[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]
[F. Procedural Matters]
[Â§ 43. Generally; Point of Order and Debate Thereon]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 9185-9195]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         F. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
 
Sec. 43. Generally; Point of Order and Debate Thereon


    The Chair will not ordinarily apply the rule of germaneness to bar 
an amendment unless a point of order is actually raised against the 
amendment. A nongermane amendment so permitted to remain may be further 
amended by amendments germane thereto. Similarly, where an amendment to 
a general appropriation bill proposes a change in existing law but is 
permitted to remain because no point of order is raised against it, the 
amendment may be perfected by germane amendments which do not add 
further legislation.(17) Of course, the fact that no point 
of order was made against a particular amendment does not waive points 
of order against subsequent amendments of a related 
nature.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 15.49, supra.
18. See Sec. 13.19, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the ordinary case, a point of order based on the rule of 
germaneness will state the grounds for asserting the nongermaneness of 
the amendment. The Chair may sustain the point of order but rely for 
his ruling upon a different basis from that urged by the proponent of 
the point of order. In one instance, in fact, an amendment was ruled 
out as not germane where the point of order raised against it was based 
on the contention that it was 'legislation on an appropriation 
bill.(19) But the Chair has not upheld points of order that 
were not clearly based on specific rules of the House.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 3.4, supra.
20. See Sec. 43.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If any part of an amendment is subject to a point of order, the 
entire amendment is subject to such point of order.(1) Thus, 
if one part of the amendment is deficient, the whole amendment is ruled 
out.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 5.8, 8.29, supra.
 2. See Sec. 4.95, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The effect of a ruling by the Chair that an amendment is not 
germane is usually that the amendment is barred in its present form and 
at the place at which it is offered. Of course, the ruling of the Chair 
may be appealed, in which case the question is on the propriety of the 
Chair's ruling, and not on the substantive merits of the 
amendment.(3) And on one occasion, the Committee of the 
Whole by unanimous consent voted upon an amendment that had been ruled 
out of order as not germane.(4) Similarly, an amend

[[Page 9186]]

ment ruled out as not germane to that part of an appropriation bill to 
which offered has been permitted by unanimous consent to be offered to 
a previous paragraph to which it was germane but which had been passed 
in the reading.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See, for example, Sec. 41.10, supra.
 4. See 97 Cong. Rec. 3781, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 12, 1951.
 5. See Sec. 18.14, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fact that an amendment has been ruled out as not germane does 
not preclude amendments of a similar nature from being subsequently 
offered. Thus, an amendment of different form although of similar 
effect as one previously rejected is admissible if redrafted to be 
germane. It has been held that similarity of an amendment to one 
previously rejected will not render it inadmissible if sufficiently 
different in form to present another proposition.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See, for example, the ruling of Chairman Aime J. Forand (R.I.) at 
        103 Cong. Rec. 9365, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 17, 1957, with 
        respect to a point of order raised by Mr. Kenneth B. Keating 
        (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a motion to recommit with instructions is ruled out on a 
point of order because containing matter not germane to the bill, 
another motion to recommit may be offered.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 23.3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When a point of order is made, the Chair ordinarily permits debate 
thereon, consisting usually of a statement by the person making the 
point of order in support of his position, a statement by the proponent 
of the amendment in defense of the germaneness of the amendment, and 
arguments by any others who wish to speak on either side of the issue. 
Debate on a point of order is within the discretion of the 
Chair,(8) and Members recognized on the point of order do 
not yield to others to debate the germaneness of an 
amendment.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 42.37, supra.
 9. See, for example, the proceedings of Nov. 14, 1980, relating to S. 
        885, the Pacific Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act 
        of 1980, discussed in Sec. 31.1, supra.
            On occasion, a Member recognized to debate a point of order 
        has been permitted to yield to other Members speaking in 
        support of his argument. See, for example, 113 Cong. Rec. 
        28649-51, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 11, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The burden of proof of the germaneness of an amendment rests upon 
the proponent.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. Sec. 35.31, 41.8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Debate on a point of order against an amendment is limited to the 
question of order and must be relevant thereto and may not go to the 
merits of the amendment.(11) On the other hand, if a point 
of order is reserved against

[[Page 9187]]

an amendment, the proponent may speak on the merits of the amendment 
and respond subsequently to the point of order.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. Sec. 3.31, 35.101, supra.
12. See Sec. 31.30, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chairman, of course, may decline to hear further debate with 
regard to a point of order on which he has ruled.(13) But 
the Chair, after sustaining a point of order against an amendment, has 
on occasion permitted a Member to state his position on the germaneness 
of the amendment.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 31.32, supra.
14. See Sec. 37.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under clauses 4 and 5 of Rule XXVIII, the Speaker must first hear 
argument on and rule on a point of order that an identifiable portion 
of a Senate provision is not germane to the House provision to which it 
is attached. Decisions on such points of order are governed by the same 
procedures discussed under this heading. Once the Speaker rules a 
Senate provision nongermane, a motion, of high privilege, may be 
entertained that the House reject the nongermane matter. Debate and 
disposition of the conference report then proceed as specified in Rule 
XXVIII. Debate on a motion to reject a nongermane portion of a 
conference report under Rule XXVIII clause 4 is discussed briefly in 
Sec. 26, supra. For more comprehensive discussion of House-Senate 
relations, see Chapter 32, infra; and see Chapter 33, infra, for 
discussion of House-Senate 
conferences.                          -------------------

Amendment to Nongermane Amendment

Sec. 43.1 If the time for making a point of order against an amendment 
    has elapsed, such amendment, even though not itself germane, is 
    open to germane amendments.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See, for example, the ruling of Chairman Hale Boggs (La.), at 95 
        Cong. Rec. 8381, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., June 24, 1949, on a 
        point of order raised by Mr. Multer against a substitute for an 
        amendment under consideration. Since no timely objection had 
        been raised against the amendment for which the substitute was 
        offered, and since the substitute was germane to the amendment, 
        the point of order was overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Entire Amendment Ruled Out

Sec. 43.2 If a point of order is sustained against an amendment, the 
    entire amendment is ruled out even though only a portion of the 
    amendment be improper.

    In the 84th Congress, a bill (16) was under 
consideration to amend

[[Page 9188]]

the Mutual Security Act of 1954. The bill, which had been reported from 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs, provided for aid to foreign 
countries. A committee amendment was offered which related to exemption 
from duty of personal and household effects brought into the United 
States pursuant to government orders. The subject matter of the 
proposed amendment was thus within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Ways and Means. Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, made the point of 
order that the amendment was not germane to the bill.(17) 
The point of order having been conceded, the Chairman (18) 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. S. 2090 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
17. 101 Cong. Rec. 9662, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., June 30, 1955.
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order is conceded and the point of order 
    sustained. A point of order to a part of an amendment makes the 
    whole amendment subject to a point of order, so the whole amendment 
    goes out on the point of order.

Amendment, Ruled Out as Not Germane, Permitted To Be Offered to a 
    Different Paragraph

Sec. 43.3 An amendment, held to be not germane to that part of an 
    appropriation bill to which offered, has been permitted by 
    unanimous consent to be offered to a previous paragraph to which it 
    was germane but which had been passed in reading for 
    amendment.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 18.14, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment, Ruled Out as Not Germane, Considered by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 43.4 On occasion, an amendment that has been ruled out as not 
    germane has been considered by unanimous consent.

    On Apr. 12, 1951, during consideration of S. 1-1951, a bill 
amending the Universal Military Training and Service Act, an amendment 
relating to the voting rights of persons within the scope of the bill 
was ruled out as not germane, but was considered pursuant to a 
unanimous consent request. The proceedings are discussed in Sec. 4.41, 
supra.

Burden of Proof

Sec. 43.5 The burden of proof is on the proponent of an amendment to 
    establish its germaneness, and where the proponent admits to an 
    interpretation which will render it nongermane, the

[[Page 9189]]

    Chair will rule it out of order.

    The proceedings of Dec. 11, 1979, relating to H.R. 4962 (the Child 
Health Assurance Act of 1979) are discussed in Sec. 9.26, supra.

Sec. 43.6 The burden of proof is on the proponent of an amendment to 
    establish its germaneness, 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.

    The proceedings of June 20, 1975, relating to H.R. 3474, the Energy 
Research and Development Administration authorization for fiscal 1976, 
are discussed in Sec. 9.41, supra.

Point of Order Not Specifically Based on Rule of House

Sec. 43.7 The Chair will not interpret a point of order against a 
    substitute as ``narrowing the scope'' of a pending amendment to be 
    a point of order under a specific rule of the House upon which he 
    must rule, in the absence of some reference to the germaneness rule 
    or other rule which is stated or necessarily implied in the point 
    of order.

    On June 25, 1987,(20) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 2712, Department of the Interior 
appropriations for fiscal 1988. An amendment was pending which sought 
to reduce all discretionary accounts in the general appropriation bill 
by a specified percentage. A point of order that a substitute 
``narrowed the scope'' of the pending amendment by addressing only the 
availability of one account in the bill was held not to constitute a 
valid point of order under the rules of the House. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 133 Cong. Rec. 17403, 17414, 17415, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frederick S.] Upton [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
    considered as read and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Michigan?
        There was no objection.
        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Upton: Page 77, after line 10, 
        insert the following new section:
            Sec. 314. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
        each amount appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
        Act that is not required to be appropriated or

[[Page 9190]]

        otherwise made available by a provision of law is reduced by 
        3.2 percent.

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Yates as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Upton: On page 52, line 25, after 
        ``expended'', insert ``of which $50,000,000 shall not be 
        obligated unless future fiscal year 1988 pay cost increases for 
        accounts in this Act are provided within the allocations of the 
        fiscal year 1988 Congressional Budget Resolution''. . . .

        Mr. [Steven C.] Gunderson [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I raise 
    the point of order that the substitute amendment significantly 
    narrows the scope of the amendment now before the House and 
    therefore is out of order.
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair would advise the 
    gentleman that he does not state a proper point of order; so the 
    point of order is not sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Frederick C. Boucher (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section in Committee Amendment Not Within Jurisdiction of Committee

Sec. 43.8 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.

    During consideration of H.R. 15560 (a bill concerning emergency 
loans to livestock producers) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair 
held that a point of order against the pending section was not in 
order. The proceedings of July 16, 1974,(2) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 120 Cong. Rec. 23344, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (3) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Lloyd Meeds (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 4. Loans guaranteed under this Act shall be secured by 
        security adequate to protect the Government's interests, as 
        determined by the Secretary.
            Sec. 5. Loan guarantees outstanding under this Act shall 
        not exceed $2,000,000,000 at any one time. Subject to the 
        provisions of section 2(c) of this Act, the fund created in 
        section 309 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 
        shall be used by the Secretary for the discharge of the 
        obligations of the Secretary under contracts of guarantee made 
        pursuant to this Act.
            Sec. 6. Contracts of guarantee under this Act shall not be 
        included in the totals of the budget of the United States 
        Government and shall be exempt from any general limitation 
        imposed by statute on expenditures and net lending (budget 
        outlays) of the United States. . . .

        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against section 6. The language in section 6 removes any 
    expenditures under this act from the debt ceiling of the United 
    States. My point of order is

[[Page 9191]]

    based on the point that this language constitutes an appropriation 
    in a legislative bill, and second, invades the jurisdiction of 
    another committee which has jurisdiction under the rules of this 
    House, and with respect to those items it should be included in the 
    debt ceiling.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair would state to the gentleman, as to the argument with 
    respect to committee jurisdiction, that the provisions of section 6 
    of the committee substitute are also continued in section 7 of the 
    original bill, and the point of order of germaneness is not in 
    order. Section 6, while it provides that guarantees shall not be 
    included in budget totals and shall be exempt from limitations on 
    net lending, does not appropriate funds and does not violate clause 
    4 of rule XXI. The points of order are overruled.
        Does the gentleman wish to be heard further?
        Mr. Vanik: Mr. Chairman, what about the second point that I 
    made, that this is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Agriculture, to determine what should go into the debt ceiling?
        The Chairman: That is not a proper point of order. That is a 
    matter which should be resolved in another way.

Inconsistency of Amendment With Prior Amendment Not Basis for Point of 
    Order

Sec. 43.9 The test of germaneness of an amendment to a bill being read 
    for amendment by titles is its relationship to the title to which 
    offered; even where the amendment would also have been germane to a 
    previous title of a bill which has been passed in the reading, an 
    amendment germane to the pending title is not subject to a point of 
    order on the grounds that it indirectly affects, or is inconsistent 
    with, an amendment adopted to a previous title.

    The proceedings of Sept. 5, 1980, relating to H.R. 7235, the Rail 
Act of 1980, are discussed in Sec. 3.48, supra.

Conjecture as to Legislative or Administrative Actions That Might Be 
    Necessitated by Amendment

Sec. 43.10 In ruling on a question of germaneness, the Chair confines 
    his analysis to the text of the amendment and is not guided by 
    conjecture as to other legislation or administrative actions which 
    might--but are not required to--result from the amendment.

    On July 27, 1977,(4) it was held that to a title of a 
bill (5) reported

[[Page 9192]]

from the Committee on Agriculture providing for benefits under, and 
administration of, the food stamp program, an amendment which provided 
for recovery of benefits from persons whose income exceeded specified 
levels was germane, even though it required the Secretary of the 
Treasury and, impliedly, the Internal Revenue Service to collect any 
liability imposed by the amendment's provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 123 Cong. Rec. 25249, 25252, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. H.R. 7171, the Agriculture Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jeffords to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Foley: In title XII, page 28, insert after line 8 the 
        following new section:

        ``recovery of benefits where individual's adjusted gross income 
                      for year exceeds twice poverty level

            Sec. 1210(a)(1) if--
            ``(A) any individual receives food stamps during any 
        calendar year and
            ``(B) such individual's adjusted gross income for such 
        calendar year exceeds the exempt amount,
        then such individual shall be liable to pay the United States 
        the amount determined under subsection (b) with respect to such 
        individual for such calendar year. Such amount shall be due and 
        payable on April 15 of the succeeding calendar year and shall 
        be collected in accordance with the procedures prescribed 
        pursuant to subsection (g). . . .

            ``(g) The Secretary of the Treasury shall collect any 
        liability imposed by this section in accordance with 
        regulations prescribed by him . . . .
            ``(h) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect 
        in any manner the application of any provision of the Internal 
        Revenue Code of 1954.''. . .(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Shown is the correct text of the amendment offered, subsequently 
        inserted in the Record by Mr. Jeffords.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fortney H.] Stark [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    a point of order. I would like to engage the author of the 
    amendment in colloquy. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the distinguished gentleman 
    from Vermont who or what branch of Government the gentleman feels 
    would collect this money from the people?
        Mr. Jeffords: Under the amendment, the Department of the 
    Treasury would be required to collect the money.
        Mr. Stark: It would be the Treasury Department and in no way 
    did the gentleman intend that the Internal Revenue Service 
    participate in any of the collection or in collecting the forms or 
    collecting revenue?
        Mr. Jeffords: No, on the contrary, it is my understanding and 
    belief that the Internal Revenue Service would be charged with and 
    do the collecting. . . .
        Mr. Stark: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the 
    jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service lies wholly within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
        This amendment, as the gentleman has stated it, would be 
    counting on the Internal Revenue Service to perform the functions 
    as put down under this amendment. The amendment would

[[Page 9193]]

    not be in order and would not be within the jursidiction of this 
    committee. . . .

        Mr. Jeffords: . . . As I understand the rules here, I can ask 
    for an amendment that can be proposed, as can anybody, to the 
    collection. We could make the State Department or anyone else do 
    the collection, but we cannot do what I have not done, and very 
    specifically have not done in this amendment, which is to change 
    any statute of the way it is done, which is under the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on Ways and Means. If I am wrong on this, there 
    are so many places in this bill where the same thing is done that I 
    do not know why a number of Members have not raised points of 
    order.
        We have asked the Postal Service to do something; we have asked 
    the social security office to do things; we have mandated different 
    agencies all over the place. We do not interfere with any statutes 
    which are under committee jurisdiction of other committees. I have 
    not done so here. The question is, do we change any statute which 
    is under the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee, and we 
    do not. They are the guardian over those statutes, but they are not 
    the guardian over any agency which happens to be involved with 
    those statutes.
        Mr. Stark: Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite clear that the 
    gentleman, in terms of both the committee report and in his 
    response to questions here, in his statement on the floor that this 
    amendment, although it really says that the Secretary of the 
    Treasury shall collect any liability, clearly the intention is that 
    the Internal Revenue Service shall collect W-2 forms, match them 
    against income figures which are now under the law not to be given 
    even to the Secretary of Treasury, but are for collecting income 
    tax and Internal Revenue matters.
        Clearly, the intent of the amendment is to direct the Internal 
    Revenue Service to participate in that. The jurisdiction of the 
    Internal Revenue Service and all matters pertaining thereto is 
    under the Committee on Ways and Means. I would ask that this 
    amendment be ruled out of order on that basis.
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from California makes the point of order that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) is 
    not germane to the food stamp title of the pending bill. The thrust 
    of the gentleman's point of order is that the collection procedure 
    for overpayments of food stamp benefits to persons above the 
    poverty level involves responsibilities of the Treasury Department, 
    and in effect mandates the establishment of regulations which would 
    involve the disclosure of tax returns and tax information and 
    utilization of the Internal Revenue Service--all matters within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
        The Chair notes that the amendment does contain the provision 
    that ``nothing in this section shall be construed to affect in any 
    manner the application of any provision of the Internal Revenue 
    Code of 1954,'' and it seems to the Chair to follow that, under the 
    explicit provisions of the amendment, Secretary of the Treasury 
    would therefore have to establish an independent col

[[Page 9194]]

    lection procedure separate and apart from the mandated use of the 
    Internal Revenue Service. The Chair does not have to judge the 
    germaneness of the amendment by contemplating possible future 
    legislative actions of the Congress not mandated by the amendment.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the authority of the Secretary of 
    the Treasury under the rules of the House as collector of 
    overpayments of any sort is not subject explicitly and exclusively 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means under 
    rule X, and even if this were true, committee jurisdiction is not 
    an exclusive test of germaneness where, as here, the basic thrust 
    of the amendment is to modify the food stamp program--a matter now 
    before the Committee of the Whole.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Had the amendment altered the Internal 
Revenue Code or otherwise required the use of the Internal Revenue 
Service, in conjunction with the collection of federal income taxes, in 
recovering the value of benefits, the amendment would not have been 
germane. The Chair was persuaded that the Department of Treasury 
performs a variety of functions, including payments and collections, 
under laws and policies not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Ways and Means. As indicated in the Chair's ruling, the amendment 
disavowed any intent to affect any provision of the Internal Revenue 
Code.

Chair as Looking Behind Form of Amendment in Making Ruling

Sec. 43.11 Although the Chair will not ordinarily look behind the text 
    of a bill and consider the probable effects of its provisions, or 
    amendments thereto, in determining issues of 
    germaneness,(8) the Chair has ruled that an amendment 
    which in form amounted to a permanent change in law could in fact 
    be understood to be a temporary change in law, in light of its 
    fundamental purpose demonstrated by prior legislative treatment of 
    the subject in question (the statutory ceiling on public debt), and 
    thus could properly be offered to a bill whose fundamental purpose 
    was to provide a temporary increase in the statutory ceiling on the 
    debt.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See, generally, Sec. 46, infra; and see Sec. Sec. 3.15 and 34.2, 
        supra.
 9. The proceedings of May 13, 1987, relating to H.R. 2360, extension 
        of the public debt limit, are discussed in Sec. 46.7, infra.

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

[[Page 9195]]

Special Rule Permitting Amendments That Have Been Printed in Record

Sec. 43.12 Where a special rule permits the offering of only those 
    germane amendments to a bill which have been printed in the Record, 
    an amendment which differs in any respect from a printed amendment 
    may not be offered (except by unanimous consent) even to cure a 
    germaneness defect in a printed amendment previously ruled out.

    During consideration of H.R. 8410 (10) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Oct. 5, 1977,(11) the Chair sustained a 
point of order against the following amendment under the circumstances 
described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The Labor Reform Act of 1977.
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 32510, 32511, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: Page 17, line 5, insert 
        ``(1)'' after ``(A)'' and insert the following new subparagraph 
        (ii) after line 15:
            ``(ii) which shall assure that the expressing of any views 
        . . . opinion, or the making of any statement or the 
        dissemination thereof . . . shall not constitute grounds for, 
        or evidence justifying, setting aside the results of any 
        election conducted under section 9(c)(6) of this Act, if such 
        expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise 
        of benefit.''

        The Chairman: (12) The Chair would like to inquire 
    of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) if this amendment which 
    was reported by the Clerk is printed in the Record?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I would say the amendment was 
    printed in the Record. The Chair previously ruled it out of order 
    and I have struck certain language to make it conform with the 
    ruling of the Chair.
        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment was not printed in the 
    Record, notwithstanding the attempt of my good friend to revise it 
    in such a way as to indicate that it was. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair would have to sustain the point of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, is the Chair indicating an 
    amendment that was printed in the Record on Monday and ruled out of 
    order for parliamentary reasons cannot be revised and offered as a 
    substitute?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman that 
    the amendment was not printed in the Record in the form in which 
    the gentleman now presents it as an amendment to the bill.
        Mr. Ashbrook: The gentleman from Ohio would concede that.
        The Chairman: And the Chair would be constrained to sustain the 
    point of order.