    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 108th Congress]
    [108th Congress]
    [House Document 107-284]
    [Jeffersons Manual of ParliamentaryPractice]
    [Pages 242-251]
    [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

      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.

    [[Page 243]]

    ment 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).
      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 amend

      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, 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.

    [[Page 244]]

      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.

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

    [[Page 245]]

    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.

    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,

      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. Where a special order of business provides that an
    amendment inserting a provision in the bill be considered as adopted, an
    amendment to strike that provision is not in order (May 23, 2002, p. --
    --). However, 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). Although 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; 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 246]]

      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 in the reading and are no longer open to amendment
    (July 12, 1983, p. 18771), or to amend a figure already amended
    (Deschler, ch. 27, Sec. 33.2; 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. --
    --).

      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. 27816; 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. 20299). 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.
    20299). 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).

    [[Page 247]]

    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.

    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 248]]

    sert 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. ----).
      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 in

    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.

      This principle controls the practice of the House (July 17, 1985, p.
    19444; July 18, 1985, p. 19649; Deschler, ch. 27,
    Sec. 31.14).

    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 249]]

    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 250]]

    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 (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).

    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). The Committee on Rules may report a special order
    providing for consideration of two bills and, after separate passage of
    each, ``linking'' the two by adding the text of the second to the
    engrossment of the first and tabling the separate version of the second
    (e.g., H. Res. 209, 106th Cong., June 16, 1999, p. ----).

    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 251]]

      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).