[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§ 22. Committee Amendment]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 8375-8377]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
 B. APPLICATION OF RULE TO PARTICULAR FORMS OF AMENDMENT OR PROPOSITION
 
Sec. 22. Committee Amendment

    Committee amendments in a bill occupy the same status as those 
offered from the floor, so far as being subject to the same points of 
order.(10)Thus, the rule of germaneness applies to committee 
amendments as well as those offered by individual Members. 
(11) Therefore, the rule of germaneness may be summarized as 
follows: While the committee may report a bill embracing different 
subjects, it is not in order during consideration of the bill to 
introduce a new subject and the rule applies to amendments offered by 
the committee (12)and during the markups in subcommittee and 
in full committee, as well as to amendments offered from the floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. For illustrative precedents on this point, see, for example, 
        Sec. Sec. 22.1 and 37.12, infra.
11. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 3.41 and 12.8, supra.
12. See Sec. 4.31, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A committee amendment, whether or not in the nature of a 
substitute, should be germane to the bill as introduced. Of course, a 
resolution providing for consideration of the bill with the committee 
amendment may waive points of order against the committee 
amendment.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 45.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule requiring germaneness of amendments has been applied with 
respect to a committee amendment to a Consent Calendar 
bill.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 16.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority of Secretary of Navy Respecting Construction for Shore 
    Activities--Amendment To Amend Surplus Property Act

Sec. 22.1 To a bill giving the Secretary of the Navy certain authority 
    with respect to the construction of public works designed to 
    promote specified naval shore activities, a committee amendment 
    seeking to amend the Surplus Property Act to require title to all 
    ships, boats, barges and floating drydocks of the Navy to remain in 
    the Navy was held not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (15) was under 
consideration which provided in part as follows: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 626 (Committee on Naval Affairs).
16. See 91 Cong. Rec. 305, 306, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 17, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Navy is hereby 
    authorized to establish . . . the following naval shore activities 
    by the construction of such temporary or permanent public works as 
    he may consider nec

[[Page 8376]]

    essary, including buildings, facilities, accessories, and services 
    . . . with approximate costs as indicated: Ship repair and laying-
    up facilities, $230,222,000; fleet training facilities, amphibious 
    and operational, $12,000,000; aviation facilities, $74,500,000; 
    storage facilities, $19,950,000 (and the like). . . .

    A committee amendment was read, stating: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 308.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Add a new section as follows:

            Sec. 4. Notwithstanding any provisions of the Surplus 
        Property Act of 1944, and of the act approved March 11, 1941 
        (55 Stat. 31, as amended, title to all ships, boats, barges, 
        and floating drydocks of the Navy Department shall remain in 
        the United States; and possession thereof shall remain in the 
        Navy Department and none of the foregoing shall be disposed of 
        in any manner: Provided That lease thereof may be made in 
        accordance with such act of March 11, 1941, as amended, for 
        periods not beyond the termination of the present war.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against section 4 on the ground that it is not 
    germane to the bill.
        . . . May I say that the original bill is an authorization bill 
    to establish or develop naval shore activities by the construction 
    of such temporary or public works as may be considered necessary, 
    and so forth.
        Section 4, an amendment, has absolutely nothing to do with 
    that. Section 4 amends the Surplus Property Act, which does not 
    enter into the original bill at all. In adding section 4 it is 
    sought to have the Navy retain title to every type of ship, boat, 
    barge, or floating drydock that is now in possession of the Navy 
    Department, and I submit that is not germane to the original bill 
    and is, therefore, subject to a point of order.

    The following exchange (18) also concerned the point of 
order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at pp. 308, 309.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, one of the 
    objectives of this bill is to provide facilities for inactive 
    ships. There would be no justification to dispose of these ships, 
    then provide facilities for inactive ships. . . .
        What we are seeking to do is to utilize the facilities by not 
    disposing of ships; otherwise it would be probably a waste of 
    public money if we go ahead and dispose of the ships, then turn 
    around and provide facilities for inactive ships. . . .
        Mr. [W. Sterling] Cole [of New York]: . . . It seems to me 
    there is a proper relationship between the construction of a shore 
    establishment necessary for the operation of a ship and the 
    disposal or the conduct of the ship itself. . . .
        Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: . . . I remind 
    the Chair that this is an amendment. It is a committee amendment, 
    true, but it has no higher privilege and is entitled to no greater 
    weight than if it were an amendment proposed on the floor by the 
    committee or by any member of the Committee of the Whole. Inasmuch 
    as this amendment definitely is not ger

[[Page 8377]]

    mane to the bill under consideration which provides for 
    construction . . . and inasmuch as this amendment is not a 
    limitation for the repairs and for shore facilities and for the 
    housing authorized in this bill, but is an amendment to the general 
    law covering all ships . . . and floating drydocks of the Navy 
    Department, applying to property that is covered by two acts 
    heretofore passed by the Congress . . . I submit that the amendment 
    is not germane to the bill under consideration. . . . The bill 
    provides for construction--the amendment prevents disposal of other 
    types and classes of property. . . .
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    question of germaneness to me is not important when a bill is 
    drafted by the committee if the matter included in the committee 
    draft has to do with the subject matter over which the committee 
    has jurisdiction. . . .
        My view is that when a Member introduces a bill and it goes 
    before a committee it becomes a committee bill when the committee 
    reports it out, and that an individual by introducing a bill and 
    referring it to a committee cannot prevent the committee from 
    adding to the bill anything over which the committee has 
    jurisdiction. . . .

    The Chairman,(19) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. A.S. Mike Monroney (Okla.).
20. See 91 Cong. Rec. 309, 310, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 17, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cochran] makes the point 
    of order against the committee amendment, which provides that title 
    to all ships, boats, barges, and floating drydocks of the Navy 
    Department shall remain in the United States, on the ground that it 
    is not germane to the bill. This amendment, although a committee 
    amendment, occupies the same position with respect to the rule of 
    germaneness as an amendment offered from the floor.
        The Chair has carefully read the bill. It is the opinion of the 
    Chair that the substance of this bill relates solely to the 
    construction of public works. It would be rather futile to argue 
    that this amendment comes within the rule of germaneness because if 
    the argument of those opposing the point of order were sustained 
    any amendment proposing a change in any other activity of the Navy 
    Department could also be considered as germane. Therefore the Chair 
    sustains the point of order made by the gentleman from Missouri.