[Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 105th Congress]
[105th Congress]
[House Document 104-272]
[Jeffersons Manual of ParliamentaryPractice]
[Pages 231-240]
[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.


[[Pages 232]]

  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 233]]

  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. 29932). 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 234]]

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 the 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.


  These principles are recognized as in force in the House of 
Representatives, with the exception that clause 7 of rule XVI 
specifically provides that the rejection of a motion to strike shall 
preclude neither ``amendment nor motion to strike out and insert.'' 
However, 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).


[[Page 235]]

or to amend unamended portions which have been passed in the 
reading and are no longer open to amendment (July 12, 1983, p. 18771), 
or to amend a figure already amended (Procedure, ch. 27, sec. 31; July 
17, 1995, p. ----), 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. ----; July 17, 1995, p. ----).
  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, 


  When it is proposed to perfect a paragraph, a motion to 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. ----; Oct. 12, 1995, p. ----); and while amendments are pending to a 
section a motion to strike it out may not be offered (V, 5771; VIII, 
2861; Sept. 23, 1982, p. 24963; July 25, 1995, p. ----). The motion to 
strike may be voted on (if already pending) or subsequently offered 
after disposition of the perfecting amendment, so long as the provision 
sought to be stricken has not been rewritten entirely (Sept. 23, 1982, 
p. 24963; July 25, 1995, p. ----). While a motion to strike out is 
pending, it is in order to offer an amendment to perfect the language 
proposed to be stricken (Apr. 24, 1996, p. ----); 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; Apr. 24, 1996, p. 
----). 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).


[[Page 236]]

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.



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 



  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 237]]

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.''
  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, 




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 238]]

title except one is not in order where that section has 
previously been amended in its entirety (Aug. 1, 1975, p. 26946).

  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 


[[Page 239]]

proposing first the question to strike out, and 
then that to insert. Now, this is precisely the effect 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 


  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 240]]

  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).