    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 119th Congress]
    [119th Congress]
    [House Document 118-187]
    [Jeffersons Manual of ParliamentaryPractice]
    [Pages 256-265]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                              sec. xxxv--amendments

    Sec. 465. Right of the Member who has spoken to the main
    question to speak to an amendment.

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

      This parliamentary rule applies in the House, where the hour rule of
    debate (clause 2 of rule XVII) has been in force since 1841. 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 257]]

    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).

      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

    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 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 258]]

    it is in order to offer, as a perfecting amendment to that title, a
    motion to strike a lesser portion thereof, and the perfecting amendment
    is voted on first (June 11, 1975, p. 18435). And when a motion to strike
    certain words is disagreed to, it is in order to move to strike a
    portion of those words (V, 5769); but when it is proposed to strike
    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 by amendment (V, 5760; VIII, 2839; Sept. 2, 1976, pp.
    28939-58).

      In the House the question herein described is never put, but is always
    whether the words shall be stricken; 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,

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

      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 259]]

    that 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, 12567), and the Chair will not rule on
    the consistency of that language with the adopted amendment (June 10,
    1976, p. 17381).
      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 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, pp. 8920-24). 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 that
    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. 11420).
    Although an amendment

      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. 4335), or to amend unamended portions that
    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. 4335). Where the vote on
    an amendment to strike a section and insert new language is postponed by
    the chair 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.
    19125).

    [[Page 260]]

    strike must fall, because it would not be in order to strike exactly
    what has been just inserted (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 and insert a portion
    of a pending section is not in order as a substitute for a motion to
    strike 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 (July 16, 1981, p. 16057).

      When it is proposed to perfect a paragraph, a motion to strike it, 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. 18074). 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 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 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 a paragraph
    is pending and the paragraph is perfected by an amendment striking and
    inserting an entire new text, the pending motion to

    Sec. 470. Reading the motion and putting the
    question on a motion to strike 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 provides that the motion to strike and insert
    is not divisible. As to the manner of stating the question, the Clerk
    reads only the words to be stricken and the words to be inserted.

    [[Page 261]]

    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.

    Sec. 471. Conditions of repetition of motions to
    strike 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.

      As to Jefferson's supposition that the principle would hold good in
    case of division of the motion to strike and insert it is not necessary
    to inquire, because clause 5(c) of rule XVI forbids division of that
    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 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, pp. 19098-107).

    Sec. 472. Application of the motion to
    strike.

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

    [[Page 262]]

    move to insert B; in which case those who preferred it would join in
    rejecting A.

    Sec. 473. Effect of affirmative vote on motion to
    strike 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

      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 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.

      Although 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 the pending title of a bill and re-insert all
    sections of that title except one is not in order if that section has
    previously been amended in its entirety (Aug. 1, 1975, p. 26946).

    [[Page 263]]

    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 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

      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 a part of the words of
    this amendment with other words of the paragraph (V, 5766).

      The motion to strike and insert may not be divided in the House
    (clause 5(c) of rule XVI).

    [[Page 264]]

    ment. [Or, both may be referred to a committee to be made into one bill.
    4 Hats. 319.] 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. * * *

    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
    amend

      In the modern practice 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. The Committee on
    Rules may report a special order providing for separate consideration of
    two or more bills and, after passage of each, ``linking'' them by adding
    the text of the subsequent bills to the engrossment of the first,
    sometimes tabling the separate versions of the subsequent bills (e.g.,
    June 16, 1999, p. 13080).

    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.

    [[Page 265]]

      In the modern practice of the House, section numbers and other
    internal references are considered as part of the text that 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).