[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 10, Chapter 28 (Sections 1-24), Volume 11, Chapter 28 (Sections 25-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 28. Amendments and the Germaneness Rule]
[A. General Principles]
[Â§ 1. Introduction]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 7383-7389]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 1. Introduction


    A House rule (1) provides that ``no motion or 
proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall 
be admitted under color of amendment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Rule XVI clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 794 (1991). Note: 
        This chapter provides complete coverage of precedents through 
        the 100th Congress, 2d session, and discusses significant 
        precedents from the 101st Congress. For earlier coverage of the 
        subject of germaneness, see 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5801-
        5924; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2908-3064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule states the requirement of ``germaneness,'' which pertains 
to the relationship between an amendment and the matter sought to be 
amended.(2) The ``germaneness'' rule, as it is known, 
contains one of the most important principles affecting legislative 
proceedings, and has been adopted by the House in every Congress since 
1789. Moreover, since the requirement of germaneness of amendments is 
an integral part of the legislative process, the issue of germaneness 
may properly be raised in the House even prior to the adoption of the 
rules.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 2, infra, for general discussion of the determination of 
        the proposition to which an amendment must be germane.
 3. See Sec. 1.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule of germaneness applies to amendments and not to language 
of the bill as introduced.(4) Thus, while a committee may re

[[Page 7386]]

port a bill embracing different subjects, it is not in order during 
consideration of the bill to introduce a new subject by way of 
amendment. The rule, however, applies to amendments offered by the 
committee as well as to amendments offered from the 
floor.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See the ruling of Chairman Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.) at 101 Cong. Rec. 
        11710, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1955, with regard to a 
        point of order raised by Mr. H.R. Gross (Iowa). The Chair 
        indicated that a point of order will not lie if based on the 
        contention that provisions contained in a bill as introduced 
        are not within the jurisdiction of the committee reporting the 
        bill.
            See also the remarks of Chairman Frank H. Buck (Calif.) at 
        83 Cong. Rec. 2174, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 18, 1938. In 
        response to a point of order raised by Mr. John W. McCormack 
        (Mass.), the Chairman noted that the question of germaneness 
        was not in issue, since ``This is a provision in the bill as 
        reported by the committee, and not an amendment to it.''
            A point of order will not lie that an appropriation in a 
        general appropriation bill is not germane to the rest of the 
        bill. See Sec. 17.1, infra.
 5. See, for example, Sec. 42.5, infra. See, generally, Sec. 22, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The concept of germaneness implies more than the mere ``relevance'' 
of one subject to another. It is frequently stated that the fact that 
two subjects are related does not necessarily render them germane to 
each other.(6) The germaneness of an amendment, for example, 
may depend on the relative scope of the amendment and the proposition 
sought to be amended. Thus, a proposition of narrow or limited scope 
may not be amended by a proposition of a more general 
nature.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See, for example, Sec. 3.57, infra.
 7. See Sec. 9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One important purpose of the germaneness rule is to prevent the 
House from having to consider matters for which it is not fully 
prepared. Thus, an amendment may be held to be germane only if its 
subject bears a certain relationship to that of the proposition sought 
to be amended. An informal criterion that appears from the rulings 
discussed in this chapter may be that if the subject of a proposed 
amendment to a bill is not one that would reasonably be expected to be 
within the contemplation of those considering that bill, the amendment 
is probably not germane. Conversely, if consideration of the general 
subject matter of the amendment would naturally arise during 
consideration of the bill itself, it may be germane. Accordingly, one 
frequently cited test of the germaneness of an amendment to a bill is 
whether the subject matter of the amendment falls within the 
jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, then Majority Leader, once stated 
with respect to the rule requiring germaneness of amendments: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 17.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [The rule of germaneness] is a rule which this Congress has 
    followed since 1789. . . .
        It is the rule without which this House could never complete 
    its legislative program if there happened to be a substantial 
    minority in opposition. . . .
        No legislative body of this size could ever operate unless it 
    did comply with the rule of germaneness. . . .

    The germaneness of an amendment should be determined from 
provisions of its text rather than

[[Page 7387]]

from the purposes which circumstances may suggest.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 5 Hinds' Precedents, Sec. Sec. 5783, 5803.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other factors may determine issues of germaneness. For example, a 
proposition to expel a Member would not be germane to a proposition to 
censure, since a different requirement as to the voting margin is 
mandated.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See the proceedings of July 30, 1979, at 125 Cong. Rec. 21297, 
        21298, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., in which a privileged resolution 
        was offered to expel a Member, in preference to reserving the 
        question for consideration in later connection with a proposal 
        to censure the Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The only challenge to a ruling of the Chair or the content thereof 
lies through an appeal. Appeals from germaneness rulings are not 
traditional in the practices of the House, and when made go to the 
propriety of the Chair's ruling and not to the substance of the subject 
of the amendment. The germaneness rule itself, for example, applies 
only to amendments and cannot be used to challenge a ruling of the 
Chair.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See, for example, the response of the Chair at 124 Cong. Rec. 
        23108, 95th Cong. 2d Sess., July 27, 1978, to a parliamentary 
        inquiry made by Mr. Robert E. Bauman, of Maryland, perhaps 
        facetiously, as to whether one could ``make a point of order 
        against the ruling . . . for not being germane to the point of 
        order.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While numerous precedents (rulings of the Chair) have been 
chronicled with respect to the germaneness of amendments in a wide 
variety of contexts, it is essential to note that the Chair, in 
determining which of the tests of germaneness discussed in this chapter 
is most applicable, must first understand the nature and scope of the 
pending portion of the proposition being amended, and then the 
relationship of the offered amendment to that pending text. By 
initially achieving such a textual understanding, the Chair is then 
advised to follow the most appropriate line of precedent in rendering a 
ruling. It is therefore possible for the reader to avoid the 
misperception that an equally compelling and valid germaneness test can 
be applied and precedent cited to support either side of a germaneness 
point of order, by examining in full the pending bill and amendment 
text either where it is printed in this chapter or in the permanent 
Congressional Record where cited.

                          -------------------

Application of Rule Before Adoption of Rules

Sec. 1.1 Prior to the adoption of the rules, when the House is 
    operating under general parliamentary law, an amend

[[Page 7388]]

    ment may nevertheless be subject to a point of order if it is not 
    germane to the proposition to which offered.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of a resolution 
providing that the Speaker administer the oath of office to a Member-
elect,(13) an amendment was offered (14) which 
provided that the Speaker should administer the oath, but which also 
added several conditions by way of punishment of the Member-elect for 
acts committed in a prior Congress. Such punishment included a fine and 
loss of seniority. In ruling on a point of order raised by Mr. Emanuel 
Celler, of New York, against the amendment, the Speaker (15) 
stated: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Under consideration was H. Res. 1, providing for administration of 
        the oath of office to Representative-elect Adam Clayton Powell.
14. 115 Cong. Rec. 23, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1969.
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
16. 115 Cong. Rec. 23, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will state . . . that while we are operating under 
    general parliamentary law . . . volume VIII, section 3384 of 
    Cannon's Precedents states:

            While the House is governed by general parliamentary usage 
        prior to the adoption of rules, the Speakers have been inclined 
        to give weight to the precedents of the House in the 
        interpretation of that usage. . . .

        [I]t appears to the Chair that the punishment of Mr. Powell for 
    acts committed in the 88th or 89th Congresses, or declaring his 
    seat vacant in the 91st Congress, is not germane to the proposition 
    that he be now sworn in.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. As a further example, see the remarks of Speaker McCormack at 113 
        Cong. Rec. 15, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 10, 1967, in response 
        to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Joseph D. Waggonner, Jr. 
        (La.). The Speaker's statement was to the effect that, where a 
        resolution is being considered in the House prior to adoption 
        of the rules, the rule applies that, after rejection of a 
        motion for the previous question, the resolution is open to 
        ``any germane amendment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relationship Between Amendment and Text To Be Amended

Sec. 1.2 The germaneness of an amendment is determined by the 
    relationship between its text and the portion of the bill to which 
    offered, and is not judged by motives for offering the amendment 
    which circumstances may suggest, nor by the fact that the 
    amendment, offered to a public bill, may in substance be 
    characterized as private legislation benefiting individuals.

    The proceedings of May 30, 1984, relating to H.R. 5167, the

[[Page 7389]]

Defense Department authorization for fiscal 1985, are discussed in 
Sec. 3.45, infra.

Point of Order Based on Committee Jurisdiction But Without Reference to 
    Germaneness Issue

Sec. 1.3 The point of order that a section in a committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute was not within the jurisdiction of that 
    committee does not lie when that section is read for amendment, 
    where no question of germaneness is presented.

    The proceedings of July 16, 1974, during consideration of H.R. 
15560 (a bill concerning loans to livestock producers) are discussed in 
Sec. 43.8, infra.