The Amending Process in the Senate

The Amending Process in the Senate

Order Code 98-853 GOV
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The Amending Process in the Senate
Updated March 17, 2003
Betsy Palmer
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Stanley Bach
Senior Specialist in the Legislative Process
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

The Amending Process in the Senate
Summary
A bill is subject to amendment as soon as the Senate begins to consider it.
Committee amendments are considered first; then Senators can offer amendments to
any part of the bill in any order. Senators may debate each amendment without limit
unless the Senate (1) agrees to a motion to table (kill) the amendment, (2) agrees to
a unanimous consent request to limit debate on the amendment, or (3) invokes
cloture, limiting debate on the amendment or on the bill and all amendments to it.
There are several different types of amendments. A first degree amendment
proposes to change the text of the bill; a second degree amendment proposes to
change the text of a first degree amendment that the Senate is considering. Third
degree amendments are not allowed. An amendment may propose to strike out
language from a bill (or a first degree amendment), to insert new language, or to
replace language by striking out and inserting. In general, an amendment that
proposes to replace the entire text of a bill is known as an amendment in the nature
of a substitute; an amendment to replace the entire text of a first degree amendment
is known as a substitute amendment. An amendment, especially in the second
degree, that makes some lesser change is known as a perfecting amendment.
Depending on the kinds of amendments that Senators offer and the order in
which they are recognized to offer their amendments, Senators can offer anywhere
from three to 11 amendments before the Senate has to vote on any of them.
“Amendment trees” are the graphic ways of depicting these possible situations.
The Senate only requires that amendments be germane when amendments are
offered (1) to general appropriations bills and budget measures, (2) under cloture, or
(3) under certain unanimous consent agreements and certain statutes. Otherwise,
Senators can offer amendments on any subject to any bill. There are several general
restrictions on the amending process. For example, it is not in order to propose an
amendment that proposes only to amend language in a bill that already has been
amended. However, it is possible to re-amend that language in the process of
amending a larger portion of the bill. There also are special provisions in Senate
rules to limit amendments to appropriations bills if those amendments propose
unauthorized appropriations or changes in existing law. The Senate can, and
sometimes does, choose not to enforce these restrictions.
The Senator who has offered an amendment may withdraw or modify it at any
time until the Senate has taken some action on it, such as by amending it or by
ordering a rollcall vote on it. Senators also may demand that certain amendments be
divided into two or more parts. A rollcall vote on an amendment is ordered at the
request of at least eleven Senators. The Senate’s amending process changes under
cloture. For example, no amendment can be offered under cloture unless a Senator
submitted it in writing before the cloture vote occurred.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Offering and Debating Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Unanimous Consent Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Classification of Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Precedence Among Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The Amendment Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
With an Amendment to Insert Pending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
With an Amendment to Strike Out and Insert Pending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
With an Amendment to Strike Out Pending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
With an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Pending . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Restrictions on Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
In General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Germaneness and Relevancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
On General Appropriations Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Points of Order Against Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Modification, Withdrawal, and Division of Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Modification of Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Withdrawal of Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Division of Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Voting on Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Amendments Under Cloture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

The Amending Process in the Senate
Introduction
This report1 summarizes many of the rules, precedents, and practices of the
Senate affecting the consideration of amendments to measures on the floor. Much
of the information presented here has been extracted from Riddick’s Senate
Procedure (Senate Document 101-28) the published collection of Senate precedents.
This report should be read with several caveats in mind. First, no report of this
length can take account of every ruling that has been made and every contingency
that can arise. Second, the Senate conducts much of its business by unanimous
consent, and may thereby change or set aside its rules or customary procedures.
Third, Senate procedures are not static; the accuracy of this report will be affected by
future changes the Senate makes in its formal rules or informal practices. Although
this report may provide useful background information, it should not be considered
a substitute for consultation with the parliamentarian and his associates on specific
procedural problems and opportunities. This report should not be cited as authority
in Senate proceedings.
Offering and Debating Amendments
When the Senate agrees to consider a bill or resolution (either by motion or by
unanimous consent), the title of the measure is read. If there are committee
amendments printed in the measure as reported, the first of these amendments then
is pending automatically. Debate usually begins with opening statements about the
measure as a whole by its majority and minority floor managers and other Senators.
This is a customary practice of the Senate; its rules do not set aside a time for these
opening statements. The Senate then acts on the committee amendments, after which
Senators may offer their own amendments to any part of the measure in any order.
In the House, measures often are read for amendment by sections or titles; in that
case, Representatives may offer amendments only to the one section or title that is
then open to amendment. In the Senate, by contrast, measures are considered to be
open to amendment at any point.
The first amendments that the Senate considers are amendments recommended
by the committee or committees that reported the measure. Senators do not have to
call up these amendments for consideration. They are considered automatically, one
by one, and in the order in which they are printed in the measure as reported (except
1This report was written by Stanley Bach, formerly a Senior Specialist in the Legislative
Process at CRS. Dr. Bach has retired, but the other listed author updated the report and is
available to answer questions concerning its contents.

CRS-2
by unanimous consent). Individual Senators may offer second degree amendments
to each committee amendment (or first degree amendments to that part of the
measure that a committee amendment proposes to strike out or replace—see “The
Amendment Trees”), and the Senate considers and disposes of any such amendments
before acting on the committee amendment itself.
This means that the Senate usually considers each committee amendment before
Senators offer other unrelated amendments from the floor. But the Senate may not
dispose of all committee amendments at the beginning of the amending process. In
fact, when a committee reports a measure with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute for the entire text of the bill, the vote on that committee amendment
normally concludes the amending process and immediately precedes the vote on
passing the bill (see “The Amendment Trees”).
When a Senate committee reports a bill with a series of separate amendments,
the Senate often decides not to consider the amendments individually. The Senate
can agree, by unanimous consent, to consider and agree to all the committee
amendments en bloc, that is, as if they were one amendment, and then to consider the
measure, as thus amended, as original text for the purpose of further amendment.
Under such an agreement, Senators may offer amendments in two degrees to the
text of each committee amendment that now has been made part of the measure. The
effect of this arrangement is to create the same opportunities for Senators to propose
amendments to each of the committee’s recommendations that Senators enjoy when
a committee reports a single text that includes all of its recommendations—either in
the form of either a complete substitute for a measure referred to it or in the form of
a new original measure that is introduced at the same time the committee reports it
to the Senate. From time to time, one or more committee amendments may be
excluded from such a unanimous consent agreement, leaving that amendment or
those amendments to be considered separately.
When the Senate begins consideration of a House-passed appropriations
measure, the majority floor manager typically proposes this kind of unanimous
consent agreement. The agreement normally includes a stipulation that Senators
retain their rights to make points of order against any of the committee amendments
that are to be incorporated into the measure under the terms of the agreement. The
Appropriations Committee is the only Senate committee that may report important
measures to the Senate with a series of separate committee amendments. Most other
Senate committees usually consolidate all their amendments to a major bill into a
single complete substitute amendment for the text of the bill as introduced, or they
incorporate their amendments into the text of an original bill that the committee
chairman introduces on behalf of the committee.
Paragraph 5 of Rule XV prohibits the consideration of a substantive committee
amendment “which contains any significant matter not within the jurisdiction of the
committee proposing such amendment.” However, this prohibition does not apply
if a committee chooses to incorporate that committee amendment into the text of an
original bill it orders reported.

CRS-3
After disposing of committee amendments, the Senate considers additional first
degree amendments, and amendments thereto, in whatever order Senators wish to
offer them. In the case of a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for
the entire text of the bill, both that amendment and the text of the underlying measure
are open to amendment at any point.
To offer an amendment, a Senator must have the floor, and paragraph 1 of Rule
XIX directs the presiding officer “to recognize the Senator who shall first address
him.” As a matter of established practice, however, preference in recognition is
accorded to the majority and minority leaders when either leader and another Senator
are seeking recognition at the same time. The chair also may give preference in
recognition to either floor manager of the measure the Senate is considering.
Technically, a Senator loses the floor after offering an amendment (or making any
motion) unless recognized again. In practice, the Senator offering an amendment
normally is recognized to begin the debate on it.
With the exception of committee amendments, the order in which first degree
amendments are offered is determined not by rule or precedent, but by the
convenience of Senators. A second degree amendment, of course, must be offered
while the first degree amendment it would affect is pending. The form of first and
second degree amendments determines what additional amendments may be offered
and pending simultaneously. (See “Classification of Amendments” and “The
Amendment Trees.”) Normally, amendments are offered and considered
individually, but Senators may request unanimous consent that two or more related
amendments be considered en bloc. This is a useful practice when, for example, a
Senator needs to amend a bill in two non-contiguous places in order to accomplish
a single policy change.
An amendment must be in writing and, when offered, is to be read before debate
begins. The reading of an amendment usually is dispensed with by unanimous
consent when the floor managers and other interested Senators already are familiar
with the amendment’s purpose and provisions.
For the information and convenience of the Senate, Senators often submit
proposed amendments to be printed in the Congressional Record a day or more
before they are to be called up for consideration. They are listed in a section called
“Amendments Submitted.” If an amendment is submitted for printing in the Record,
it is assigned a number at that time. Otherwise, the amendment is numbered at the
time it is offered and read on the floor. In this way, all floor amendments are
numbered sequentially throughout the course of a Congress. The text of each
amendment usually appears in the Congressional Record at the point at which it is
called up, even if it had been printed in an earlier issue of the Record.
Except under cloture, an amendment printed in advance in the Record enjoys
no special standing (see “Amendments Under Cloture”); it must be called up by a
Senator in the same manner as any other amendment. However, a printed
amendment may be called up by any Senator, not just by the Senator who submitted
it for printing. This does not occur often.

CRS-4
The Senate can (but rarely does) adopt a motion that postpones to a time certain
further action on an amendment that it has been considering. More commonly, a
pending amendment may be laid aside temporarily, by unanimous consent, in order
to permit consideration of another amendment instead. Once the second amendment
is disposed of, the first amendment is back before the Senate automatically. When
an amendment is laid aside temporarily, it is usually for one of two reasons: either
to accommodate another Senator who wishes to offer an amendment at a certain time,
or to permit interested Senators to discuss, and perhaps to agree on changes in, a
pending amendment without occupying the time of the full Senate.
After the Senate agrees to consider a measure, amendments to it are in order at
any time, subject to limitations on the number and types of amendments that may be
pending simultaneously, until the measure has been read a third time by title. Except
under cloture, Senate rules and precedents impose no limits on the number of
amendments that may be offered. By the same token, there is no limit on how long
Senators may debate one amendment or all amendments, except (1) by unanimous
consent, (2) under cloture, or (3) under the provisions of certain statutes, such as the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of which imposes a time limit for
Senate floor action on budget resolutions and reconciliation bills. Rule XIX states
that “no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the
same day without leave of the Senate,” but the length of each speech is not
controlled.
A Senator may stop debate on an amendment by being recognized and then
moving to lay it on the table. If the Senate agrees to this non-debatable motion, the
amendment is considered to be rejected, or tabled. (The Senate may vote to table a
first degree amendment while a second degree amendment to it is pending.) If the
tabling motion is defeated, debate on the amendment may resume. However, the
vote on a motion to table an amendment often is considered to be a decisive test vote
on the amendment; if the tabling motion is defeated on a roll call vote, the
amendment itself may be agreed to by voice vote shortly thereafter. Moving to table
an amendment is essentially a negative action, and there is no other motion available
in the Senate to bring the body to an immediate vote to dispose of a pending
amendment.
The notion of precedence has an important effect on the amending process.
Paragraph 1 of Rule XXII specifies an order of precedence among motions, including
the motion to amend. Under the terms of this paragraph, a motion to adjourn or
recess is in order while an amendment is pending. It is in order also to move to lay
a pending amendment on the table. In fact, all the other motions listed in Rule XXII
have precedence over the motion to amend.
Unanimous Consent Agreements
The Senate frequently does impose limitations on itself in the form of
unanimous consent agreements that specify parliamentary conditions for considering
and amending a particular measure. In their most comprehensive form, these
agreements can impose a time limit for debating each first and second degree
amendment and indicate how the time in each case is to be divided and controlled.
A standard period of time may be provided for debating each amendment—for

CRS-5
example, one hour for each first degree amendment and 30 minutes for each second
degree amendment and any other debatable question—but the agreement may permit
lengthier debates on certain specific amendments. The time for debating each
amendment usually is divided between its proposer and the majority floor manager
(or the minority floor manager, if the majority floor manager supports the
amendment).
Such comprehensive unanimous consent agreements (or time agreements, as
they often are called) also provide a period of time for debate on the question of final
passage—debate on the measure as a whole, that may be used or yielded by the
majority and minority floor managers at any time that the Senate is considering the
measure. In addition, these agreements normally require that all amendments must
be relevant, although specific amendments may be exempted from this requirement.
Instead of approving a comprehensive time agreement when it begins debate on
a bill, the Senate frequently debates and amends a major bill for some time before
developing an agreement that identifies the remaining amendments that may be
offered to the bill and the amount of time available for debating each of those
amendments. That agreement even may specify the order in which the remaining
amendments are to be offered. The Senate also may reach agreements during the
course of debate that apply only to individual amendments—for instance, an
agreement limiting how long the pending amendment will be debated and which
amendment will be the next one to be considered.
Unanimous consent agreements affect the amending process in another
important respect. Under such an agreement, covering one or all amendments to a
measure, it is not in order to move to table a pending amendment, or to offer another
amendment that has precedence, or to make a point of order against the amendment,
until all the time for debating it has expired or has been yielded back, at least by the
proponent of the amendment. In the absence of a unanimous consent agreement, any
Senator who is recognized may take any of these actions at any time after an
amendment has been called up.
A unanimous consent agreement to limit debate on a specific amendment also
constitutes action by the Senate on that amendment. Once such an agreement is
reached, the Senator offering the amendment may modify or withdraw it only by
unanimous consent. (See “Modification, Withdrawal and Division of
Amendments.”)
Through unanimous consent agreements, the Senate imposes an order and some
limits on the amending process that are not required by Senate rules and precedents.
These agreements require the explicit or implicit concurrence of every Senator: if a
single Senator objects, the amending process may continue indefinitely or until the
measure is fully amended, and without limitations on debate unless the Senate
invokes cloture.

CRS-6
Classification of Amendments
As noted in Riddick’s Senate Procedure, amendments may be distinguished in
terms of their degree, form, type and class.
Degree. As a general rule, a measure being considered on the Senate floor is
open to amendment in two degrees. Unless the Senate agrees otherwise by
unanimous consent, it is in order to offer an amendment to the text of any measure
(an amendment in the first degree), and it is also in order to offer an amendment to
that amendment (an amendment in the second degree) while the first degree
amendment is pending. It is not in order to offer an amendment in the third
degree—an amendment to an amendment to an amendment—except by unanimous
consent. (There are parliamentary conditions under which, in principle, as many as
11 amendments may be pending simultaneously; see “The Amendment Trees.”)2
Form. There are three different forms an amendment can take. First, an
amendment may propose to insert additional language in a measure or pending first
degree amendment without changing anything that already is in the text it would
amend. Second, an amendment may take the form of a motion to strike out part of
a measure or pending first degree amendment without inserting anything in its place.
Or third, an amendment may propose to strike out and insert—to replace one or more
words or provisions of a measure or pending first degree amendment with one or
more different words or provisions.
Type. There are different types of amendments. A substitute amendment in the
first degree proposes to replace some part of the text of a measure. A complete
substitute (denoted in this report as an amendment in the nature of a substitute) is a
special form of substitute amendment that proposes to replace the entire text of the
measure—to strike all after the enacting clause and insert “in lieu thereof” a different
text.3 A substitute amendment in the second degree proposes to replace the entire
text of a pending first degree amendment with a different text. All substitute
amendments are motions to strike out and insert; but not all motions to strike out and
insert are considered substitutes.
Perfecting amendments may insert, strike or strike and insert. A first degree
amendment to insert or a first degree motion to strike out is a perfecting amendment.
A first degree amendment in the form of a motion to strike out and insert is a
2Technically, there may be only one amendment pending before the Senate at any moment.
The “pending amendment” is the amendment on which the Senate is to act first. For the
sake of convenience in this report, however, the term “pending amendments” is used more
generally to refer to all the amendments that have been offered and that have not been laid
aside temporarily, withdrawn, or disposed of by the Senate in some fashion.
3Unlike the House, the Senate does not use the phrase “amendment in the nature of a
substitute” to refer consistently and exclusively to an amendment that proposes to strike out
all after the enacting clause of a bill (or resolving clause of a resolution) and replace that
text with a different text. For purposes of clarity, the phrase will be used only in that sense
in this report; but it should be borne in mind that Senators may use the same phrase in a
broader sense.

CRS-7
perfecting amendment if it would replace less of the measure than a pending first
degree substitute amendment. A perfecting amendment in the second degree may
take any of the three possible forms so long as it proposes to alter or “perfect,” rather
than to replace entirely, the text of a pending first degree amendment.
Whether a first degree amendment is considered to be a perfecting or a
substitute amendment may depend on the parliamentary circumstances in which it is
offered. When a Senator offers a first degree amendment in the form of a motion to
strike out and insert, that amendment is considered to be a substitute amendment if
no other such first degree amendment is already pending. However, the same first
degree amendment to strike out and insert may be considered to be a perfecting
amendment instead if it is offered while there is already pending a substitute for some
larger portion of the measure. Any motion to strike out and insert in the first
degree—even an amendment that would replace an entire title of the measure—is
a perfecting amendment if it is offered while the Senate is considering an amendment
in the nature of a substitute that would replace the text of the measure altogether.
By the same token, the distinction between perfecting and substitute
amendments can depend on the way in which the amendments are drafted, not on the
significance of the legislative changes they propose. With regard to second degree
amendments, for example, any amendment is a substitute amendment so long as it
proposes to insert something in the measure in place of the matter that the pending
first degree amendment proposes to insert—without regard to whether the first degree
amendment proposes only to insert or to strike out and insert. On the other hand, a
second degree amendment is a perfecting amendment so long as it proposes to alter,
but not replace entirely, the matter proposed to be inserted by the pending first degree
amendment.
As a result, a second degree perfecting amendment may propose major changes
in a first degree amendment, while a second degree substitute amendment may be
identical to the text it would replace except for one word or number. It is sometimes
possible, and useful, for the same second degree amendment to be drafted both as a
perfecting amendment and as a substitute amendment so that the amendment may be
offered under the widest range of parliamentary circumstances.
Class. There are two classes of amendments, committee and floor, which have
been discussed earlier in this report.
Precedence Among Amendments
The distinctions among amendments can be of considerable practical
importance because of the relations of precedence among amendments.
For purposes of the amending process in the Senate, “precedence” has two
related meanings. If one amendment has precedence over another, (1) it may be
offered while the other is pending, and (2) it is disposed of first. Thus, if amendment
A has precedence over amendment B, amendment A may be offered even though
amendment B already has been offered and is still pending before the Senate. And

CRS-8
if both amendments are pending at the same time, the Senate acts on amendment A
before it acts on amendment B. Precedence also has negative consequences:
amendment B may not be offered while amendment A is pending and if both are
pending at the same time, the Senate may not act on amendment B before it acts on
amendment A (except by unanimous consent).
Senate precedents set out three principles of precedence among amendments
that are directed to the same text:
1.
a second degree amendment has precedence over a first degree
amendment;
2.
a motion to insert and a motion to strike out and insert have precedence
over a motion to strike out; and
3.
a perfecting amendment (and an amendment to it) has precedence over a
substitute amendment (and an amendment to it).
The first of these principles is axiomatic. A second degree amendment is an
amendment to a first degree amendment, and it must be offered while the first degree
amendment is pending—that is, after the first degree amendment has been offered but
before the Senate has disposed of it. The Senate also acts on an amendment to a first
degree amendment before it acts on the first degree amendment itself. So this
principle conforms to Senate practice under both meanings of precedence.
It may be helpful in understanding the second two principles to think about
decisions the Senate needs to make about a text. Changing the text of an amendment,
through a second-degree amendment, could “cure” a problem Senators may have had
with the amendment’s original language. That could obviate the need to strike out the
text entirely.
For example, if a first degree substitute amendment is pending (including an
amendment in the nature of a substitute), an amendment may be offered to perfect the
part of the measure that the substitute proposes to replace. If that perfecting
amendment is offered, the Senate votes on the perfecting amendment to the measure
before it acts on the substitute. By the same token, while a motion to strike out part
of a measure is pending, an amendment may be offered to the text proposed to be
stricken, and the Senate acts on the latter amendment before it votes on the motion
to strike out. Because of these principles of precedence among amendments, a
number of amendments may be pending at the same time (see “The Amendment
Trees”).
Precedence controls what amendments may be offered at any given time, but it
has no effect on the order in which Senators are recognized to offer amendments. If
two Senators wish to offer amendments, the order in which the amendments are
called up for consideration, assuming both are in order, depends on which Senator
seeks recognition first, not on the relative precedence of the two amendments.

CRS-9
The Amendment Trees
Under certain parliamentary circumstances, a number of amendments may be
pending at the same time. The graphic display of the amendments that are in order
at any one time can be called an “amendment tree.” Senators sometimes speak of
“filing the amendment tree,” when talking about offering a series of amendments to
a bill.
Two methods of depicting the amendment trees are presented in this report. First
is the official system used in Riddick’s Senate Procedure. The four diagrams in this
section that are labeled “charts” are taken directly from Riddick and are explained in
considerable detail in its extended discussion of precedents concerning amendments
(pages 24-125).
On the pages facing three of the four charts from Riddick’s Senate Procedure
are “figures” that depict precisely the same situations and possibilities, but using
different visuals.4 The discussion that follows in this section focuses on these figures
as an alternative way of visualizing and understanding the amendment situations that
can develop on the Senate floor. Both depict the same information, however, only
the charts in Riddick’s Senate Procedure have any standing as Senate precedents.
The amendments that are in order at any one time depend on the form and scope
of the first amendment to be proposed, and then on the form, type, and degree of
subsequent amendments. Thus, depending on the form and type of the first
amendment to be offered, as few as two or as many as ten other amendments may be
offered before the Senate must vote on any one of them. But whether all of these
amendments actually will be pending depends on what amendments Senators wish
to offer and the order in which they are recognized to do so.
With an Amendment to Insert Pending
An amendment to insert additional matter in a measure is a first degree
perfecting amendment. While such an amendment to the text of the measure is
pending, no other first degree amendments may be offered (because no other first
degree amendment has precedence over such a perfecting amendment to a measure).
However, the amendment to insert, as a first degree amendment, is open to an
amendment in the second degree, which may be either a perfecting amendment or a
substitute amendment.
Once the second degree amendment is disposed of, another perfecting or
substitute amendment may be proposed to the pending first degree amendment, so
long as a subsequent second degree amendment does not propose only to amend
matter in the first degree amendment that already has been amended. The process of
offering and disposing of second degree amendments may continue until no further
second degree amendments are proposed or until the entire text of the first degree
4There is no companion figure for Riddick’s Chart 2. Amendment to Strike. The tree that can
develop in that situation is depicted in Figure 2.

CRS-10
amendment has been amended. After acting on all second degree amendments, the
Senate proceeds to vote on the first degree amendment, if and as amended.
If a second degree perfecting amendment is offered—that is, an amendment to
alter or perfect the matter proposed to be inserted—no further amendments are in
order until the second degree amendment is disposed of. The second degree
perfecting amendment may propose to delete, insert, or replace matter in the first
degree amendment.

CRS-11
Figure 1.
(x,y) = order of offering, order of voting

CRS-12
Chart 1. Amendment to Insert

A through C = order of offering
1 through 3 = order of voting

CRS-13
The order in which the second degree amendments are offered is decisive.
Because a perfecting amendment has precedence over a substitute amendment
directed to the same text (in this case, the text being the first degree amendment), a
second degree perfecting amendment may be offered before the Senate votes on a
pending second degree substitute. The converse, however, is not true: a second
substitute is not in order while a second degree perfecting amendment is pending.
A second-degree substitute amendment may be offered if the first amendment
in the second degree to be offered is a substitute rather than a perfecting amendment,
or if a second degree substitute is offered when a second degree perfecting
amendment is not already pending. In such a case, while the second degree substitute
is pending to the first degree perfecting amendment, it also is in order for a Senator
to offer a second degree perfecting amendment to the first degree amendment. (See
Chart 1 and Figure 1.)
If second degree perfecting and substitute amendments are pending at the same
time to a first degree amendment to insert, the Senate acts first on the second degree
perfecting amendment and then on the second degree substitute amendment; after
disposing of both second degree amendments, the Senate then acts on the first degree
amendment, if and as amended. This voting order also reflects the principles of
precedence: the perfecting amendment has precedence over the substitute
amendment directed to the same text, and both second degree amendments have
precedence over the first degree amendment.
Thus, when the first amendment is a first degree perfecting amendment, there
may be three amendments pending at the same time: the first degree perfecting
amendment to insert additional matter, a second degree perfecting amendment to that
amendment, and a second degree substitute amendment. After the Senate acts on the
second degree perfecting amendment, Senators may offer other such amendments,
one at a time, and the Senate acts on each of them before acting on the second degree
substitute. By the same token, if the second degree substitute is rejected or tabled,
another such substitute may be proposed and, while it is pending, additional second
degree perfecting amendments may be offered. Neither of the second degree
amendments is open to amendment because third degree amendments are prohibited.
With an Amendment to Strike Out and Insert Pending
When a Senator proposes a first degree amendment in the form of a motion to
strike out and insert and does so when no other such amendment is pending, that
motion to strike out and insert is considered to be a substitute amendment for part of
the measure, and as many as four other amendments may be pending simultaneously,
but only if the amendments are offered in a specific order. (See Chart 3 and Figure
2.)
A first degree substitute for part of the measure is open to an amendment in the
second degree, and the second degree amendment may be either a perfecting
amendment or a substitute amendment. If a second degree perfecting amendment is
offered, no additional amendments to the first degree substitute are in order until the
Senate acts on the second degree amendment. At that time, a second degree

CRS-14
substitute amendment or another second degree perfecting amendment may be
offered while the first degree substitute remains pending.
If a Senator offers a second degree substitute amendment for the pending first
degree substitute, a second degree perfecting amendment also may be offered while
the first and second degree substitute amendments are pending. The second degree
substitute must be offered before any second degree perfecting amendment has been
offered, or after one or more second degree perfecting amendments already have been
offered and acted on. With a second degree substitute amendment pending, the
Senate may consider and act on a series of second degree perfecting amendments
before it votes on the second degree substitute. Should the second degree substitute
be rejected or tabled, another such substitute may be offered and, while it is pending,
additional second degree perfecting amendments may be offered to the first degree
substitute amendment.
To this point, the tree is the same for a first degree perfecting amendment that
would insert language and a first degree substitute amendment. But with the
substitute amendment, further branches of the tree may develop - more amendments
may be offered.
When a substitute amendment for part of the measure is pending, and when a
second degree perfecting amendment or a second degree substitute amendment, or
both, is pending to the first degree substitute, it is also in order for a Senator to offer
a perfecting amendment to the part of the measure that the first degree substitute
would strike out and replace. That is because a perfecting amendment has
precedence over a substitute amendment that is directed to the same text, and the
perfecting amendment also has precedence over an amendment to the substitute. As
a result, first degree perfecting and substitute amendments may be pending to the
same part of the measure at the same time. The perfecting amendment may take the
form of an amendment to insert, to strike out, or to strike out and insert. Moreover,
because the perfecting amendment to the measure is a first degree amendment, it is
open to an amendment in the second degree.
With a substitute amendment pending for part of the measure, therefore, as
many as four additional amendments may be pending simultaneously: (1) a second
degree substitute amendment for the first degree substitute, (2) a second degree
perfecting amendment to the first degree substitute, (3) a first degree perfecting
amendment directed to the same part of the measure that the first degree substitute
would strike out and replace, and (4) a second degree perfecting or substitute
amendment directed to the first degree perfecting amendment.

CRS-15
Figure 2.

(x,y) = order of offering, order of voting

CRS-16
Chart 3. Amendment to Strike and Insert
(Substitute for Section of a Bill)
1st degree
TEXT PROPOSED TO
BE STRICKEN
TEXT PROPOSED TO
BE INSERTED
C
A
1st degree
2nd degree
Perfecting Amendment
Substitute Amendment
2
4
D
B
2nd degree
2nd degree
Substitute or Perfecting
Perfecting Amendment
Amendment
3
1

A through D = order of offering to get all the above amendments
before the Senate
1 through 4 = order of voting
When a substitute amendment for part of the measure is pending, the first degree
perfecting amendment to the measure may be a motion to strike out and insert, but
if so, it proposes to replace less of the measure than the initial motion to strike out
and insert. This is one situation in which a first degree amendment is considered to
be a perfecting amendment even though it might be treated as a substitute amendment
under other circumstances. For example, if the first degree substitute amendment
(the first motion to strike out and insert to be offered) proposes to replace a title of
the measure, the first degree perfecting amendment may propose to replace an entire
section of that title. This latter amendment would be considered a substitute if no
other amendments already were pending, but it is treated as a perfecting amendment
if it is offered while a substitute amendment for a larger part of the measure is
pending.

CRS-17
For all five amendments to be pending simultaneously, they must be offered in
exactly the order in which they were listed earlier. If the various amendments are not
proposed in the specific order noted in Figure 2 and Chart 3, only part of the five-
branched tree may develop.
If part or all of this tree does develop, the order of voting is the reverse of the
order in which the amendments are offered. The Senate acts first on perfecting
amendments to the measure; the first vote occurs on the second degree amendment
(or on a tabling motion), after which the Senate disposes of the first degree perfecting
amendment to the measure (as amended, if amended). The Senate then acts, in order,
on the second degree perfecting amendment to the first degree substitute, the second
substitute for the first degree substitute, and, finally, the first degree substitute (as
amended, if amended).
The five amendments may not be disposed of in any other order (except by
unanimous consent), but the Senate may consider and act on several amendments on
one branch of the amendment tree before it turns to the amendment on the next
branch in order. For example, if all five amendments have been offered, and the
Senate has acted on the first and second degree perfecting amendments to the
measure, Senators may offer additional such amendments, and they must be acted on
before the Senate acts on the second degree amendments to the first degree substitute.
Similarly, once the text of the measure has been perfected, a succession of second
degree perfecting amendments to the first degree substitute may be proposed and
acted on before a vote occurs on the second degree substitute. If the first degree
substitute (as amended, if amended) finally is rejected by the Senate, another first
degree substitute may be offered and the amendment tree may develop once again.
With an Amendment to Strike Out Pending
An amendment (or motion) to strike out is not amendable. However, Senators
may offer amendments to the part of the measure that is proposed to be stricken. A
motion to insert has precedence over a motion to strike out; therefore, an amendment
may be offered to insert new matter in the text against which a motion to strike out
is pending.
After one Senator has moved to strike out some matter from a measure, it is in
order for another Senator to move to strike out only part of that matter. Under these
circumstances, one may think of the first motion to strike out as akin to a substitute
amendment—in that it proposes to substitute nothing for something—and the second
motion to strike out as a perfecting amendment—proposing to strike out less than the
first motion.
Senate precedents permit variations of the amendment trees in Charts 1 and 3
(Figures 1 and 2) to develop after a motion to strike out has been offered and before
the Senate votes on it. Which of these amendments (and how many of them) may be
offered while a motion to strike out is pending depends first on the next amendment
that is called up—that is, whether or not it is an amendment to strike out and insert
that would replace all of the text proposed to be stricken—and then on the other
amendments that Senators seek recognition to offer.

CRS-18
The maximum number of amendments that Senators can offer with a motion to
strike out pending is depicted in Chart 2 of Riddick’s Senate Procedure. These five
amendments to the text proposed to be stricken are the same five amendments shown
in Figure 2, when the pending first degree amendment was to strike out and insert.
In other words, the amendment tree in Figure 2 may develop while a motion to strike
out is pending if the first amendment offered after the motion to strike out is a
complete substitute for the text proposed to be stricken. That motion to strike out
and insert is amendable by a perfecting amendment or a substitute amendment or
both, and, while any or all of these amendments are pending, Senators may propose
perfecting amendments in two degrees to the text that is proposed to be stricken or
entirely replaced.

CRS-19
Chart 2. Amendment to Strike
TEXT PROPOSED TO BE STRICKEN
D
A
1st degree
1st degree
Perfecting Amendment
Substitute Amendment
2
5
E
B
2nd degree
2nd degree
Substitute or Perfecting
Substitute Amendment
Amendment
4
1
C
2nd degree
Perfecting Amendment
3

A through E = order of offering to get all of the above amendments
before the Senate
1 through 5 = order of voting

CRS-20
If the motion to strike out is followed by either a motion to insert or a motion
to strike out and insert that would replace only part of the text proposed to be
stricken, fewer amendments would be in order. Either amendment is considered to
be a perfecting amendment and it may be amended in the second degree. However,
only one second degree amendment may be pending at a time; Senators may not offer
both the second degree perfecting amendment and the second degree substitute
amendment depicted in Figure 1 before either is voted on. Finally, if the motion to
strike out is followed by a motion to strike out less of the text that is at issue, neither
motion to strike out is amendable.
Since Figure 2 may develop with a motion to strike out pending, there can be
as many as three amendments offered to change a section (or any part) of a measure
before the Senate must act on any one of them—a motion to strike out the section,
an amendment to strike out and insert that constitutes a complete substitute for the
section, and an amendment to perfect the section (by inserting, striking out, or
striking out and inserting).
The Senate acts on any and all of the amendments that “come behind” a motion
to strike out before it then acts on that motion to strike out. If a Senator offers an
amendment to perfect the text proposed to be stricken, the Senate votes on that
amendment (as and if amended) and then it proceeds to vote on the motion to strike
out. If that motion is agreed to, the effect is to remove the text at issue, as it has been
perfected. On the other hand, if the Senate agrees to a complete substitute for the text
proposed to be stricken, the motion to strike out falls automatically without being
voted on. The entire text in question having been amended, the motion to strike out
would constitute an attempt to re-amend that text and, therefore, is no longer in order.
It should be noted that it would be highly unusual for all of the amendments
depicted in Figure 2 to be proposed after an amendment to strike out is offered. Also,
the opportunity to perfect or substitute for the text that a motion to strike out
proposes to eliminate is only available when the motion to strike out is directed to a
part of the text of a measure or to a part of a complete substitute for the text of the
measure (which is treated as an original question for purposes of amendment). If a
Senator offers a second degree perfecting amendment that proposes to strike out part
of a first degree amendment, that part of the first degree amendment may not be
perfected while the motion to strike out is pending.
With an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Pending
The most complex amendment tree can develop when a Senator or Senate
committee proposes an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the full text of the
measure—that is, a complete substitute that proposes to strike out all after the
enacting (or resolving) clause of the measure and replace it with a completely
different text. Individual Senators do not offer such amendments very often, but it
is a common practice for Senate committees to report a House or Senate measure
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute that preserves the original number
of the bill or resolution while proposing to replace its entire text.

CRS-21
Figure 3.
(x,y) = order of offering, order of voting

CRS-22
Chart 4.
AMENDMENT TO STRIKE AND INSERT
(SUBSTITUTE FOR BILL)
TEXT OF SUBSTITUTE TO BE
TEXT OF BILL PROPOSED TO BE
INSERTED (Original question
STRICKEN (original question for
for purpose of amendment)
purpose of amendment)
7 (11)
E
A
1st degree
1st degree
Perfecting Amendment
Substitute Amendment
I
2
6 (10)
F
B
2nd degree
2nd degree
Perfecting or Substitute
Perfecting or Substitute
J
1
5 (9)
C
1st degree
Perfecting Amendment
4 (8)
ONLY when C
is a simple
D
motion to strike
2nd degree
Perfecting or Substitute
3
TEXT OF SECTION OF SUBSTITUTE PROPOSED TO BE STRICKEN
G
D
1st degree
1st degree
Substitute Amendment
Perfecting Amendment
(7)
(4)
H
E
2nd degree
2nd degree
Perfecting or Substitute
Substitute
(3)
(6)
F
2nd degree
Perfecting Amendment
(5)

A through J = order of offering to have all amendments pending at the same time
1 through 11 = order of voting
Circled and parenthetical material apply only when C is a motion to strike

CRS-23
Under the precedents of the Senate, such an amendment is treated as an original
question for purposes of amendment under either of two circumstances: (1) when it
is a reported committee amendment that becomes pending automatically when the
measure itself is called up, or (2) when an individual Senator offers it at a time that
no other amendment of any kind is pending.
As an original question for purposes of amendment, such a complete substitute
is not considered to be a first degree amendment that may only be amended in one
further degree. Instead, both the amendment in the nature of a substitute and the text
of the measure itself may be amended in two degrees, creating the possibility of
seven or even eleven amendments pending simultaneously. (See Figure 3 and Chart
4.)
To repeat, when an amendment in the nature of a substitute is considered as an
original question, it is amendable in two degrees. A Senator may propose a first
degree amendment that is a substitute for the amendment in the nature of the
substitute for the measure; the effect of such an amendment is to propose a third
version of the text of the bill or resolution. It is then in order also to offer a first
degree perfecting amendment to the text of the substitute for the measure that the first
degree substitute would replace. Furthermore, both the first degree substitute
amendment and the first degree perfecting amendment are open to amendments in
the second degree.
Only one second degree amendment may be pending at a time to each of the first
degree amendments. Second degree perfecting and substitute amendments may not
be pending at the same time to either the first degree perfecting amendment or the
first degree substitute amendment.
Even when any or all of these amendments are pending to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute, the text of the measure itself is amendable in two degrees. Any
first degree amendment to the measure is considered to be a perfecting amendment,
even though it might be a substitute under other circumstances, because it must affect
less of the measure than the pending amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Furthermore, this perfecting amendment to the text of the measure may be amended
by either a perfecting amendment or a substitute amendment in the second degree,
but second degree perfecting and substitute amendments may not both be pending
simultaneously.
Once a perfecting amendment is offered to the text of the measure, no further
amendments are in order to the amendment in the nature of a substitute until the
Senate disposes of that perfecting amendment and any amendment proposed to it.
Thus, as many as seven amendments may be pending at the same time, but only
if offered in the following order:
1)
the amendment in the nature of a substitute, considered to be an original
question for purposes of amendment;
2)
the first degree substitute for the text of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute;

CRS-24
3)
the second degree perfecting or substitute amendment directed to the first
degree substitute;
4)
the first degree perfecting amendment to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute;
5)
the second degree perfecting or substitute amendment directed to the
perfecting amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute;
6)
the first degree perfecting amendment to the text of the measure; and
7)
the second degree perfecting or substitute amendment directed to the first
degree perfecting amendment to the measure.
The order in which these amendments must be offered if they are all to be
pending is dictated by their relative precedence, and primarily by the principle that
a perfecting amendment (and an amendment to it) has precedence over a substitute
amendment (and an amendment to it). This principle applies to the amendments
depicted in Figure 3, whether the substitute in question is the amendment in the
nature of a substitute or the first degree substitute for that amendment.
Should all seven amendments be pending simultaneously, the order for acting
on them is the reverse of the order for offering them. First, the Senate perfects the
original text of the measure, considering and acting on any second degree
amendments, one at a time, before acting on the first degree amendment, if and as
amended. Other perfecting amendments to the measure then may be offered,
amended, and acted on. Second, the Senate disposes of the perfecting amendments
(and amendments to them) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Third, the
Senate turns to the amendment to the first degree substitute, and then to the first
degree substitute as it may have been amended.
Restrictions on Amendments
In General
In addition to the limitations on the amending process that already have been
noted—for example, the general prohibition against third degree amendments—the
Senate imposes a number of other restrictions on the amendments that its members
may offer. Several of these restrictions are a matter of precedent and apply to all
amendments. It is not in order, for instance, to offer an amendment that is
substantially the same as an amendment that already has been offered and disposed
of unfavorably (for example, an amendment that has been tabled). However, a
Senator may offer part of a previously rejected or tabled amendment as a separate
amendment, and an amendment that has been rejected or tabled may be re-offered as
part of a later amendment that proposes other changes as well. An amendment that
has been offered and withdrawn may be offered again without being substantially
changed, except under cloture (see “Modification, Withdrawal and Division of
Amendments”).
Under some circumstances, the substance of an amendment that has been
offered and agreed to may be proposed a second time. For example, if the Senate has
agreed to an amendment to a substitute for part or all of the measure, an amendment

CRS-25
with the same effect also may be proposed to the text of the measure that the
substitute would replace. In this way, the effect of the amendment is certain to
survive, regardless of the fate of the substitute.
Once the text of a measure or first degree amendment has been amended, it is
not in order to propose an amendment that simply would re-amend the text already
amended (with certain limited exceptions made by the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Act). However, a Senator may offer a second amendment that takes
a “bigger bite” out of the measure or first degree amendment—that is, an amendment
that re-amends text that already has been amended, but does so in the process of
proposing a substantive change in a larger part of the text. For example, after the
Senate has adopted an amendment that changes provisions within a section of a
measure, a substitute for the whole section is in order. Similarly, after substitutes
have been adopted for several sections of a title, a Senator may move to strike out the
entire title. But once the Senate agrees to an amendment for the entire text of a
measure (or first degree amendment), no further amendments to that text are in order
because there is no part of the measure (or first degree amendment) that has not
already been amended.
An amendment that would amend a measure in several different places is
actually a series of amendments that may be considered en bloc without objection or
by unanimous consent.
A second degree amendment should affect the same portion of the measure as
the first degree amendment to which it is offered. By the same token, while a
substitute is pending for part of a measure, any perfecting amendment to the measure
should deal with the same part of the measure that the substitute would replace.
Germaneness and Relevancy
Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate require that first degree
amendments be germane only when offered to general appropriations measures. And
Rule XXI lists the same requirement when cloture has been invoked. Some statutes
also impose a germaneness requirement—for example, Section 305(b) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act prohibits non-germane amendments to
concurrent budget resolutions. Amendments to budget reconciliation bills also must
be germane. Under all other circumstances, there is no rule limiting the subjects of
amendments.
Senators may impose a germaneness requirement on themselves as part of
unanimous consent agreements. An agreement that limits and divides control of the
time for debating a measure and all amendments thereto may include an additional
provision that “no amendment that is not germane to the provisions of the said bill
shall be received.” Senators who wish to protect their right to offer non-germane
amendments may object to the inclusion of the germaneness provision or request that
their proposed amendments be specifically exempted under the terms of the
agreement.
Alternatively, the Senate usually includes in unanimous consent agreements the
requirement that amendments to a specific bill must be relevant. To be relevant, an

CRS-26
amendment must not introduce a subject that the bill does not already address. It is
possible for an amendment to be relevant but not germane–for example, if the
amendment were to expand the applicability of the bill or the authority it grants. The
parliamentarian advises the presiding officer and other Senators as to whether
amendments qualify as germane or relevant.
On General Appropriations Measures
The Senate imposes certain special restrictions on the amendments that may be
offered to general appropriations measures. A general appropriations bill is a
measure that appropriates funds for more than a single, specific purpose or program.
The regular annual appropriations bills, some supplemental and deficiency
appropriations bills and joint resolutions making continuing appropriations have
generally been held by the Senate to be general appropriations bills.
Rule XVI of the Senate is devoted to the subject of appropriations measures and
amendments to them. Because of the longstanding practice that general
appropriations are enacted into law as House bills, much of this rule is framed in
terms of Senate amendments to House-passed appropriations bills. Recently,
however, initial Senate consideration of appropriations bills has frequently been in
the form of Senate bills. The text of a Senate appropriations bill that the Senate has
debated and amended ultimately is adopted as an amendment in the nature of a
substitute for the text of the companion House bill when the Senate receives it. This
has implications for the entire process.5
Paragraph 8 of Rule XVI states that no general appropriations bill, or
amendment to such a bill, shall be considered if it would reappropriate unexpended
balances of appropriations—that is, if it would continue the availability of
appropriations that otherwise would lapse—unless “in continuation of appropriations
for public works on which work has commenced.” The rationale underlying this
prohibition is that money should be appropriated anew each year, so that Congress
can accurately gauge the annual costs of federal activities. Paragraph 5 of the same
rule prohibits amendments to general appropriations bills that would provide funds
for a private claim unless the proposed amendment would carry out the provisions
of some existing law or treaty.
Generally, the provisions of Rule XVI are designed to preserve a separation
between the process of appropriating funds and the process of enacting substantive
legislation, including authorizations and re-authorizations. However, each of the
restrictions in the rule is modified by exceptions, derived either from the rule itself
or from precedents. In some respects, these exceptions are so major that the Senate
cannot be said to enforce a strict separation between appropriations on the one hand
and authorizations and other substantive legislation on the other. Certainly the
restrictions on amendments to general appropriations measures are not nearly as
severe in the Senate as they are in the House.
5CRS Report 97-684, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction,
by Sandy Streeter.

CRS-27
Paragraphs 1, 3, and 7 of Rule XVI address the relationship between
authorizations and appropriations. Paragraphs 2, 4, and 6 restrict the inclusion of
other legislative provisions in general appropriations measures.
Paragraph 1 deals with appropriations amendments, whether recommended by
a Senate committee or offered by a Senator in his or her individual capacity. Under
the terms of this paragraph, no amendment may propose to add or increase an item
of appropriation unless it meets one of four conditions. Such an amendment is in
order (1) if it already has been authorized by law or treaty, (2) if it would carry out
the provisions of a bill or joint resolution already passed by the Senate during that
session, even if the measure has not yet been enacted into law, (3) if it is
recommended by the Appropriations Committee or a Senate committee with
legislative jurisdiction over the subject of the amendment, or (4) if the appropriation
amendment is “proposed in pursuance of an estimate submitted in accordance with
law.”
The Senate may consider an amendment making an unauthorized appropriation
if the authorization has passed the Senate alone or if the appropriation is
recommended by the Committee on Appropriations. The Appropriations Committee
is free to propose any appropriation it wishes, whether authorized or not. The
existence of a statutory authorization is merely one of the conditions, and not a
necessary one, by which an appropriation amendment is eligible for consideration in
the Senate.
Paragraph 3 requires that, when an amendment to add or increase an
appropriation is offered at the direction of any other Senate committee, the
amendment is to be referred to the Appropriations Committee at least one day before
it is offered on the floor. This procedure, which very rarely is invoked, is designed
to give the Appropriations Committee an opportunity to examine the proposed
amendment but not to prevent the Senate from considering it. Paragraph 3 also
provides that the appropriation proposed in any such amendment may not be
increased by a further amendment on the Senate floor.
Paragraph 7 of the rule requires that the reports of the Appropriations
Committee on general appropriations bills must indicate all amendments it is
proposing for appropriations that do not have prior Senate or statutory authorization.
Other provisions of Rule XVI address the inclusion of legislative amendments
in general appropriations measures. Paragraph 2 deals with amendments
recommended by the Appropriations Committee; legislative amendments proposed
by other committees or individual Senators are the subject of paragraph 4.
Paragraph 2 prohibits the Appropriations Committee from reporting an
appropriations measure “containing amendments proposing new or general
legislation.” However, the rule implicitly acknowledges that limitation amendments
are in order —amendments that impose some restrictions on how appropriations may
be expended without, for example, repealing or amending existing statutory
authorities. No such limitation amendment is in order under paragraph 2 if its effect
is dependent on some contingency, such as the subsequent enactment of an unrelated
measure.

CRS-28
Paragraph 4 imposes similar restrictions on amendments to general
appropriations bills other than those recommended by the Appropriations Committee.
No such amendment may propose general legislation except in the form of a
limitation, and no limitation may be tied to the occurrence of a contingency. In
addition, this paragraph imposes a germaneness requirement on all amendments to
general appropriations bills, even amendments recommended by the Appropriations
Committee.
Although the precedents cited in Riddick’s Senate Procedure do not provide
clear and explicit criteria for determining in all cases whether a particular limitation
amendment is in order, paragraph 6 of Rule XVI directs that points of order against
questionable limitations should be sustained. However, the Senate enjoys somewhat
greater discretion when it amends a limitation that already has been passed by the
House. If the House includes a limitation (or some other legislative provision) in a
general appropriations bill, the limitation is subject to germane amendments in the
Senate, even if the amendments would have the effect of changing existing law. If
the House of Representatives “opens the door” by incorporating legislation in a
general appropriations bill, the Senate allows itself the opportunity to walk through
that door and perfect or replace the House’s language. This opportunity does not exist
if the Senate acts on a Senate version of an appropriations bill.
The Senate’s germaneness requirement and the prohibition against legislative
amendments apply only to general appropriations measures. Thus, amendments to
special appropriations bills, which appropriate funds for only one agency, need not
be germane and may be legislative in character and effect. Moreover, Senate rules
and precedents do not prohibit legislative measures from including appropriations,
but this asymmetry is more apparent than real because the House may well refuse to
consider an appropriation originating in the Senate. Also, special appropriations bills
are rarely used.
Points of Order Against Amendments
Under regular Senate procedure, a Senator who has the floor can make a point
of order against an amendment at any time after the amendment is offered but before
the Senate begins to act on it. When an amendment is being considered under a
unanimous consent agreement limiting debate, no point of order may be made against
the amendment until at least all of the proponent’s time for debating it has expired
or has been yielded back. In either case, a point of order may not be made against
only part of an amendment; if a point of order is sustained against any portion of an
amendment, the entire amendment is tainted and is out of order. However, the
Senator offering an amendment may modify it even while a point of order is pending
against it, so long as the Senate has not already taken some action on the amendment
(see “Modification, Withdrawal and Division of Amendments”).
Rule XX provides that most questions of order are to be decided by the
Presiding Officer, but he or she may submit any question of order directly to the
Senate instead. Some questions of order must be decided by a vote of the Senate
itself, not by the presiding officer; for example, only the Senate as a whole may

CRS-29
decide whether a measure or amendment is out of order on the ground that it is
unconstitutional. Similarly, Rule XVI requires that questions of germaneness raised
against proposed amendments to general appropriations bills shall be submitted
directly to the Senate and decided without debate.
When a point of order is to be decided by the presiding officer, Senators have
no right to debate it, although the chair may entertain as much or as little debate as
he or she chooses. Points of order to be decided by the Senate generally are
debatable unless a rule provides otherwise, as in the case of questions of germaneness
on general appropriations bills. Time agreements on measures usually limit debate
relating to points of order, and questions of order are not debatable when the Senate
is operating under cloture.
In most cases, a proposed amendment may be ruled out of order without
affecting the status of the measure to which it is offered. For example, if an
amendment to add or increase appropriations on a general appropriations bill is ruled
out of order, the Senate proceeds to consider other amendments to the bill. However,
if the Appropriations Committee proposes an amendment to add new or general
legislation to such a measure, a point of order may be made against the bill itself; if
the point of order is sustained, the bill is recommitted to the committee. If a point of
order is made against any amendment to a general appropriations bill on the ground
that it is legislative in character, a Senator may raise the question of germaneness
before the point of order is decided. If the Senate votes that the amendment is
germane, the point of order falls automatically; the presiding officer does not rule on
it.
The most frequent bases for points of order against amendments are those
already mentioned: the germaneness or relevancy requirement when in force, and the
restrictions on amendments to general appropriations bills under Rule XVI. In
addition, points of order may be made against amendments for violating one of
several provisions of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of , as
amended. The points of order that can be made in the Senate under these
increasingly complex procedures are identified and described in CRS Report 97-865,
Points of Order in the Congressional Budget Process, by James V. Saturno.
If the measure itself would violate a provision of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Act, the Senate may adopt a resolution waiving that provision. Such
a resolution protects consideration of the measure, but it does not protect
amendments, including committee amendments, that may be offered to it. Under
Section 904(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act, an amendment
(or provision of a measure) can be protected against certain point of orders if a
majority of the Senate agrees to a motion to waive the applicable provision of the
Act. Section 904(c) requires a vote of three-fifths of the entire Senate (not just the
Senators present and voting) to waive other Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Act and related statutory provisions.
Possible points of order against amendments also may be waived by unanimous
consent agreements. If an agreement under which a measure is considered provides
for a specific amendment, that amendment is protected against the general

CRS-30
requirement imposed by the agreement that all amendments to the measure must be
germane or relevant.
Any Senator may appeal the ruling of the presiding officer on a point of order,
and such appeals are not unusual in the Senate. When a ruling is appealed, the
Senate votes on whether it will sustain the ruling of the chair. There are no
constraints, of course, on the criteria that Senators may apply in deciding how to vote
on appeals.
Modification, Withdrawal, and Division of
Amendments
Modification of Amendments
Under certain conditions, an amendment may be modified—that is, its text may
be changed without the Senate acting on a second degree amendment to it.
Except under cloture, a Senator who has offered an amendment may modify it,
without unanimous consent, at any time before the Senate takes some action on the
amendment. Under Senate precedents, the Senate has taken action for this purpose
if (1) the yeas and nays have been ordered on the amendment, (2) the Senate has
entered into a unanimous consent agreement limiting debate on that specific
amendment, (3) the Senate has amended the amendment, or (4) the amendment itself
has been agreed to, rejected, or tabled. An amendment may be modified even while
a tabling motion or a point of order against the amendment is pending.
After the Senate has taken some action on an amendment, it may be modified
only by unanimous consent. However, a Senator who has lost the right to modify his
or her own amendment has another recourse; that Senator may offer an amendment
to his or her own amendment instead. This is the only condition under which a
Senator may propose to amend his or her own amendment.
One Senator may modify an amendment offered by another Senator only by
unanimous consent, and committee amendments may be modified only at the
direction of the committee or by unanimous consent.
Withdrawal of Amendments
Even under cloture, a Senator who has offered an amendment may withdraw it
from consideration, without unanimous consent, unless the Senate already has taken
some action on it in one of the four ways listed above. The amendment may be
withdrawn even while a point of order is pending against it. But after the Senate has
taken some action on an amendment, it may be withdrawn only by unanimous
consent. Withdrawing a first degree amendment also eliminates any second degree
amendment that may be pending to it, even if the yeas and nays have been ordered
on the second degree amendment. An amendment that has been withdrawn may be
re-offered at a later time, except under cloture.

CRS-31
One Senator may withdraw another Senator’s amendment only by unanimous
consent, and committee amendments may be withdrawn only by unanimous consent
or at the direction of the committee.
Division of Amendments
Rule XV permits any Senator to demand that an amendment containing several
propositions be divided into its component parts. The presiding officer determines,
subject to appeal to the Senate, whether an amendment is susceptible to
division—that is, whether its parts can stand independently. When an amendment
is divided, each part is considered as if it were a separate amendment. After the
Senate disposes of one part (division), the next division is placed automatically
before the Senate for consideration.
An amendment may be divided even after the yeas and nays have been ordered
on it. In such a case, a rollcall vote occurs on each part unless the order for the yeas
and nays is vitiated by unanimous consent. Amendments considered en bloc may be
divided only by unanimous consent.
Rule XVIII also includes an important exception: motions to strike out and
insert are not divisible. Consequently, the only amendments that typically are subject
to demands for division are amendments to add new provisions to a measure or
pending amendment.
Voting on Amendments
The Senate may act on an amendment either by voting on it directly or by voting
on a motion to table the amendment. If an amendment is tabled, it is disposed of
adversely and permanently (unless the Senate reconsiders the vote on the tabling
motion). Tabling an amendment does not affect the status of the measure to which
it was offered. Except under cloture or the provisions of certain rule-making statutes
or by unanimous consent, the Senate may not vote on an amendment if there are
Senators seeking recognition to debate it further (subject to the two-speech limit of
Rule XIX). Under these circumstances, the motion to table offers two advantages:
it may be offered by a Senator who has the floor at any time after debate on the
amendment has begun, and the motion is not debatable. So a tabling motion can be
used to end debate on an amendment, but only if the Senate is prepared to reject the
amendment. If a tabling motion is made and defeated, debate on the amendment may
resume. Another motion to table the same amendment may not be made unless the
amendment has been changed significantly or a substantial period of time has elapsed
(in practice, normally three days).
Under a unanimous consent agreement that limits and divides control of the time
for debating an amendment, a motion to table is not in order until at least all the
proponent’s time on the amendment has expired or has been yielded back, at which
point the Senate may be ready to vote on the amendment itself. As a result, tabling
motions are somewhat less frequent and useful when amendments are being
considered under the terms of unanimous consent agreements.

CRS-32
In practice, the Senate usually votes on amendments and motions to table
amendments either by voice vote or by rollcall vote. Division votes occur
infrequently. The Constitution provides that a rollcall vote may be demanded by one-
fifth of the Senators present, a quorum being present. Since a quorum of the Senate
is 51 Senators, the minimum number required for demanding a rollcall is 11 (unless
the number of Senators actually present was ascertained shortly before the demand).
The yeas and nays may be demanded on an amendment at any time that it is
pending before the Senate, but not before it is offered nor while an amendment that
has precedence is pending (except by unanimous consent). A rollcall vote may be
demanded even after a voice or division vote has occurred, but before the result has
been announced. In practice, however, rollcall votes normally are ordered while
debate on the amendment is still in progress. The yeas and nays must be ordered
separately on a tabling motion, even if a rollcall already has been ordered on the
amendment proposed to be tabled. The yeas and nays on a measure may be ordered
at any time it is before the Senate, even while an amendment to the measure is
pending.
The Senate acts on all amendments and tabling motions by majority vote of the
Senators present and voting, even if offered during consideration of a measure or
matter such as a constitutional amendment that requires a two-thirds vote for final
action. The Constitution requires that a quorum (a majority of all Senators) must be
present for the Senate to conduct business. But the Senate assumes that a quorum
always is present unless a majority of Senators fail to respond to a quorum call or fail
to participate in a rollcall vote. Consequently, a voice or division vote in which only
a few Senators participate is still valid unless challenged.
Amendments Under Cloture
A decision by the Senate to invoke cloture, under the terms of Rule XXII,
affects the amending process in a number of important respects.
First, the cloture rule imposes a time limit on the amending process. After the
Senate has considered a matter under cloture for a total of 30 hours, no further
amendments may be called up for consideration and the Senate proceeds to vote on
any pending amendments and then on the matter on which cloture was invoked. (The
thirty hours for consideration may be increased by a three-fifths vote of all Senators.)
Second, no Senator may offer more than two amendments until every other
Senator has had an opportunity to offer two amendments. This provision is intended
to give every Senator a chance to offer some amendments during the 30 hours of
consideration under cloture.
Third, to be in order under cloture, amendments must be submitted in writing
to the Journal clerk by certain deadlines before the Senate votes on the cloture
motion. Specifically, any first degree amendment must be submitted by 1:00 P.M.
on the day after the cloture motion is filed; any second degree amendment must be
received at least one hour before the Senate begins to vote on the cloture motion.

CRS-33
The difference between these two deadlines is designed to give all Senators roughly
one day to examine the first degree amendments that may be proposed and to frame
any second degree amendments they may wish to offer.
Fourth, after cloture is invoked, all amendments must be germane to the matter
under consideration. The presiding officer also is empowered in extreme
circumstances to rule amendments out of order as being dilatory.
Fifth, the reading of an amendment is dispensed with automatically, not by
unanimous consent, if it has been reproduced and available for at least 24 hours.
Sixth, unanimous consent is required to modify amendments, except for changes
in page and line numbers that may be required if the matter under consideration is
reprinted after cloture is invoked.
Finally, once an amendment has been submitted in writing, it may be called up
by any Senator. Thus, any Senator may call up any amendment that is eligible for
consideration under cloture. But once an amendment has been withdrawn under
cloture, it may not be re-offered. Consequently, if one Senator offers and withdraws
an amendment, another Senator may not bring the same amendment back before the
Senate for a vote unless he or she also had submitted it in writing before cloture was
invoked.