Florida for the amendment offered by Mr. Myers:
            Page 14, lines 10 through 17, strike lines 10 through 17 
        and renumber the following lines.

        The Chairman: (3) The Chair states that this is not 
    a proper substitute for the amendment now pending. Once the pending 
    perfecting amendment has been disposed of, then the gentleman's 
    amendment to strike out the paragraph would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Motion To Strike Title of Bill

Sec. 24.10 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chairman stated 
    that where there was pending a motion to strike a title of a bill, 
    per

[[Page 7094]]

    fecting amendments to that title could be offered and would be 
    voted on prior to voting on the motion to strike.

    On June 13, 1975,(4) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the bill H.R. 6860,(5) parliamentary 
inquiry was addressed to the Chair, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 18819, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. Energy Conservation and Conversion Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ken] Hechler of West Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hechler of West Virginia: Does this amendment strike all of 
    title IV?
        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Yes.
        Mr. Hechler of West Virginia: In that event, my parliamentary 
    inquiry is, Mr. Chairman, I have a perfecting amendment to title 
    IV. I would inquire of the Chair whether that perfecting amendment 
    could be considered.
        The Chairman: The Chair desires to inform the gentleman from 
    West Virginia that his perfecting amendment would be in order 
    pending the vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin.

--Several Amendments Pending; Vote on Motion To Strike Deferred

Sec. 24.11 There may be pending a motion to strike out a pending title 
    of a bill, a perfecting amendment (adding a new section at the end 
    of the title), and a substitute for the perfecting amendment. The 
    vote is taken first on the substitute, then on the perfecting 
    amendment, finally on the motion to strike. After the first 
    perfecting amendment has been disposed of, another may be offered 
    and the vote on the motion to strike out is again deferred until 
    the amendment is disposed of.

    The proceedings of Oct. 3, 1969, are discussed in Sec. 5.10, supra.

Text Perfected Before Vote on Striking it Out

Sec. 24.12 A motion proposing to strike out a section is not properly 
    offered as an amendment to a perfecting amendment to that section, 
    but where no point of order is raised, the Chair nevertheless 
    follows the general principle that the pending text should first be 
    perfected before the vote recurs on striking it out. The principle 
    of perfecting text before considering an amendment striking it from 
    the bill is followed even where the motion to

[[Page 7095]]

    strike out is improperly drafted as an amendment to an amendment.

    On Mar. 20, 1975,(7) uring consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill,(8) parliamentary inquiry 
was addressed to the Chair and the proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 7653, 7658, 7662, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. H.R. 4296, emergency price supports for 1975 crops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Richmond: Page 3, line 8, strike 
        the figure ``85 per centum'', and insert in lieu thereof the 
        figure ``80 per centum''. . . .

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Richmond: Page 3, line 1, strike out lines 1 through 16. 
        . .

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Am I correct that the order of consideration of the two 
    amendments presently before the committee is that the first vote 
    will occur on the so-called Richmond amendment as a perfecting 
    amendment to the bill and the second vote will occur on the Findley 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley) that he is correct. Under 
    Deschler's Procedure, Chapter 27, Section 22.3 where both a 
    perfecting amendment to a section and a motion to strike out the 
    section are pending, the perfecting amendment is first voted on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the case now facing the committee, the perfecting amendment 
    to the section is the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Richmond) and the motion to strike out the section, is 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Findley).
        Therefore, under the procedure, the perfecting amendment of the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Richmond) will be the first amendment 
    on which the committee will vote.
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Findley: In offering the amendment, the Clerk read the 
    amendment as an amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Richmond). Would that not on the face of it 
    qualify it as an amendment to the amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct in stating the manner in 
    which his amendment was proposed and as the Clerk read it; but 
    since no point of order was raised against the amendment, the 
    procedure which the Chair just read nonetheless applies.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Technically, the motion to strike out the 
designated lines should not have been offered while a perfecting 
amendment to those lines

[[Page 7096]]

was pending, but when it was offered without objection, the Chair 
properly stated the order of voting as indicated above.

Motions Pending To Strike Entire Title and Lesser Portion of Title

Sec. 24.13 Where there is pending a motion to strike an entire title of 
    a bill, it is in order to offer, as a perfecting amendment to that 
    title, a motion to strike out a lesser portion of the title, and 
    that perfecting amendment is voted on first.

    On June 11, 1975, (10) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the bill H.R. 6860, (11) a motion to 
strike a portion of the bill was offered and proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 18435, 18437, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Energy Conservation and Conversion Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Alexander: Strike out title II 
        (relating to energy conservation taxes), beginning on line 1 of 
        page 29, and ending on line 24 of page 57. . . .

        Mr. [Fortney H.] Stark [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    several amendments, and ask unanimous consent that they be 
    considered en bloc.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Stark:
            Page 30, strike out line 1 and all that follows down 
        through line 5 on page 31.
            Page 32, strike out line 20 and all that follows down 
        through line 25. . . .

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from 
    California has offered an amendment which would strike part B. The 
    gentleman from Arkansas has offered an amendment which would strike 
    the whole title.
        I would assume, after part B is perfected, as the gentleman's 
    amendment to strike part B asks, it would come before the amendment 
    to strike the whole title. Am I correct?
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair would like to advise 
    the chairman of the committee that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) is a perfecting amendment and 
    will be voted on first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. William H. Natcher (Ky.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disposition of Perfecting Amendment as Affecting Vote on Motion To 
    Strike

Sec. 24.14 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair indicated 
    that either adoption or rejection of a perfecting amendment to a 
    section would not preclude a vote on a pending motion to strike out 
    the section (where the perfecting amendment did not change all the 
    language in the section).

[[Page 7097]]

    On Mar. 20, 1975,(13) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the bill H.R. 4296, emergency price supports for 
1975 crops, the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 7653, 7658, 7663, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. For 
        discussion of effects of consideration or adoption of 
        amendments generally, see Sec. 29 et seq., infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frederick W.] Richmond [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Richmond: Page 3, line 8, strike 
        the figure ``85 per centum'', and insert in lieu thereof the 
        figure ``80 per centum''. . . .

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Richmond: Page 8, line 1, strike out lines 1 through 16. 
        . . .

        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Findley: The response of the Chair made to the 
    parliamentary inquiry of the chairman of the House Committee on 
    Agriculture indicated that because my amendment to the amendment 
    had the effect of striking the section, it would, therefore, come 
    second after the disposition of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Richmond).
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Findley: May I further ask, suppose the amendment of the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Richmond) is defeated, what standing, 
    if any, would my amendment to the amendment then have?
        The Chairman: The amendment of the gentleman from Illinois will 
    be voted on in either event.
        Mr. Findley: I thank the Chairman.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Technically, the motion to strike out the 
designated lines should not have been offered while a perfecting 
amendment to those lines was pending, but when it was offered without 
objection, the Chair properly stated the order of voting as indicated 
above.

Sec. 24.15 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,(15) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 3324, (16) the

[[Page 7098]]

above-stated proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 125 Cong. Rec. 7753, 7755, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. 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: (17) The question is on the perfecting 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The perfecting amendment was agreed to.
        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.

Perfecting Amendments to Bill While Amendment in Nature of Substitute 
    Pending

Sec. 24.16 Pending an amendment in the nature of a substitute for an 
    entire bill, perfecting amendments to the pending portion of the 
    bill may still be offered.

    On July 28, 1983, (18) during consideration of a bill 
(19) to amend the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal 
year 1983, pursuant to a special rule (20) permitting the 
majority and minority leaders to offer amendments not printed in the 
Record but requiring all other Members to offer amendments to the bill 
which have been printed in the Record, the majority leader was 
permitted to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute not 
printed in the Record, but another Member was permitted to offer a 
perfecting amendment printed in the Record to the bill while the 
substitute was pending. (Pursuant to a unanimous-consent agreement, 
(21) the bill was open to amendment at any point.) The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 129 Cong. Rec. 21468, 21469, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. H.R. 2760.
20. H. Res. 261.
21. 129 Cong. Rec. 21196, 98th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an

[[Page 7099]]

    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Wright: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
            That the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
        1983 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        title: . . .

        Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: I have an amendment that was 
    printed in the Record. Will I be given an opportunity to offer it?
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman that a printed perfecting amendment to the bill can be 
    offered before the vote on the Wright amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: In cases such as that above, the perfecting 
amendment to the pending portion of the bill is voted on first.