[Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 106th Congress]
[106th Congress]
[House Document 105-358]
[Jeffersons Manual of ParliamentaryPractice]
[Pages 234-243]
[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 235]]


  This parliamentary rule applies in the House, where the hour rule of 
debate (clause 2 of rule XVII) 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 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 236]]


  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, p. 15898), 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 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 237]]

of amendment a paragraph similar (but not actually identical) to one 
already stricken out by amendment (V, 5760; Sept. 2, 1976, pp. 28939-
58).

  In the House 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




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, with the 
exception that clause 5(c) 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 238]]

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. 19186), even if also changing other matter not 
already amended, where drafted as though the earlier amendment had not 
been adopted (Mar. 15, 1995, p. 8025; Mar. 16, 1995, p. 8110; Mar. 16, 
1995, p. 8112; July 17, 1995, p. 19196). A point of order that a pending 
amendment proposes to change portions of the bill that have been changed 
by earlier amendment may be made after a unanimous consent request to 
modify the amendment has been disposed of but before debate has begun 
(Mar. 11, 1999, p. ----). Where the vote on an amendment to strike a 
section and insert new language is postponed by the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole, an amendment to strike the same section and 
insert different language is in order; and if both amendments are 
adopted, the second amendment adopted supersedes the first and is the 
only one reported to the House (Aug. 6, 1998, p. ----).
  Although it may be in order to offer an amendment to the pending 
portion of the bill that 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 that have been changed by 
amendment (Mar. 11, 1999, p. ----), or to amend unamended portions which 
have been passed



[[Page 239]]


  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. 10110; Oct. 12, 1995, p. ----; July 27, 1999, p. ----). If further 
proceedings are postponed on the perfecting amendment, debate may 
continue on the underlying motion to strike (July 27, 1999). 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. 8777); 
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. 8781). 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).




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 5(c) of rule XVI of the House 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.


[[Page 240]]

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.



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


  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 5(c) of rule XVI 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.'' Where two 
amendments proposing inconsistent motions to strike and insert a pending 
section are considered as separate first degree amendments (not one as a 
substitute for the other) before either is finally disposed of under a 
special procedure permitting the Chair to postpone requests for a 
recorded vote, the Chair's order of voting on the matter as unfinished 
business determines which amendment (if both were adopted) would be 
reported to the House (Aug. 6, 1998, p. ----).




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, 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.




[[Page 241]]


  This principle controls the practice of the House (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.



  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 242]]

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 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,


  The principles of this paragraph have been followed in the House (V, 
5763; Aug. 16, 1961, p. 16059), 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 
(clause 5(c) of rule XVI).



[[Page 243]]




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 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 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.



  This principle is followed in the practice of the House (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).