[110th Congress House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 109-157]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hruletx-39]
[Page 243-252]
sec. xxxv--amendments
<<NOTE: 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 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).
If an <<NOTE: Sec. 466. The Speaker not to decide as to consistency of
a proposed amendment with one already agreed to.>> 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
[[Page 244]]
proposition unless it presents a substantially identical proposition
(VI, 256; VIII, 2834, 2835, 2838, 2840, 2842, 2850, 2856).
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).
Amendments may <<NOTE: Sec. 467. The parliamentary law and the Rules
of the House as to germane amendments.>> 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).
If it be <<NOTE: Sec. 468. The amendment to strike out certain words
of a bill.>> 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
[[Page 245]]
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).
When it is <<NOTE: Sec. 469. Principles as to perfecting before
inserting or striking out.>> 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. Where a special order of business provides that an amendment
inserting a provision in
[[Page 246]]
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. 11480). Although an
amendment 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. 12566-67), and the Chair
will not rule on the consistency of that language with the adopted
amendment (June 10, 1976, p. 17381).
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 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.
19125).
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. 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 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
[[Page 247]]
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).
When it is <<NOTE: Sec. 470. Reading the motion and putting the
question on a motion to strike out and insert.>> 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.
A motion <<NOTE: Sec. 471. Conditions of repetition of motions to
strike out and insert.>> 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
[[Page 248]]
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.
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, pp. 19098-107).
The principle <<NOTE: Sec. 472. Application of the motion to strike
out.>> 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).
[[Page 249]]
But if <<NOTE: Sec. 473. Effect of affirmative vote on motion to
strike out and insert.>> 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).
After A <<NOTE: Sec. 474. Conditions of striking out an amendment
already agreed to.>> 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).
In Senate, <<NOTE: Sec. 475. Amendments filling blanks as to
time.>> 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
[[Page 250]]
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 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.
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).
[[Page 251]]
The motion to strike out and insert may not be divided in the House
(clause 5(c) of rule XVI).
When the <<NOTE: Sec. 476. Joining and dividing bills.>> 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. 13080).
* * * If a <<NOTE: Sec. 477. Transposition of the sections of a
bill.>> 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).
A bill <<NOTE: Sec. 478. Filling blanks left by the other
House.>> 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.
[[Page 252]]
The number <<NOTE: Sec. 479. Clerk amends the section numbers of a
bill.>> 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 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).