[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]
[B. Application of Ruke to Particular Forms of Amendment or Proposition]
[Â§ 17. In General; Amendment to Special Rule; Amendment to Concurrent Resolution]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 8248-8258]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
 B. APPLICATION OF RULE TO PARTICULAR FORMS OF AMENDMENT OR PROPOSITION
 
Sec. 17. In General; Amendment to Special Rule; Amendment to Concurrent 
    Resolution


    The rule requiring germaneness of amendments has been applied to 
many forms of propositions having amendatory effect. Similar variety of 
application can be found with respect to the matter proposed to be 
amended.
    The form in which an amendment is offered, or the form of the 
proposition to which it is offered, may affect the determination of 
whether the amendment is germane. Thus, whether an amendment adds a new 
title to a bill (18) or adds language to an existing title 
(19) may affect the determination of whether the amendment 
is germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 19, infra.
19. See Sec. 19, infra.

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

[[Page 8249]]

    When judging the germaneness of an amendment to a proposition under 
consideration (and originating) in the House, the amendment must relate 
to the subject matter of the pending text under immediate 
consideration. In sections 2, supra, and 18, infra, it is demonstrated 
that an amendment must be germane to the pending portion of the bill to 
which offered, or to the amendment to which offered, as the case may 
be, whether the amendment is in the form of a motion to strike out and 
insert, to strike out, or to insert. Similarly, section 21, infra, 
indicates that perfecting amendments to amendments in the nature of a 
substitute or to substitute amendments need to be germane to the 
inserted language contained in said substitutes, it being irrelevant 
whether or not the perfecting amendment might be germane to the 
underlying (perhaps broader) bill which said substitute seeks to strike 
out and replace. The language of the underlying bill proposed to be 
stricken is not taken into consideration when determining the 
germaneness of a second degree amendment to a substitute proposing to 
insert other language. It is only the pending text under immediate 
consideration against which the germaneness of proposed amendments 
thereto is judged. This test of germaneness is consistent with Rule XIX 
governing the permissible degree of amendments in the House (for 
general discussion of amendments, see Volume 9 of this work). At this 
stage the House has not finally adopted any version of a House-passed 
bill and is free to reject the pending amendment(s) and proceed to 
other differently drafted amendments which may present another test of 
germaneness to the bill as a whole.

        An amendment offered to change a concurrent resolution to a 
    joint resolution would probably not be germane since the 
    fundamental purpose of a joint resolution is to enact a law and not 
    just state the sense of Congress as to a matter in question. 
    Precedents which appear to be to the contrary involved instances in 
    which the House was proceeding by unanimous consent.(20) 
    In another instance, a motion to recommit a simple resolution with 
    instructions to substitute therefor a Senate-passed bill was ruled 
    out as not germane on substantive grounds, but the Chair indicated 
    in passing that such a point of order would probably rest also on 
    the basis that a bill has the force of law, whereas a resolution 
    does not.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1037, 1046, 1075.
21. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A resolution from the Committee on Rules providing for the 
consideration of a bill relating to a

[[Page 8250]]

certain subject may not be amended by a proposition providing for the 
consideration of another and not germane subject matter.(22) 
To a special order providing for the consideration of one measure, an 
amendment providing for the consideration of (and waiving points of 
order against) an unrelated and nongermane measure is itself not 
germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2956; 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 5834-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Committee on Rules may report as part of a special 
order provisions making in order any amendment, whether or not germane, 
a special order providing for the consideration of a bill may not be 
amended on the floor of the House to make in order the consideration of 
an amendment which under the precedents of the House would not be 
germane if offered to that bill.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. For discussion of proceedings under a special rule waiving points 
        of order based on germaneness, see Sec. 45, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule Applicable Only to Amendments

Sec. 17.1 The germaneness rule applies to amendments and not to 
    language of the bill as introduced.

    Where, during consideration of a bill (2) generally 
making appropriations for foreign aid, objection was made by Mr. Harold 
R. Gross, of Iowa, to a provision relating to allowances for postage 
stamps and other items for Members, the Chairman (3) ruled 
as follows: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 9499 (Committee on Appropriations).
 3. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
 4. 109 Cong. Rec. 24753, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 16, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This matter is a part of the bill reported to the House and now 
    being considered in the Committee of the Whole, a general 
    appropriation bill. The Chair cannot sustain a point of order on 
    the basis that it does not relate to some other matter in the 
    appropriation bill. It is part of the bill before the Committee of 
    the Whole.

Pro Forma Amendment

Sec. 17.2 A pro forma amendment was held to be germane to a bill which 
    sought to repeal a section of existing law and which was being 
    considered under an open rule.

    The following exchange took place in the 89th Congress: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 111 Cong. Rec. 18639, 18640, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1965. 
        Under consideration was H.R. 77 (Committee on Education and 
        Labor) repealing section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations 
        Act. See Sec. 41.2, infra, for further discussion of the bill.

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

[[Page 8251]]

        The Chairman: (6) For what purpose does the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Albert] rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Leo W. O'Brien (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last 
    word. . . .
        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, in view of 
    the past rulings of the Chair in relation to amendments to this 
    bill as to their being germane, I submit the gentleman's amendment 
    is not germane.
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Chairman, there was never a point of order less 
    in order than the point the gentleman just made.
        Mr. Chairman, there are words in this bill and they can be 
    stricken.
        The Chairman: The Chairman overrules the point of order.

    Mr. Albert, upon being recognized, made these general observations 
about the ``germaneness'' rule: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 111 Cong. Rec. 18640, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [The rule of germaneness] is a rule which this Congress 
    has followed since 1789. It is a rule which has been insisted upon 
    by Democrats and Republicans alike ever since the Democratic and 
    Republican Parties have been in existence.
        It is the rule without which this House could never complete 
    its legislative program if there happened to be a substantial 
    minority in opposition.
        One of the great things about the House of Representatives and 
    one of the things that distinguish it from other legislative bodies 
    is that we do operate on the rule of germaneness.
        No legislative body of this size could ever operate unless it 
    did comply with the rule of germaneness. . . .

Amendments to Special Rules--Amendment Providing for Consideration of 
    Nongermane Matter

Sec. 17.3 To a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules 
    providing for the consideration of a bill on one subject, an 
    amendment waiving the germaneness rule to provide for the 
    additional consideration of an unrelated amendment to the bill is 
    not germane; the provisions of Rule XVI clause 7 apply to 
    amendments to special rules, in order to prohibit that from being 
    accomplished indirectly which cannot under the germaneness rule be 
    done by direct amendment.

    On May 29, 1980,(8) the precedents (cited in the 
Speaker's ruling) which preclude the offering of a nongermane amendment 
to a special order that would substitute the consideration of one 
proposition for another unrelated proposition, were extended to 
preclude the offering of an amendment to a special rule which

[[Page 8252]]

would have permitted the additional consideration of a nongermane 
amendment to a bill. During consideration of a resolution reported from 
the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of a joint 
resolution relating to a temporary extension of the public debt limit, 
an amendment to the resolution was proposed, to make in order an 
amendment to the joint resolution disapproving an import fee imposed by 
the President pursuant to the Windfall Profit Tax Act. The resolution 
reported from the Committee on Rules stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 126 Cong. Rec. 12667, 12668, 12672, 12673, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 7428)) to extend the present public debt limit 
    through June 30, 1980, the first reading of the bill shall be 
    dispensed with, and all points of order against the bill for 
    failure to comply with the provisions of clause 5, rule XXI are 
    hereby waived. After general debate, which shall be confined to the 
    bill and shall continue not to exceed one hour, to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on Ways and Means, the bill shall be considered as 
    having been read for amendment under the five-minute rule. No 
    amendment to the bill shall be in order except amendments 
    recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, which shall not be 
    subject to amendment. At the conclusion of the consideration of the 
    bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to 
    the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
    amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
    except one motion to recommit. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: . . . I will oppose the 
    previous question so that I can offer a substitute rule that will 
    make in order an amendment that will forbid the President to impose 
    the 10-cents-a-gallon import fee. May I urge opposition to the 
    previous question which will, in fact, be a vote on whether one is 
    for or against the 10-cent-a-gallon increase in gasoline and oil 
    prices in this country. . . .
        The Speaker: (9) The question is on ordering the 
    previous question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Thomas P. O'Neill (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Richard W.] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I object 
    to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    74, nays 312, not voting 47, as follows: . . .
        So the previous question was not ordered. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute.

[[Page 8253]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Bauman: Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
            ``, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
        in order to move that the House resolve itself into the 
        Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
        consideration of the bill (H.R. 7428) to extend the present 
        public debt limit through June 30, 1980, the first reading of 
        the bill shall be dispensed with, and all points of order 
        against the bill for failure to comply with the provisions of 
        clause 5, rule XXI are hereby waived. . . . No amendment to the 
        bill shall be in order except amendments recommended by the 
        Committee on Ways and Means, which shall not be subject to 
        amendment, and it shall further be in order, any rule of the 
        House to the contrary notwithstanding, to consider an amendment 
        consistent of the provisions of House Joint Resolution 531 as 
        reported by the Committee on Ways and Means. Debate on said 
        amendment shall continue not to exceed one hour, to be equally 
        divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
        member of the Committee on Ways and Means. . . .

        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Maryland is nongermane to 
    House Resolution 682, the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 
    7428, the temporary extension of the debt limit.
        Mr. Speaker, it is a basic premise of parliamentary procedure 
    that it is not permissible to do indirectly by amendment to a rule 
    what may not be done directly. In other words, it is not 
    permissible to offer to a resolution providing a special order for 
    one bill, an amendment to include another unrelated bill.
        House Resolution 682 only makes in order H.R. 7428, the 
    temporary extension of the debt limit. An amendment to disapprove 
    the oil import fee is not germane to H.R. 7428. Therefore, it is 
    not germane to offer a substitute amendment for the rule which 
    would make in order, by waiving the germaneness rule, an amendment 
    otherwise not germane to the original proposition--in this instance 
    H.R. 7428.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Bauman: I do, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Speaker, the point of order goes to the heart of the 
    question of germaneness. There is no question that if the Committee 
    on Rules had reported the rule now pending that I proposed, House 
    Joint Resolution 531 would in fact have been in order as an 
    amendment because the Committee on Rules has the power to make it 
    in order.
        Certainly the subject matter dealt with, that is to say the 
    importation taxation of crude oil and the gasoline import fee, is 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means as is 
    the debt limit extension. I think, because of the overall question 
    of economic policy involved in a 30-day extension of the national 
    debt limit and the amount of revenue raised by the import fee, that 
    they are in fact related very intimately, and I would suggest that 
    the subject matter is germane. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair is guided by several precedents in determining 
    whether an

[[Page 8254]]

    amendment to an order of business resolution, making in order an 
    amendment which is not germane to the bill, should be held not 
    germane to the resolution. The decisions contained in Hinds' 
    Precedents, volume V, sections 5834 through 5836 stand for the 
    proposition that it is not in order to substitute the consideration 
    of one measure for the consideration of another unrelated measure 
    by amendment to an order of business resolution. As cited on page 
    491 of the House Rules and Manual, on September 14, 1950, the House 
    had under consideration a special order from the Committee on Rules 
    taking from the Speaker's table a House bill with Senate 
    amendments, disagreeing to said amendments and agreeing to a 
    conference. To that resolution, an amendment was offered providing 
    that all Senate amendments except one be disagreed to, that the 
    House amend one of the Senate amendments, insist thereon, and agree 
    to a conference. The Senate amendment at issue proposed a study of 
    excess profits tax legislation, and the proposed amendment thereto 
    would have enacted excess-profits tax legislation, and sent that 
    amendment to conference. Speaker Rayburn ruled that the amendment 
    was not germane to the resolution, stating specifically that it was 
    ``a rule long established that a resolution from the Committee on 
    Rules providing for the consideration of a bill relating to a 
    certain subject may not be amended by a proposition providing for 
    the consideration of another and not germane subject matter.''
        The Chair has anticipated similar points of order against 
    amendments to order of business resolutions in the past, and has 
    been prepared to rule, as he does now, that such an amendment is 
    not permitted to an order of business resolution under clause 7, 
    rule XVI. For the reasons stated by the gentleman from Missouri, 
    and because a viable mechanism exists within the rules of the House 
    and within the Committee on Rules to address the issues presented 
    by the pending amendment, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 17.4 A resolution providing for the consideration of a bill 
    relating to a certain subject may not be amended by a proposition 
    providing for consideration of another matter which is not germane.

    On Sept. 14, 1950, the Speaker cited this long-standing principle 
in ruling on a point of order against an amendment that had been 
offered after rejection of the previous question on a special rule. 
(10) The Speaker ruled on that date that, to a resolution 
providing that the House disagree to a Senate amendment that directed a 
joint committee to conduct a study of excess-profits tax legislation 
and further directed the appropriate committee to report such 
legislation, an amendment providing that the House concur in the Senate 
amendment

[[Page 8255]]

with an amendment actually enacting excess-profits tax legislation was 
not germane. The proceedings are discussed in detail at Sec. 27.11, 
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H. Res. 842, providing for consideration of H.R. 8920, a bill to 
        reduce excise taxes and for other purposes, with Senate 
        amendments thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Amendment Proposing Changes in Rules of House

Sec. 17.5 An amendment proposing changes in the Rules of the House is 
    not germane to a proposition not containing such changes; thus, to 
    a special order waiving certain points of order against a general 
    appropriation bill not reported for three days and containing 
    unauthorized items, legislation and reappropriations, but not 
    waiving points of order against any nongermane amendment, an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute waiving all points of order 
    against a nongermane amendment to be offered to the bill, 
    constituting a change in House Rules by providing a privileged 
    procedure for expedited review of an agency's regulations was held 
    not germane.

    During consideration of House Resolution 560 in the House on Aug. 
13, 1982,(11) the Speaker sustained a point of order against 
the amendment described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 128 Cong. Rec. 20969, 20975-78, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Leo C.] Zeferetti [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 560 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolution waiving certain points of order against the bill 
        (H.R. 6957) making appropriations for the Departments of 
        Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related 
        agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1983, and for 
        other purposes
            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order, clause 7, rule XXI to the contrary 
        notwithstanding, to move that the House resolve itself into the 
        Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
        consideration of the bill (H.R. 6957) making appropriations for 
        the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
        and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
        1983, and for other purposes. During the consideration of said 
        bill, all points of order against the following provisions in 
        said bill for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 
        2, rule XXI are hereby waived: beginning on page 3, line 1 
        through page 8, line 2; beginning on page 8, lines 14 through 
        20 . . . and all points of order against the following 
        provisions in said bill for failure to comply with the 
        provisions of clause 6, rule XXI are hereby waived: beginning 
        on page 3, line 6 through page 4, line 14; beginning on page 7,

[[Page 8256]]

        line 1 through page 8, line 2 . . . Provided That in any case 
        where this resolution waives points of order against only a 
        portion of a paragraph, a point of order against any other 
        provision in such paragraph may be made only against such 
        provision and not against the entire paragraph.

        [A motion for the previous question was rejected.]
        Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Lott:
            Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following: ``that upon the adoption of this 
        resolution it shall be in order, clause 7, Rule XXI to the 
        contrary notwithstanding, to move that the House resolve itself 
        into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
        for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6957) making appropriations 
        for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, 
        and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
        1983, and for other purposes. During the consideration of said 
        bill, all points of order against the following provisions in 
        said bill for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 
        2, Rule XXI are hereby waived: beginning on page 3, line 1 
        through page 8, line 2 . . . It shall be in order to consider 
        amendments to said bill printed in the Congressional Record of 
        August 12, 1982, by and if offered by Representative Broyhill 
        of North Carolina and Representative Levitas of Georgia, and 
        all points of order against said amendments are hereby 
        waived.''. . .

        Mr. Zeferetti: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
    from Mississippi (Mr. Lott) is not germane to House Resolution 560, 
    the rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 6957, the bill 
    making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
    State, the Judiciary, and related agencies.
        Under the rules of the House and the precedents by which we are 
    guided it is not in order to amend an order of business resolution 
    or, as we commonly refer to it, a rule, to accomplish by indirect 
    means that which may not be achieved by direct means.
        In other words, it is not in order to amend a rule to allow the 
    offering of an amendment to a bill or resolution which otherwise 
    would not be germane.
        Mr. Speaker, the Broyhill-Levitas amendment provides 
    legislative veto over certain FTC regulations and would provide 
    expedited procedures in the House and an accelerated discharge 
    petition procedure.
        Mr. Speaker, this amendment amends the rules of the House and 
    is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Rules Committee and not 
    germane to this bill.
        The Chair has very clearly set out this principle. Most 
    recently on May 29, 1980, the Chair sustained a point of order 
    which was made against the offering of an amendment to House 
    Resolution 682 providing for the consideration of H.R. 7428, the 
    temporary extension of the debt limit.
        In that instance an amendment to the rule was offered to allow 
    an oil import fee amendment to be offered to the debt limit bill.
        The amendment obviously was not germane to the bill and the 
    Chair

[[Page 8257]]

    ruled that an amendment to the resolution making it in order also 
    would not be germane.
        The substitute amendment to the rule offered by the gentleman 
    from Mississippi (Mr. Lott) would make in order amendments to H.R. 
    6957 which are not germane to the bill and, therefore, clearly 
    would not be germane to House Resolution 560. . . .
        Mr. Lott: . . . The point of order has been made on this 
    substitute rule saying it is not germane to the original rule.
        The test of germaneness, though, is whether an amendment 
    addresses the same purpose as that which seeks to amend the purpose 
    of the House Resolution 560, and that purpose is to waive certain 
    points of order against numerous provisions of the bill, H.R. 6957; 
    namely, either legislative provision or unauthorized programs or 
    agencies.
        This substitute rule only makes one minimal change at the end 
    of the rule which was read. It makes in order two amendments 
    printed in yesterday's Record and waives all points of order 
    against those amendments.
        The purpose of this substitute is, therefore, the same as the 
    purpose of the original rule, to waive points of order against 
    certain legislative provisions.
        I do not think it will do any good to claim that this rule is 
    nongermane because one of the amendments goes to the jurisdiction 
    of another committee, since all of the legislative provisions go to 
    the jurisdiction of a number of other legislative committees and 
    that is the purpose of the rule originally offered and my 
    substitute. . . .
        The Speaker: (12) . . . The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Thomas P. O'Neill (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeferetti) makes the point of 
    order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi 
    (Mr. Lott) to House Resolution 560 is not germane to that special 
    order as reported from the Committee on Rules. Specifically, House 
    Resolution 560 waives certain points of order against H.R. 6957, 
    the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary appropriation bill for 
    fiscal 1983, because the report on that bill has not been available 
    for 3 days and because certain provisions in that bill are 
    unauthorized by law or contain changes in existing law in violation 
    of clause 2, rule XXI. Nothing in that special order waives points 
    of order against nongermane amendments which might be offered to 
    the bill.
        The precedents of the House on page 492 of the House Rules and 
    Manual indicate that a resolution reported from the Committee on 
    Rules providing for consideration of a bill relating to a certain 
    subject may not be amended by an amendment which would permit the 
    additional consideration of a nongermane amendment to the bill. In 
    the opinion of the Chair, the amendment to be made in order not 
    only constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill but would be 
    nongermane if offered to H.R. 6957. Nothing in that general 
    appropriation bill amends the rules of the House, and the amendment 
    which would be made in order provides a privileged procedure for 
    expedited review of FTC regulations, and constitutes a change in 
    the rules of the House. The precedents indicate that

[[Page 8258]]

    such rules changes are not germane to a bill not containing rules 
    changes. P. 506--House Rules and Manual. Although the procedures 
    contained in the amendment are the same as those currently 
    contained in the FTC Improvement Act of 1980 with respect to 
    congressional review, section 21 of that act ceases to be effective 
    after September 30, 1982. The amendment would, therefore, 
    constitute a change in law for fiscal 1983. The Chair rules that 
    the amendment is not germane to House Resolution 560 and sustains 
    the point of order.

Amendment to Concurrent Resolution

Sec. 17.6 While a concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment of 
    the Senate to a day certain is amendable, the Speaker indicated in 
    response to a parliamentary inquiry that an amendment providing a 
    sine die adjournment of the Senate would not be germane.

    The following perhaps jocose proceedings occurred on Mar. 13, 1974: 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 120 Cong. Rec. 6550, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker laid before the House the Senate concurrent 
    resolution (S. Con. Res. 75) providing for an adjournment of the 
    Senate from Wednesday, March 13, 1974, to Tuesday, March 19, 1974.
        The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution as follows:

                                S. Con. Res. 75

            Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
        concurring), That when the Senate completes its business today, 
        Wednesday, March 13, 1974, it stand adjourned until noon, 
        Tuesday, March 19, 1974.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry. . . . [W]hat is the import of the resolution?
        The Speaker: (14) It is an adjournment resolution 
    enacted by the Senate, for the Senate only, until Tuesday next. The 
    Senate is asking the consent of the House. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Is it subject to amendment, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: It is a privileged resolution.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I would be constrained to make it a 
    sine die adjournment for the other body.
        The Speaker: The Chair feels that that is not germane.