    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 104th Congress]
    [104th Congress]
    [House Document 103-342]
    [Jeffersons Manual of ParliamentaryPractice]
    [Pages 229-238]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    <>   On an amendment being moved, a
    Member who had spoken to the main question may speak again to the
    amendment. Scob., 23.

                             SEC. XXXV.--AMENDMENTS.

    [[Page 230]]

      This parliamentary rule applies in the House of Representatives, where
    the hour rule of debate (clause 2 of rule XIV) has been in force for
    many years. A member who has spoken an hour to the main question, may
    speak another hour to an amendment (V, 4994; VIII, 2449).

    Sec. 466. The Speaker not to decide as to consistency of
    a proposed amendment with one already agreed to.

      If an  amendment be
    proposed inconsistent with one already agreed to, it is a fit ground for
    its rejection by the House, but not within the competence of the Speaker
    to suppress as if it were against order. For were he permitted to draw
    questions of consistence within the vortex or order, he might usurp a
    negative on important modifications, and suppress, instead of
    subserving, the legislative will.

      The practice of the House of Representatives follows and extends the
    principle set forth by Jefferson. Thus it has been held that the fact
    that a proposed amendment is inconsistent with the text or embodies a
    proposition already voted (II, 1328-1336; VIII, 2834), or would in
    effect change a provision of text to which both Houses have agreed (II,
    1335; V, 6183-6185), or is contained in substance in a later portion of
    the bill (II, 1327), is a matter to be passed on by the House rather
    than by the Speaker. It is for the House rather than the Speaker to
    decide on the legislative or legal effect of a proposition (II, 1323,
    1324; VI, 254; VII, 2112; VIII, 2280, 2841); and the change of a single
    word in the text of a proposition may be sufficient to prevent the
    Speaker from ruling it out of order as one already disposed of by the
    House (II, 1274). The principle has been the subject of conflicting
    decisions, from which may be deduced the rule that the Chair may not
    rule out the proposition unless it presents a substantially identical
    proposition (VI, 256; VIII, 2834, 2835, 2838, 2840, 2842, 2850, 2856).

    [[Page 231]]

      A perfecting amendment offered to an amendment in the nature of a
    substitute may be offered again as an amendment to the original bill if
    the amendment is first rejected or if the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute as perfected is rejected (Sept. 28, 1976, p. 33075).
    Rejection of an amendment consisting of two sections does not preclude
    one of those sections being subsequently offered as a separate amendment
    (July 15, 1981, pp. 15898-99), and the rejection of several amendments
    considered en bloc does not preclude their being offered separately at a
    subsequent time (Deschler's Precedents, vol. 9, ch. 27, sec. 35.15; Nov.
    4, 1991, p. ----). A point of order against an amendment to a substitute
    does not lie merely because its adoption would have the same effect as
    the adoption of a pending amendment to the original amendment and would
    render the substitute as amended identical to the original amendment as
    amended (May 4, 1983, p. 11059).

    Sec. 467. The parliamentary law and the rules
    of the House as to germane amendments.

      Amendments may  be made so as totally to alter
    the nature of the proposition; and it is a way of getting rid of a
    proposition by making it bear a sense different from what it was
    intended by the movers, so that they vote against it themselves. 2
    Hats., 79; 4, 82, 84. A new bill may be ingrafted, by way of amendment,
    on the words, ``Be it enacted,'' etc. 1 Grey, 190, 192.

      This was the rule of Parliament, which did not require an amendment to
    be germane (V, 5802, 5825). But the House of Representatives from its
    first organization, has by rule required that an amendment should be
    germane to the pending proposition (clause 7 of rule XVI).

    Sec. 468. The amendment to strike out certain words
    of a bill.

      If it be  proposed to amend by leaving out certain words, it may be
    moved, as an amendment to this amendment, to leave out a part of the
    words of the amendment, which is equivalent to leaving them in the bill.
    2 Hats., 80, 9. The parliamentary question is, always, whether the words
    shall stand part of the bill.

    [[Page 232]]
    one already stricken out by amendment (V, 5760; Sept. 2, 1976, pp.
    28939-58).

      In the House of Representatives the question herein described is never
    put as in Parliament, but is always, whether the words shall be stricken
    out; and if there is a desire that certain of the words included in the
    amendment remain part of the bill, it is expressed, not by amending the
    amendment, but by a preferential perfecting amendment to strike from the
    specified words in the text of the bill a portion of them. If this is
    carried that portion of the specified words is stricken from the bill
    and the vote then recurs on the original amendment (V, 5770). Where a
    motion to strike an entire title of a bill is pending, it is in order to
    offer, as a perfecting amendment to that title, a motion to strike out a
    lesser portion thereof, and the perfecting amendment is voted on first
    (June 11, 1975, p. 18435). And when a motion to strike out certain words
    is disagreed to, it is in order to move to strike out a portion of those
    words (V, 5769); but when it is proposed to strike out certain words in
    a paragraph, it is not in order to amend those words by including with
    them other words of paragraph (V, 5768; VIII, 2848; June 2, 1976, pp.
    16208-10). It is in order to insert by way of amendment a paragraph
    similar (but not actually identical) to

    Sec. 469. Principles as to perfecting before
    inserting or striking out.

      When it is  proposed to amend by inserting a paragraph,
    or part of one, the friends of the paragraph may make it as perfect as
    they can by amendments before the question is put for inserting it. If
    it be received, it cannot be amended afterward in the same stage,
    because the House has, on a vote, agreed to it in that form. In like
    manner, if it is proposed to amend by striking out a paragraph, the
    friends of the paragraph are first to make it as perfect as they can by
    amendments, before the question is put for striking it out. If on the
    question it be retained, it cannot be amended afterward, because a vote
    against striking out is equivalent to a vote agreeing to it in that
    form.

    [[Page 233]]
    and are no longer open to amendment (July 12, 1983, p. 18771), or to
    amend a figure already amended (Procedure, ch. 27, sec. 31), even if
    also changing other matter not already amended, where drafted as though
    the earlier amendment had not been adopted (Mar. 15, 1995, p. ----; Mar.
    16, 1995, p. ----; Mar. 16, 1995, p. ----). When it is proposed to
    perfect a paragraph the motions to insert the paragraph, or strike it
    out, if already pending, must remain in abeyance until the amendments to
    perfect have been moved and voted on (V, 5758; VIII, 2860; May 5, 1992,
    p. ----); and while amendments are pending to a section a motion to
    strike it out may not be offered (V, 5771; VIII, 2861). While a motion
    to strike out is pending, it is in order to offer an amendment to
    perfect the language proposed to be stricken; such an amendment, which
    is in the first degree, may be amended by a substitute, and amendments
    to the substitute are also in order (Oct. 19, 1983, p. 28283), and such
    perfecting amendment, if agreed to when voted on first, remains part of
    the bill if the motion to strike is then rejected (Sept. 18, 1986, p.
    28123). When a motion to strike out a paragraph is pending and the
    paragraph is perfected by an amendment, striking and inserting an entire
    new text, the pending motion to strike out must fall, since it would not
    be in order to strike out exactly what has been just voted to insert (V,
    5792; VIII, 2854; July 12, 1951, p. 8090; Sept. 23, 1975, p. 29835; Aug.
    5, 1986, p. 19059; May 18, 1988, p. 11404). A motion to strike out and
    insert a portion of a pending section is not in order as a substitute
    for a motion to strike out the section, but may be offered as a
    perfecting amendment to the section and is voted on first, subject to
    being eliminated by subsequent adoption of the motion to strike out
    (July 16, 1981, p. 16057). A motion to strike out an entire subsection
    of a bill is not a proper substitute for a perfecting amendment to the
    subsection, since it is broader in scope, but may be offered after
    disposition of the perfecting amendment (Sept. 23, 1982, p. 24963).

      These principles are recognized as in force in the House of
    Representatives, with the exception that clause 7 of rule XVI
    specifically provides that ``a motion to strike out being lost shall
    neither preclude amendments nor a motion to strike out and insert.'' But
    after an amendment to insert has been agreed to, the matter inserted
    ordinarily may not then be amended (V, 5761-5763; VIII, 2852) in any way
    that would change its text; but an amendment may be added at the end (V,
    5759, 5764, 5765; Dec. 14, 1973, p. 41740; Oct. 1, 1974, p. 33364), even
    if the perfecting amendment which was adopted struck out all after the
    short title of the amendment in the nature of a substitute and inserted
    a new text (May 16, 1979, p. 11480). While an amendment which has been
    adopted to an amendment (in the nature of a substitute) may not be
    further amended, another amendment adding language at the end of the
    amendment may still be offered (June 10, 1976, pp. 17368-75, 17381;
    Procedure, ch. 27, sec. 27.4 and 27.9; May 16, 1984, pp. 12566-67), and
    the Chair will not rule on the consistency of that language with the
    adopted amendment (June 10, 1976, p. 17381). While it may be in order to
    offer an amendment to the pending portion of the bill which not only
    changes a provision already amended but also changes an unamended
    pending portion of the bill, it is not in order merely to amend portions
    of the bill which have been changed by amendment, or to amend unamended
    portions which have been passed in the reading

    [[Page 234]]

    Sec. 470. Reading the motion and putting the
    question on a motion to strike out and insert.

      When it is  moved to amend by
    striking out certain words and inserting others, the manner of stating
    the question is first to read the whole passage to be amended as it
    stands at present, then the words proposed to be struck out, next those
    to be inserted, and lastly the whole passage as it will be when amended.
    And the question, if desired, is then to be divided, and put first on
    striking out. If carried, it is next on inserting the words proposed. If
    that be lost, it may be moved to insert others. 2 Hats., 80, 7.

      Clause 7 of rule XVI of the House of Representatives provides
    specifically that the motion to strike out and insert shall not be
    divided. Otherwise, as to the manner of stating the question, it is
    usual for the clerk to read only the words to be stricken out and the
    words to be inserted. Usually this is sufficient, as the Members may
    have before them printed copies of the bill under consideration.

    Sec. 471. Conditions of repetition of motions to
    strike out and insert.

      A motion  is made to amend by striking out certain words
    and inserting others in their place, which is negatived. Then it is
    moved to strike out the same words, and to insert others of a tenor
    entirely different from those first proposed. It is negatived. Then it
    is moved to strike out the same words and insert nothing, which is
    agreed to. All this is admissible, because to strike out and insert A is
    one proposition. To strike out and insert B is a different proposition.
    And to strike out and insert nothing is still different. And the
    rejection of one proposition does not preclude the offering a different
    one. Nor would it change the case were the first motion divided by
    putting the question first on striking out, and that negatived; for, as
    putting the whole motion to the question at once would not have
    precluded, the putting the half of it cannot do it.

    [[Page 235]]

      As to Jefferson's supposition that the principle would hold good in
    case of division of the motion to strike out and insert it is not
    necessary to inquire, since clause 7 of rule XVI of the House of
    Representatives forbids division of the motion. In a footnote Jefferson
    expressed himself as follows: ``In the case of a division of the
    question, and a decision against striking out, I advanced doubtingly the
    opinion here expressed. I find no authority either way, and I know it
    may be viewed under a different aspect. It may be thought that, having
    decided separately not to strike out the passage, the same question for
    striking out cannot be put over again, though with a view to a different
    insertion. Still I think it more reasonable and convenient to consider
    the striking out and insertion as forming one proposition, but should
    readily yield to any evidence that the contrary is the practice in
    Parliament.''

    Sec. 472. Application of the motion to strike
    out.

      The principle  set forth by Jefferson as to repetition of the motion to strike
    out prevails in the House of Representatives, where it has been held in
    order, after the failure of a motion to strike out certain words, to
    move to strike out a portion of those words (V, 5769; VIII, 2858). When
    a bill is under consideration by paragraphs, a motion to strike out
    applies only to the paragraph under consideration (V, 5774).

    Sec. 473. Effect of affirmative vote on motion to
    strike out and insert.

      But if  it had been carried affirmatively to strike out
    the words and to insert A, it could not afterward be permitted to strike
    out A and insert B. The mover of B should have notified, while the
    insertion of A was under debate, that he would move to insert B; in
    which case those who preferred it would join in rejecting A.

      This principle controls the practice of the House of Representatives
    (July 17, 1985, p. 19444; July 18, 1985, p. 19649; see Procedure, ch.
    27, sec. 31).

    Sec. 474. Conditions of striking out an amendment
    already agreed to.

      After A  is inserted, however, it may be moved to strike out
    a portion of the original paragraph, comprehending A, provided the
    coherence to be struck out be so substantial as to make this effectively
    a different proposition; for then it is resolved into the common case of
    striking out a paragraph after amending it. Nor does anything forbid a
    new insertion, instead of A and its coherence.

    [[Page 236]]

      While it is not in order to move to strike a provision inserted by
    amendment (Oct. 9, 1985, p. 26957), a motion to strike more than that
    provision inserted would be in order (Apr. 23, 1975, p. 11536). But an
    amendment to strike out the pending title of a bill and re-insert all
    sections of that title except one is not in order where that section has
    previously been amended in its entirety (Aug. 1, 1975, p. 26946).

    [[Page 237]]
    fect of the present proceeding; only, instead of one motion and two
    questions, there are two motions and two questions to effect it--the
    motion being divided as well as the question.

    Sec. 475. Amendments filling blanks as to time.

      In Senate,  January 25, 1798, a motion to postpone until the second Tuesday in
    February some amendments proposed to the Constitution; the words ``until
    the second Tuesday in February'' were struck out by way of amendment.
    Then it was moved to add, ``until the first day of June.'' Objected that
    it was not in order, as the question should be first put on the longest
    time; therefore, after a shorter time decided against, a longer cannot
    be put to question. It was answered that this rule takes place only in
    filling blanks for time. But when a specific time stands part of a
    motion, that may be struck out as well as any other part of the motion;
    and when struck out, a motion may be received to insert any other. In
    fact, it is not until they are struck out, and a blank for the time
    thereby produced, that the rule can begin to operate, by receiving all
    the propositions for different times, and putting the questions
    successively on the longest. Otherwise it would be in the power of the
    mover by inserting originally a short time, to preclude the possibility
    of a longer; for till the short time is struck out, you cannot insert a
    longer; and if, after it is struck out, you cannot do it, then it cannot
    be done at all. Suppose the first motion had been made to amend by
    striking out ``the second Tuesday in February,'' and inserting instead
    thereof ``the first of June,'' it would have been regular, then, to
    divide the question, by proposing first the question to strike out, and
    then that to insert. Now, this is precisely the ef

      The principles of this paragraph have been followed in the House of
    Representatives (V, 5763; Aug. 16, 1961, pp. 16059-60), but in one case
    wherein words embodying a distinct substantive proposition had been
    agreed to as an amendment to a paragraph, it was held not in order to
    strike out a part of the words of this amendment with other words of the
    paragraph (V, 5766).

      The motion to strike out and insert may not be divided in the House of
    Representatives (clause 7 of rule XVI).

    Sec. 476. Joining and dividing bills.

      When the  matter
    contained in two bills might be better put into one, the manner is to
    reject the one and incorporate its matter into another bill by way of
    amendment. So if the matter of one bill would be better distributed into
    two, any part may be struck out by way of amendment, and put into a new
    bill. * * *

      In the modern practice of the House of Representatives each bill comes
    before the House by itself; and if it were proposed to join one bill to
    another it would be done by offering the text of the one as an amendment
    to the other, without disturbing the first bill in its place on the
    calendar. Where it is proposed to divide a bill, the object is
    accomplished in the House of Representatives by moving to recommit with
    instructions to the committee to report two bills (V, 5527, 5528).

    Sec. 477. Transposition of the sections of a
    bill.

      * * * If a  section is to be transposed, a question must be put on striking
    it out where it stands and another for inserting it in the place
    desired.

    [[Page 238]]

      This principle is followed in the practice of the House of
    Representatives (V, 5775, 5776).

    Sec. 478. Filling blanks left by the other House.

      A bill  passed by the one House with blanks. These may be filled up by the
    other by way of amendments, returned to the first as such, and passed 3
    Hats., 83.

    Sec. 479. Clerk amends the section numbers of a
    bill.

      The number  prefixed to the section of a bill, be merely a marginal
    indication, and no part of the text of the bill, the Clerk regulates
    that--the House or committee is only to amend the text.

      In the modern practice of the House, section numbers and other
    internal references are considered as part of the text which may be
    altered by amendment. The House sometimes authorizes the Clerk to make
    appropriate changes in section numbers, paragraphs and punctuation, and
    cross references when preparing the engrossment of the bill. Such a
    request is properly made in the House, following passage of the bill
    (Apr. 29, 1969, p. 10753).