[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 Printing 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).