[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[C. Offering Particular Kinds of Amendments; Precedence and Priorities]
[§ 17. Motions To Strike]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 6954-6980]
CHAPTER 27
Amendments
C. OFFERING PARTICULAR KINDS OF AMENDMENTS; PRECEDENCE AND PRIORITIES
Sec. 17. Motions To Strike
Amendments proposing to strike out a section of a bill are in order
after perfecting amendments to the section are disposed
of.(1) Moreover, a perfecting amendment may be offered while
a motion to strike out is pending, and the perfecting amendment is
first acted upon.(2) And a motion to strike out a paragraph
may not be offered as a substitute for a pending motion to perfect the
paragraph.(3) Thus, where an amendment proposes to add new
language in a paragraph, an amendment proposing to strike out that
portion of the paragraph sought to be amended along with additional
language of such paragraph is not a proper substitute
therefor.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Sec. 17.3, infra.
If a motion to strike out a section or paragraph and insert
new language is agreed to, a pending amendment proposing to
strike out the section or paragraph falls and is not voted
upon. See Sec. 31.1, infra.
2. See Sec. 15.4, supra.
While it is not in order to further amend an amendment in
the nature of a substitute for several paragraphs which has
been agreed to, a perfecting amendment to a paragraph of the
bill proposed to be stricken out (in conformity with the
purpose of the adopted substitute) may be offered while the
motion to strike out is pending, and the perfecting amendment
is first voted upon. See Sec. 32.16, infra.
A motion to strike out the enacting words, of course, is a
special case, being used as a device for rejecting a bill; such
motion takes precedence over motions to amend. Rule XXIII
clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 875 (101st Cong.).
3. See the Chair's ruling at Sec. 17.1, infra.
4 See Sec. 18.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although a perfecting amendment may be offered when a motion to
strike out is pending, a substitute for a motion to strike out is not
in order.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. 18.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A rule (6) rovides that, ``a motion to strike out and
insert is indivisible, but a motion to strike out being lost shall
neither preclude amendment nor motion to strike out and insert.'' The
indivisibility of a motion to strike out and insert, and the concept
that a motion to strike out should not have precedence and be voted on
before a motion to insert, are the principles which underlie the
prohibition against offering a motion to strike out as a substitute for
a pending motion to strike out and insert.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Rule XVI clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 793 (101st Cong.).
7. See Sec. 17.18, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Further examples of the principles discussed in this section
[[Page 6955]]
may be found in other sections of this chapter. See, e.g., Sec. Sec. 15
and 16, supra. -------------------
When To Offer
Sec. 17.1 A motion to strike out a paragraph is not in order while a
perfecting amendment is pending.
On Dec. 16, 1963,(8) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 109 Cong. Rec. 24753, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was
H.R. 9499.
Compare the proceedings on May 29, 1973, relating to H.R.
6912 (see 119 Cong. Rec. 16987, 16990, 16992, 93d Cong. 1st
Sess.), where, without objection, a motion to strike out a
subsection of a bill was permitted to be offered while a
perfecting amendment to that subsection was pending;
nevertheless, the Chairman put the question on the perfecting
amendment before putting the question on the motion to strike
out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. [Glenard P.] Lipscomb [of
California]: Page 21, line 6, after ``in'' insert ``Title I
of''. . . .
Mr. [William S.] Broomfield [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I
would like to offer a substitute amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Broomfield as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Lipscomb: On page 21, strike out lines
6 through 10, inclusive.
The Chairman: (9) The gentleman's amendment is not a
substitute amendment. The gentleman's amendment is to delete
language. We must act first on the Lipscomb amendment, and then the
gentleman's amendment would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 17.2 While perfecting amendments to a section are pending, a
motion to strike out the section may not be offered.
On June 5, 1974,(10) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 14747, to amend the Sugar Act of 1948. An amendment
was pending which sought to insert an additional labor standard to
those contained in a section of the bill. A motion to strike out the
entire section was offered as a substitute for the pending amendment,
but was ruled out as not a proper substitute for the perfecting
amendment, and, furthermore, as not germane, in that it went beyond the
scope of the perfecting amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 120 Cong. Rec. 17868, 17869, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. O'Hara: Page 18, after line 5,
insert:
[[Page 6956]]
(5) That the producer who compensates workers on a piece-
rate basis shall have paid, at a minimum, the established
minimum hourly wage.
Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment as a substitute for the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara).
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Symms as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. O'Hara: In lieu of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Michigan insert the following:
``Section 11 of the bill, page 15, strike out all of line 11
through line 6 of page 17 and renumber the `(3)' on line 7,
page 17 as `(1)', and strike out line 15 on page 17 through
line 5 on page 18.''. . .
Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment in that it is not germane to the provisions of my
amendment. It deals with different parts of section 11. . . .
Mr. Symms: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment is germane to the
gentleman's amendment. It strikes it and all the labor provisions
from the bill.
The Chairman (Mr. [James J.] Burke of Massachusetts): It is the
ruling of the Chair that the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Idaho (Mr. Symms) as a substitute for the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara) is not a proper
substitute. The substitute would strike portions of section 11 not
affected by the pending amendment. And, the substitute is broader
in scope than the amendment to which offered and is not germane
thereto. The Chair sustains the point of order.
--Perfecting Amendments Considered First
Sec. 17.3 Amendments proposing to strike out a section of a bill are in
order after perfecting amendments to the section are disposed of.
On Apr. 17, 1946,(11) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 92 Cong. Rec. 3898, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was
H.R. 6042, the Emergency Price Control Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
substitute for the pending amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Rich as a substitute for the
Wolcott amendment: Strike out section 5 beginning on page 5,
striking out all subsidies.
The Chairman: (12) The Chair would point out that
the gentleman's amendment is not a substitute for the Wolcott
amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Wolcott] has offered an
amendment to strike out certain provisions of the bill and to
insert something in place of it. The amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania seeks to amend the provisions already
in the bill by striking them out. . . .
Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: . . . Is it not
true that the pending amendment is a perfecting amendment and after
this and other perfecting amendments are voted on it will then be
in order to move to strike out the entire section?
[[Page 6957]]
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Sec. 17.4 A motion to strike out a section is not in order until the
pending perfecting amendment has been acted upon.
On Aug. 12, 1963,(13) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 109 Cong. Rec. 14757, 14758, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. Under
consideration was H.R. 7525.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: On
page 17, line 12, strike out ``death by electrocution'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``life imprisonment''; and on page 17,
line 13, strike out ``life imprisonment''. . . .
Mr. [Joel T.] Broyhill [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
substitute amendment for the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Harsha]. . . .
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, the
language of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio
provides for certain changes with respect to the bill before us, as
to section 808. The substitute amendment simply moves to strike out
all of that language. It would seem to me, that that would properly
be a substitute.
The Chairman: (14) The Chair would advise the
gentleman that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio is
a perfecting amendment. Before a section of the bill can be
stricken from the bill, the perfecting amendments must be acted
upon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Ross Bass (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Harsha: Mr. Chairman----
The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Ohio
rise?
Mr. Harsha: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw
my amendment.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The Chairman: The amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Harsha] is withdrawn.
The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Broyhill].
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Broyhill of Virginia: On page 17,
line 5, strike out section 501.
The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Broyhill].
The amendment was agreed to.
Sec. 17.5 A motion to strike out a paragraph may be offered following
disposition of a pending perfecting amendment.
The proceedings of Dec. 16, 1963, during which the above issue was
raised, are discussed in Sec. 17.1, supra.
Sec. 17.6 Where a motion to strike out is pending, perfecting
amendments may be offered and acted on before consid
[[Page 6958]]
eration of the motion to strike; and if the motion to strike is
rejected, further perfecting amendments to the pending text are in
order.
On Oct. 3, 1977,(15) the Committee of the Whole having
under consideration H.R. 3816, (16) the proceedings
described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 32013, 32017, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. A bill to amend the Federal Trade Commission Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert] Krueger [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Krueger: On page 35, strike line
14 and all that follows through line 5 on page 44, and
redesignate the following sections accordingly. . . .
Mrs. [Millicent] Fenwick [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
a perfecting amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Perfecting amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick:
Page 37, strike out the period in line 12 and insert in
lieu thereof a semicolon and the following: ``except that in
the case of an action commenced under subparagraph (B) of such
subsection, the court may grant such relief only if the
plaintiff in such action satisfies the court that the act . . .
is one which a reasonable man would have known under the
circumstances was . . . fraudulent.''
Mr. [Charles E.] Wiggins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make
a point of order against the amendment. . . .
. . . [P]ending before the committee is an amendment to the
bill striking section 7 in its entirety. The gentlewoman from New
Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick) has offered what she characterizes as a
perfecting amendment to an amendment to strike which amends a
portion of section 7.
It is my view, Mr. Chairman, that that amendment is not in
order since section 7 is to be stricken entirely if the original
amendment carries. The second amendment, the perfecting amendment,
is inconsistent with the original amendment in its entirety, and
for that reason it is out of order. . . .
The Chairman: (17) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The perfecting amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New
Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick) is not an amendment to the amendment to
strike. It is an amendment in the nature of a perfecting amendment
to the bill.
Perfecting amendments to the text of the bill are in order and
take precedence over a pending motion or amendment to strike the
pending portion of the bill.
Therefore, the Chair respectfully overrules the point of order.
. . .
Mr. Wiggins: Mr. Chairman, several of us have amendments which
will be offered if the motion to strike does not carry. Will those
perfecting amendments be in order after the vote on the motion to
strike?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that if the amendment or
motion to strike does not carry, those amendments will be in order.
[[Page 6959]]
Sec. 17.7 Where an amendment striking out a section is first offered,
an amendment to change a portion of the section proposed to be
stricken is then offered as a perfecting amendment (in the first
degree) to the bill and not as an amendment to the motion to
strike, and the perfecting amendment is voted on first and remains
part of the bill if the motion to strike is then rejected.
On Sept. 18, 1986,(18) during consideration of H.R. 1426
(19) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings
described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 132 Cong. Rec. 24120-22, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Indian Health Care amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Howard C.] Nielson [of Utah]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Nielson of Utah: Page 12, strike
line 1 and all that follows through page 14, line 20 (and
redesignate the subsequent sections of title II of the bill
accordingly). . . .
Mr. [John S.] McCain [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
perfecting amendment.
The Chairman: (20) The Clerk will report the
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Beryl F. Anthony, Jr. (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. McCain. Section 201 is
amended by striking:
``(h) There are authorized to be appropriated for the
purposes of carrying out the provisions of this section--
``(1) $28,000,000 for fiscal year 1988. . . .''
The Chairman: The question is on the perfecting amendment
offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. McCain] to title II.
The perfecting amendment was agreed to.
The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Nielson).
The amendment was rejected.
The Chairman: Are there other amendments to title II? . . .
Mr. Nielson of Utah: Mr. Chairman, on the perfecting amendment
of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. McCain), that amendment passed
but my amendment failed. That means that his amendment went down
with mine; is that correct?
The Chairman: The perfecting amendment of the gentleman from
Arizona prevailed to the bill, not to the gentleman's amendment,
and at the present it is the prevailing amendment.
Mr. Nielson of Utah: It is part of the bill, then?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. Yes; it is part of the
bill.
--Successive Perfecting Amendments Take Precedence
Sec. 17.8 A perfecting amendment to a portion of a section having been
adopted while a motion to strike out the section
[[Page 6960]]
was pending, another perfecting amendment (to strike out the
remainder of the section not yet perfected) could be offered and
voted on prior to the motion to strike the section.
On Sept. 29, 1975,(1) during consideration of a bill
(2) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to
parliamentary inquiries as described above. The proceedings were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 121 Cong. Rec. 30772, 30773, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
2. H.R. 8630, Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I will
try to propound a proper parliamentary inquiry. . . . My original
amendment was to strike section 2 in its entirety. We have just
accepted striking from line 20, section 2, through line 6 on page
13. Is an amendment in order at this point to strike the remainder
of that section?
The Chairman: (3) The Chair will respond to the
gentleman by saying that an amendment would be in order to strike
so much of the section that was not amended by the gentleman from
Arkansas' amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James M.] Hanley [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, just a point
of information to clarify this vote for the benefit of all Members,
the understanding is that the adoption of the Derwinski amendment
would have the effect of nullifying the Alexander amendment, and in
so doing reverting back to present law; am I correct?
The Chairman: The motion of the gentleman from Illinois would
strike the entire section, including that section as amended by the
gentleman from Arkansas.
Parliamentarian's Note: If the perfecting amendments that were the
subject of Mr. Derwinski's inquiries were both adopted, the section
would have been amended in its entirety, and the motion to strike would
then fall.
Unanimous Consent To Consider Specific Motion To Strike
Sec. 17.9 A unanimous-consent request to consider an amendment to a
section of a bill which has not been read for amendment, where the
bill is being read for amendment by sections, does not permit the
offering of other amendments to that section of the bill; thus,
while perfecting amendments to the text of a bill may ordinarily be
offered pending a motion to strike that text, perfecting amendments
may not be offered to a section of a bill not yet read for
amendment where unanimous consent has been obtained to consider a
motion to strike a portion of that section.
[[Page 6961]]
On Oct. 5, 1977,(4) The Committee of the Whole having
under consideration H.R. 8410,(5) the proceedings described
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 123 Cong. Rec. 32523, 32524, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
5. Labor Reform Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (6) Are there further amendments to
section 7? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
amendments to sections 7 and 8, and I ask unanimous consent that
the amendments may be considered en bloc.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois? . . .
There was no objection.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendments.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr. Erlenborn: Page 22, line 14,
strike ``(1)''; page 22, line 15, strike ``or'' the second time
it occurs, and all that follows through line 5, page 23. . . .
Mr. [Frank] Thompson Jr., [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I
wonder if it is possible parliamentarily for the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Quie) to offer an amendment to the bill at this
point.
The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Thompson) that an amendment to or a substitute for the
motion to strike would not be in order.
Mr. Thompson: But an amendment to the bill, rather than a
substitute to strike, would be in order, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from New
Jersey that, as the gentleman knows, section 8 is not open for
amendment at this time, other than the Erlenborn amendment, and
perfecting amendments to that section are not yet in order.
Rejection of Motion To Strike Out and Insert
Sec. 17.10 After a negative vote on a motion to strike out certain
words and insert others, it is in order to move to strike out a
portion of such words.
On Feb. 6, 1946,(7) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 92 Cong. Rec. 994, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was H.R.
4908, relating to an investigation of labor disputes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I reserved
the point of order against the amendment because it occurred to me
that this matter had been considered yesterday in the vote upon the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoffman).
This language here involved was proposed to be stricken by the
amendment then offered. The amendment was voted upon and defeated.
. . .
The Chairman: (8) . . . Yesterday the gentleman from
Michigan offered an amendment striking out that part of the bill
which the gentleman from Maine now attempts to strike out, as well
as language in addition thereto and to insert other language. The
[[Page 6962]]
amendment was defeated. Therefore, the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maine which proposes to strike out a portion of the
language, is appropriate at this time. The Chair overrules the
point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Emmet O'Neal (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 17.11 A motion to strike out a section may be offered if a pending
committee amendment to strike out the section and insert new
language is rejected.
On Nov. 11, 1971,(9) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 117 Cong. Rec. 40594, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was
H.R. 1134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee amendment: On page 15, strike out lines 12 through 18
and insert in lieu thereof the following:
Sec. 708. . . .
Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: As I understand it, the
Chairman is opposing the committee amendment, which rewrites the
provision that is found in the bill, but it would still leave the
old provision in the bill. My question is, if the committee
amendment is turned down, would it be in order to consider at this
point a further amendment to strike the old language so there is no
reference to this particular piece of property in the bill?
The Chairman: (10) The Chair will inform the
gentleman that a motion to strike would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voting on Motion To Strike After Consideration of Perfecting Amendment
Sec. 17.12 Whether or not preferential perfecting amendments to the
pending text, offered pending a motion to strike that text, are
adopted or rejected, a vote still must be taken on the motion to
strike (assuming that the perfecting amendments do not change the
entire text pending).
On Oct. 3, 1977,(11) during consideration of H.R.
3816,(12) in the Committee of the Whole, a perfecting
amendment was offered to a section of a bill while there was pending a
motion to strike out that section. The proceedings were as indicated
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 32013, 32017, 32019, 32020, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. A bill to amend the Federal Trade Commission Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert] Krueger [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Krueger: On page 35, strike line
14 and all that follows through line 5 on page 44, and
redesignate the following sections accordingly. . . .
Mrs. [Millicent] Fenwick [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
a perfecting amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
[[Page 6963]]
Perfecting amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick:
Page 37, strike out the period in line 12 and insert in
lieu thereof a semicolon and the following: ``except that in
the case of an action commenced under subparagraph (B) of such
subsection, the court may grant such relief only if the
plaintiff in such action satisfies the court that the act . . .
is one which a reasonable man would have known under the
circumstances was . . . fraudulent.'' . . .
Mr. [Matthew J.] Rinaldo [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, am I
correct in my understanding if there were a vote now, the vote
would be on the Fenwick amendment and regardless whether it passes
or fails, there would still be a vote on the Krueger amendment to
strike the entire section?
The Chairman: (13) That is correct. All perfecting
amendments will be in order before a vote on the Krueger amendment.
The Krueger amendment will still be pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: A motion to strike out and insert language
may be offered as a perfecting amendment to a pending section of a
bill, and is voted on before a pending motion to strike that section;
but, even if agreed to, the perfected language is subject to being
eliminated by subsequent adoption of the motion to strike out in cases
where the perfecting amendment has not so changed the text as to render
the original motion to strike meaningless. For further discussion, see
Sec. s16, supra.
Sec. 17.13 Where there is pending a motion to strike out language in a
bill, and a preferential perfecting amendment (to strike the same
language and insert new language) is then offered and agreed to,
the motion to strike out falls and is not voted on.
The principle stated above was the basis for the following
proceedings which occurred on Aug. 5, 1986,(14) during
consideration of H.R. 4428 in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 132 Cong. Rec. 19056, 19058, 19059, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Stratton to the amendment offered
by Mr. Nichols: Strike out section 101(c) (page 14, lines 4
through 12). . . .
Mr. [Ike] Skelton [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
perfecting amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Skelton to the
amendment offered by Mr. Nichols: Page 14, strike out lines 4
through 12 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
President and the Secretary of Defense may assign missions,
roles, and functions to the military departments . . . and
other elements of the Department of Defense. . . .
[[Page 6964]]
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (15) Does any Member rise
in opposition to the perfecting amendment offered by the gentleman
from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If not, the question is on the perfecting amendment offered by
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) to the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Nichols).
The perfecting amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Stratton amendment to strike will
not be voted on, under the precedents, the text proposed to be
stricken having been completely amended.
Offering Motion To Strike Title After Consideration of Motions To
Strike and Insert
Sec. 17.14 A motion to strike out a title contained in a bill was held
to be in order notwithstanding the fact that the Committee of the
Whole had previously considered two motions to strike out such
title and insert other language.
On July 25, 1957,(16) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 103 Cong. Rec. 12744, 85th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was
H.R. 1, to authorize federal assistance to the states and local
communities in financing an expanded program of school
construction so as to eliminate the national shortage of
classrooms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. [Donald E.] Tewes [of Wisconsin]:
On page 31, line 19, strike out all of title I through page 46,
line 11. . . .
Mr. [Stewart L.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, we
considered earlier today two amendments, one offered by the
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Scrivner] and one by the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. May]. The purpose of both these amendments was to
strike out title I. Both amendments were considered. One was voted
down and one was knocked out on a point of order. I make the point
of order, Mr. Chairman, that this motion has been made and has been
considered and voted down by the Committee of the Whole.
The Chairman: (17) The Chair calls the attention of
the gentleman to the fact that the motions heretofore made were to
strike and insert. This is the first time a motion has been made to
strike out the entire title. Therefore, the point of order is
overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not in Order as Substitute
Sec. 17.15 A motion to strike out an entire section of a bill is not in
order as a substitute for an amendment to strike out certain
provisions in the section and insert new language, since a section
must be perfected before the question is put on striking it out.
[[Page 6965]]
On Aug. 16, 1972,(18) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 118 Cong. Rec. 28400, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was
H.R. 16071.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. [James C.] Wright [of Texas]: Page
38, strike out lines 23 and 24 and insert in lieu thereof the
following: . . .
Mr. [Marion G.] Snyder [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I should
like to ask if an amendment to strike the entire section is in
order as a substitute to this kind of amendment.
The Chairman: (19) The Chair will advise the
gentleman that it is not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John Slack (W. Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 17.16 To a motion to strike certain words and insert others, a
simple motion to strike out the words may not be offered as a
substitute; but if the motion to strike out and insert is rejected,
the simple motion to strike out is in order.
On June 29, 1939,(20) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 84 Cong. Rec. 8282-88, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was
H.J. Res. 306, the Neutrality Act of 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee amendment: Strike out all of lines 5 and 6 on page 2
and insert: ``and that it is necessary to promote the security or
preserve the peace of the United States or to protect the lives of
citizens of the United States.'' . . .
Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota as a
substitute for the committee amendment: On page 2, strike out lines
5 and 6. . . .
The Chairman: (1) The Chair reads the following from
the rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To a motion to strike certain words and insert others, a
simple motion to strike out the words may not be offered as a
substitute. . . .
Mr. Case of South Dakota: As I understand the Chair, the Chair
ruled that a substitute to the committee amendment was not in
order. May I ask, however, if the committee amendment should be
voted down, then would it not be in order for me to offer an
amendment to strike out the two lines that are proposed to be
stricken by the committee amendment?
The Chairman: It would.
Sec. 17.17 A motion to strike out a paragraph may not be offered as a
substitute for a pending motion to perfect the paragraph.
The proceedings of Dec. 16, 1963, during which the above issue was
raised, are discussed in Sec. 17.1, supra.
Sec. 17.18 A motion to strike out is not in order as a substitute for a
pending motion to strike out and insert.
On Oct. 14, 1966,(2) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 112 Cong. Rec. 26966, 26967, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under
consideration was S. 3708.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 6966]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]:
Strike out page 99, line 21, and all that follows down through
page 100, line 11, and insert in lieu thereof the following: .
. .
Mrs. [Florence P.] Dwyer [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Dwyer as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Ashley: Strike out section 701
beginning on page 99, line 20, and ending on page 100, line 11,
and renumber the succeeding sections accordingly. . . .
The Chairman: (3) The Chair advises the gentlewoman
from New Jersey that this is obviously a motion to strike out and
cannot be submitted at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Daniel J. Flood (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, on June 4, 1968,(4) the following
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 114 Cong. Rec. 15889, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was
H.R. 17268.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
On page 3, line 17, after ``section'' insert ``, recommend
such legislation as he may deem appropriate to permit the
promulgation of rules and regulations in implementation of the
standards developed under this section''.
Mr. [Porter] Hardy Jr., [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry. Would it be in order at this point to offer
a substitute for the committee amendment to strike out the entire
language beginning at line 7 through line 20?
The Chairman: (5) Not until we have disposed of the
committee amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hardy: Will the committee amendment--is it not in order to
offer a substitute for the committee amendment?
The Chairman: After we dispose of the pending committee
amendment a motion to strike out the section would be in order.
Sec. 17.19 To a motion to strike out and insert language in a bill, a
simple motion to strike out a part of the language sought to be
amended is not in order as a substitute for the original motion.
On Apr. 17, 1946,(6) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 92 Cong. Rec. 3898, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was
H.R. 6042, the Emergency Price Control Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]
as a substitute for the Wolcott amendment: Strike out section 5
beginning on page 5, striking out all subsidies.
The Chairman: (7) The Chair would point out that the
gentleman's amendment is not a substitute for the Wolcott
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rich: It strikes out part of the subsidies. I want to
strike them all out. So it takes in his amendment and more.
[[Page 6967]]
The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Wolcott] has
offered an amendment to strike out certain provisions of the bill
and to insert something in place of it. The amendment offered by
the gentleman from Pennsylvania seeks to amend the provisions
already in the bill by striking them out.
Sec. 17.20 For a perfecting amendment striking out a figure and
inserting a new amount, a proposal to strike out the entire
paragraph containing that figure may not be offered as a
substitute.
On June 25, 1974,(8) during consideration of a bill in
the Committee of the Whole, the Chair ruled that perfecting amendments
to a paragraph are disposed of prior to amendments to strike out the
paragraph:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 120 Cong. Rec. 21038, 21039, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration
was H.R. 15544, Treasury Department, Postal Service, and
Executive Office appropriations, fiscal 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John T.] Myers [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Myers: On page 14, lines 16 and
17, strike $1,000,000 and substitute $250,000.
Mr. [C.W.] Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment
in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Young of Florida for the amendment offered by Mr. Myers:
Page 14, lines 10 through 17, strike lines 10 through 17
and renumber the following lines.
The Chairman: (9) The Chair states that this is not
a proper substitute for the amendment now pending. Once the pending
perfecting amendment has been disposed of, then the gentleman's
amendment to strike out the paragraph would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. B.F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 17.21 A motion to strike out an entire subsection of a bill is not
a proper substitute for a perfecting amendment to the subsection,
since it is broader in scope, but may be offered after disposition
of the perfecting amendment.
On Sept. 23, 1982,(10) it was demonstrated that, for a
perfecting amendment to a subsection striking out one activity from
those covered by a provision of existing law, a substitute striking out
the entire subsection, thereby eliminating the applicability of
existing law to a number of activities, was not in order. The
proceedings in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of H.R.
5540 (11) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 128 Cong. Rec. 24963, 24964, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. Defense Industrial Base Revitalization Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 6968]]
Mr. [Bruce F.] Vento [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Vento:
Page 41, line 24, strike out ``, or the installation of
equipment,''.
Page 42, beginning on line 15, strike out ``, or the
installation of equipment,''.
Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Erlenborn as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Vento: Beginning on page 41, line 22,
strike all of subsection (m) through page 43, line 2.
Mr. Vento: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment offered as a substitute by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Erlenborn). . . .
[T]he substitute offered by the gentleman is clearly not in
order. Under rule 19, Cannon's Procedure VIII, section 2879, the
precedents provide that ``to qualify as a substitute an amendment
must treat in the same manner the same subject carried by the
amendment for which it is offered.''
My amendment would remove language from the committee bill and
limit the applicability of the Davis-Bacon Act in terms of one type
of activity. The gentleman's substitute would strike the entire
section of the committee bill which my amendment seeks to perfect
and thereby eliminate the Davis-Bacon provisions of this
legislation.
In this case, the amendment offered by the gentleman clearly
does not treat the subject in the same manner which my amendment
does. Also, under Deschler's Procedure, chapter 27, section 14.1,
decisions made by the Chair on August 12, 1963, December 16, 1963,
and June 5, 1974, a motion to strike out a section of paragraph is
not in order while a perfecting amendment is pending. In addition,
the decisions of the Chair of December 16, 1963, and June 5, 1974,
and contained in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 27, section 14.4,
provides that a provision must be perfected before the question is
put on striking it out. A motion to strike out a paragraph or
section may not be offered as a substitute for pending motion to
perfect a paragraph or section by a motion to strike and insert.
The gentleman's amendment attempts to accomplish indirectly
something that he is precluded from doing directly. . . .
Mr. Erlenborn: . . . The language to which both amendments are
directed is language in the bill that is applying the Davis-Bacon
Act to activities under the bill in question. The amendment offered
by the gentleman is reducing the extent of that coverage by taking
out the installation of equipment.
My substitute also reduces that by eliminating the language so
there would be no extension of Davis-Bacon to the activities beyond
the present coverage of Davis-Bacon.
So the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Vento) is affecting Davis-Bacon by reducing its
coverage. Mine also would affect the reduction of Davis-Bacon, only
in a broader man
[[Page 6969]]
ner; and I, therefore, believe the amendment is in order.
The Chairman: (12) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Wyche Fowler, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Vento) for the reasons advocated by the gentleman
from Minnesota that the substitute is too broad in its scope in its
striking the whole of subsection (m).
The Chair would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Erlenborn) it would be appropriate as a separate amendment but it
is not in order as a substitute because of the scope of the
amendment.
The point of order of the gentleman from Minnesota is
sustained.
--No Point of Order Raised Against Substitute .
Sec. 17.22 An amendment proposing to strike out a section is not a
proper substitute for a perfecting amendment to that section (to
strike out and insert), but where no point of order is raised
against the substitute, the Chair nevertheless follows the
principle that the pending text should first be perfected before
the vote recurs on striking it out.
On July 22, 1976,(13) the Committee of the Whole having
under consideration H.R. 13777, the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976, the proceedings described above occurred as indicated
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 122 Cong. Rec. 23457, 23459, 23460, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: On page 41,
strike line 10 and all that follows through line 7 on page 43.
Insert in lieu thereof the following:
Sec. 210(a)(1) The Secretary with respect to the commercial
grazing of livestock on the public lands under the Taylor Grazing
Act . . . shall charge, commencing with the calendar year 1980, an
annual fee or fees per animal unit month for such grazing which
shall be the approximate fair market value of the forage provided.
. . .
Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Yates as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Eckhardt: Page 41, strike out line 10
on page 41 and all lines thereafter on page 41. . . .
The Chairman: (14) The amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) is a perfecting amendment to
section 210. The ``substitute'' offered by the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Yates) is, in effect, a motion to strike the entire
section against which no point of order was raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first vote will be on the perfecting amendment offered by
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt).
Not in Order as Amendment to Perfecting Amendment
Sec. 17.23 To an amendment striking out a title and inserting
[[Page 6970]]
new language, a motion to strike out that title is not in order as
an amendment.
On July 25, 1974,(15) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the bill H.R. 11500, the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1974, a motion to strike out, as
described above, was held not in order. The proceedings were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 120 Cong. Rec. 25240, 25241, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Udall to the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute: Strike page 268, line 19,
through page 271, line 24, and insert in lieu thereof the
following:
Sec. 601. (a) With respect to Federal lands within any
State, the Secretary of Interior may, and if so requested by
the Governor of such State, shall review any area within such
lands to assess whether it may be unsuitable for mining
operations. . . .
Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I do
have an amendment to the amendment. It would merely strike out
title VI.
The Chairman: (16) Does the gentleman seek
recognition?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hosmer: Yes. I seek recognition for an amendment to the
Udall amendment.
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from
California that his amendment to strike title VI is not in order as
an amendment to the Udall amendment.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Udall) to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
So the amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute was agreed to.
Parliamentarian's Note: Where an amendment striking out text and
inserting new language has been offered, a simple motion to strike out
all that text may not be offered as an amendment to such amendment,
because it would have the effect of dividing the motion to strike out
and insert which is prohibited by Rule XVI clause 7.(17) n
the above instance, only upon rejection of the amendment striking title
VI and inserting new text would Mr. Hosmer's motion to strike out the
title have been in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 793 (101st Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amending Text Proposed To Be Stricken
Sec. 17.24 Where a motion to strike out is pending, a motion to amend
part of the text proposed to be stricken is in order.
[[Page 6971]]
On Apr. 24, 1963 (18) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 6879, 6880, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration
was H.R. 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. [Samuel L.] Devine [of Ohio]: On
page 19 strike out line 13 and all that follows down to line 24
on page 27. . . .
Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
perfecting amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Harris: On page 20, line 13,
strike out ``and'', and immediately below line 13 insert the
following: . . .
Mr. [Harold R.] Collier [of Illinois]: Is this a perfecting
amendment? . . .
The Chairman: (19) The Chair is of the opinion that
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas is a
perfecting amendment to the text of the pending bill. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Collier: This is a perfecting amendment to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Ohio.
The Chairman: No, it is not.
Mr. Collier: Then how does it get precedence over the pending
amendment?
The Chairman: Because it is a perfecting amendment to the text
of the bill to which the gentleman from Ohio offers his amendment.
The vote will come first on the perfecting amendment before the
vote is had on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio.
Sec. 17.25 Where there is pending a motion to strike out a section of a
bill, an amendment to insert words within the section proposed to
be stricken is in order as a perfecting amendment.
On Oct. 5, 1972,(20) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 118 Cong. Rec. 34130, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was
H.R. 16656.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. [Bella S.] Abzug [of New York]:
Page 107, line 12, through page 108, line 5: Strike all of
section 139. Renumber the succeeding sections accordingly. . .
.
Mr. [Joel T.] Broyhill of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment as a perfecting amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Broyhill of Virginia:
Page 107 line 13 after ``Sec. 139.'' insert ``(a)''.
Page 108 after line 5 insert the following:
``(b) This section shall take effect upon the final
determination of the route of Interstate Highway I-66 from its
present terminus in Virginia at I-495 to its connection with a
bridge or bridges (presently constructed or to be constructed)
across the Potomac River.''
Mr. Don H. Clausen [of California]: . . . Is this in effect an
amendment to the amendment rather than a perfecting amendment? . .
.
The Chairman: (1) The Chair will state from a quick
study of the amend
[[Page 6972]]
ment that it appears to be a perfecting amendment to the section
which is proposed to be stricken by the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Morris K. Udall (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: . . . I ask the Chair in what
order or sequence will the votes come on the several proposals.
The Chairman: The vote would come first, the Chair will state,
on the perfecting amendment of the gentleman from Virginia.
Following that the principal amendment to strike out the section
would be put to the committee.
--Striking Portion of Section
Sec. 17.26 A preferential perfecting amendment to strike out only a
portion of the language of a section may be offered before a
pending motion to strike out the entire section.
On June 18, 1959,(2) The following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 105 Cong. Rec. 11301, 11303-05, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. Under
consideration was H.R. 7500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. [Ross] Adair [of Indiana]: On page
11, strike out line 18 and all that follows down through line 6
on page 12, and reletter the following subsections accordingly.
. . .
Mr. [Harris B.] McDowell Jr., [of Delaware]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer a perfecting amendment to the bill.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. McDowell as a perfecting amendment
to the bill: On page 12, lines 1 and 2, strike out ``and the
sixth sentence of section 202(b)'', and on line 4, of page 12,
strike out ``II, III,'' and insert in lieu thereof ``III.''. .
.
The Chairman: (3) The question is on the perfecting
amendment offered by the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. McDowell].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: In this context a motion to strike can
itself be a perfecting amendment.
Amendment To Strike Additional Words
Sec. 17.27 When it is proposed to strike out certain words in a
section, it is not in order to amend that amendment by proposing
that additional words of that section be stricken.
On June 2, 1976,(4) the Committee of the Whole having
under consideration H.R. 13680,(5) the Chair ruled on a
point of order as described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 122 Cong. Rec. 16208-10, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
5. A bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
[[Page 6973]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Derwinski: At page 68, strike line
4 through page 69, line 4. . . .
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
amendment offered by mr. zablocki to the amendment offered by
mr. derwinski
Strike the words ``page 69, line 4'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``page 69, line 10''. . . .
Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser of Minnesota]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I
make a point of order against the Zablocki amendment to the
amendment on the grounds that it is an effort to amend a perfecting
amendment. It deals with a different part of the bill, and since
the bill is open to amendment by titles, the perfecting amendment,
so-called, offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski),
as I understand, only strikes section 413 down through line 4 on
page 69. This is an effort to strike a different part of the title,
and therefore would not be in order as an amendment to the
Derwinski amendment. . . .
Mr. Zablocki: . . . Mr. Chairman, the Derwinski amendment
strikes section 413 to line 4 on page 69. All my amendment does is
continue striking section 413 by striking the words, ``page 69,
line 4,'' and substituting in lieu thereof, ``page 69, line 10.''
So, it is an amendment in order to an amendment that was
recognized in order.
The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Frank E. Evans (Co.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Derwinski) strikes . . . section 413, beginning with line 5, page
68, through line 4, page 69. The amendment offered by the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) to that amendment would increase the
portion of section 413 that is stricken, expanding the area
stricken down through line 10, page 69.
Under Cannon's Precedents in the House of Representatives, on
page 13, in middle of the page, under the heading ``amending a
motion'':
When it is proposed to strike out certain words, it is not in
order to amend by adding to the words of the paragraph, but it is
in order to amend by striking out a portion of the words specified.
Since the question has come before the House before, in Hinds'
Precedents of the House of Representatives, volume V, 1907, page
389, section 5768, the Chair will quote from that decision as
follows:
5768: When it is proposed to strike out certain words in a
paragraph, it is not in order to amend by adding to them other
words of the paragraph.--On April 3, 1902, the bill (S. 1025)
to promote the efficiency of the Revenue-Cutter Service was
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, when the following paragraph was read:
Sec. 8. That when any commissioned officer is retired from
active service, the next officer in rank shall be promoted
according to the established rules of the service, and the same
rule of promotion shall be applied successively to the
vacancies consequent upon such retirement.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, moved to strike out the
words ``ac
[[Page 6974]]
cording to the established rules of the service.''
Mr. John F. Lacy, of Iowa, moved to amend the amendment by
adding to the words proposed to be stricken out other words in
the context of the paragraph.
The Chairman held that the amendment of Mr. Lacey should be
offered as an independent amendment rather than as an amendment to
the amendment.
For the reasons stated, the point of order of the gentleman
from Minnesota is sustained.
Sec. 17.28 Where there is pending an amendment striking out a portion
of a pending text, an amendment to strike out additional language
of the text should be offered as a separate amendment to the text
and not as an amendment to the first amendment.
The proceedings of June 2, 1976, are discussed in Sec. 17.27,
supra.
Offering Amendment To Strike Section Which Has Been Perfected
Sec. 17.29 An amendment proposing to strike out a section which has
been perfected, but not changed in its entirety, is in order.
On July 25, 1946,(7) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 92 Cong. Rec. 10097, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was S.
2177, the legislative reorganization bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [Ellsworth B.] Buck [of New York]: On
page 93, line 13, strike out section 601, paragraphs (a) and (b). .
. .
Mr. [Emmet] O'Neal [(of Kentucky]: It is my understanding that
the language in the bill has been amended. The amendment offered by
the gentleman from New York is to strike out the original language,
which has been amended. Therefore, the language of the amendment is
not in proper form.
The Chairman: (8) The amendment is to strike out the
section as amended. The point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effect of Adopting Motion To Strike Perfected Title
Sec. 17.30 If the pending title of a bill is perfected by an amendment
adding a new section thereto, and the Committee of the Whole
thereafter agrees to a motion to strike out the entire title, the
words added by the perfecting amendment are eliminated along with
the rest of the title.
On Oct. 3, 1969,(9) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 115 Cong. Rec. 28454, 28455, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under
consideration was H.R. 14000.
For further discussion of the proceedings, see Sec. 15.3,
supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
[[Page 6975]]
Motion offered by Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]:
On page 16, line 9, strike all of Title V. . . .
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]
to title V: On page 17, immediately after line 13 insert the
following:
``Sec. 505. (a) The Comptroller General of the United
States. . . .''
Mr. [Frank E.]) Evans of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, if the
amendment of the gentleman from Indiana passes, and thereafter
the motion of the gentleman from New York passes, what is the
status of the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana?
The Chairman: (10) If the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana is agreed to and the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York to strike the whole title is agreed to,
then the amendment will be stricken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. L. Mendel Rivers (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Striking Amendment Already Agreed To
Sec. 17.31 While it is not in order to strike out an amendment already
agreed to, it is in order by way of amendment to strike out a
greater part of a paragraph which includes the amendment agreed to.
On Mar. 9, 1942,(11) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 88 Cong. Rec. 2139, 2140, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration
was H.R. 6709, the agriculture appropriation bill for 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: The Reed amendment was in
the form of an additional proviso. The gentleman moves to strike
out the first proviso, the one already in the bill, but I take the
position that he cannot now move to strike out the additional
proviso added by the Reed amendment.
The Chairman: (12) In answer to the parliamentary
inquiry the Chair holds that it is in order to strike out the
language of the Reed amendment together with the other language
already in the bill, because it is simply an amendment to the
language of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Robert Ramspeck (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 17.32 It is not in order to strike out an amendment already agreed
to, but a part of the paragraph which includes the amendment may be
stricken to insert language of a different meaning.
On July 28, 1953,(13) bill (14) was under
consideration which related to an emergency immigration program. The
phrase ``two hundred and thirty-six thousand'' referring to the number
of special visas to be issued under the immigration laws had been
amended by striking out the words ``thirty-six'' and inserting
``thirteen.'' Subsequently, an amendment striking out the entire phrase
``two hundred and thirty-six thousand'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``two hundred and forty-six thousand'' was
[[Page 6976]]
ruled in order as striking out language ``comprehending the amendment
formerly adopted'' and inserting new language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 99 Cong. Rec. 10195, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
14. H.R. 6481.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 17.33 It is not in order to offer an amendment merely striking out
an amendment previously agreed to.
On Aug. 1, 1975, (15) during consideration of a bill
(16) in the Committee of the Whole, a point of order against
an amendment was sustained as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 26945-47, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. H.R. 7014, Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: Strike out Title
III, as amended, and reinsert all except for Section 301, as
amended. . . .
Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of
order against the amendment.
The Chairman: (17) the gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Eckhardt: . . . [A]lthough it may have been appropriate to
offer a substitute for all of title III, this amendment does not
restate the language which should have been contained in such
substitute. If the gentleman has attempted to offer a substitute
which comprised the language adopted by this committee in sections
302, 303, 304, 305, 306, and 307, it would have been incumbent upon
him to reduce the same to writing and to introduce it in such a
manner that we would have had a complete amendment before us
instead of in effect offering at this late date, after a new
section 301 was adopted, a motion to strike that section 301. . . .
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan): . . . In pressing the
point of order, I must commend my colleague, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Brown), for a most masterful piece of draftsmanship.
Nevertheless, his draftsmanship and his display of rare talent to
the contrary notwithstanding, the gentleman's draftsmanship does
violate the rules. What the gentleman attempts to do here is simply
to undo an amendment which was previously agreed to by the House. .
. .
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I will say that
this does not place before the House the same question that existed
prior to the vote on the Staggers amendment. This places before the
House the question of whether this title, with all the amendments
taken together as they have been added to the title, except the
Staggers amendment, should now be accepted. It does in fact raise a
different question. . . .
Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, the posture is this: The bill
contained section 301, stricken by the Wilson amendment, at which
point the Krueger amendment was offered as an amendment to
reinstate section 301. The Staggers amendment was then offered as a
substitute to replace the Krueger amendment.
Therefore, we completed 301, we acted upon 301, and had a
complete body of law on 301.
[[Page 6977]]
It was at that time that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown)
might have attacked the Staggers amendment and sought to defeat it
or, actually, the Krueger amendment, as amended by the Staggers
amendment. He did not do so, other than to merely vote against it.
Of course, that was the proper way to attack it, but what he is
attempting to do now is merely to come in at this late point and
seek to strike an amendment which was adopted by the House. Section
301 was at that time completed.
Mr. Chairman, he is not offering here a substitute in any
proper form. . . .
Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I would like to cite from page
351 of Deschler's Procedure in the House of Representatives,
section 28.9, as follows:
After agreeing to several amendments to section 1 of a bill,
the Committee of the Whole agreed to a motion to strike out and
insert a new section which included some of the amendments agreed
to, but omitted one of them. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The fact of the matter is that the original section 301 has
been stricken from the bill and replaced by another section 301,
and the amendment in effect deletes the new 301. The gentleman's
amendment makes no change in the original text of title III. Under
the rules and the practice of the House of Representatives, it is
not in order to strike out an amendment that has been adopted or to
offer an amendment in the form of the pending amendment which
accomplishes solely that result--Cannon's VIII, Sec. 851-54.
Therefore, the Chair sustains the points of order.
Striking More Than Insertion
Sec. 17.34 Although it is not in order to propose to strike out an
amendment already agreed to, an amendment striking out not only an
amendment previously agreed to but also additional portions of the
bill is in order.
Where the first section of a title of a bill being read by titles
was modified by striking that section and inserting new language, an
amendment to strike that section and two additional sections of that
title not so altered was held in order. The proceedings on Aug. 1,
1975, (18) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 26947, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was
H.R. 7014, Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: Strike out sections
301, 302, 303.
Renumber the succeeding sections of title III accordingly. . .
.
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman . . . I renew
simply the point of order that I had made earlier against the prior
amendment
[[Page 6978]]
by observing that this is again an attempt to undo actions taken
already by the House, as the Chair well noted when it ruled just
now on the prior attempt to remove section 301, which failed. . . .
Mr. Brown of Ohio: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not
stand on the same point that the previous amendment stood on. This
amendment strikes two additional sections, sections 302 and 303.
The present section 303 in the title has not been touched by
amendment during the amending process, the prohibition on pricing
facts being sent to the President, and is a section which has not
been amended by the Committee of the Whole during consideration of
title III. . . .
Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I believe the
gentleman from Ohio misconceives the basis of the original point of
order, since this amendment includes the striking of a section of
the bill that has been completed, and has been amended and
completed and includes another section of the bill that has been
amended and completed. It is for those reasons subject to a point
of order. The fact that it may include other matter that has not
been amended and completed does not free it from the objection
raised on the first point of order.
The Chairman: (19) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the argument on the amendment by the gentleman from
Texas, the Chair feels that it will disagree with that.
The Chair now refers to volume 8, page 446, section 2855 of
Cannon's Precedents. It states that while an amendment which has
been agreed to may not be modified, a proposition to strike that
language from the bill with other language of the original text is
in order.
Some language of the original text remains in section 303.
Therefore the point of order raised by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Dingell) is not good, and the Chair overrules the point of
order.
Amendment in Nature of Substitute
Sec. 17.35 Where an amendment in the nature of a substitute for several
paragraphs of an appropriation bill has been offered, with notice
that if it is agreed to motions will then be made to strike out the
following paragraphs as they are read, such paragraphs are subject
to perfecting amendment, as well as to the motion to strike, when
read.
In the 91st Congress, an amendment in the nature of a substitute
for several paragraphs of an appropriation bill (20) as
offered (1) by Mr. Charles S. Joelson, of New Jersey, in the
manner described above. A substitute amendment therefor was offered by
Mr. Robert H. Michel, of Illinois. (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 13111.
1. 115 Cong. Rec. 21218, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., July 29, 1969.
2. Id. at p. 21221.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 6979]]
Subsequently, the following exchange took place:
Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: If the substitute
amendment of the gentleman from Illinois prevails, is the remainder
of the title still open to amendment, which would have been amended
if the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Joelson) had prevailed?
The Chairman: (3) If the substitute amendment
offered by the gentleman from Illinois is agreed to and the Joelson
amendment as thereby amended is agreed to, then there are some
remaining paragraphs which have not been read and they would be
next for consideration and subject to amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Joelson: If the gentleman's amendment should carry, what
would he move to delete?
The Chairman: If action is taken on the Michel substitute
amendment and it is agreed to, and then the Joelson amendment is
agreed to, then we would proceed to read the succeeding paragraphs
which have not been read and amendments of various kinds may be
made to those paragraphs.
Striking Part of Section After Rejection of Motion To Strike Entire
Section
Sec. 17.36 A motion to strike out a part of a section is in order
notwithstanding defeat of a previous motion to strike out the
entire section.
On July 20, 1956,(4) bill (5) was under
consideration to provide means of further securing and protecting the
civil rights of persons within the jurisdiction of the United States. A
point of order having been made against an amendment to the bill, the
proponent of the amendment stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See the proceedings at 102 Cong. Rec. 13732, 13736, 84th Cong. 2d
Sess.
5. H.R. 627.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard H.] Poff [of Virginia]: . . . [A]s I understand
the rules of the House, a point of order would not lie inasmuch as
the amendment which was just offered went to the whole section
titled 121 and, having been rejected by the committee, my amendment
which goes only to a portion of that title would be in order.
The Chairman (6) overruled the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Striking Language That Has Been Ruled Out of Order
Sec. 17.37 After language in an appropriation bill has been ruled out
as legislation, an amendment to strike out that same language
cannot be entertained.
On Feb. 5, 1957,(7) bill (8) was under
consideration comprising
[[Page 6980]]
urgent deficiency appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 103 Cong. Rec. 1550, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
8. H.R. 4249.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An amendment was offered, as follows:
Substitute amendment offered by Mr. [Gordon L.] McDonough [of
California]: On page 5, line 7, strike out all after the semicolon.
The Chairman (9) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is not a substitute amendment, because that language has
been stricken out on the point of order raised by the gentlewoman
from Oregon and sustained by the Chair. That language is not in the
bill at the moment.