[106th Congress House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 106-320]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrulest-73]
[Page 652-702]
[[Page 652]]
Rule XVI
motions and amendments
Motions
1. <> Every motion entertained by the Speaker shall be reduced to
writing on the demand of a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner
and, unless it is withdrawn the same day, shall be entered on the
Journal with the name of the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner
offering it. A dilatory motion may not be entertained by the Speaker.
The first sentence of this clause was made up in 1880 of old rules
adopted in 1789 and 1806 (V, 5300). The last sentence of this clause
(former clause 10 of rule XVI) was adopted in 1890 (V, 5706) to make
permanent a principle already enunciated in a ruling of the Speaker, who
had declared that the ``object of a parliamentary body is action, and
not stoppage of action'' (V, 5713). When the House recodified its rules,
it consolidated clause 1 and former clause 10 of rule XVI under this
clause (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).
Because of this provision it has been held not in order to amend or
strike out a Journal entry setting forth a motion exactly as made (IV,
2783, 2789). A motion not entertained is not entered on the Journal (IV,
2813, 2844-2846). See Sec. 71, supra, for discussion of Journal entries.
Any Member may demand that a motion be reduced to writing and in the
proper form, including the motion to adjourn (Sept. 27, 1993, p. 22608;
Jan. 4, 1995, p. 509), and the demand may be initiated by the Chair
(July 24, 1986, p. 17641). Consistent with this clause, the Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole requires that each amendment be reduced to
writing (July 22, 1994, p. 17617). Although a motion to recommit is
properly presented in writing, no rule requires that the proponent
distribute copies on the floor (June 28, 2000. p.----).
The <> Speaker has declined to
entertain debate or appeal on a question as to the dilatoriness of a
motion, as to do so would be to nullify the rule (V, 5731); but has
recognized that the authority conferred by the rule should not be
exercised until the object of the dilatory motion ``becomes apparent to
the House'' (V, 5713-5714). For example, the Chair has held that a
virtually consecutive invocation of former rule XXX (current clause 6 of
rule XVII), resulting in a second pair of votes on use of a chart and on
reconsideration
[[Page 653]]
thereof, was not dilatory under this provision (or former clause 4(b) of
rule XI (current clause 6(b) of rule XIII)) (July 31, 1996, p. 20700).
Usually, but not always, the Speaker awaits a point of order from the
floor before acting (V, 5715-5722). The rule has been applied to the
motions to adjourn (V, 5721, 5731-5733; VIII, 2796, 2813), to reconsider
(V, 5735; VIII, 2797, 2815, 2822), to fix the time of five-minute debate
in Committee of the Whole (V, 5734; VIII, 2817), and to lay on the table
(VIII, 2816); and to the question of consideration (V, 5731-5733). The
point of ``no quorum'' has also been ruled out (V, 5724-5730; VIII,
2801, 2808), and former clause 6 of rule XV (current clause 7 of rule
XX), as adopted in the 93d Congress and as amended in the 95th Congress
prevents the making of a point of no quorum under certain circumstances.
A demand for tellers has been held dilatory (V, 5735, 5736; VIII, 2436,
2818-2821); but the constitutional right of the Member to demand the
yeas and nays may not be overruled (V, 5737; VIII, 3107). (For ruling by
Speaker Gillett construing dilatory motions, see VIII, 2804.) See also
Sec. 857, supra, for discussion of dilatory motions pending
consideration of Rules Committee report, and Sec. Sec. 857-858, supra,
for rule prohibiting offering of dilatory amendments printed in the
Record.
Withdrawal
2. <> When a motion
is entertained, the Speaker shall state it or cause it to be read aloud
by the Clerk before it is debated. The motion then shall be in the
possession of the House but may be withdrawn at any time before a
decision or amendment thereon.
The provisions of this clause were adopted first in 1789. At that time
a second was required for every motion, but in practice this requirement
became obsolete very early, and it was dropped from the rule in 1880 (V,
5304). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
----).
The House always insists that the motion shall be stated or read
before debate shall begin (V, 4983) and the Clerk's reading may be
dispensed with only by unanimous consent (Dec. 15, 1975, p. 40671; see
also Sec. 432, supra). It is the duty of the Speaker to put a motion in
order under the rules and practice without passing on its constitutional
effect (IV, 3550; VIII, 2225, 3031, 3071, 3427). In a case wherein a
clerk presiding during organization of the House declined to put a
question, a Member-elect put the question from the floor (I, 67).
Under certain circumstances, a Member may make a double motion (V,
5637).
[[Page 654]]
Even <> after
the affirmative side has been taken on a division the withdrawal of a
motion has been permitted (V, 5348), also after a viva voce vote and the
ordering and appointment of tellers (V, 5349). While the House was
dividing on a second of the previous question (this second is no longer
required) on a motion to refer a resolution, the Member was permitted to
withdraw the resolution (V, 5350); also a motion was once withdrawn
after the previous question had been ordered on an appeal from a
decision on a point of order as to the motion (V, 5356). A motion to
suspend the rules could be withdrawn at any time before a second was
ordered (V, 6844; VIII, 3405, 3419), even on another suspension day (V,
6844) but not after a second was ordered, except by unanimous consent
(VIII, 3420); but where a second is not required on a motion to suspend
the rules under former clause 2 of rule XXVII (current clause 1 of rule
XV), the motion may be withdrawn at any time before action is taken
thereon (July 27, 1981, p. 17563). A motion may be withdrawn although an
amendment may have been offered and be pending (V, 5347; VI, 373; VIII,
2639), and in the House an amendment, whether simple or in the nature of
a substitute, may be withdrawn at any time before an amendment is
adopted thereto or decision is had thereon (VI, 587; VIII, 2332, 2764);
and the same right to withdraw an amendment exists in the House as in
Committee of the Whole (IV, 4935; June 26, 1973, p. 21315) and in
standing committees where general procedures in the House as in the
Committee of the Whole apply (Sec. 427, supra); but unanimous consent to
withdraw an amendment is required in Committee of the Whole (V, 5221,
5753; VI, 570; VIII, 2465, 2859, 3405), unless withdrawal authority was
conferred by the House (July 22, 1999, p. ----). Withdrawal of a pending
resolution is not in order when the absence of a quorum has been
announced by the Chair (Oct. 14, 1970, pp. 36665-69). A motion that the
House resolve into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a
bill may be withdrawn pending a point of order against consideration of
the bill, and if the motion is withdrawn the Chair is not obligated to
rule on the point of order (VIII, 3405; Dec. 3, 1979, p. 34385). A
motion to instruct conferees may be withdrawn at any time before a
decision thereon (Oct. 31, 2000, p. ----), as may a contempt resolution
(Oct. 27, 2000, p. ----). Unanimous consent is not required to withdraw
a pending unanimous-consent request (Speaker O'Neill, Dec. 16, 1985, p.
36575).
A decision which prevents withdrawal may consist of the ordering of
the yeas and nays (V, 5353), either directly on the motion or on a
motion to lay it on the table (V, 5354), the ordering of the previous
question (V, 5355; June 29, 1995, p. 17967), or the demand therefor (V,
5489), or the refusal to lay on the table (V, 5351, 5352; VIII, 2640).
Where the Speaker has put the question on adoption of a resolution to a
voice vote without the ordering of the previous question, and the yeas
and nays have not been ordered, the resolution may be withdrawn (V,
5349; Feb. 26, 1985, p. 3501). A privileged resolution called up in the
House is debated under
[[Page 655]]
the hour rule; and the Member calling up such a resolution is recognized
for an hour notwithstanding the fact that the resolution has been
previously considered, debated, and then withdrawn before action thereon
(Apr. 8, 1964, pp. 7303-08).
Where proceedings are postponed on a motion for the previous question
pending a point of no quorum on a voice vote thereon (pursuant to former
clause 5 of rule I (current clause 8 of rule XX)), the manager may
withdraw the motion when it is again before the House as unfinished
business. See proceedings of July 24, 1989, where the motion for the
previous question was withdrawn and an amendment was offered to a
special order (p. 15818).
A Member having the right to withdraw a motion before a decision
thereon has the resulting power to modify the motion (V, 5358; Oct. 23,
1990, p. 32667), and a Member having the right to withdraw a motion to
instruct conferees before a decision thereon has the resulting power to
modify the motion by offering a different motion at the same stage of
proceedings (July 14, 1993, p. 15661). A motion being withdrawn, all
proceedings on an appeal arising from a point of order related to it
fell thereby (V, 5356).
Question of consideration
3. <> When a motion or
proposition is entertained, the question, ``Will the House now consider
it?'' may not be put unless demanded by a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner.
The question of consideration is an outgrowth of the practice of the
House, and was in use as early as 1808. The rule was adopted in 1817 in
order to limit its use. Clerical and stylistic changes were effected
when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----). It is the means by which the House protects
itself from business that it does not wish to consider (V, 4936; VIII,
2436). The refusal to consider does not amount to the rejection of a
bill or prevent its being brought before the House again (V, 4940), and
an affirmative vote does not prevent the question of consideration from
being raised on a subsequent day when the bill is again called up as
unfinished business (VIII, 2438). It has once been held that a question
of privilege which the House has refused to consider may be brought up
again on the same day (V, 4942). The question of consideration is not
debatable (VIII, 2447), and thus not subject to the motion to lay on the
table (Oct. 4, 1994, p. 27643). See also clause 6 of rule XIV (Sec. 884,
supra), which provides that questions relating to the priority of
business are not debatable.
[[Page 656]]
A <> Member
may demand the question of consideration, although the Member in charge
of the bill may claim the floor for debate (V, 4944, 4945; VI, 404); but
after debate has begun the demand may not be made (V, 4937-4939). It has
been admitted, however, after the making of a motion to lay on the table
(V, 4943). The demand for the question of consideration may not be
prevented by a motion for the previous question (V, 5478), but after the
previous question is ordered it may not be demanded (V, 4965, 4966),
even on another day, unless other business has intervened (V, 4967,
4968). The question of consideration being pending, a motion to refer is
not in order (V, 5554).
The intervention of an adjournment does not destroy the right to raise
the question of consideration (V, 4946), but this right did not hold
good in a case where the yeas and nays had been ordered and the House
had adjourned pending the failure of a quorum on the roll call (V,
4949). A question of consideration undisposed of at an adjournment does
not recur as unfinished business on a succeeding day (V, 4947, 4948). It
is not in order to reconsider the vote whereby the House refuses to
consider a bill (V, 5626, 5627), although it is in order to reconsider
an affirmative vote on the question of consideration (Oct. 4, 1994, p.
27644).
The <> question of consideration may be demanded against a
matter of the highest privilege, such as the right of a Member to his
seat (V, 4941), a question involving the privilege of the House (VI,
560), against the motion to reconsider (VIII, 2437), but not against a
bill returned with the President's objection (V, 4960, 4970). It may not
be raised against a proposition before the House for reference merely,
as a petition (V, 4964). It may not be demanded against a class of
business in order under a special order or rule, but may be demanded
against each bill individually (IV, 3308, 3309; V, 4958, 4959). It may
be raised against a bill that has been made a special order (IV, 3175;
V, 4953-4957), unless the order provides for immediate consideration (V,
4960) or provides for the Speaker's declaration that the House resolve
into the Committee of the Whole under clause 2 of rule XVIII. The
question may be raised against a bill on the Union Calendar on Calendar
Wednesday before resolving into the Committee of the Whole even after
one Wednesday has been devoted to it (VIII, 2447); but it may not be
raised against a report from the Committee on Rules relating to the
order of considering individual bills (V, 4961-4963; VIII, 2440, 2441,
see Sec. 858, supra).
The question of consideration may not be raised on a motion relating
to the order of business (V, 4971-4976; VIII, 2442; May 21, 1958, p.
9216); to a motion to discharge a committee (V, 4977); or against a
motion to take from the Speaker's table Senate bills substantially the
same as House bills already favorably reported and on the House Calendar
(VIII, 2443). On a motion to go into Committee of the Whole to consider
a bill the House
[[Page 657]]
expresses its wish as to consideration by its vote on this motion (V,
4973-4976; VI, 51; VIII, 2442; May 21, 1958, p. 9216).
A <> point of order against the eligibility for consideration of a
bill which if sustained might prevent consideration should be made and
decided before the question of consideration is put (V, 4950, 4951; VII,
2439), but if the point relates merely to the manner of considering, it
should be passed on afterwards (V, 4950). In general, after the House
has decided to consider, a point of order raised with the object of
preventing consideration, in whole or part, comes too late (IV, 4598; V,
4952, 6912-6914), but on a conference report the question of
consideration may be demanded before points of order are raised against
the substance of the report (VIII, 2439; Speaker Albert, Sept. 28, 1976,
p. 33019).
The <> Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-4; 109 Stat. 48) added a new part B to title IV of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658-658g) that imposes
several requirements on committees with respect to ``Federal mandates''
(secs. 423-424; 2 U.S.C. 658b-c), establishes points of order to to
permit separate votes on whether to enforce those requirements (sec.
425; 2 U.S.C. 658d), and permits a vote on the question of consideration
of a rule or order waiving such points of order in the House (sec.
426(a); 2 U.S.C. 658e(a)). The latter provision also prescribes that
such points of order be disposed of by the question of consideration
with respect to the proposition against which they are lodged (after 20
minutes of debate) (sec. 426(b); 2 U.S.C. 658e(b)). See Sec. 1127,
infra.
Precedence of motions
4. <> (a) When a
question is under debate, only the following motions may be entertained
(which shall have precedence in the following order):
(1) To adjourn.
(2) To lay on the table.
(3) For the previous question.
(4) To postpone to a day certain.
(5) To refer.
(6) To amend.
(7) To postpone indefinitely.
(b) A motion to adjourn, to lay on the table, or for the previous
question shall be decided with
[[Page 658]]
out debate. A motion to postpone to a day certain, to refer, or to
postpone indefinitely, being decided, may not be allowed again on the
same day at the same stage of the question.
(c)(1) It shall be in order at any time for the Speaker, in his
discretion, to entertain a motion--
(A) that the Speaker be authorized to declare a recess; or
(B) that when the House adjourns it stand adjourned to a day and
time certain.
(2) Either motion shall be of equal privilege with the motion to
adjourn and shall be decided without debate.
The first form of this clause appears in 1789, but amendments have
been made at various times (V, 5301; VIII, 2757). Paragraph (c) (former
final two sentences of the clause) were added in the 93d Congress to
enable a privileged, nondebatable motion to fix the adjournment (H. Res.
6, Jan. 3, 1973, pp. 26-27), and amended in the 102d Congress to enable
a privileged, nondebatable motion for recess authority (H. Res. 5, Jan.
3, 1991, p. 39). When the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, the provision of this clause addressing the motion for the
previous question was transferred to clause 2 of rule XIX (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).
The application of the first sentence of the clause is confined to
cases wherein a question is ``under debate'' (V, 5379). It has been held
that a question ceases to be ``under debate'' after the previous
question has been ordered (V, 5415).
The <> motion to adjourn not
only has the highest precedence when a question is under debate, but,
with certain restrictions, it has the highest privilege under all other
conditions. Even questions of privilege (III, 2521), such as a motion
privileged under the Constitution (VIII, 2641), the filing of a
privileged report pursuant to former clause 4(a) of rule XI (current
clause 5 of rule XIII) (Apr. 29, 1985, p. 9699), a motion to suspend the
rules (Aug. 11, 1992, p. 23086), and the motion to reconsider yield to
it (V, 5605), and a conference report may defer it only until the report
is before the House (V, 6451-6453). Pursuant to clause 6(b) of rule XIII
or clause 1(b) of rule XV, only one motion to adjourn is in order,
pending consideration of a privileged report from the Committee on Rules
or a motion that the House suspend the rules, respectively. The motion
may be made: (1) after the
[[Page 659]]
yeas and nays are ordered and before the roll call has begun (V, 5366);
(2) before the reading of the Journal (IV, 2757) or the Speaker's
approval thereof (Speaker Wright, Nov. 2, 1987, p. 30386); (3) pending a
motion to reconsider (Sept. 20, 1979, p. 25512); (4) after the House
rejects a motion to table a motion to instruct conferees and before the
vote occurs on the motion to instruct (May 29, 1980, pp. 12717-19); or
(5) when the Speaker is absent and the Clerk is presiding (I, 228). The
motion takes precedence over: (1) in the absence of a quorum, the motion
for a call of the House (VIII, 2642); (2) a motion to dispense with
further proceedings under the call (VIII, 2643); and (3) a motion
directing the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest absentees during a call of the
House (June 6, 1973, p. 18403). The motion to adjourn may not interrupt
a Member who has the floor (V, 5369, 5370; VIII, 2646; Mar. 25, 1993, p.
6373; Oct. 1, 1997, p. ----) as, for example, by virtue of unanimous-
consent permission to announce to the House the legislative program
(Dec. 14, 1982, p. 30549), or a call of the yeas and nays (V, 6053), or
the actual act of voting by other means (V, 5360), or be made after the
House has voted to go into Committee of the Whole (IV, 4728; V, 5367,
5368), or defer the right of a Member to take the oath (I, 622) and may
not be repeated in the absence of intervening business (Speaker Albert,
July 31, 1975, p. 26243); and when no question is under debate it may
not displace a motion to fix the day to which the House shall adjourn
(V, 5381). The Speaker has refused to recognize for a motion to adjourn
pending a vote on a proposition, where a special order provided that the
House vote thereon without intervening motion (IV, 3211-3213).
When the House has fixed the hour of daily meeting, the simple motion
to adjourn may neither be amended (V, 5754) by specifying a particular
day (V, 5360) or hour (V, 5364) (but see Sec. 913, infra, for a
discussion of the equally privileged motion to fix the day and time to
which the House shall adjourn); nor by stating the purposes of
adjournment (V, 5371, 5372; VIII, 2647). However, when the hour of daily
meeting is not fixed, the motion to adjourn may fix it (V, 5362, 5363).
A motion to adjourn is in order in simple form only (VIII, 2647), is not
debatable (V, 5359), may not be laid on the table (Aug. 3, 1990, p.
22195), is not in order in Committee of the Whole (IV, 4716), and is not
entertained when the Committee of the Whole rises to report proceedings
incident to securing a quorum (VI, 673; VIII, 2436). After the motion is
made neither another motion nor an appeal may intervene before the
taking of the vote (V, 5361). When the House adopts the motion to
adjourn, it must adjourn immediately; and a unanimous-consent request
that the House proceed to the calling of special-order speeches is not
in order (Sept. 27, 1993, p. 22608).
[[Page 660]]
The <> motion to fix the day and time to which the House shall
adjourn, in its present form, was included in this clause of rule XVI
and given privileged status in the 93d Congress (H. Res. 6, Jan. 3,
1973, p. 26). At several times during the 19th Century, the motion to
fix the day to which the House should adjourn was included within the
rule as to the precedence of motions but was dropped because of its use
in obstructive tactics (V, 5301, 5379). The following precedent relates
to the use of the motion in its earlier form: No question being under
debate, a motion to fix the day to which the House should adjourn,
already made, was held not to give way to a motion to adjourn (V, 5381).
But if the motion to adjourn be made first, the motion to fix the day or
for a recess is not entertained (V, 5302). The motion to fix the day is
not debatable under the practice of the House (V, 5379, 5380; VIII,
2648, 3367), requires a quorum for adoption (IV, 2954; June 19, 1975, p.
19789; June 22, 1976, p. 19755), and is only in order if offered on the
day on which the adjournment applies (Sept. 23, 1976, p. 32104). The
House may convene and adjourn twice on the same calendar day pursuant to
a motion under this clause that when the House adjourn it adjourn to a
time certain later in the day, thereby meeting for two legislative days
on the same calendar day (Nov. 17, 1981, p. 27771; Oct. 29, 1987, p.
29933; June 29, 1995, p. 17716). When the Speaker exercises his
discretion to entertain at any time a motion that when the House adjourn
it stand adjourned to a day and time certain, the motion is of equal
privilege with the simple motion to adjourn and takes precedence over a
pending question on which the vote has been objected to for lack of a
quorum (Nov. 17, 1981, p. 27770). The motion is not subject to the
motion to lay on the table since it is not debatable and the precedence
conferred on the motion to table only applies to a question that is
``under debate'' (Nov. 17, 1981, p. 27770).
Under the express terms of clause 4, the motion to authorize the
Speaker to declare a recess is nondebatable and has equal privilege with
the motion to adjourn. The House (without the consent of the Senate) may
authorize the Speaker to declare a recess for up to three days (Dec. 15,
1995, p. 37102).
The <> motion to lay on
the table is used in the House for a final, adverse disposition of a
matter without debate (V, 5389), and is in order before the Member
entitled to prior recognition for debate has begun his remarks (V, 5391-
5395; VIII, 2649, 2650). Under the explicit terms of this clause, the
motion is not debatable (Oct. 17, 1991, p. 26749). The motion is
applicable to a motion to reconsider (VIII, 2652, 2659), a motion to
postpone to a day certain (VIII, 2654, 2657), a resolution presenting a
question of privilege (VI, 560), a privileged resolution offered at the
direction of a party caucus electing Members to committees (Feb. 5,
1997, p. ----), an appeal from a decision of the Chair (VIII, 3453), a
motion to discharge a committee from a resolution of inquiry (VI, 415),
a proposal to investigate with a view to impeach
[[Page 661]]
ment (VI, 541), a concurrent resolution to adjourn sine die (Mar. 27,
1936, p. 4512), and a resolution to expel a Member (Oct. 1, 1976, p.
35111). But a question of privilege (affecting the right of a Member to
a seat) that has been laid on the table may be taken therefrom on motion
made and agreed to by the House (V, 5438). The motion to lay on the
table has the precedence given it by the rule, but may not be made after
the previous question is ordered (V, 5415-5422; VIII, 2655), or even
after the yeas and nays have been ordered on the demand for the previous
question (V, 5408, 5409); but pending the demand for the previous
question on a motion that is under debate, the motion to lay the primary
motion on the table is preferential and is voted on first (Speaker
Albert, Sept. 22, 1976, pp. 31876-82; Speaker O'Neill, July 10, 1985,
pp. 18397-18400). The previous question having been ordered on a bill to
final passage, the motion to lay the bill on the table may not then be
offered pending a motion to reconsider the vote whereby the bill had
been passed or rejected (Sept. 20, 1979, p. 25512).
When a bill is laid on the table, pending motions connected therewith
go to the table also (V, 5426, 5427); and when a proposed amendment is
laid on the table the pending bill goes there also (V, 5423; VIII,
2656), and if a pending amendment to a special order reported from the
Committee on Rules were tabled, it would carry the resolution with it
and is thus considered dilatory under former clause 4(b) of rule XI
(current clause 6(b) of rule XIII) (Sept. 25, 1990, p. 25575). This rule
holds good as to a House bill with Senate amendments (V, 5424, 6201-
6203; Sept. 28, 1978, p. 32334), but laying on the table the motion to
postpone consideration of Senate amendments was held not to carry to the
table pending motions for their disposition (VIII, 2657). The Journal
does not accompany a proposed amendment to the table (V, 5435, 5436);
the original question does not accompany an appeal (V, 5434); a
resolution does not accompany another resolution with which it is
connected, or a preamble (V, 5248, 5430); and a petition does not
accompany the motion to receive it when the latter is laid on the table
(V, 5431-5433); a bill does not accompany a motion to instruct conferees
which is laid on the table (VIII, 2658).
A motion to lay on the table a motion to reconsider the vote by which
an amendment to a resolution had been agreed to would not carry the
resolution to the table (VIII, 2652).
The motion is not in order in Committee of the Whole (IV, 4719, 4720;
VIII, 2330, 2556a, 3455; Mar. 16, 1995, p. 8112; July 21, 1999, p. ----
), or on motions to go into the Committee of the Whole (VI, 726). It may
not be amended (V, 5754), for example, to operate for a specified time
(Oct. 17, 1991, p. 26749), or applied to the motions for adjournment
(Aug. 3, 1990, p. 22195), the previous question (V, 5410, 5411; Oct. 4,
1994, p. 27649), to suspend the rules (V, 5405), to commit after the
previous question is ordered (V, 5412-5414; VIII, 2653, 2655), or to any
motion relating to the order of business (V, 5403, 5404). It may not be
applied to a motion to discharge a committee under former clause 3 of
rule XXVII (current
[[Page 662]]
clause 2 of rule XV) (June 11, 1945, p. 5892) but may be applied to the
motion to discharge a committee from consideration of a resolution of
inquiry (V, 5407). It is generally not applicable to motions that are
neither debatable nor amendable and hence cannot be applied to a motion
to dispense with further proceedings under a call of the House (Speaker
McCormack, Aug. 27, 1962, pp. 17651-54), or to a motion that when the
House adjourn it stand adjourned to a day and time certain (Nov. 17,
1981, p. 27770). The motion to lay on the table is applicable to
debatable secondary or privileged motions for disposal of another
matter; thus a motion to refer (V, 5433; Aug. 13, 1982, pp. 20969,
20975-78) or a motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment in
disagreement may be laid on the table (Speaker O'Neill, Feb. 22, 1978,
p. 4072) without carrying the pending matter to the table. The motion is
not applicable to a conference report (V, 6540).
As <> indicated in the rule,
the motions to postpone are two in number and distinct. The first one is
to postpone to a day certain, and the second one is to postpone
indefinitely. Each must apply to the whole and not a part of the pending
proposition (V, 5306). Neither may be entertained after the previous
question is ordered (V, 5319-5321; VIII, 2616, 2617), or be applied to a
special order providing for the consideration of a class of bills (V,
4958); but when a bill comes before the House under the terms of a
special order that assigns a day merely, a motion to postpone may be
applied to the bill (IV, 3177-3182). Business postponed to a day certain
is in order on that day immediately after the approval of the Journal
and disposition of business on the Speaker's table, unless displaced by
more highly privileged business (VIII, 2614). Where consideration of a
measure postponed to a day certain resumes as unfinished business in the
House, recognition for debate does not begin anew but recommences from
the point where it was interrupted (June 10, 1980, p. 13801). It is not
in order to postpone pending business to Calendar Wednesday (VIII,
2614), but if so postponed by consent, when consideration is concluded
on that Wednesday, the remainder of the day is devoted to business in
order under the Calendar Wednesday rule (VII, 970). The motion is not
available in Committee of the Whole (July 14, 1998, p. ----), but a
motion that a bill be reported with the recommendation that it be
postponed is in order in the Committee of the Whole proceeding under the
general rules of the House (IV, 4765; VIII, 2372), is debatable (VIII,
2372), and is a preferential motion (VIII, 2372, 2615), but debate is
confined to the advisability of postponement only (VIII, 2372). It has
been held in order to postpone an appeal (VIII, 2613). A bill under
consideration in the morning hour may not be made a special order by a
motion to postpone to a day certain (IV, 3164).
The motion to postpone to a day certain may not specify the hour (V,
5307). The motion may be amended (V, 5754; VIII, 2824). It is debatable
within narrow limits only (V, 5309, 5310), the merits of the bill to
which
[[Page 663]]
it is applied not being within those limits (V, 5311-5315; VIII, 2372,
2616, 2640).
The motion to postpone indefinitely opens to debate all the merits of
the proposition to which it is applied (V, 5316). It may not be applied
to the motion to refer (V, 5317), to suspend the rules (V, 5322), or
motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole (VI, 726), and it is
reasonable to infer that it is equally inapplicable to the other
secondary or privileged motions enumerated in the rule and to motions
relating to the order of business. However, the motion to postpone
indefinitely may be applied to the motion that the House resolve itself
into the Committee of the Whole pursuant to the provisions of a statute,
enacted under the rulemaking power of the House of Representatives, that
specifically allows such a motion in the consideration of a resolution
disapproving a certain executive action (Mar. 10, 1977, p. 7021; Aug. 3,
1977, p. 26528).
The <> parliamentary motion to
refer is explicitly recognized and given status in four different
situations under House rules: The ordinary motion provided for in this
clause; the motion to recommit with or without instructions after the
previous question has been ordered on a bill or joint resolution to
final passage, provided in clause 2 of rule XIX; the motion to commit,
with or without instructions, pending the motion for or after ordering
of the previous question as provided in clause 1 of rule XIX (V, 5569);
and the motion to refer, with or without instructions, pending a vote in
the House to strike out the enacting clause as provided in clause 9 of
rule XVIII. The terms ``refer,'' ``commit,'' and ``recommit'' are
sometimes used interchangeably (V, 5521; VIII, 2736), but when used in
the precise manner and situation contemplated in each rule, reflect
certain differences based upon whether the question to which applied is
``under debate,'' whether the motion itself is debatable, whether a
minority Member or a Member opposed to the question to which the motion
is applied is entitled to a priority of recognition, and whether the
prohibition against a special order reported from the Committee on Rules
denying a motion to recommit a bill or joint resolution pending final
passage is applicable. For a discussion of the motion to recommit, see
the annotations under clause 2 of rule XIX. The motion may not be used
in direct form in Committee of the Whole (IV, 4721; VIII, 2326); and
where a bill is being considered under the provisions of a resolution
stating that ``at the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for
amendment under the five-minute rule the Committee shall rise and report
the bill back to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted,'' a motion that the Committee rise and report to the House with
the recommendation that the bill be recommitted to the legislative
committee reporting it is not in order (Aug. 10, 1950, p. 12219). It may
be made after the engrossment and third reading of a bill, even though
the previous question may not have been ordered (V, 5562, 5563).
If the previous question is rejected on a preferential motion to
dispose of Senate amendments in disagreement, the preferential motion
remains
[[Page 664]]
``under debate'' and the motion to refer may be offered under this
clause (Speaker Albert, Sept. 16, 1976, p. 30887). A motion to refer
takes precedence over motion to amend when a question is under debate
(such as where the previous question has been rejected), and the Chair
recognizes the Member seeking to offer the preferential motion before
the less preferential motion is read (Aug. 13, 1982, pp. 20969, 20975-
78).
The simple motion to refer under the first sentence of this clause is
debatable within narrow limits (V, 5054) and may be offered by any
Member (who need not qualify as being in opposition to the pending
question) when that question is ``under debate,'' i.e., when the
previous question has not been moved or ordered, but the merits of the
proposition sought to be referred may not be brought into the debate (V,
5564-5568; VI, 65, 549; VIII, 2740). The motion to refer with
instructions is also debatable (V, 5561); but the previous question is
preferential (Mar. 22, 1990, p. 4997).
The <> motion
to refer may specify that the reference shall be to a select as well as
a standing committee (IV, 4401) without regard for rules of jurisdiction
(IV, 4375; V, 5527) and may provide for reference to another committee
than that reporting the bill (VIII, 2696, 2736), or to the Committee of
the Whole (V, 5552, 5553), and even that the committee be endowed with
power to send for persons and papers (IV, 4402). Unless the previous
question is ordered the motion may be amended (VIII, 2712, 2738), in
part (V, 5754); by substitute (VIII, 2698, 2738, 2759); or by adding
instructions (V, 5521, 5570, 5582-5584; VIII, 2695, 2762; Aug. 13, 1982,
pp. 20969, 20975-78).
The <> rule specifies that the
motions to postpone and refer shall not be repeated on the same day at
the same stage of the question (V, 5301, 5591; VIII, 2738, 2760). Under
the practice, also, a motion to adjourn may be repeated only after
intervening business (V, 5373; VIII, 2814), debate (V, 5374), the
ordering of the yeas and nays (V, 5376, 5377), decision of the Chair on
a question of order (V, 5378), reception of a message (V, 5375). The
motion to lay on the table may also be repeated after intervening
business (V, 5398-5400); but the ordering of the previous question (V,
5709), a call of the House (V, 5401), or decision of a question of order
have been held not to be such intervening business, it being essential
that the pending matter be carried to a new stage in order to permit a
repetition of the motion (V, 5709).
Divisibility
5. <> (a) Except as provided in
paragraph (b), a question shall be divided on the demand of a Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner before the question is
[[Page 665]]
put if it includes propositions so distinct in substance that, one being
taken away, a substantive proposition remains.
(b)(1) A motion or resolution to elect members to a standing committee
of the House, or to a joint standing committee, is not divisible.
(2) A resolution or order reported by the Committee on Rules providing
a special order of business is not divisible.
(c) <> A motion to strike and insert is not divisible, but
rejection of a motion to strike does not preclude another motion to
amend.
Paragraphs (a) and (b) (former clause 6) was first adopted in 1789,
and was amended in 1837 (V, 6107). Paragraph (b)(1) (first part of the
former proviso) was adopted April 2, 1917 (VIII, 2175), and paragraph
(b)(2) (last part of the former proviso) was adopted May 3, 1933 (VIII,
3164). Paragraph (c) (first part of former clause 7) was adopted in
1811, and amended in 1822 (V, 5767). When the House recodified its rules
in the 106th Congress, former clause 5 of this rule (requiring time of
adjournment to be entered on the Journal) was transferred to clause
2(c)(2) of rule II, paragraphs (a) and (b) were found in former clause
6, and paragraph (c) was found in the first part of former clause 7 (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).
The House may by adoption of a resolution reported from the Committee
on Rules suspend the rule providing for the division of a question (VII,
775).
The <> principle that there must be at least two substantive
propositions in order to justify division is insisted on rigidly (V,
6108-6113), as failure to do so produces difficulties (III, 1725). The
question may not be divided after it has been put (V, 6162), or after
the yeas and nays have been ordered (V, 6160, 6161); but division of the
question may be demanded after the previous question is ordered (V,
5468, 6149; VIII, 3173). In passing on a demand for division the Chair
considers only substantive propositions and not the merits of the
question presented (V, 6122). It seems to be most proper, also, that the
division should depend on grammatical structure rather than on the
legislative propositions involved (I, 394; V, 6119), but a question
presenting two propositions grammatically is not divisible if either
does not constitute a substantive proposition when considered alone
(VII, 3165). Thus a resolution censuring a Member and adopting a report
of a committee thereon, which recommends censure on the basis
[[Page 666]]
of the committee's findings, is not divisible since those questions are
substantially equivalent (Speaker O'Neill, Oct. 13, 1978, p. 37016); and
an adjournment resolution that also authorizes the receipt of veto
messages from the President during the adjournment is not subject to a
division of the question, as the receipt authority would be nonsensical
standing alone (June 30, 1976, p. 21702). However, a concurrent
resolution on the budget is subject to a demand for a division of the
question if, for example, the resolution grammatically and substantively
relates to different fiscal years (May 7, 1980, pp. 10185-87), or
includes a separate, hortatory section having its own grammatical and
substantive meaning (Speaker Foley, Mar. 5, 1992, p. 4657).
Decisions have been made that a resolution affecting two individuals
may be divided, although such division may involve a reconstruction of
the text (I, 623; V, 6119-6121). The better practice seems to be,
however, that this reconstruction of the text should be made by the
adoption of a substitute amendment of two branches, rather than by
interpretation of the Chair (II, 1621). But merely formal words, such as
``resolved,'' may be supplied by interpretation of the Chair (V, 6114-
6118). A resolution with two resolve clauses separately certifying the
contemptuous conduct of two individuals is divisible (Feb. 27, 1986, p.
3040); as is a resolution with one resolve clause certifying
contemptuous conduct of several individuals (Oct. 27, 2000, p. ----,
contrast, Deschler-Brown Precedents, vol. 14, ch. 30, sec. 49.1). A
measure containing a series of simple resolutions (V, 6149), and a
resolution confirming several nominations (Speaker Albert, Mar. 19,
1975, p. 7344) may be divided. A resolution of impeachment presenting
discrete articles may be divided (VI, 545; Dec. 18, 1998, p. ----).
Except on resolutions to elect Members to committees or on resolutions
reported from the Committee on Rules providing a special order of
business, where division of the question is prohibited by this clause, a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules may be divided where
otherwise appropriate. Thus a resolution reported from that committee
establishing several select committees in grammatically divisible
titles, not being a special order of business, is subject to a demand
for a division of the question (Jan. 8, 1987, p. 1036). However, it is
not in order to demand a division of a subject incorporated by reference
in the pending text, as when a resolution to adopt a series of rules,
not made a part of the resolution, was before the House, it was held not
in order to demand a separate vote on each rule (V, 6159).
The question on engrossment and third reading under former clause 1 of
rule XXI (current clause 8(c) of rule XVI) is not divisible (Speaker
Foley, Aug. 3, 1989, p. 18544); and in voting on the engrossment or
passage of a bill or joint resolution, a separate vote may not be
demanded on the various portions (V, 6144-6146; VIII, 3172), or on the
preamble (V, 6147).
Where an amendment is offered to an appropriation bill providing that
no part of the appropriation may be paid to named individuals, the
amendment may be divided for a separate vote on each name (Feb. 5, 1943,
p.
[[Page 667]]
645). An amendment (to a joint resolution making continuing
appropriations) containing separate paragraphs appropriating funds for
different programs may be substantively and grammatically divisible
although preceded by the same prefatory language applicable to all the
paragraphs, and the Clerk will read each paragraph as including the
prefatory language prior to the Chair's putting the question thereon
(Nov. 8, 1983, p. 31495). A division may be demanded on an amendment to
strike out various unrelated phrases (VIII, 3166; Mar. 28, 1984, p.
6898). An amendment proposing to change a figure in one paragraph of an
appropriation bill and also to insert a new (``fetch-back'') paragraph
at another point in the bill is divisible (July 15, 1993, p. 15843).
Absent a contrary order, the question may be divided on an amendment en
bloc comprising discrete instructions to amend, even though unanimous
consent has just been granted for the en bloc consideration (July 25,
1990, p. 19174; July 18, 1991, p. 18851).
A division of the question may not be demanded on a motion to strike
out and insert (V, 5767, 6123; VIII, 3169), including substitutes for
pending amendments (V, 6127; VIII, 3168; Aug. 17, 1972, pp. 28887-90;
July 2, 1980, pp. 18288-92), although an amendment comprising two
discrete instructions to strike and insert may be divided (June 4, 1998,
p. ----) and a perfecting amendment to an amendment may be divided if
not in the form of a motion to strike out and insert (V, 6131). When it
is proposed to strike out and insert not one but several connected
matters, it is not in order to demand a separate vote on each of those
matters (V, 6124, 6125), as when an amendment in the nature of a
substitute containing several resolutions is proposed; but after this
amendment has been agreed to, it is in order to demand a division of the
original resolution as amended (V, 6127, 6128). When, however, an
amendment simply adding or inserting is proposed, it is in order to
divide the amendment (V, 6129-6133). 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, as it would have the effect of dividing the
motion to strike out and insert (June 29, 1939, pp. 8282, 8284; June 19,
1979, pp. 15566-68).
A division may be demanded on the motion to recede from disagreement
to a Senate amendment and concur therein (see Sec. 525, supra; V, 6209;
VIII, 3197-3199, 3203), but may not be demanded on Senate amendments
when sending to conference (V, 6151-6156; VIII, 3175). A division of the
question may not be demanded, with respect to a motion to concur in a
Senate amendment with an amendment, between concurring and amending
(VIII, 3176), and may not be demanded on separate parts of the proposed
amendment if it is not properly divisible under the same tests that
apply to any other amendment (Aug. 3, 1973, pp. 28124-26; Oct. 11, 1984,
p. 32188). Thus a proposed amendment to a Senate amendment is not
divisible if in the form of a motion to strike out and insert (Oct. 15,
1986, p. 32135). Each Senate amendment must be voted on as a whole
(VIII, 3175) but the Committee of the Whole having reported a Senate
amendment with the recommendation that it be agreed to with an
amendment,
[[Page 668]]
a separate vote was had on the amendment to the Senate amendment (VIII,
2420). When Senate amendments to a House bill are considered in the
House, a separate vote may be had on each amendment (VIII, 2383, 2400,
3191), and separate votes may be had on nongermane portions of Senate
amendments as provided in clause 10 of rule XXII.
It is not in order to divide a motion to lay several connected
propositions on the table (V, 6138-6140). Similarly, it is not in order
to divide a motion for the previous question on two related
propositions, as on a special order reported from the Committee on Rules
and a pending amendment thereto (Sept. 25, 1990, p. 25575). An appeal
from a decision of the Speaker involving two distinct questions may be
divided (V, 6157).
On a motion to commit with instructions it is not in order to demand a
separate vote on the instructions or various branches thereof (V, 6134-
6137; VIII, 2737, 3170; Speaker Rayburn, Apr. 11, 1956, p. 6157; June
29, 1993, p. 14618). However, an amendment reported forthwith pursuant
to instructions contained in a successful motion to recommit may be
divided on the question of its adoption if composed of substantively and
grammatically distinct propositions (June 29, 1993, p. 14618). A motion
to recommit a bill to conference with various instructions may not be
divided (Sept. 29, 1994, p. 27681). However, a motion to instruct
conferees after 20 days of conference (when multiple motions are in
order) may be divided (Speaker Byrns, May 26, 1936, p. 7951; Sept. 20,
2000, p.----), provided that separate substantive propositions are
presented (Speaker Rayburn, May 9, 1946, p. 4750).
A division of the question may not be demanded on bills or joint
resolutions for reference (IV, 4376) or change of reference (VII, 2125),
a motion to elect Members to committees of House (VIII, 2175, 3164), a
question against which a point of order is pending (VIII, 3432), a
proposition under a motion to suspend the rules (V, 6141-6143; VIII,
3171). A proposition reported from the Committee of the Whole as an
entire and distinct amendment may not be divided, but must be voted on
in the House as a whole (IV, 4883-4892). A separate vote may not be
demanded in the House on an amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole to an amendment (VIII, 2422, 2426, 2427).
After the vote on the first member of the question, the second is open
to debate and amendments, unless the previous question is ordered (see
Sec. 482, supra). Where a motion to concur in a Senate amendment is
divided pursuant to a special rule permitting that procedure, the Chair
puts the question first on the first portion of the Senate amendment,
and then on the remaining portion (Mar. 4, 1993, p. 4163). Where a
division of the question is demanded on a portion of an amendment, the
Chair puts the question first on the remaining portions of the
amendment, and that portion on which the division is demanded remains
open for further debate and amendment (Oct. 21, 1981, pp. 24785-89).
However, where no further debate or amendment is in order on the divided
portion, the Chair may put the question first on the divided portion(s)
and then immediately on
[[Page 669]]
the remaining portion (Aug. 17, 1972, Deschler's Precedents, vol. 9, ch.
27, sec. 22.14; June 8, 1995, p. 15302). Where a division of the
question is demanded on more than one portion of an amendment, the Chair
may put the question first on the remaining portions of the amendment
(if any), then (after further debate) on the first part on which a
division is demanded, and then (after further debate) on the last part
on which a division is demanded (Oct. 21, 1981, pp. 24785-89). Where the
question on adopting an amendment is divided by special rule (rather
than on demand from the floor), the Chair puts the question on each
divided portion of the amendment in the order in which it appears (May
23, 1996, p. 12316).
A demand for a division of the question on a separate portion of an
amendment may be withdrawn before the question is put on the first
portion thereof (July 15, 1993, p. 15843), but once the Chair has put
the question on the first portion of the amendment, a demand for a
division may be withdrawn only by unanimous consent (Sept. 9, 1976, pp.
29538-40).
Amendments
6. <> When an amendable
proposition is under consideration, a motion to amend and a motion to
amend that amendment shall be in order, and it also shall be in order to
offer a further amendment by way of substitute for the original motion
to amend, to which one amendment may be offered but which may not be
voted on until the original amendment is perfected. An amendment may be
withdrawn in the House at any time before a decision or amendment
thereon. An amendment to the title of a bill or resolution shall not be
in order until after its passage or adoption and shall be decided
without debate.
This provision (former rule XIX) was adopted in 1880, with an
amendment adding the portion in relation to the title in 1893. The rule
of 1880, however, merely stated in form of rule what had been the
practice of the House for many years (V, 5753). Before the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in
former rule XIX (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----). For further
discussion see House Practice (1996), pp. 25-29, and Deschler's
Precedents, vol. 9, ch. 27, secs. 15-19.
[[Page 670]]
It <> is not in
order to offer more than one motion to amend of the same nature at a
time (V, 5755; VIII, 2831), but the four motions specified by the rule
may be pending at the same time (V, 5793; VIII, 2883, 2887). Where,
pursuant to a special rule, a committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute is being read as original text for purpose of amendment,
there may be pending to that text the four stages of amendment permitted
by this rule (Apr. 23, 1969, p. 10066). When a request for a recorded
vote in the Committee of the Whole is postponed under authority of a
special order of the House (such authority now found in clause 6(g) of
rule XVIII), the amendment becomes unfinished business and is no longer
pending, thereby permitting the offering of another amendment (May 10,
2000, p. ----). An amendment in the third degree is not specified by the
rule and is not permissible (V, 5754; VIII, 2580, 2888, 2891), even when
the third degree is in the nature of a substitute for an amendment to a
substitute (V, 5791; VIII, 2889).
An amendment must contain instructions to the Clerk as to the portion
of the bill it seeks to amend and is subject to a point of order if not
in proper form (Oct. 3, 1985, p. 25970). An amendment may not propose to
change portions of a measure not yet read for amendment (Mar. 24, 1999,
p. ----). Under a ``modified-closed'' rule permitting only amendments
printed in the report accompanying the rule, the Chair will permit an
amendment to be offered in the form actually submitted for printing
rather than requiring that it be offered in the erroneous form printed
(Mar. 10, 1994, p. 4405).
A Member may not amend or modify his own amendment except by unanimous
consent (Oct. 1, 1985, p. 25453); and where the Chair recognizes the
proponent of an amendment to propound such a unanimous-consent request
before commencing debate, the Chair does not charge time consumed under
a reservation of objection against the proponent's time for debate on
the amendment (Feb. 3, 1993, p. 1978; May 27, 1993, p. 11849). Under the
five-minute rule, the proponent of an amendment may not yield to another
to offer an amendment to the amendment; rather an amendment to the
amendment may be offered after the proponent of the pending amendment
has explained it (Sept. 7, 1995, p. 24071).
Two independent amendments may be voted on at once only by unanimous
consent of the House (V, 5979). Amendments en bloc, once pending, are
open to perfecting amendment at any point (June 12, 1991, p. 14337). If
a point of order is sustained against a discrete portion of an en bloc
amendment, the entire en bloc amendment may not be considered; however,
each constituent amendment may be offered separately if otherwise in
order (Sept. 16, 1981, p. 20735-38). An amendment considered with others
en bloc and rejected may be offered separately at a subsequent time
(Deschler's Precedents, vol. 9, ch. 27, sec. 35.15; Nov. 4, 1991, p.
29932).
The substitute provided for in this rule has been construed as a
substitute for the amendment and not as a substitute for the original
text (VIII, 2883). A substitute amendment may be amended by striking out
[[Page 671]]
all after its first word and inserting a new text (V, 5793, 5794). While
this is in effect a substitute, it is not technically so. A substitute
always proposes to replace all the words of a pending amendment. The
amendatory instructions contained in a substitute direct changes to be
made in the original language rather than to the pending amendment.
Although a substitute may change parts of a bill not changed by the
pending amendment, the substitute must be germane to the pending
amendment (VIII, 2879, 2880; Deschler's Precedents, vol. 9, ch. 27, sec.
18.6). A substitute may result in similar language to the original text
proposed to be changed by the pending amendment, but may not result in
identical language (Deschler's Precedents, vol. 9, ch. 27, sec. 18.15).
To an amendment adding a new section, an amendment making perfecting
changes in the bill rather than in the amendment is not a proper
perfecting amendment, but may, if germane, be offered as a substitute
for the amendment (Deschler's Precedents, vol. 9, ch. 27, sec. 18.7).
The Chair will not look behind the form of the amendment in determining
whether it is a perfecting amendment or a substitute (June 13, 1994, p.
12731). Once a perfecting amendment to an amendment is disposed of, the
original amendment, as amended or not, remains open to further
perfecting amendment (June 20, 1991, p. 15610); and all such amendments
are disposed of prior to voting on substitutes for the original
amendment and amendments thereto (July 26, 1984, p. 21253).
An amendment offered as a substitute and rejected may again be offered
as an original amendment without presenting an equivalent question. In
the first case the question is the relationship between the substitute
and the amendment to which offered, and in the second case the question
is the relationship between the original amendment and the text of the
bill (V, 5797; VIII, 2843). An amendment that is adopted as amended by a
substitute may not be reoffered in its original form if it would
directly change the amended portion of the bill. However, it may be
reoffered if the original amendment amends a different part of the bill
(as in the case where the amendatory instructions of the substitute
displaces the language of the original amendment). In such a case the
vote on the amendment as amended by the substitute is not equivalent to
a direct vote on the original amendment (June 25, 1987, p. 17416). An
amendment considered with others en bloc and rejected may be offered
separately at a subsequent time (Deschler's Precedents, vol. 9, ch. 27,
sec. 35.15; Nov. 4, 1991, p. 29932).
An amendment in the nature of a substitute always proposes to strike
out all after the enacting or resolving words in order to insert a new
text (V, 5785, footnote). An amendment in the nature of a substitute may
be proposed before amendments to the pending portion of original text
have been acted on, but may not be voted on until such amendments have
been disposed of (V, 5787). When a bill is considered by sections or
paragraphs an amendment in the nature of a substitute is properly
offered after the reading for amendment is concluded (V, 5788). However,
when it is pro
[[Page 672]]
posed to offer a single substitute for several paragraphs of a bill that
is being considered by paragraphs, the substitute may be moved to the
first paragraph, with notice that, if agreed to, motions will be made to
strike out the remaining paragraphs (V, 5795; VIII, 2898, 2900-2903;
July 29, 1969, p. 21218). An amendment in the nature of a substitute, as
well as the original proposition, may be perfected by amendments before
the vote on it is taken (V, 5786). Where there is pending an amendment
in the nature of a substitute, it is in order to offer a perfecting
amendment to the pending portion of original text (VIII, 2861; Apr. 27,
1976, p. 11411; see also Procedure, ch. 27, sec. 13.8). An amendment in
the nature of a substitute having been agreed to, the vote is then taken
on the original proposition as amended (II, 983; V, 5799, 5800), and no
further amendment is in order (Speaker O'Neill, Mar. 26, 1985, p. 6274).
If a perfecting amendment to an amendment in the nature of a substitute,
striking out all after the short title and inserting a new text, is
agreed to, further amendments to the text so perfected are not in order,
but amendments are in order to add new language at the end of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended (May 16, 1979, p.
11420).
A <> point of order against an amendment is timely if made or
reserved prior to formal recognition of the proponent to commence debate
thereon (July 16, 1991, p. 18391), but thereafter comes too late (V,
6894, 6898-6899) except as provided in clauses 4 and 5(a) of rule XXI.
To preclude a point of order, debate should be on the merits of the
proposition (V, 6901). When enough of an amendment has been read to show
that it is out of order, a point of order may be raised without waiting
for the reading to be completed (V, 6886-6887; VIII, 2912, 3437), though
the Chair may decline to rule until the entire proposition has been read
(Dec. 14, 1973, pp. 41716-18). A timely reservation of a point of order
by one Member inures to the benefit of any other Member who desires to
press a point of order (V, 6906; July 18, 1990, p. 17930).
While <> the rule
provides that either an ordinary or substitute amendment may be
withdrawn in the House (V, 5753) or ``in the House as in Committee of
the Whole'' (IV, 4935; June 26, 1973, p. 21315), it may not be withdrawn
or modified in Committee of the Whole except by unanimous consent
(clause 5 of rule XVIII; V, 5221; VIII, 2564, 2859).
Pursuant <> to
clause 4 of rule XVI, the motion for the previous question takes
precedence of a motion to amend (Nov. 8, 1971, p. 39944); and if the
previous question is not ordered, the motion to refer also has
precedence of the motion to amend (V, 5555; VI, 373). Amendments
reported by a committee are acted on before those offered from the floor
(V, 5773; VIII, 2862, 2863), but a floor amendment to the text of a
pending section is considered before a committee amendment adding a new
section at the end of the pending section (Oct. 4, 1972, pp. 33779-82),
and there is a question as to the
[[Page 673]]
extent to which the chairman of the committee reporting a bill should be
recognized to offer amendments to perfect it in preference to other
Members (II, 1450). Amendments may not be offered by proxy (VIII, 2830).
The motion to strike out the enacting clause has precedence of the
motion to amend, and may be offered while an amendment is pending (V,
5328-5331; VIII, 2622-2624); but the motion to amend takes precedence
over a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill
with the recommendation that it pass (July 27, 1937, p. 7699).
With <> some exceptions an amendment may attach itself to secondary
and privileged motions (V, 5754). Thus, the motions to postpone, refer,
amend, for a recess, and to fix the day to which the House shall adjourn
may be amended (V, 5754; VIII, 2824). But the motions for the previous
question, to lay on the table, to adjourn (V, 5754) and to go into
Committee of the Whole to consider a privileged bill may not be amended
(IV, 3078, 3079; VI, 723-725).
An amendment to the title of a bill is not in order in Committee of
the Whole (Jan. 29, 1986, p. 682).
Germaneness
7. <> No motion or proposition on a
subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under
color of amendment.
This clause was adopted in 1789, and amended in 1822 (V, 5767, 5825).
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this clause
and clause 5(c) occupied a single former clause 7 (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. ----).
It introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary
law (V, 5825), but of high value in the procedure of the House (V,
5866). Prior to the adoption of rules, when the House is operating under
general parliamentary law, as modified by the usage and practice of the
House, an amendment may be subject to the point of order that it is not
germane to the proposition to which offered (Jan. 3, 1969, p. 23). The
principle of the rule applies to a proposition by which it is proposed
to modify the pending bill, and not to a portion of the bill itself (V,
6929); thus a point of order will not lie that an appropriation in a
general appropriation bill is not germane to the rest of the bill (Dec.
16, 1963, p. 24753). In general, an amendment simply striking out words
already in a bill may not be ruled out as not germane (V, 5805; VIII,
2918) unless such action would change the scope and meaning of the text
(VIII, 2917-2921; Mar. 23, 1960, p. 6381); and a pro forma amendment
``to strike out the last word'' has been considered germane (July 28,
1965, p. 18639). While a committee may report a bill or resolution
embracing different subjects, it is not in
[[Page 674]]
order during consideration in the House to introduce a new subject by
way of amendment (V, 5825). The rule that amendments should be germane
applies to amendments reported by committees (V, 5806), but a resolution
providing for consideration of the bill with committee amendments may
waive points of order (Oct. 10, 1967, p. 28406), and the point of order
under this rule does not apply to a special order reported from the
Committee on Rules ``self-executing'' the adoption in the House of a
nongermane amendment to a bill, since the amendment is not separately
before the House during consideration of the special order (Feb. 24,
1993, p. 3542; July 27, 1993, p. 17117). A resolution reported from the
Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of a bill relating to
a certain subject may be amended neither by an amendment that would
substitute the consideration of an unrelated proposition (V, 5834-5836;
VIII, 2956; Sept. 14, 1950, p. 14844) nor an amendment that would permit
the additional consideration of a nongermane amendment to the bill (May
29, 1980, pp. 12667-73; Aug. 13, 1982, p. 20972). The Chair will not
interpret as a point of order under a specific rule of the House an
objection to a substitute as narrowing the scope of a pending amendment,
absent some stated or necessarily implied reference to germaneness or
other rule (June 25, 1987, p. 17415). The burden of proof is on the
proponent of an amendment to establish its germaneness (VIII, 2995; July
10, 2000, p. ----), and where an amendment is equally susceptible to
more than one interpretation, one of which will render it not germane,
the Chair will rule it out of order (June 20, 1975, p. 19967).
Under <> the later practice an amendment should be germane to the
particular paragraph or section to which it is offered (V, 5811-5820;
VIII, 2922, 2936; Oct. 14, 1971, pp. 36194, 36211; Sept. 19, 1986, p.
24729), without reference to subject matter of other titles not yet read
(July 31, 1990, p. 20816), and an amendment inserting an additional
section should be germane to the portion of the bill to which it is
offered (V, 5822; VIII, 2927, 2931; July 14, 1970, pp. 24033-35), though
it may be germane to more than one portion of a bill (Mar. 27, 1974, p.
8508), and when offered as a separate paragraph is not required to be
germane to the paragraph immediately preceding or following it (VII,
1162; VIII, 2932-2935).
The test of germaneness in the case of a motion to recommit with
instructions is the relationship of the instructions to the bill taken
as a whole (and not merely to the separate portion of the bill
specifically proposed to be amended in the instructions) (Mar. 28, 1996,
p. 6932).
Subject to clause 2(c) of rule XXI (requiring that limitation
amendments to general appropriation bills be offered at the end of the
reading of the bill for amendment), an amendment limiting the use of
funds by a particular agency funded in a general appropriation bill may
be germane to the paragraph carrying the funds, or to any general
provisions portion of the bill affecting that agency or all agencies
funded by the bill (July 16, 1979, p. 18807). However, to a paragraph
containing funds for an agen
[[Page 675]]
cy but not transferring funds to that account from other paragraphs in
the bill, an amendment increasing that amount by transfer from an
account in another paragraph is not germane, since affecting budget
authority for a different agency not the subject of the pending
paragraph (July 17, 1985, p. 19436). Similarly, an amendment to a
general appropriation bill in the form of a limitation on funds therein
but extending to activities prescribed by laws unrelated to the
functions of departments and agencies addressed by the bill is not
germane (July 10, 2000, p. ----).
In passing on the germaneness of an amendment, the Chair considers the
relationship between the amendment and the bill as modified by the
Committee of the Whole (Apr. 23, 1975, p. 11545; July 8, 1987, p.
19013).
An amendment adding a new section to a bill being read by titles must
be germane to the pending title (Sept. 17, 1975, p. 28925), but where a
bill is considered as read and open to amendment at any point, an
amendment must be germane to the bill as a whole and not to a particular
section (Sept. 29, 1975, p. 30761; Jan. 30, 1986, p. 1052). Where a
title of a bill is open to amendment at any point, the germaneness of an
amendment perfecting one section therein depends on its relationship to
the title as a whole and not merely on its relationship to the one
section (June 25, 1991, p. 16152). An amendment in the form of a new
title, when offered at the end of a bill containing several diverse
titles on a general subject, need not be germane to the portion of the
bill to which offered, it being sufficient that the amendment be germane
to the bill as a whole in its modified form (Nov. 4, 1971, p. 39267;
July 2, 1974, p. 22029; Sept. 18, 1975, p. 29322; July 11, 1985, p.
18601; Oct. 8, 1985, pp. 26548-51). While the heading of the final title
of a bill as ``miscellaneous'' does not thereby permit amendments to
that title which are not germane thereto, the inclusion of sufficiently
diverse provisions in such title affecting various provisions in the
bill may permit further amendments which need only be germane to the
bill as a whole (Apr. 10, 1979, pp. 8034-37).
Under clause 10 of rule XXII, a portion of a conference report
incorporating part of a Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute
to a House bill, or incorporating part of a Senate bill that the House
has amended, must be germane to the bill in the form passed by the
House; thus where a House-passed bill contained several sections and
titles amending diverse portions of the Internal Revenue Code relating
to tax credits, a modified Senate provision adding a new section dealing
with another tax credit was held germane to the House-passed measure as
a whole (Speaker Albert, Mar. 26, 1975, p. 8900); but a Senate provision
in a conference report, on a Senate bill with a House amendment in the
nature of a substitute, which authorized appointment of a special
prosecutor for any criminal offenses committed by certain Federal
officials was held not germane to the bill as passed by the House, which
related to offenses directly related to official duties and
responsibilities of Federal officials (Oct. 12, 1978, pp. 36459-61).
[[Page 676]]
The test of germaneness of an amendment to or a substitute for an
amendment in the nature of a substitute is its relationship to the
substitute and not its relationship to the bill to which the amendment
in the nature of a substitute has been offered (July 19, 1973, p. 24958;
July 22, 1975, p. 23990; June 1, 1976, pp. 16051-56; July 28, 1982, pp.
18355-58, 18361), and an amendment to a substitute is not required to
affect the same page and line numbers as the substitute in order to be
germane, it being sufficient that the amendment is germane to the
subject matter of the substitute (Aug. 1, 1979, pp. 21944-47). When an
amendment in the nature of a substitute is offered at the end of the
first section of a bill, the test of germaneness is the relationship
between the amendment and the entire bill, and the germaneness of an
amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill is not necessarily
determined by an incidental portion of the amendment which if offered
separately might not be germane to the portion of the bill to which
offered (July 8, 1975, p. 21633).
The test of germaneness of an amendment offered as a substitute for a
pending amendment is its relationship to the pending amendment and not
its relationship to the underlying bill (Feb. 14, 1995, p. 4714).
An amendment germane to the bill as a whole, but hardly germane to any
one section, may be offered at an appropriate place with notice of
motions to strike out the following sections which it would supersede
(V, 5823; July 29, 1969, p. 21221). Where a perfecting amendment to the
text is offered pending a vote on a motion to strike out the same text,
the perfecting amendment must be germane to the text to which offered,
not to the motion to strike (Oct. 3, 1969, p. 28454).
The <> rule that amendments must be germane applies to amendments to
the instructions in a motion to instruct conferees (VIII, 3230, 3235),
and the test of germaneness of an amendment to a motion to instruct
conferees, in addition to the measurement of scope of conference, is the
relationship of the amendment to the subject matter of the House or
Senate version of the bill (Deschler-Brown Precedents, vol. 11, ch. 28,
sec. 28.2). The rule of germaneness similarly applies to the
instructions in a motion to recommit a bill to a committee of the House,
as it is not in order to propose as part of a motion to recommit any
proposition that would not have been germane if proposed as an amendment
to the bill in the House (V, 5529-5541; VIII, 2708-2712; Mar. 2, 1967,
p. 5155), and the instructions must be germane to the bill as perfected
in the House (Nov. 19, 1993, p. 30513), even where the instructions do
not propose a direct amendment to the bill but merely direct the
committee to pursue an unrelated approach (Speaker O'Neill, Mar. 2,
1978, p. 5272; July 16, 1991, p. 18397) or direct the committee not to
report the bill back to the House until an unrelated contingency occurs
(VIII, 2704). Under the same rationale as amendments to a motion to
instruct conferees, amendments to a motion to recommit to a standing
committee with instructions must be germane to the subject matter of the
bill (see V, 6888; VIII, 2711).
[[Page 677]]
The fact that an amendment is offered in conjunction with a motion to
recommit a bill with instructions to a standing committee does not
affect the requirement that the subject matter of the amendment be
germane and within the jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill
(Mar. 2, 1967, p. 5155; July 16, 1991, p. 18397).
In <> the consideration of Senate amendments to a House
bill an amendment must be germane to the particular Senate amendment to
which it is offered (V, 6188-6191; VIII, 2936; May 14, 1963, p. 8506;
Dec. 13, 1980, p. 34097), and it is not sufficient that an amendment to
a Senate amendment is germane to the original House bill if it is not
germane to the subject matter of a Senate amendment that merely inserts
new matter and does not strike out House provisions (V, 6188; VIII,
2936). But where a Senate amendment proposes to strike out language in a
House bill, the test of the germaneness of a motion to recede and concur
with an amendment is the relationship between the language in the motion
and the provisions in the House bill proposed to be stricken, as well as
those to be inserted, by the Senate amendment (June 8, 1943, p. 5511;
June 15, 1943, p. 5899; Dec. 12, 1974, p. 39272). The test of the
germaneness of an amendment to a motion to concur in a Senate amendment
with an amendment is the relationship between the amendment and the
motion, and not between the amendment and the Senate amendment to which
the motion has been offered (Aug. 3, 1973, Deschler-Brown Precedents,
vol. 11, ch. 28, sec. 27.6). Formerly, a Senate amendment was not
subject to the point of order that it was not germane to the House bill
(VIII, 3425), but under changes in the rules points of order may be made
and separate votes demanded on portions of Senate amendments and
conference reports containing language that would not have been germane
if offered in the House. Clause 10 of rule XXII permits points of order
against language in a conference report which was originally in the
Senate bill or amendment and which would not have been germane if
offered to the House-passed version, and permits a separate motion to
reject such portion of the conference report if found nongermane (Oct.
15, 1986, p. 31498). For purposes of that rule, the House-passed
version, against which Senate provisions are compared, is that finally
committed to conference, taking into consideration all amendments
adopted by the House, including House amendments to Senate amendments
(July 28, 1983, p. 21401). Clause 10 of rule XXII permits points of
order against motions to concur or concur with amendment in nongermane
Senate amendments, the stage of disagreement having been reached, and,
if such points of order are sustained, permits separate motions to
reject such nongermane matter. Clause 10 of rule XXII is not applicable
to a provision contained in a motion to recede and concur with an
amendment (the stage of disagreement having been reached) which is not
contained in any form in the Senate version, the only requirement in
such circumstances being that the motion as a
[[Page 678]]
whole be germane to the Senate amendment as a whole under clause 7 of
rule XVI (Oct. 4, 1978, pp. 33502-06; June 30, 1987, p. 18294).
An <> amendment must relate to the subject matter under
consideration. Thus, the following are not germane: To a bill seeking to
eliminate wage discrimination based on the sex of the employee, an
amendment to make the provisions of the bill applicable to
discrimination based on race (July 25, 1962, p. 14778); to a bill
establishing an office in the Department of the Interior to manage
biological information, an amendment addressing socioeconomic matters
(Oct. 26, 1993, p. 26082); to a bill authorizing military assistance to
Israel and funds for the United Nations emergency force in the Middle
East, an amendment expressing the sense of Congress that the President
conduct negotiations to obtain a peace treaty in the Middle East and the
resumption of diplomatic and trade relations between Arab nations and
the United States and Israel (Dec. 11, 1973, p. 40842); to a concurrent
resolution expressing congressional concern over certain domestic
policies of a foreign government and urging that government to improve
those internal problems in order to enhance better relations with the
United States, amendments expressing the necessity for United States
diplomatic initiatives as a consequence of that foreign government's
policies (July 12, 1978, pp. 20500-05); to a resolution amending several
clauses of a rule of the House but confined in its scope to the issue of
access to committee hearings and meetings, an amendment to another
clause of that rule relating to committee staffing (Mar. 7, 1973, p.
6714); to a title of a bill that only addresses the administrative
structure of a new department and not its authority to carry out
transferred programs, an amendment prohibiting the department from
withholding funds to carry out certain objectives (June 12, 1979, p.
14485); to an amendment authorizing the use of funds for a specific
study, an amendment naming any program established in the bill for an
unrelated purpose for a specified Senator (Aug. 15, 1986, p. 22075); to
one of two reconciliation bills reported by the Budget Committee, an
amendment making a prospective indirect change to the other
reconciliation bill not then pending before the House (June 25, 1997, p.
----); to a bill reauthorizing the National Sea Grant College Program, a
proposal to amend existing law to provide for automatic continuation of
appropriations in the absence of timely enactment of a regular
appropriation bill (June 18, 1997, p. ----); to a bill regulating
immigration, an amendment reaffirming an agreement with Japan (VIII,
3050); to a bill opposing concessional loans to a country and outlining
principles governing the conduct of industrial cooperation projects of
U.S. nationals in that country, an amendment waiving provisions of other
law by requiring changes in tariff schedules to achieve overall trade
reciprocity between that country and the United States (Nov. 6, 1997, p.
----); to a resolution authorizing the deployment of troops to implement
a peace agreement, an amendment expressing support for the armed forces
in carrying out such mission (Mar. 11, 1999, p. ----); to a bill
addessing enforcement of State liquor laws,
[[Page 679]]
an amendment addressing enforcement of State firearm laws (Aug. 3, 1999,
p. ----).
An amendment that is germane, not being ``on a subject different from
that under consideration,'' belongs to a class illustrated by the
following: to a bill providing for an interoceanic canal by one route,
an amendment providing for a different route (V, 5909); to a bill
providing for the reorganization of the Army, an amendment providing for
the encouragement of marksmanship (V, 5910); to a proposition to create
a board of inquiry, an amendment specifying when it shall report (V,
5915); to a bill relating to ``oleomargarine and other imitation dairy
products,'' an amendment on the subject of ``renovated butter'' (V,
5919); to a resolution rescinding an order for final adjournment, an
amendment fixing a new date therefor (V, 5920); to a proposition
directing a feasibility investigation, an amendment requiring the
submission of legislation to implement that investigation (Dec. 14,
1973, p. 41747); and to a section of a bill prescribing the functions of
a new Federal Energy Administration by conferring wide discretionary
powers upon the Administrator, an amendment directing the Administrator
to issue preliminary summer guidelines for citizen fuel use (as a
further delineation of those functions) (Mar. 6, 1974, p. 5436).
A bill comprehensively addressing a subject requires careful analysis
to determine whether an amendment addresses a different subject. For
example, to an amendment in the nature of a substitute comprehensively
amending several sections of the Clean Air Act with respect to the
impact of shortages of energy resources on standards imposed under that
Act, an amendment to another section of the Act suspending temporarily
the authority of the Administrator of the EPA to control automobile
emissions was held germane (Dec. 14, 1973, p. 41688). On the other hand,
to a bill comprehensively restructuring the production and distribution
of food, an amendment proposed in a motion to recommit to provide
nutrition assistance, including food stamps and soup kitchen programs,
was held not germane (Feb. 29, 1996, p. 3257).
The <> fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to
the fundamental purpose of the bill (VIII, 2911). The Chair discerns the
fundamental purpose of a bill by examining the text of the bill and its
report language (Deschler-Brown, vol. 10, ch. 28, sec. 5.6; Aug. 3,
1999, p. ----), rather than the motives that circumstances may suggest
(V, 5783, 5803; Dec. 13, 1973, pp. 41267-69; Aug. 15, 1974, p. 28438).
To a bill that comprehensively addresses a subject matter, an amendment
that relates to that subject matter may not be ruled out as nongermane
merely because the amendment may be characterized as private legislation
benefitting certain individuals offered to a public bill (May 30, 1984,
p. 14495). Similarly, to a bill proposing to accomplish a result by
methods comprehensive in scope, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute seeking to achieve the same result was held germane where it
was shown that additional provisions not contained in the original bill
were merely incidental conditions
[[Page 680]]
or exceptions that were related to the fundamental purpose of the bill
(Aug. 2, 1973, pp. 27673-75; July 8, 1975, p. 21633; Sept. 29, 1980, pp.
27832-52). On the other hand, an amendment may relate to the same
subject matter yet still stray from adherence to a common fundamental
purpose, by, for example, singling out one constituent element of a
larger subject for specific and unrelated scrutiny (Aug. 3, 1999, p. --
--).
In order to be germane, an amendment must not only have the same end
as the matter sought to be amended, but must contemplate a method of
achieving that end that is closely allied to the method encompassed in
the bill or other matter sought to be amended (Aug. 11, 1970, p. 28165).
Thus the following are germane: to a bill raising revenue by several
methods of taxation, an amendment proposing a tax on undistributed
profits (the Committee of the Whole overruling the Chair) (VII, 3042);
to a proposition to accomplish a result through regulation by a
governmental agency, an amendment to accomplish the same fundamental
purpose through regulation by another governmental agency (Dec. 15,
1937, pp. 1572-89; June 9, 1941, p. 4905; Dec. 19, 1973, p. 42618); to a
bill to achieve a certain purpose by conferring discretionary authority
to set fair labor standards upon an independent agency, an amendment in
the nature of a substitute to attain that purpose by a more inflexible
method (prescribing fair labor standards) (Dec. 15, 1937, pp. 1590-94;
Oct. 14, 1987, p. 27885); to a proposition to accomplish the broad
purpose of settling land claims of Alaska natives by a method general in
scope, an amendment accomplishing the same purpose by a method more
detailed in its provisions (Oct. 20, 1971, p. 37079); to an amendment
comprehensively amending the Natural Gas Act to deregulate interstate
sales of new natural gas and regulate aspects of intrastate gas use, a
substitute providing regulatory authority for interstate and intrastate
gas sales of large producers (Feb. 4, 1976, p. 2387); to a bill
providing a temporary extension of existing authority, an amendment
achieving the same purpose by providing a nominally permanent authority
was held germane where both the bill and the amendment were based on
reported economic projections under which either would achieve the same,
necessarily temporary result by method of direct or indirect amendment
to the same existing law (May 13, 1987, p. 12344); to a bill subjecting
employers who fail to apprise their workers of health risks to penalties
under other laws and regulations, a substitute subjecting such employers
to penalties prescribed in the substitute itself (Oct. 14, 1987, p.
27885); to an amendment freezing the obligation of funds for fiscal year
1996 for missile defense until the Secretary of Defense rendered a
specified readiness certification, an amendment permitting an increase
in the obligation of such funds on the basis of legislative findings
concerning readiness, as each proposition addressed the relationship
between 1996 funding levels for missile defense and readiness (Feb. 15,
1995, p. 5026).
However, an amendment to accomplish a similar purpose by an unrelated
method, not contemplated by the bill, is not germane. Thus, the
following are not germane: to a bill providing relief to foreign
countries
[[Page 681]]
through government agencies, an amendment providing for relief to be
made through the International Red Cross (Dec. 10, 1947, pp. 11242-44);
to a bill to aid in the control of crime through research and training
an amendment to accomplish that result through regulation of the sale of
firearms (Aug. 8, 1967, pp. 21846-50); to a bill providing assistance to
Vietnam war victims, amendments containing foreign policy declarations
as to culpability in the Vietnam war (Apr. 23, 1975, p. 11510); to a
bill conserving energy by civil penalties on manufacturers of autos with
low gas mileage, an amendment conserving energy by tax rebates to
purchasers of high-mileage autos (June 12, 1975, p. 18695); to a
proposition whose fundamental purpose was registration and public
disclosure by, but not regulation of the activities of, lobbyists,
amendments prohibiting lobbying in certain places, restricting monetary
contributions by lobbyists, and providing civil penalties for violating
Rules of the House in relation to floor privileges (Sept. 28, 1976, p.
33070) (but to a similar bill, an amendment requiring disclosure of any
lobbying communication made on the floor of the House or Senate or in
adjoining rooms, but not regulating such conduct, was held germane (Apr.
26, 1978, p. 11641)); to a bill seeking to accomplish a purpose by one
method (creation of an executive branch agency), an amendment
accomplishing that result by a method not contemplated in the bill
(creation of office within legislative branch as function of committee
oversight) (Nov. 5, 1975, p. 35041); to a bill authorizing foreign
military assistance programs, an amendment authorizing contributions to
an international agency for nuclear missile inspections (Mar. 3, 1976,
p. 5226); to a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment for
representation of the District of Columbia in Congress, a motion to
recommit with instructions that the Committee on the Judiciary consider
a resolution retroceding populated portions of the District to Maryland
(Speaker O'Neill, Mar. 2, 1978, p. 5272); to an amendment to achieve a
national production goal for synthetic fuels for national defense needs
by loans and grants and development of demonstration synthetic fuel
plants, a substitute to require by regulation that any fuel sold in
commerce require a certain percentage of synthetic fuels, as broader in
scope and an unrelated method (June 26, 1979, pp. 16663-74); to a bill
to provide financial assistance to domestic agriculture through price
support payments, an amendment to protect domestic agriculture by
restricting imports in competition therewith as proposing an unrelated
method of assistance within the jurisdiction of another committee (Oct.
14, 1981, p. 23899); to a bill authorizing financial assistance to
unemployed individuals for employment opportunities, an amendment
providing instead for tax incentives to stimulate employment as
employing an unrelated method within the jurisdiction of a different
committee of the House (Sept. 21, 1983, p. 25145); to a bill relating to
one government agency, an amendment having as its fundamental purpose a
change in the law relating to another agency, even though it
contemplated a consultative role for the agency covered by the bill
(July 8, 1987, p. 19014); to a proposition changing congressional budget
procedures
[[Page 682]]
to require consideration of balanced budgets, an amendment changing
concurrent resolutions on the budget to joint resolutions, bringing
executive enforcement mechanisms into play (July 18, 1990, p. 17920); to
a bill to promote technological advancement by fostering Federal
research and development, and amendment exhorting to do so by changes in
tax and antitrust laws (July 16, 1991, p. 18397); to a bill extending
unemployment compensation benefits during a period of economic
recession, an amendment to stimulate economic growth by tax incentives
and regulatory reform (Sept. 17, 1991, p. 23156); an amendment to change
a direct appropriation of new budget authority from the general fund
into a reappropriation (in effect a rescission) of funds previously
appropriated for an entirely different purpose in a special reserve
account (Feb. 28, 1985, p. 4146); to a bill addressing substance abuse
through prevention and treatment, an amendment imposing civil penalties
on drug dealers (Sept. 16, 1998, p. ----); to a resolution impeaching
the President, an amendment censuring the President (Dec. 19, 1998, p.
----); to a bill authorizing a State attorney general to bring a civil
action in Federal court against a person who has violated a State law
regulating intoxicating liquor, an amendment singling out certain
violations of liquor laws on the basis of their regard for any and all
firearms issues (Aug. 3, 1999, p.----); to the same bill, an amendment
creating new Federal laws to regulate intoxicating liquor (Aug. 3, 1999,
p. ----).
An <> amendment when considered as a whole should be within the
jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill (Jan. 29, 1976, p.
1582; July 25, 1979, pp. 20601-03; June 27, 1985, pp. 17417-19),
although committee jurisdiction over the subject of an amendment and of
the original bill is not the exclusive test of germaneness (Aug. 2,
1973, pp. 27673-75), and the Chair relates the amendment to the bill in
its perfected form (Aug. 17, 1972, p. 28913). Thus, the following are
not germane: To a bill reported from the Committee on Agriculture
providing price support programs for various agricultural commodities,
an amendment repealing price control authority for all commodities under
an act reported from the Committee on Banking and Currency (July 19,
1973, p. 24950); to a bill reported from the Committee on Ways and Means
providing for a temporary increase in the public debt ceiling for the
current fiscal year (not directly amending the Second Liberty Bond Act),
an amendment proposing permanent changes in that Act and also affecting
budget and appropriation procedures (matters within the jurisdiction of
other House committees) (Nov. 7, 1973, p. 36240); to a bill relating to
intelligence activities of the executive branch, an amendment effecting
a change in the Rules of the House by directing a committee to impose an
oath of secrecy on its members and staff (May 1, 1991, p. 9669); to a
bill reported by the Committee on Government Operations creating an
executive agency to protect consumers, an amendment conferring on
congressional committees with oversight over consumer protection the
authority to intervene in judicial or administrative proceedings
[[Page 683]]
(a rulemaking provision within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Rules) (Nov. 6, 1975, p. 35373); to a proposition reported from the
Committee on Public Works and Transportation, authorizing funds for
local public works employment, an amendment to mandate expenditure of
already appropriated funds (as a purported disapproval of deferral of
such funds under the Impoundment Control Act) and to set discount rates
for reclamation and public works projects, subjects within the
jurisdictions of the Committees on Appropriations and Interior and
Insular Affairs (May 3, 1977, p. 13242); to a bill reported from the
Committee on Armed Services authorizing military procurement and
personnel strengths for one fiscal year, a proposition imposing
permanent prohibitions and conditions on troop withdrawals from the
Republic of Korea since including statements of policy within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (May 24, 1978, pp.
15293-95); to a bill reported from the Committee on Government
Operations creating a new department, transferring the administration of
existing laws to it, and authorizing appropriations to carry out the Act
subject to provisions in existing law, an amendment prohibiting the use
of funds so authorized to carry out a designated funding program
transferred to the department, where the purpose of the authorization is
to allow appropriations in general appropriation bills for the
department to carry out its functions but where changes in the laws to
be administered by the department remain within the jurisdiction of
other committees of the House (June 19, 1979, p. 15570); to a bill
reported by the Committee on Public Works authorizing funds for highway
construction and mass transportation systems using motor vehicles, an
amendment relating to urban mass transit (then within the jurisdiction
of the Committee on Banking and Currency) and the railroad industry
(then within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce) (Oct. 5, 1972, p. 34115); to a bill reported from the
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs designating certain areas in a
State as wilderness, an amendment providing unemployment benefits to
workers displaced by the designation (a subject in the jurisdiction of
other committees) (Mar. 21, 1983, p. 6347); to a bill reported from the
Committee on Science and Technology authorizing environmental research
and development activities of an agency, an amendment expressing the
sense of Congress with respect to that agency's regulatory and
enforcement authority, within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce (Feb. 9, 1984, p. 2423); to a bill authorizing
environmental research and development activities of an agency for two
years, an amendment adding permanent regulatory authority for that
agency by amending a law not within the jurisdiction of the committee
reporting the bill (June 4, 1987, p. 14757); to a bill reported from the
Committee on Education and Labor dealing with education, an amendment
regulating telephone communications (a matter within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Energy and Commerce) (Apr. 19, 1988, p. 7355); to a
bill addressing various research programs and authorities, an amendment
addressing matters of fiscal and economic policy and regulation (July
16,
[[Page 684]]
1991, p. 18391; Sept. 22, 1992, pp. 26734, 26741); to a bill reported
from the Committee on Ways and Means addressing unemployment
compensation, an amendment addressing stimuli for economic growth
involving the jurisdictions of the Committees on Banking, Finance, and
Urban Affairs and the Judiciary (Sept. 17, 1991, p. 23177); to a bill
reported from the Committee on Armed Services amending several laws
within that committee's jurisdiction on military procurement and policy,
an amendment to the Renegotiation Act, a matter within the jurisdiction
of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs and not solely
related to military contracts (June 26, 1985, pp. 17417-19) and an
amendment requiring reports on Soviet Union compliance with arms control
commitments, a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs (Deschler-Brown Precedents, vol. 10, ch.
28, sec. 4.26); to a bill reported from the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, relating to mentally ill individuals, an amendment prohibiting
the use of general revenue sharing funds (within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Government Operations) (Jan. 30, 1986, p. 1053); to a bill
reported from the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries authorizing
various activities of the Coast Guard, an amendment urging the Secretary
of State in consultation with the Coast Guard to elicit cooperation from
other nations concerning certain Coast Guard and military operations (a
matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs)
(July 8, 1987, p. 19013); to a bill reported by the Committee on
Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs dealing with housing and community
development grant and credit programs, an amendment expressing the sense
of Congress on tax policy (the deductibility of mortgage interest), a
matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means (Aug.
1, 1990, p. 21256); to a bill reported from the Committee on Education
and Labor authorizing a variety of civilian national service programs,
an amendment establishing a contingent military service obligation (a
matter within the selective service jurisdiction of the Committee on
Armed Services) (July 28, 1993, p. 17398); to a bill reauthorizing
programs administered by two agencies within one committee's
jurisdiction, an amendment more general in scope affecting agencies
within the jurisdiction of other committees (May 12, 1994, p. 10024); to
a bill reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
reforming and privatizing Amtrak, an amendment rescinding previously
appropriated funds for certain administrative expenses, a matter within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations (Nov. 30, 1995, p.
35071); to a measure expressing a sense of Congress with respect to the
availability of public funds for expenses incurred in the evaluation of
a problem, an amendment addressing legislative responses to that
problem, within the jurisdiction of other committees (Feb. 4, 1998, p.
----); to a bill reported from Government Reform and Oversight proposing
to alter responsibilities of executive branch agencies under an existing
law, an amendment proposing to extend the application of that law to
entities of the legislative branch, a matter within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on House Administration (Mar.
[[Page 685]]
12, 1998, p. ----); to a resolution authorizing the deployment of troops
to implement a peace agreement within the jurisdiction of the Committee
on International Relations, an amendment expressing support for the
armed forces carrying such mission within the jurisdiction of both the
Committees on Armed Services and International Relations (Mar. 11, 1999,
p. ----); to a bill addressing certain diplomatic efforts to curb
alleged price-fixing in the global oil market within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on International Relations, an amendment proposing to
suspend oil exportation through changes to the Mineral Leasing Act
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources and an amendment
proposing to change the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to
reauthorize Presidential authority to draw down the strategic petroleum
reserve, a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce
(Mar. 22, 2000, p. ----).
Committee jurisdiction is not the sole test of germaneness where: (1)
the proposition to which the amendment is offered is so comprehensive
(overlapping several committees' jurisdictions) as to diminish the
pertinency of that test; (2) the amendment does not demonstrably affect
a law within another committee's jurisdiction (July 21, 1976, p. 23167;
Oct. 8, 1985, pp. 26548-51); (3) the portion of the bill also contains
language, related to the amendment, not within the jurisdiction of the
committee reporting the bill (Apr. 2, 1976, p. 9254; Aug. 10, 1984, p.
23975); or (4) the bill has been amended to include matter within the
jurisdiction of another committee thus permitting further similar
amendments to be germane (July 11, 1985, p. 18601; Sept. 19, 1986, p.
24769). Thus, to a bill reported from the Committee on Agriculture
relating to the food stamp program, an amendment requiring the Secretary
of the Treasury, after consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture,
to collect from certain recipients the monetary value of food stamps
received was held germane since the performance of new duties by the
Secretary of the Treasury and by the Internal Revenue Service not
affecting the application of the Internal Revenue Code is not a matter
solely within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means (July
27, 1977, pp. 25249-52).
To a bill amending an existing law to grant to merchant mariners
benefits substantially equivalent to those granted to veterans in a
separate law in the jurisdiction of another committee, an amendment
directly changing the separate law to extend its benefits to merchant
mariners was held not germane (Sept. 9, 1992, p. 23951); but where the
pending bill incorporates by reference provisions of a law from another
committee and conditions the bill's effectiveness upon actions taken
pursuant to a section of that law, an amendment to alter that section of
the law may be germane (Apr. 8, 1974, pp. 10108-10).
The test of the germaneness of an amendment in the nature of a
substitute for a bill is its relationship to the bill as a whole, and is
not necessarily determined by the content of an incidental portion of
the amendment which, if considered separately, might be within the
jurisdiction of another committee (Aug. 2, 1973, p. 27673; June 1, 1976,
pp. 16021-25).
[[Page 686]]
However, the House may by adopting a special rule allow a point of order
that a section of a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
would not have been germane if offered separately to the bill as
introduced (May 23, 1978, pp. 15094-96; May 24, 1978, pp. 15293-95; Aug.
11, 1978, p. 25705).
The fact that an amendment is offered in conjunction with a motion to
recommit a bill with instructions does not affect the requirement that
the subject matter of the amendment be germane and within the
jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill (Mar. 2, 1967, p.
5155). Thus the following are not germane: to a bill reported from the
Committee on Foreign Affairs addressing U.S. claims against Iraq, a
motion to recommit with instructions to prohibit the admission of former
members of Iraq's armed forces to the United States as refugees (a
matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary) is not
germane (Apr. 28, 1994, p. 8803); and to a bill amending a law reported
by the Committee on Banking and Financial Services opposing concessional
loans to a country and outlining principles governing the conduct of
industrial cooperation projects of U.S. nationals in that country, an
amendment proposed in a motion to recommit waiving provisions of other
law by requiring changes in tariff schedules to achieve overall trade
reciprocity between that country and the United States, a subject within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means (Nov. 6, 1997, p. --
--).
The <> standards by which the germaneness of an amendment may be
measured, as set forth in Sec. Sec. 932-934, supra, are not exclusive;
an amendment and the matter to which offered may be related to some
degree under the tests of subject matter, purpose, and jurisdiction, and
still not be considered germane under the precedents. Thus, the
following have been held not to be germane: To a proposition relating to
the terms of Senators, an amendment changing the manner of their
election (V, 5882); to a bill relating to commerce between the States,
an amendment relating to commerce within the several States (V, 5841);
to a proposition to relieve destitute citizens of the United States in
Cuba, a proposition declaring a state of war in Cuba and proclaiming
neutrality (V, 5897); to a proposition for the appointment of a select
committee to investigate a certain subject, an amendment proposing an
inquiry of the executive on that subject (V, 5891); to a bill granting a
right of way to a railroad, an amendment providing for the purchase of
the railroad by the Government (V, 5887); to a provision for the
erection of a building for a mint, an amendment to change the coinage
laws (V, 5884); to a resolution proposing expulsion, an amendment
proposing censure (VI, 236); to a resolution authorizing the
administration of the oath to a Member-elect, an amendment authorizing
such oath administration but adding several conditions of punishment
predicated on acts committed in a prior Congress (Jan. 3, 1969, pp. 23-
25); to a general tariff bill, an amendment creating a tariff board (May
6, 1913, p. 1234; Speaker Clark, May 8, 1913, p. 1381); to a proposition
[[Page 687]]
to sell two battleships and build a new battleship with the proceeds, a
proposition to devote the proceeds to building wagon roads (VIII, 2973);
to a bill authorizing a State attorney general to bring a civil action
in Federal court against a person who has violated a State law
regulating intoxicating liquor, an amendment singling out certain
violations of liquor laws on the basis of their regard for any and all
firearms issues (Aug. 3, 1999, p.----).
One <> individual proposition may not be amended by another
individual proposition even though the two belong to the same class
(VIII, 2951-2953, 2963-2966, 3047; Jan. 29, 1986, p. 684; Oct. 22, 1990,
p. 32346; Oct. 24, 1991, p. 28561). Thus, the following are not germane:
To a bill proposing the admission of one territory into the Union, an
amendment for admission of another territory (V, 5529); to a bill
amending a law in one particular, amending the law in another particular
(VIII, 2949); to a proposition to appropriate or to authorize
appropriations for only one year (and containing no provisions extending
beyond that year), an amendment to extend the authorization or
appropriation to another year (VIII, 2913; Nov. 13, 1980, pp. 29523-28;
see also May 2, 1979, p. 9564; Oct. 12, 1979, pp. 28097-99); to a
measure earmarking funds in an appropriation bill, an amendment
authorizing the program for which the appropriation is made (Nov. 15,
1989, p. 29019); to a bill for the relief of one individual, an
amendment proposing similar relief for another (V, 5826-5829); to a
resolution providing a special order for one bill, an amendment to
include another bill (V, 5834-5836); to a provision for extermination of
the cotton-boll weevil, an amendment including the gypsy moth (V, 5832);
to a provision for a clerk for one committee, an amendment for a clerk
to another committee (V, 5833); to a Senate amendment dealing with use
of its contingent fund for art restoration in that body, a proposed
House amendment for use of the House contingent fund for a similar but
broader purpose (May 24, 1990, p. 12203); to a bill prohibiting
transportation of messages relative to dealing in cotton futures, an
amendment adding wheat, corn, etc. (VIII, 3001); to a bill prohibiting
cotton futures, an amendment prohibiting wheat futures (VIII, 3001); to
a bill for the relief of certain aliens, an amendment for the relief of
other persons who are not aliens (May 14, 1975, p. 14360); to a bill
providing relief for agricultural producers, an amendment extending such
relief to commercial fishermen, another class within the jurisdiction of
another committee (Apr. 24, 1978, p. 11080); to a bill governing the
political activities of Federal civilian employees, an amendment to
cover members of the uniformed services (June 7, 1977, p. 17713); to a
bill covering the civil service system for Federal civilian employees,
an amendment bringing other classes of employees (postal and District of
Columbia employees) within the scope of the bill (Sept. 7, 1978, pp.
28437-39; Oct. 9, 1985, pp. 26951-54); to a portion of an appropriation
bill containing funds for a certain purpose to be expended by one
agency, an amendment containing funds for another agency for the same
purpose (July 24, 1981,
[[Page 688]]
p. 17226); to an amendment exempting national defense budget authority
from the reach of a proposed Presidential rescission authority, an
amendment exempting social security (Feb. 2, 1995, p. 5501); to a Senate
amendment striking an earmarking from an appropriation bill, a House
amendment reinserting part of the amount but adding other earmarking for
unrelated programs (Nov. 15, 1989, p. 29019); to a Senate amendment
relating to a feasibility study of a land transfer in one State, a House
amendment requiring an environmental study of land in another State
(Nov. 15, 1989, p. 29035); to a bill prohibiting certain uses of
polygraphy in the private sector, an amendment applying the terms of the
bill to the Congress (Nov. 4, 1987, p. 30870); to a bill to determine
the equitability of Federal pay practices under statutory systems
applicable to agencies of the executive branch, an amendment to extend
the scope of the determination to pay practices in the legislative
branch (ruling sustained by Committee of Whole, Sept. 28, 1988, p.
26422); to a special appropriation bill providing funds and authority
for agricultural credit programs but containing no transfers of funds,
reappropriations, or rescissions, an amendment (contained in a motion to
recommit) deriving funds for the bill by transfer of unobligated
balances in the Energy Security Reserve and thus decreasing and
transferring funds provided for a program unrelated to the subject
matter or method of funding provided in the bill (Feb. 28, 1985, p.
4146); to a bill prohibiting importation of goods made in whole or in
part by convict, pauper, or detained labor, or made in whole or in part
from materials that have been made in whole or in part in any manner
manipulated by convict or prison labor, an amendment prohibiting
importation of goods produced by child labor, a second discrete class
(VIII, 2963); similarly, to an amendment authorizing grants to States
for purchase of one class of equipment (photographic and fingerprint
equipment) for law enforcement purposes, an amendment including
assistance for the purchase of a different class of equipment
(bulletproof vests) (Oct. 12, 1979, pp. 28121-24); to a bill repealing
section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act and making conforming
changes in two related sections of labor law, all pertaining solely to
the so-called ``right-to-work'' issue, an amendment excluding from the
applicability of certain labor-management agreements members of
religious groups (July 28, 1965, p. 18633); to a bill relating to the
design of certain coin currency, an amendment specifying the metal
content of other coin currency (Sept. 12, 1973, p. 29376); to a
proposition to accomplish a single purpose without amending a certain
existing law, an amendment to accomplish another individual purpose by
changing that existing law (Dec. 14, 1973, pp. 41723-25); to a bill
regulating poll closing time in Presidential general elections, an
amendment extending its provisions to Presidential primary elections
(Jan. 29, 1986, p. 684); to a bill authorizing grants to private
entities furnishing health care to underserved populations, an amendment
authorizing grants to States to control a public health hazard was held
not germane as relating to a different category of recipient (Mar. 5,
1986, p. 3604); to a bill siting a certain type of reposi
[[Page 689]]
tory for a specified kind of nuclear waste, an amendment prohibiting the
construction at another site of another type of repository for another
kind of nuclear waste (July 21, 1992, p. 18718); to a bill addressing
violent crimes, an amendment addressing nonviolent crimes, such as
crimes of fraud and deception or crimes against the environment (May 7,
1996, pp. 10342, 10343); to a bill naming a facility after a specific
person, an amendment proposing to substitute the name of a different
person is not germane (VIII, 2955) where it could not be shown that the
amendment intended a return to the facility's existing designation (Feb.
4, 1998, p. ----); to a joint resolution addressing whether public funds
should be available for specified endeavors of one group, an amendment
addressing the same question for unrelated endeavors of another group
(Feb. 4, 1998, p. ----); to a bill proposing to alter responsibilities
of executive branch agencies under an existing law, an amendment
proposing to extend the application of that law to entities of the
legislative branch (Mar. 12, 1998. p. ----).
A <> specific subject may not be amended by a provision general in
nature, even when of the class of the specific subject (V, 5843-5846;
VIII, 2997, 2998; July 31, 1985, pp. 21832-34; see also Procedure, ch.
28, sec. 8). Thus the following are not germane: To a bill for the
admission of one territory into the Union, an amendment providing for
the admission of several other territories (V, 5837); to a bill relating
to all corporations engaged in interstate commerce, an amendment
relating to all corporations (V, 5842); to a bill proscribing certain
picketing in the District of Columbia, an amendment making the
provisions thereof applicable throughout the United States (Aug. 22,
1966, p. 20113); to a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution prohibiting the United States or any State from denying
persons 18 years of age or older the right to vote, an amendment
requiring the United States and all States to treat persons 18 years and
older as having reached the age of majority for all purposes under the
law (Mar. 23, 1971, p. 7567); to a bill dealing with enforcement of
United Nations sanctions against one country in relation to a specific
trade commodity, an amendment imposing United States sanctions against
all countries for all commodities and communications (Mar. 14, 1977, p.
7446); to a bill to enable the Department of HEW to investigate and
prosecute fraud and abuse in medicare and medicaid health programs, an
amendment to prohibit any officer or employee from disclosing any
identifiable medical record absent patient approval (Sept. 23, 1977, pp.
30534-35); to an amendment to a budget resolution changing one
functional category only, an amendment changing several other categories
and covering an additional fiscal year (May 2, 1979, pp. 9556-64); to a
bill authorizing funds for radio broadcasting to Cuba, an amendment
broadening the bill to include broadcasting to all dictatorships in the
Caribbean Basin (Aug. 10, 1982, p. 20256); to a bill relating to
aircraft altitude over units of the National Park System, an amendment
relating to aircraft collision avoidance generally (Sept. 18, 1986, p.
24084); to a proposition prohibiting the
[[Page 690]]
use of funds appropriated for a fiscal year for a specified purpose, an
amendment prohibiting the use of funds appropriated for that or any
prior fiscal year for an unrelated purpose is not germane (June 30,
1987, p. 18294); to a proposition providing for a training vessel for
one state maritime academy, an amendment relating to training vessels
for all state maritime academies is not germane (June 30, 1987, p.
18296); to a proposition waiving a requirement in existing law that an
authorizing law be enacted prior to the obligation of certain funds, an
amendment affirmatively enacting bills containing not only that
authorization but also other policy matters (Sept. 28, 1988, p. 26108);
to a proposition pertaining only to a certain appropriation account in a
bill, an amendment relating not only to that account but also to funds
in other acts (Sept. 30, 1988, p. 27148); to a proposition raising an
employment ceiling for one year, an amendment proposing also to address
in permanent law a hiring preference system for such employees (Oct. 11,
1989, p. 24089); to an omnibus farm bill, with myriad programs to
improve agricultural economy, an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act but
not limited to agricultural pursuits (Aug. 1, 1990, p. 21573); to a bill
authorizing Federal funding for qualifying State national service
programs, an amendment conditioning a portion of such funding on the
enactment of State laws immunizing volunteers in nonprofit or public
programs, generally, from certain legal liabilities (July 28, 1993, p.
17401); to an amendment addressing particular educational requirements
imposed on educational agencies by the underlying bill, an amendment
addressing any requirements imposed on educational agencies by the
underlying bill (Mar. 21, 1994, p. 5771); to a bill reauthorizing
programs administered by the Economic Development Administration and the
Appalachian Regional Commission, an amendment providing for the waiver
of any Federal regulation that would interfere with economic development
(May 12, 1994, p. 10024); to a bill prohibiting a certain class of
abortion procedures, an amendment prohibiting any or all abortion
procedures (Mar. 20, 1997, p. ----); to a bill addressing a class of
imported goods (those produced by forced labor), an amendment addressing
all imported goods from one specified country (Nov. 5, 1997, p. ----);
and to a general appropriation bill, an amendment in the form of a
limitation on funds therein for activities unrelated to the functions of
departments and agencies addressed by the bill (July 10, 2000, p. ----).
To a bill limited in its applicability to certain departments and
agencies of government, an amendment applicable to all departments and
agencies is not germane (Sept. 27, 1967, p. 26957). Thus, the following
are not germane: to a bill establishing an office without regulatory
authority in the Department of the Interior to manage biological
information, an amendment addressing requirements of compensation for
constitutional takings by other regulatory agencies (Oct. 26, 1993, p.
26076); to a bill amending an authority of an agency under an existing
law, an amendment independently expressing the sense of Congress on
regulatory agencies generally (May 14, 1992, p. 11287); to a proposition
authorizing activities of certain
[[Page 691]]
government agencies for a temporary period, an amendment permanently
changing existing law to cover a broader range of government activities
(May 5, 1988, p. 9938); and to a joint resolution continuing funding
within one executive department, neither an amendment addressing funding
for other departments nor one addressing the compensation of Federal
employees on government-wide bases (Dec. 20, 1995, pp. 37886, 37888).
To a bill modifying an existing law as to one specific particular, an
amendment relating to the terms of the law other than those dealt with
by the bill is not germane (V, 5806-5808). Thus, the following are not
germane: to a bill amending the war-time prohibition act in one
particular, an amendment repealing that act (VIII, 2949); to a
proposition temporarily suspending certain requirements of the Clean Air
Act, an amendment temporarily suspending other requirements of all other
environmental protection laws (Dec. 14, 1973, p. 41751); to an amendment
striking from a bill one activity from those covered by the law being
amended, a substitute striking out the entire subsection of the bill,
thereby eliminating the applicability of existing law to a number of
activities (Sept. 23, 1982, p. 24963); to a bill amending an existing
law to authorize a program, an amendment restricting authorizations
under that or any other act (Dec. 10, 1987, p. 34676); to a bill
proposing a temporary change in law, an amendment making permanent
changes in that law (Nov. 19, 1991, p. 32893); and to a bill amending an
existing law in one particular, an amendment amending other laws and
more comprehensive in scope (Nov. 19, 1993, pp. 30513, 30515, 30517).
A bill dealing with an individual proposition but rendered general in
its scope by amendment is then subject to further amendment by
propositions of the same class (VIII, 3003). While a specific
proposition covering a defined class may not be amended by a proposition
more general in scope, the Chair may consider all pending provisions
being read for amendment in determining the generality of the class
covered by that proposition (Jan. 30, 1986, p. 1051).
A <> general subject may be amended by specific propositions
of the same class (VIII, 3002, 3009, 3012; see also Procedure, ch. 28,
sec. 9). Thus, the following have been held to be germane: To a bill
admitting several territories into the Union, an amendment adding
another territory (V, 5838); to a bill providing for the construction of
buildings in each of two cities, an amendment providing for similar
buildings in several other cities (V, 5840); to a resolution embodying
two distinct phases of international relationship, an amendment
embodying a third (V, 5839); to an amendment prohibiting indirect
assistance to several countries, an amendment to include additional
countries within that prohibition (Aug. 3, 1978, p. 24244); to a portion
of a bill providing two categories of economic assistance to foreign
countries, an amendment adding a further specific category (Apr. 9,
1979, pp. 7755-57); to a bill bringing two new categories within the
coverage of existing law, an amendment to include
[[Page 692]]
a third category of the same class (Nov. 27, 1967, p. 33769); to a
proposition providing for prepayment of loans by those within a certain
class of borrowers who meet a specified criterion, a proposed House
amendment eliminating the criterion to broaden the applicability of the
Senate amendment to additional borrowers within the same class (June 30,
1987, p. 18308); to an amendment addressing a range of criminal
prohibitions, an amendment addressing another criminal prohibition
within that range (Oct. 17, 1991, p. 26767); to a bill addressing
violent crimes, an amendment addressing violent crimes involving the
environment (May 7, 1996, p. 10344).
Where a bill seeks to accomplish a general purpose (support of arts
and humanities) by diverse methods, an amendment that adds a specific
method to accomplish that result (artist employment through National
Endowment for the Arts) may be germane (Apr. 26, 1976, p. 11101; see
also June 12, 1979, p. 14460). However, to a resolution authorizing a
class of employees in the service of the House, an amendment providing
for the employment of a specified individual was held not to be germane
(V, 5848-5849). Other examples of amendments that have been held to be
germane under this theory include: to a proposition relating in many
diverse respects to the political rights of the people of the District
of Columbia, an amendment conferring upon that electorate the additional
right of electing a nonvoting Delegate to the Senate (Oct. 10, 1973, p.
33656); to a bill containing definitions of several of the terms used
therein, an amendment modifying one of the definitions and adding
another (Sept. 26, 1967, p. 26878); to a bill authorizing a broad
program of research and development, an amendment directing specific
emphasis in the administration of the program (Dec. 19, 1973, p. 42607);
to a bill providing for investigation of relationships between
environmental pollution and cancer, an amendment to investigate the
impact of personal health habits, such as cigarette smoking, on that
relationship (Sept. 15, 1976, pp. 30496-98); to a supplemental
appropriation bill containing funds for several departments and
agencies, an amendment in the form of a new chapter providing funds for
capital outlays for subway construction in the District of Columbia (May
11, 1971, p. 14437); to a proposal authorizing military procurement,
including purchase of food supplies, an amendment authorizing
establishment that fiscal year of a military preparedness grain reserve,
as a more specific authorization (July 20, 1982, pp. 17073, 17074,
17092, 17093).
To <> a
bill amending a general law on a specific point an amendment relating to
the terms of the law rather than to those of the bill was ruled not to
be germane (V, 5808; VIII, 2707, 2708); thus a bill amending several
sections of one title of the United States Code does not necessarily
bring the entire title under consideration so as to permit an amendment
to any portion thereof (Oct. 11, 1967, p. 28649), and where a bill
amends existing law in one narrow particular, an amendment proposing to
modify such existing law in other particulars will generally be ruled
out as not germane (Aug. 16, 1967, p. 22768; VIII, 2709, 2839, 3013,
3031; May 12,
[[Page 693]]
1976, p. 13532). To a bill narrowly amending an anti-discrimination
provision in the Education Amendments of 1972 only to clarify the
definition of a discriminating entity subject to the statutory penalties
(denial of Federal funding), amendments re-defining a class of
discrimination (sex), expanding the definition of persons who are the
subject of discrimination (to include the unborn), and deeming a new
entity (Congress) to be a recipient of Federal assistance (a class not
necessarily covered by the class covered by the bill), were ruled not to
be germane (June 26, 1984, pp. 18847, 18857, 18861). But to the same
bill, an amendment merely defining a word used in the bill was held
germane (June 26, 1984, p. 18865). Unless a bill so extensively amends
existing law as to open up the entire law to amendment, the germaneness
of an amendment to the bill depends on its relationship to the subject
of the bill and not to the entire law being amended (Oct. 28, 1975, p.
34031). But a bill amending several sections of an existing law may be
sufficiently broad to permit amendments that are germane to other
sections of that law not mentioned in the bill (Feb. 19, 1975, p. 3596;
Sept. 14, 1978, p. 29487). To a bill continuing and re-enacting an
existing law amendments germane to the existing act sought to be
continued have been held germane to the pending bill (VIII, 2940, 2941,
2950, 3028; Oct. 31, 1963, p. 20728; June 1, 1976, p. 16045); but where
a bill merely extends an official's authority under existing law, an
amendment permanently amending that law has been held not in order
(Sept. 29, 1969, pp. 27341-43). Thus where a bill authorized
appropriations to an agency for one year but did not amend the organic
law by extending the existence of that agency, an amendment extending
the life of another entity mentioned in the organic law was held not
germane (May 20, 1976, p. 14912). An amendment making permanent changes
in the law relating to organization of an agency is not germane to a
title of a bill only authorizing appropriations for such agency for one
fiscal year (Nov. 29, 1979, p. 34090); to a general appropriation bill
providing funds for one fiscal year, an amendment changing a permanent
appropriation in existing law and changing congressional procedures for
consideration of that general appropriation bill in future years is more
general in scope and in part within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Rules and therefore is not germane (June 29, 1987, p. 18083); and to a
temporary authorization bill prescribing the use of an agency's funds
for two years but not amending permanent law, an amendment permanently
changing the organic law governing that agency's operations is not
germane (Dec. 2, 1982, p. 28537, concerning Sept. 28, 1982, p. 25465).
However, to a bill authorizing appropriations for a department for one
fiscal year, where the effect of the department's activities pursuant to
that authorization may extend beyond such year, an amendment directing a
specific use of those funds to perform an activity that may not be
completed within the fiscal year was nevertheless germane, since limited
to funds in the bill (Oct. 18, 1979, p. 28763). Similarly, to a one-year
authorization bill containing diverse limitations and directions to the
agency in question during such year, an amendment
[[Page 694]]
further directing the agency to obtain information from the private
sector, and to make such information public during such year, was held
germane (Oct. 18, 1979, pp. 28815-17). While an amendment making a
permanent change in existing law has been held not germane to a bill
proposing a temporary change in that law, where it is apparent that the
fundamental purpose of the amendment is to have only temporary effect
and to accomplish the same result as the bill it may be germane. Thus to
a bill providing a temporary extension of existing authority, an
amendment achieving the same purpose by providing a nominally permanent
authority was held germane where both the bill and the amendment were
based on reported economic projections under which either would achieve
the same, necessarily temporary result by method of direct or indirect
amendment to the same existing law (May 13, 1987, p. 12344). However, to
a proposal continuing the availability of appropriated funds and also
imposing diverse legislative conditions upon the availability of
appropriations, an amendment directly and permanently changing existing
law as to the eligibility of recipients of funds was held to be
nongermane (Dec. 10, 1981, pp. 30536-38). To a bill extending an
existing law in modified form, an amendment proposing further
modification of that law may be germane (Apr. 23, 1969, p. 10067; Feb.
19, 1975, p. 3596). But to a bill amending a law in one particular, an
amendment repealing the law is not germane (Jan. 14, 1964, p. 423). To a
bill amending a general law in several particulars, an amendment
providing for the repeal of the whole law was held germane (V, 5824),
but the bill amending the law must so vitally affect the whole law as to
bring the entire act under consideration before the Chair will hold an
amendment repealing the law or amending any section of the law germane
to the bill (VIII, 2944; Apr. 2, 1924, p. 5437). Where a bill repeals a
provision of law, an amendment modifying that provision rather than
repealing it may be germane (Oct. 30, 1969, p. 32466); but the
modification must relate to the provision of law being repealed (July
28, 1965, p. 18636). Generally to a bill amending one existing law, an
amendment changing the provisions of another law or prohibiting
assistance under any other law is not germane (May 11, 1976, p. 13419;
Aug. 12, 1992, p. 23238). To a bill amending the Bretton Woods Act in
relation to the International Monetary Fund, an amendment prohibiting
the alienation of gold to the IMF or to any other international
organization or its agents was held not germane (July 27, 1976, p.
24040). However, to a bill comprehensively amending several laws within
the same class, an amendment further amending one of those laws on a
subject within that class is germane (May 12, 1976, p. 13530); and to a
bill authorizing funding for the intelligence community for one fiscal
year and making diverse changes in permanent laws relating thereto, an
amendment changing another permanent law to address accountability for
intelligence activities was held germane (Oct. 17, 1990, p. 30171). To a
title of a bill dealing with a number of unrelated authorities of the
Secretary of Agriculture, an amendment amending another act within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture to require
[[Page 695]]
the adoption of a minimum standard for the contents of ice cream was
held germane since restricted to the authority of the Secretary of
Agriculture (July 22, 1977, pp. 24558-70). But to a section of a bill
amending a section of the National Labor Relations Act dealing with
procedural rules governing labor elections and organizations, an
amendment changing the same section of law to require promulgation of
rules defining certain conduct as an unfair labor practice was held not
germane, where neither the pending section nor the bill itself addressed
the subject of unfair labor practices dealt with in another section of
the law (Oct. 5, 1977, p. 32507). To a bill narrowly amending one
subsection of existing law dealing with one specific criminal activity,
an amendment postponing the effective date of the entire section,
affecting other criminal provisions and classes of persons as well as
the one amended by the bill, or an amendment to another subsection of
the law dealing with a related but separate prohibition was held not
germane (May 16, 1979, pp. 11470-72), but to an amendment adding sundry
punitive sections to the Federal criminal code, an amendment creating an
exception to the prohibition of another such section was held germane
(Oct. 17, 1991, p. 26767).
Restrictions, <> qualifications, and limitations
sought to be added by way of amendment must be germane to the provisions
of the bill. Conditioning the availability of funds may be germane if
the condition is related to the general purpose and within the scope of
the pending proposition (Deschler-Brown Precedents, vol. 11, ch. 28,
secs. 29-34). Thus, the following are germane: to a bill authorizing the
funding of a variety of programs that satisfy several stated
requirements in order to accomplish a general purpose, an amendment
conditioning the availability of those funds upon implementation by
their recipients of another program related to that general purpose
(June 18, 1973, p. 20100); to a bill authorizing funds for military
procurement and construction, an amendment declaring that none of the
funds be used to carry out military operations in North Vietnam (Mar. 2,
1967, p. 5143); an amendment to an authorization bill that conditions
the expenditure of funds covered by the bill by restricting their
availability during months in which there is an increase in the public
debt, as long as the amendment does not directly affect other provisions
of law or impose contingencies textually predicated upon other unrelated
actions of Congress (Sept. 25, 1979, pp. 26150-52); an amendment
proposing a conditional restriction on the availability of funds to
carry out an activity, that merely requires observation of similar
activities of another country, which similar conduct already constitutes
the policy basis for the funding of that governmental activity (May 16,
1984, p. 12510); an amendment restricting the payment of Federal funds
in a bill to States that enact certain laws relating to the activities
being funded (July 28, 1993, p. 17403); an amendment that conditions the
availability of funds authorized in the bill by adopting as a measure of
their availability the expenditure during the fiscal year of a
comparable percent
[[Page 696]]
age of funds authorized by other acts as long as the amendment does not
directly affect the use of other funds (July 26, 1973, p. 26210); to a
bill authorizing certain housing programs, an amendment restricting the
amounts of direct spending in the bill to the levels set in the
concurrent resolution on the budget as merely a measure of availability
of funds in the bill and not a provision directly affecting the
congressional budget process (June 11, 1987, p. 15540); to a proposition
restricting the availability of funds to a certain category of
recipients, an amendment further restricting the availability of funds
to a subcategory of the same recipients (Sept. 25, 1979, pp. 26135-43);
to a bill authorizing appropriations for an agency, an amendment
prohibiting the use of funds for any purpose to which the funds may
otherwise be applied (Nov. 5, 1981, p. 26716); an amendment that
conditions the availability of funds covered by a bill by adopting as a
measure of their availability the monthly increases in the public debt
as long as the amendment does not directly affect other provisions of
law or impose unrelated contingencies (Sept. 25, 1979, pp. 26150-52); to
a bill authorizing defense assistance to a foreign nation, an amendment
delaying the availability of that assistance until that nation's former
ambassador testified before a House committee, which had been directed
by the House to investigate gifts by that nation's representatives to
influence Members and employees, as a contingency that sought to compel
the furnishing of information related to efforts to induce defense
assistance to that nation (Aug. 2, 1978, p. 23932); to a provision
authorizing funds for a fiscal year, an amendment restricting the
availability of funds appropriated pursuant thereto for a specified
purpose until enactment of a subsequent law authorizing that purpose
(July 21, 1983, p. 20198); to a bill authorizing humanitarian and
evacuation assistance to war refugees, an amendment making such
authorization contingent on a report to Congress on costs of a portion
of the evacuation program (but not requiring implementation of any new
program) (Apr. 23, 1975, p. 11529); and to an amendment precluding the
availability of an authorization for part of a fiscal year and then
permitting availability for the remainder of the year based upon a
contingency, an amendment constituting a prohibition on the availability
of the same funds for the entire fiscal year (May 16, 1984, p. 12567).
On the other hand, the following conditions on the availability of
funds are not germane: an amendment conditioning the use of funds on the
conduct of congressional hearings addressing an unrelated subject (July
22, 1994, p. 17613); to a proposition conditioning the availability of
funds upon the enactment of an authorizing statute for the enforcing
agency, a substitute conditioning the availability of some of those
funds upon a prohibition of certain imports into the United States, a
contingency unrelated to that to which offered (Nov. 7, 1985, p. 30984);
to a bill authorizing funds for military assistance to certain foreign
countries, an amendment to make the availability of those funds
contingent upon efforts by those countries to control narcotic traffic
to the United States, and to authorize the President to offer the
assistance of Federal agencies for that purpose, where
[[Page 697]]
the subjects of narcotics and the accessibility of Federal agencies are
not contained in the bill (June 17, 1971, p. 20589); to a bill
authorizing funds for foreign assistance, an amendment placing
restrictions on funds authorized or appropriated in prior years (Aug.
24, 1967, p. 24002); to an amendment changing a dollar amount in a bill,
a substitute therefor not only changing the figure but also restricting
the use of any funds in furtherance of a certain activity (June 7, 1972,
p. 19920); to a proposal to restrict availability of agency funds for a
year and amending the organic law as it relates to the internal
functions thereof, an amendment further restricting funding but also
applying with respect to the use of funds in the bill provisions of
criminal and other laws not applicable thereto (Oct. 26, 1989, p.
26269); to a provision prohibiting aid to a certain country unless
certain conditions were met, an amendment prohibiting aid to another
country until that nation took certain acts, and referring to funds
provided in other acts (Nov. 17, 1967, p. 32968); and an amendment
conditioning the availability of funds to certain recipients based upon
their compliance with Federal law not otherwise applicable to them and
within the jurisdiction of other House committees (conditioning defense
funds for procurement contracts with foreign contractors on their
compliance with domestic law regarding discrimination) (June 16, 1983,
p. 16060).
An amendment to a general appropriation bill in the form of a
limitation on funds therein for activities unrelated to the functions of
departments and agencies addressed by the bill is not germane (July 10,
2000, p. ----).
An amendment delaying the availability of authorizations pending
unrelated determinations involving agencies and committee jurisdictions
not within the purview of the bill is also not germane (Feb. 7, 1973, p.
3708; July 8, 1981, p. 15010; July 9, 1981, p. 15218). Thus, the
following are not germane: to a bill authorizing military assistance to
Israel and funds for a U.N. emergency force in the Middle East, an
amendment postponing the availability of funds to Israel until the
President certifies the existence of a designated level of domestic
energy supplies (Dec. 11, 1973, p. 40837); an amendment delaying the
availability of an appropriation pending the enactment of certain
revenue legislation (Oct. 25, 1979, p. 29639); to a bill authorizing
radio broadcasting to Cuba, an amendment prohibiting the use of those
funds until Congress has considered a constitutional amendment mandating
a balanced budget (Aug. 10, 1982, p. 20250).
Similarly, while it may be in order on a general appropriation bill to
delay the availability of certain funds therein if the contingency does
not impose new duties on executive officials, the contingency must be
related to the funds being withheld and cannot affect other funds in the
bill not related to that factual situation (VII, 1596, 1600), may not be
made applicable to a trust fund provided (IV, 4017), or may not be made
applicable to money appropriated in other acts (IV, 3927, VIII, 1495,
1597-1599). Thus, to a general appropriation bill containing funds not
only for a former President but also for other departments and agencies,
an amendment delaying the availability of all funds in the bill until
the former President
[[Page 698]]
had made restitution of a designated amount of money is not germane
(Oct. 2, 1974, p. 33620). On the other hand, to a general appropriation
bill providing funds for the Department of Agriculture and including
specific allocation of funds for pest control, an amendment was germane
that prohibited the use of funds for use of pesticides prohibited by
State or local law (May 26, 1969, p. 13753).
It is not in order to amend a bill to delay the effectiveness of the
legislation pending an unrelated contingency (VIII, 3035, 3037). Thus
the following are not germane: An amendment delaying the bill's
effectiveness pending unrelated determinations involving agencies and
committee jurisdictions not within the purview of the bill (Feb. 7,
1973, p. 3708; July 8, 1981, p. 15010; July 9, 1981, p. 15218); an
amendment delaying the bill's effectiveness pending enactment of
unrelated State legislation (June 29, 1967, p. 17921; July 28, 1993, p.
17401); to a bill proposing relief for women and children in Germany, an
amendment delaying the effectiveness of such relief until a soldier's
compensation act shall have been enacted (VIII, 3035); to a bill naming
an airport, an amendment conditioning the naming on approval by an
entity without jurisdiction over the administration of the airport (Feb.
4, 1998, p. ----). On the other hand, the following are germane: an
amendment delaying operation of a proposed enactment pending an
ascertainment of a fact when the fact to be ascertained relates to the
subject matter of the bill (VIII, 3029; Dec. 15, 1982, pp. 30957-61); an
amendment postponing the effective date of a title of a bill to a date
certain (July 25, 1973, p. 25828); to a provision to become effective
immediately, an amendment deferring the time at which it shall become
effective, without involving affirmative legislation (VIII, 3030).
Where a proposition confers broad discretionary power on an executive
official, an amendment is germane which directs that official to take
certain actions in the exercise of the authority or proposes to limit
such authority (VIII, 3022). Thus the following are germane: to an
amendment in the nature of a substitute authorizing the Federal Energy
Administrator to restrict exports of certain energy resources, an
amendment directing that official to prohibit the exportation of
petroleum products for use in Indochina military operations (Dec. 14,
1973, p. 41753); to a provision conferring Presidential authority to
establish priorities among users of petroleum products and requiring
priority to education and transportation users, an amendment restricting
such regulatory authority by requiring that petroleum products allocated
for public school transportation be used only between the student's home
and the closest school (Dec. 13, 1973, pp. 41267-69); to a bill
extending the authorities of one government agency, including
requirements for consultation with several other agencies, an amendment
requiring that agency to perform a function based upon an analysis
furnished by yet another agency, as an additional limitation on the
authority of the agency being extended which did not separately mandate
the performance of an unrelated function by another entity (July 27,
1978, p. 23107); to a proposition authorizing a program to be
undertaken, a sub
[[Page 699]]
stitute providing for a study to determine the feasibility of
undertaking the same type of program, as a more limited approach
involving the same agency (June 26, 1985, pp. 17453, 17458, 17460) (in
effect overruling VIII, 2989); and to a bill limiting an official's
authority to construe legal authorities transferred to him in the bill,
an amendment further restricting his authority to construe under any
circumstances certain other laws to be administered by him (as an
additional, although more restrictive, curtailment of existing
authorities transferred by the bill) (June 11, 1979, pp. 14226-38).
An amendment providing a privileged procedure for expedited review of
an agency's regulations is not germane where the bill does not contain
such procedures (Aug. 13, 1982, pp. 20969, 20975-78). On the other hand
to a bill authorizing an agency to undertake certain activities, an
amendment allowing Congress to disapprove regulations issued pursuant
thereto if the disapproval mechanism does not amend the rules or
procedures of the House is germane (May 4, 1976, p. 12348); and to a
bill directing the furnishing of certain intelligence information to the
House without amending any House procedure, an amendment imposing
relevant conditions of security on the handling of such information in
committee (also without amending any House procedure) for the period
covered by the bill is also germane (June 11, 1991, p. 14204).
It is germane to condition or restrict assistance to a particular
class of recipient covered by the underlying measure. Thus, the
following are germane: to a bill providing aid to shipping, an amendment
to limit such aid to ships equipped with saving devices (VIII, 3027); to
a bill authorizing the insurance of vessels, an amendment denying such
insurance to vessels charging exorbitant rates (VIII, 3023); to a
proposition denying benefits to recipients failing to meet a certain
qualification, a substitute denying the same benefits to some recipients
but excepting others (July 28, 1982, pp. 18355-58, 18361). While a bill
relating to benefits based on indemnification of liability arising out
of an activity does not ordinarily admit as germane amendments relating
to regulation of that activity, an amendment conditioning benefits upon
agreement by its recipient to be governed by certain safety regulations
may be germane if related to the activity giving rise to the liability
(July 29, 1987, p. 21448). On the other hand, it is not germane to
condition or restrict assistance to a particular class of recipient upon
a related contingency such as action or inaction by another class of
recipient or agent not covered by the bill (Mar. 5, 1986, p. 3613).
To a bill not only granting consent of Congress to an interstate
compact but also imposing conditions on the granting of that consent, an
amendment stating an additional related condition to that consent and
not directly changing the compact may be germane (Oct. 7, 1997, p. ----
). To a bill regulating immigration, an amendment providing that the
operation of the act should not conflict with an agreement with Japan is
not germane (VIII, 3050).
[[Page 700]]
Amendments providing exceptions or exemptions must also be within the
scope of the proposition. Thus, to a bill requiring that a certain
percentage of autos sold in the United States be manufactured
domestically, and imposing an import restriction for autos on persons
violating that requirement, an amendment waiving those restrictions with
respect to a foreign nation where the President has issued a
proclamation that that nation is not imposing unfair import restrictions
on any United States product was held not germane, dealing with overall
trade issues rather than domestic content requirement for autos sold in
the United States (Nov. 2, 1983, p. 30776). However, an amendment to the
same bill prohibiting its implementation if resulting in United States
violation to resolve conflicts under those agreements, was held germane
since the bill already comprehensively addressed those subject matters
by disclaiming any purpose to amend international agreements or to
confer court jurisdiction relative thereto, and by conferring court
jurisdiction over adjudication of penalties assessed under the bill
(Nov. 2, 1983, p. 30546). Similarly, the following are germane: to a
bill providing for the deportation of aliens, an amendment to exempt a
portion of such aliens from deportation (VIII, 3029); to a bill
prohibiting the issuance of injunctions by the courts in labor disputes,
an amendment to except all labor disputes affecting public utilities
(VIII, 3024).
Readings
8. <> Bills
and joint resolutions are subject to readings as follows:
(a) A first reading is in full when the bill or joint resolution
is first considered.
(b) A second reading occurs only when the bill or joint resolution
is read for amendment in a Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union under clause 5 of rule XVIII.
(c) A third reading precedes passage when the Speaker states the
question: ``Shall the bill [or joint resolution] be engrossed [when
applicable] and read a third time?'' If that question is decided in the
affirmative, then the bill or joint resolution shall be read the final
time by
[[Page 701]]
title and then the question shall be put on its passage.
This provision (former clause 1 of rule XXI) rule was adopted in 1789,
amended in 1794, 1880 (IV, 3391), and on Jan. 4, 1965 (H. Res. 8, 89th
Cong.). This latest amendment eliminated the provision which permitted a
Member to demand the reading in full of the engrossed copy of a House
bill. Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former clause 1 of rule XXI. The recodification
also clarified paragraphs (a) and (b) to reflect the modern practice of
first and second readings (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).
Formerly a <> bill was
read for the first time by title at the time of its introduction, but
since 1890 all bills have been introduced by filing them with the Clerk,
thus rendering a reading by title impossible at that time (IV, 3391).
But the titles of all bills introduced are printed in the Journal and
Record, thereby carrying out the real purpose of the rule.
Under paragraph (a), the first reading of a bill is in full and occurs
when the bill is considered in the House (IV, 3391) or in the Committee
of the Whole (Apr. 28, 1977, p. 12635). The initial step of
consideration in the Committee of the Whole is sometimes referred to as
the ``first reading'' and is customarily dispensed with by unanimous
consent or special rule. Thus, under paragraph (b), the second reading
of a bill comprises its reading for amendment in the Committee of the
Whole (Apr. 28, 1977, p. 12635). Any Member may demand a full reading of
a bill before general debate begins in the Committee of the Whole or, if
considered in the House, when first taken up for action (IV, 3391,
4738). However, waiving of the first reading in full is normally
effected by unanimous consent, suspension of the rules, or a special
rule providing for the consideration of the bill. A motion to dispense
with the reading of a bill in full is not in order (VIII, 2335, 2436).
The Speaker may object to a request for unanimous consent that a bill
may be acted on without being read (IV, 3390; VII, 1054).
The right to <> demand the reading in full of the engrossed copy of a
bill formerly guaranteed by the rule, existed only immediately after it
had passed to be engrossed and before it had been read a third time by
title (IV, 3400, 3403, 3404; VII, 1061); or before the yeas and nays had
been ordered on passage (IV, 3402). The right to demand the reading in
full caused the bill to be laid aside until engrossed even though the
previous question had been ordered (IV, 3395-3399; VII, 1062). A
privileged motion may not intervene before the third reading (IV, 3405),
and the question on engrossment and third reading is not subject to a
demand for division of the question (Aug. 3, 1989, p. 18544). A vote on
passage must first be reconsidered to remedy the omission to read a bill
a third time (IV, 3406). Senate bills are not engrossed in the House;
but are ordered to a third
[[Page 702]]
reading. The demand for the reading of the engrossed copy of a Senate
bill cannot be made in the House (VIII, 2426).
A bill in <> the House (as
distinguished from the Committee of the Whole) is amended pending the
engrossment and third reading (V, 5781; VI, 1051, 1052). The question on
engrossment and third reading being decided in the negative the bill is
rejected (IV, 3420, 3421). A bill must be considered and voted on by
itself (IV, 3408). Where the two Houses pass similar but distinct bills
on the same subject it is necessary that one or the other House act
again on the subject (IV, 3386). The requirement of a two-thirds vote
for proposed constitutional amendments has been construed in the later
practice to apply only to the vote on the final passage (V, 7029, 7030;
VIII, 3504). A bill having been rejected by the House, a similar but not
identical bill on the same subject was afterwards held to be in order
(IV, 3384).