[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]
[C. House-Senate Relations]
[Â§ 25. Rule of Germaneness in the Senate]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 8419-8421]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                       C. HOUSE-SENATE RELATIONS
 
Sec. 25. Rule of Germaneness in the Senate


    No comprehensive analysis is intended here of the Senate's 
requirements of germaneness of amendments. (1) There is no 
general Senate rule prohibiting nongermane amendments, except after 
cloture has been invoked on a measure under Senate Rule XXII. Under 
unanimous-consent agreements, the Senate sometimes prohibits any 
nongermane amendments to particular bills, (2) or may 
prohibit a certain class of nongermane amendments to a 
bill.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See, generally, Senate Procedure, Riddick, S. Doc. 97-1 (1981). A 
        new Senate Procedure manual is being prepared as these volumes 
        are being published.
 2. See, for example, the parliamentary inquiry and point of order by 
        Senator Forrest C. Donnell (Mo.) at 96 Cong. Rec. 4774, 81st 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 5, 1950.
 3. See, for example, 96 Cong. Rec. 16461, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 
        12, 1950.
            The fact that an amendment has been considered by the 
        Senate does not necessarily, of course, make an amendment of a 
        similar nature germane when offered in the House. See Sec. 
        13.11, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Senate procedures, no point of order based on a question of 
germaneness in the above circumstances can be raised until after 
conclusion of debate on the amendment in question, unless time is 
yielded for such a point of order.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See the proceedings at 98 Cong. Rec. 6910, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., June 
        10, 1952. See also 98 Cong. Rec. 6918.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Senate rule (5) also prohibits nongermane amendments 
on general appropriation bills; under the rule, questions of 
germaneness are submitted to the whole Senate for disposition without 
debate, the Chair not ruling on the ques

[[Page 8420]]

tion; (6) but such procedure has not uniformly been 
followed.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Senate Rule XVI clause 4.
 6. See 128 Cong. Rec. 6166, 6167, 6169, 97th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 31, 
        1982, wherein, during consideration of H.J. Res. 409, 
        continuing appropriations for 1982, an amendment to a general 
        appropriation bill repealing a provision in the Internal 
        Revenue Code that provided a tax deduction to Members of 
        Congress was considered by the Senate to be germane, but was 
        ruled out as legislation in violation of Senate Rule XVI, 
        clause 4, the ruling of the Presiding Officer being sustained 
        on appeal.
 7. See, for example, 51 Cong. Rec. 10712, 10717, 63d Cong. 2d Sess., 
        June 19, 1914.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Dec. 14, 1970, points of order were pending against an amendment 
to a general appropriation bill,(8) on grounds both that the 
amendment constituted legislation, and that it was not 
germane.(9) The presiding officer (10) summarized 
the procedures to be followed in such a case, as follows: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 19928 (Committee on Appropriations), supplemental 
        appropriations for fiscal 1971.
 9. See the proceedings at 116 Cong. Rec. 41339, 41340, 91st Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Dec. 14, 1970.
10. Senator J. Caleb Boggs (Del.).
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 41340, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 14, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The hour of 2:23 p.m. having arrived, the question is on the 
    issue of germaneness. A point of order was raised by the Senator 
    from Delaware (Mr. Williams) against the language on page 20, line 
    12, beginning with the word ``provided'' down through line 22, as 
    being legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The manager of the bill, the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. 
    Byrd] has raised the question of germaneness of this language to 
    the House-passed language. Under rule XVI, paragraph 4, and the 
    precedents and practices of the Senate, if a point of order is made 
    against a pending amendment to a general appropriation bill on the 
    ground that it is legislation, and the question of germaneness to 
    the House provisions of the bill is raised, the question of 
    germaneness is submitted to the Senate for decision and takes 
    precedence over the point of order which is not ruled on, and the 
    point of order falls or the question is settled if the Senate 
    decides that the amendment is germane to the provisions of the bill 
    to which it is offered.

    In addition to the above, another rule (12) prohibits 
nongermane amendments to bills after cloture has been invoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Senate Rule XXII clause 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Senate on occasion has considered adopting a rule as to 
germaneness similar to that of the House. For example, in 1965 
(13) and in 1967 (14) unsuccessful attempts were 
made to require germaneness of amendments gen

[[Page 8421]]

erally, as in the House. The following remarks were made by Senator 
Joseph S. Clark, of Pennsylvania, on Aug. 2, 1965: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See 111 Cong. Rec. 19051, 19052, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 2, 
        1965.
14. See 113 Cong. Rec. 5271, 5272, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 2, 1967.
15. 111 Cong. Rec. 19052, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . I believe that we should exercise the kind of judgment 
    which has motivated other legislative bodies, both here and abroad, 
    and impose on ourselves a measure of self-discipline by adopting a 
    rule to require germaneness of amendments, realizing full well that 
    there may occasionally be an abuse of such a rule.
        However, I challenge the Senator from Louisiana to name one 
    abuse under the rule which I propose which would be half as bad as 
    the practice of permitting a nongermane amendment, or a 
    constitutional amendment, to be added to a foreign aid 
    authorization bill or to a simple joint resolution dealing with the 
    question of American Legion baseball. . . .

    Senator Clark further made the point, which he stated again on Mar. 
2, 1967,(16) that desirable bills are sometimes impeded in 
their passage when amended by controversial nongermane proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 113 Cong. Rec. 5271, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some useful guidelines for the application of the rule of 
germaneness in the Senate were provided by the Presiding Officer in the 
Senate on April 22, 1982,(17) during consideration of S. 
1630, the Criminal Code Reform Act. The Presiding Officer stated the 
following general principles: (1) an amendment adding new language is 
germane if restricting but not broadening the effect of the section to 
which offered; (2) an amendment adding a new section is germane if 
restricting authorities otherwise available; (3) an amendment adding to 
a list of exemptions from authorities is a restriction and therefore 
germane, while an amendment adding to a list of penalties is broadening 
and nongermane; (4) an amendment merely striking out language is 
germane regardless of effect on the scope of the bill; (5) an amendment 
striking out a figure and inserting another figure is germane; (6) the 
general test of germaneness is not a subject matter test but a 
technical test as indicated in 1 through 5 above, and broadening 
amendments, though related to the subject matter, are nongermane; but 
where an ambiguity exists in the effect of the amendment as broadening 
or restrictive, the Chair does not interpret law and submits the 
question to the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 128 Cong. Rec. 7449-53, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 8422]]