[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§ 44. Timeliness of Point of Order]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 9195-9201]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         F. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
 
Sec. 44. Timeliness of Point of Order

[[Page 9196]]

    A germaneness point of order must be made or reserved immediately 
after the reading of an amendment.(13) No business must 
intervene between the reading of the amendment and the raising of the 
point of order. The Member pressing the point of order must be diligent 
in seeking prompt recognition after the amendment is read or its 
reading dispensed with.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. Sec. 44.1, 44.2, infra.
14. A point of order has been held dilatory if a parliamentary inquiry 
        intervenes between the reading of the amendment and the point 
        of order. See the ruling of Chairman Earl C. Michener (Mich.) 
        at 93 Cong. Rec. 11279, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 11, 1947. 
        Under consideration was H.R. 4604 (Committee on Foreign 
        Affairs), providing for aid to certain foreign countries.
            In this instance, Mr. Fulton, who raised the point of order 
        that a proffered amendment was not germane, stated that he had 
        been on his feet in time, but had yielded for a parliamentary 
        inquiry.
            The Chairman took the view that, by doing so, Mr. Fulton 
        had forfeited his right to make the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A point of order against a proposed amendment comes too late after 
debate has begun. But mere recognition for debate does not preclude a 
point of order against an amendment before the Member recognized has 
begun his remarks.(15) Indeed, a point of order against an 
amendment is not precluded by the Chair's recognition of the Member 
offering the amendment if the Member raising the point of order was on 
his feet, seeking recognition, before debate on the amendment 
began.(16) It is held that a point of order as to the 
germaneness of a proposed amendment does not come too late if the 
Member was on his feet attempting to make the point of order when 
debate started.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 31.44, supra.
16. For discussion of when and in what manner a point of order must be 
        made, generally, see Ch. 31 on points of order. See also 
        Sec. 9.12, supra.
17. See Sec. 35.37, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In fact, on one occasion, although the proponent of an amendment 
had been recognized and had begun his discussion, the Chair entertained 
a point of order against the amendment by a Member who stated he had 
been on his feet, seeking recognition for that purpose when the 
discussion began.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 30.34, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of course, a point of order against an amendment does not come too 
late where the Member raising the question was on his feet seeking 
recognition at the time the amendment was read.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 33.28, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where one point of order is made against an amendment and

[[Page 9197]]

overruled, another can be pressed although the proponent thereof was 
not on his feet at the time the first point of order was 
made.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. For discussion of when and in what manner a point of order must be 
        made, generally, see Ch. 31 on points of order; see also 
        Sec. 33.28, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Points of order reserved on the question of the germaneness of an 
amendment should be made or withdrawn when the sponsor of the amendment 
ends his five-minute debate,(1) although the Chair may in 
its discretion permit additional debate on the amendment before ruling 
on the reserved point of order. The reservation of a point of order by 
one Member generally does not preclude another from pressing a point of 
order,(2) and the reservation of a point of order inures to 
all Members, so that if the point of order is not pressed by the Member 
reserving it, another may press it. But the Chair has also respected 
the reservation of a point of order and declined to rule on a point of 
order subsequently made without reservation.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See the remarks of Chairman Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.) at 92 Cong. 
        Rec. 3663, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 13, 1946, in response to a 
        parliamentary inquiry by Mr. May.
 2. See Sec. 35.101, supra.
 3. See Sec. 39.24, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be remembered that 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.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. 13.19, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A point of order against a motion to recommit with instructions has 
been made prior to completion of the reading of such motion where the 
matter contained in the instructions had been ruled out as not germane 
when offered as an amendment in the Committee of the 
Whole.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 23.3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the House, it is too late to interpose a germaneness point of 
order against an amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See the remarks of Speaker Sam Rayburn (Tex.) at 102 Cong. Rec. 
        13857, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 21, 1956, in response to a 
        parliamentary inquiry by Mr. 
        Bow.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Point of Order Must Be Made or Reserved

Sec. 44.1 A point of order against the germaneness of an amendment must 
    be made or reserved immediately after the amendment is read and 
    comes too late after the pro

[[Page 9198]]

    ponent of the amendment has been recognized and permitted to revise 
    and extend his remarks.

    On Sept. 17, 1975,(7) during consideration of H.R. 7014 
(8) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair ruled that a 
point of order came too late and recognized the proponent of the 
amendment for 5 minutes in support of that amendment. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 28937, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. The Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Maine (Mr. Emery) for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. [David F.] Emery [of Maine] asked and was given permission 
    to revise and extend his remarks.)
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Dingell) that his reservation comes too late. The 
    Chair had already recognized the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Emery), 
    and the point of order comes too late.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine for 5 minutes in 
    support of his amendment.

--Amendments to Amendment Which Has Been Made in Order by Waiver of 
    Points of Order

Sec. 44.2 A point of order against the germaneness of an amendment must 
    be made immediately following the reading and prior to 
    consideration, and where points of order have been waived against a 
    specific amendment which has then been altered by amendment, a 
    point of order will not lie against the modified amendment as not 
    coming within the coverage of the waiver.

    On July 22, 1975,(10) during consideration of H.R. 7014 
(11) in the Committee of the Whole, it was held that where a 
special rule waives points of order against the consideration of a 
designated amendment which might otherwise not be germane if offered to 
a bill, and does not specifically preclude the offering of amendments 
thereto, germane amendments to that amendment may be offered and, if 
adopted, it is then too late to challenge the germaneness of the 
original amendment as

[[Page 9199]]

amended. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 23990, 23991, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Schroeder to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Krueger: In section 8(d)(2)(E)(ii)(a)(1) of the 
        Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 as amended by Mr. 
        Krueger's amendment, strike the words ``(including development 
        or production from oil shale,'' and insert a comma after 
        ``gas''.
            In section 8(d)(2)(E)(ii)(a)(2) of the Emergency Petroleum 
        Allocation Act of 1973 (as amended by Mr. Krueger's amendment) 
        strike the words ``oil shale,''. . . .

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
    of order, and pending that I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman from Texas reserves 
    a point of order, and the gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Eckhardt: The parliamentary inquiry is what determines 
    germaneness of this amendment, if it is germane, to the Krueger 
    amendment? It would then be admissible at this time as germane, as 
    I understand it. In other words, the relation to the Krueger 
    amendment would determine germaneness in this instance, I would 
    assume.

        The Chairman: If the gentleman is asking whether the amendment 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado has to be germane, the 
    answer, of course, is ``yes''. Is the gentleman contending that it 
    is not germane?
        Mr. Eckhardt: No. The gentleman merely asks whether or not on 
    the question of germaneness with respect to this amendment, the 
    question is determined on whether or not this amendment is germane 
    to the Krueger amendment.
        The Chairman: That is correct. . . . The question is on the 
    amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Schroeder) 
    to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger).
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Brown of Ohio) there were--ayes 39, noes 31.
        So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against 
    the Krueger amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair will have to state he believes the 
    point of order comes too late. . . .
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, if the Chair would permit me, I 
    should make a point of order now if I must do so or I will at such 
    time as the vote arises on the Krueger amendment on the ground that 
    the Krueger amendment is now outside the rule.
        If the Chair will recall, I queried of the Chair whether or not 
    the question of germaneness on the amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from Colorado was based upon its germaneness to the 
    Krueger amendment or if that were the standard. The Chair answered 
    me that it was. Therefore, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
    from Colorado was not subject to a point of order at that time and 
    I

[[Page 9200]]

    point out to the Chair that the question of germaneness rests upon 
    whether or not the amendment is germane to the amendment to which 
    it is applied.
        At that time it was not in order for me to urge that the 
    amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado was not germane 
    because it was indeed germane to the Krueger amendment, but the 
    rule protects the Krueger amendment itself from a point of order on 
    the grounds of germaneness and specifically says that it shall be 
    in order to consider without the intervention of any point of order 
    the text of an amendment which is identical to the text of section 
    301 of H.R. 7014 as introduced and which was placed in the 
    Congressional Record on Monday and it is described.
        The Krueger amendment upon the adoption of the Schroeder 
    amendment becomes other than the identical amendment which was 
    covered by the rule. At this point the question of germaneness of 
    the Krueger amendment rests on the question of whether or not it is 
    at the present time germane to the main body before the House.
        It is not germane to the main body before the House because of 
    the--and I cite in this connection Deschler on 28, section 24 in 
    which there are several precedents given to the effect that an 
    amendment which purports to create a condition contingent upon an 
    event happening, as for instance the passage of a law, is not in 
    order. For instance 24.6 on page 396 says:

            To a bill authorizing funds for construction of atomic 
        energy facilities in various parts of the Nation, an amendment 
        making the initiation of any such project contingent upon the 
        enactment of federal or state fair housing measures was ruled 
        out as not germane.

        There are a number of other authorities in that connection, 
    that is, an amendment postponing the effectiveness of legislation 
    pending contingency.
        Now, with respect to the question of timeliness, the gentleman 
    from Texas could not have raised the point of order against the 
    Schroeder amendment because of the fact that the Schroeder 
    amendment was, in fact, germane to the Krueger amendment. It is 
    clearly stated that the test of germaneness must rest on the 
    question of the body upon which the amendment acts, and as I 
    queried the Chair at the time, I asked that specific question, 
    would the germaneness of the Schroeder amendment rest upon the 
    question whether it is germane to the Krueger amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I only state 
    that it seems to me that the rule makes the Krueger amendment in 
    order by its text, but it does not prohibit it being amended by 
    subsequent action of this body and that if the text had been 
    changed by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger) in its 
    introduction, the point of order might have been appropriate; but 
    the point of order that is attempted to prohibit this body from 
    amending the text of the Krueger amendment after it has been 
    properly introduced and been made germane by the rule would 
    prohibit those others in the majority of this body from acting on 
    any perfection of the Krueger amendment. I do not think that is the 
    purpose of the rule. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.

[[Page 9201]]

        The rule under which the matter is being considered did in fact 
    make in order the so-called Krueger amendment, and any amendment to 
    that amendment which is germane to that amendment was thus, at the 
    same time, made in order. There was no need for special provision 
    to make amendments germane to the Krueger amendment in order, and 
    the argument made by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is very 
    much to the point.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of 
    order.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. This ruling is also discussed at Sec. 45.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Committee Amendment in Nature of Substitute Being Read for Amendment 
    by Title

Sec. 44.3 Where a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    being read as an original bill for amendment by title, a point of 
    order that the committee amendment is not germane to the original 
    bill may be raised following the reading of the first title of the 
    committee amendment.

    The proceedings of Aug. 2, 1973, which related to H.R. 9130 (the 
trans-Alaska pipeline authorization) are discussed in Sec. 30.36, 
supra.