Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 104th Congress-Rule XVI.On Motions, Their Precedence, Etc

[Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 104th Congress]
[104th Congress]
[House Document 103-342]
[Rules of the House of Representatives]
[Pages 558-604]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Rule XVI.

ON MOTIONS, THEIR PRECEDENCE, ETC.

Sec. 775. Motions reduced to writing and entered on the
Journal.

1. Every motion made to the House and entertained by the Speaker
shall be reduced to writing on the demand of any Member, and shall be
entered on the Journal with the name of the Member making it, unless it
is withdrawn the same day.

[[Page 559]]

This clause was made up in 1880 of old rules adopted in 1789 and 1806
(V, 5300).

Because of this rule it has been held not in order to amend or strike
out a Journal entry setting forth a motion exactly as made (IV, 2783,
2789). A motion not entertained is not entered on the Journal (IV, 2813,
2844-2846). See Sec. 71, supra, for discussion of Journal entries. Any
Member may demand that a motion be reduced to writing and in the proper
form, including the motion to adjourn (Sept. 27, 1993, p. ----; Jan. 4,
1995, p. ----), and the demand may be initiated by the Chair (July 24,
1986, p. 17641). Consistent with this clause, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole requires that each amendment be reduced to
writing (July 22, 1994, p. ----).

Sec. 776. Stating and withdrawing of motions.

2. When a
motion has been made, the Speaker shall state it or (if it be in
writing) cause it to be read aloud by the Clerk before being debated,
and it shall then be in possession of the House, but may be withdrawn at
any time before a decision or amendment.

The provisions of this clause were adopted first in 1789. At that time
a second was required for every motion, but in practice this requirement
became obsolete very early, and it was dropped from the rule in 1880 (V,
5304).

The House always insists that the motion shall be stated or read
before debate shall begin (V, 4983) and the Clerk's reading may be
dispensed with only by unanimous consent (Dec. 15, 1975, p. 40671; see
provision of Jefferson's Manual at Sec. 432, supra). It is the duty of
the Speaker to put a motion in order under the rules and practice
without passing on its constitutional effect (IV, 3550; VIII, 2225,
3031, 3071, 3427). In a case wherein a clerk presiding during
organization of the House declined to put a question, a Member-elect put
the question from the floor (I, 67).

Under certain circumstances, a Member may make a double motion (V,
5637).

[[Page 560]]
(VIII, 3420); but where a second is not required on a motion to suspend
the rules under clause 2 of rule XXVII, the motion may be withdrawn at
any time before action is taken thereon (July 27, 1981, p. 17563). A
motion may be withdrawn although an amendment may have been offered and
be pending (V, 5347; VI, 373; VIII, 2639), and in the House an
amendment, whether simple or in the nature of a substitute, may be
withdrawn at any time before an amendment is adopted thereto or decision
is had thereon (VI, 587; VIII, 2332, 2764); and the same right to
withdraw an amendment exists in the House as in Committee of the Whole
(IV, 4935; June 26, 1973, p. 21315); but unanimous consent to withdraw
an amendment is required in Committee of the Whole (V, 5221, 5753; VI,
570; VIII, 2465, 2859, 3405). Withdrawal of a pending resolution is not
in order when the absence of a quorum has been announced by the Chair
(Oct. 14, 1970, pp. 36665-69). A motion that the House resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill may be withdrawn
pending a point of order against consideration of the bill, and if the
motion is withdrawn the Chair is not obligated to rule on the point of
order (VIII, 3405; Dec. 3, 1979, p. 34385). Unanimous consent is not
required to withdraw a pending unanimous consent request (Speaker
O'Neill, Dec. 16, 1985, p. 36575).

Sec. 777. Conditions of withdrawal of motions.

Even after
the affirmative side has been taken on a division the withdrawal of a
motion has been permitted (V, 5348), also after a viva voce vote and the
ordering and appointment of tellers (V, 5349). While the House was
dividing on a second of the previous question (this second is no longer
required) on a motion to refer a resolution, the Member was permitted to
withdraw the resolution (V, 5350); also a motion was once withdrawn
after the previous question had been ordered on an appeal from a
decision on a point of order as to the motion (V, 5356). A motion to
suspend the rules could be withdrawn at any time before a second was
ordered (V, 6844; VIII, 3405, 3419), even on another suspension day (V,
6844) but not after a second was ordered, except by unanimous consent

A ``decision'' which prevents withdrawal may consist of the ordering
of the yeas and nays (V, 5353), either directly on the motion or on a
motion to lay it on the table (V, 5354), the ordering of the previous
question (V, 5355; June 29, 1995, p. ----), or the demand therefor (V,
5489), or the refusal to lay on the table (V, 5351, 5352; VIII, 2640).
Where the Speaker has put the question on adoption of a resolution to a
voice vote without the ordering of the previous question, and the yeas
and nays have not been ordered, the resolution may be withdrawn (V,
5349; Feb. 26, 1985, p. 3501). A privileged resolution called up in the
House is debated under the hour rule; and the Member calling up such a
resolution is recognized for an hour notwithstanding the fact that the
resolution has been previously considered, debated, and then withdrawn
before action thereon (Apr. 8, 1964, pp. 7303-08).

Where proceedings are postponed on a motion for the previous question
pending a point of no quorum on a voice vote thereon (pursuant to clause
5 of rule I), the manager may withdraw the motion when it is again
before the House as unfinished business. See proceedings of July 24,
1989, where the motion for the previous question was withdrawn and an
amendment was offered to a special order (p. 15818).

[[Page 561]]

A Member having the right to withdraw a motion before a decision
thereon has the resulting power to modify the motion (V, 5358; Oct. 23,
1990, p. ----), and a Member having the right to withdraw a motion to
instruct conferees before a decision thereon has the resulting power to
modify the motion by offering a different motion at the same stage of
proceedings (July 14, 1993, p. ----). A motion being withdrawn, all
proceedings on an appeal arising from a point of order related to it
fell thereby (V, 5356).

Sec. 778. The question of consideration.

3. When any motion
or proposition is made, the question, Will the House now consider it?
shall not be put unless demanded by a Member.

The question of consideration is an outgrowth of the practice of the
House, and was in use as early as 1808. The rule was adopted in 1817 in
order to limit its use. It is the means by which the House protects
itself from business that it does not wish to consider (V, 4936; VIII,
2436). The refusal to consider does not amount to the rejection of a
bill or prevent its being brought before the House again (V, 4940), and
an affirmative vote does not prevent the question of consideration from
being raised on a subsequent day when the bill is again called up as
unfinished business (VIII, 2438). It has once been held that a question
of privilege which the House has refused to consider may be brought up
again on the same day (V, 4942). The question of consideration is not
debatable (VIII, 2447), and thus not subject to the motion to lay on the
table (Oct. 4, 1994, p. ----). See also rule XXV (Sec. 900, infra),
which provides that questions relating to the priority of business are
not debatable.

Sec. 779. Raising the question of consideration.

A Member
may demand the question of consideration, although the Member in charge
of the bill may claim the floor for debate (V, 4944, 4945; VI, 404); but
after debate has begun the demand may not be made (V, 4937-4939). It has
been admitted, however, after the making of a motion to lay on the table
(V, 4943). The demand for the question of consideration may not be
prevented by a motion for the previous question (V, 5478), but after the
previous question is ordered it may not be demanded (V, 4965, 4966),
even on another day, unless other business has intervened (V, 4967,
4968). The question of consideration being pending, a motion to refer is
not in order (V, 5554).

The intervention of an adjournment does not destroy the right to raise
the question of consideration (V, 4946), but this right did not hold
good in a case where the yeas and nays had been ordered and the House
had adjourned pending the failure of a quorum on the roll call (V,
4949). A question of consideration undisposed of at an adjournment does
not recur as unfinished business on a succeeding day (V, 4947, 4948). It
is not in order to reconsider the vote whereby the House refuses to
consider a bill (V, 5626, 5627), although it is in order to reconsider
an affirmative vote on the question of consideration (Oct. 4, 1994, p.
----).

[[Page 562]]
raised against a proposition before the House for reference merely, as
a petition (V, 4964). It may not be demanded against a class of business
in order under a special order or rule, but may be demanded against each
bill individually (IV, 3308, 3309; V, 4958, 4959). It may be raised
against a bill which has been made a special order (IV, 3175; V, 4953-
4957), unless the order provides for immediate consideration (V, 4960),
and it may be raised against a bill on the Union Calendar on Calendar
Wednesday before resolving into the Committee of the Whole even after
one Wednesday has been devoted to it (VIII, 2447); but it may not be
raised against a report from the Committee on Rules relating to the
order of considering individual bills (V, 4961-4963; VIII, 2440, 2441).

Sec. 780. Questions subject to the question of
consideration.

The question of consideration may be demanded against a
matter of the highest privilege, such as the right of a Member to his
seat (V, 4941), a question involving the privilege of the House (VI,
560), against the motion to reconsider (VIII, 2437), but not against a
bill returned with the President's objection (V, 4960, 4970). It may not
be

The question of consideration may not be raised on a motion relating
to the order of business (V, 4971-4976; VIII, 2442; May 21, 1958, p.
9216); to a motion to discharge a committee (V, 4977); or against a
motion to take from the Speaker's table Senate bills substantially the
same as House bills already favorably reported and on the House Calendar
(VIII, 2443). On a motion to go into Committee of the Whole to consider
a bill the House expresses its wish as to consideration by its vote on
this motion (V, 4973-4976; VI, 51; VIII, 2442; May 21, 1958, p. 9216).

Sec. 781. Relation of question of consideration to points of
order.

A point of order against the eligibility for consideration of a
bill which if sustained might prevent consideration should be made and
decided before the question of consideration is put (V, 4950, 4951; VII,
2439), but if the point relates merely to the manner of considering, it
should be passed on afterwards (V, 4950). In general, after the House
has decided to consider, a point of order raised with the object of
preventing consideration, in whole or part, comes too late (IV, 4598; V,
4952, 6912-6914), but on a conference report the question of
consideration may be demanded before points of order are raised against
the substance of the report (VIII, 2439; Speaker Albert, Sept. 28, 1976,
p. 33019).

[[Page 563]]

Sec. 781a. Unfunded mandates.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-4; 109 Stat. 48 et seq.) added a new part B to
title IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658-658g)
that, effective on January 1, 1996, or 90 days after appropriations are
made available to the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to the 1995
Act (whichever is earlier), imposes several requirements on committees
with respect to ``Federal mandates'' (secs. 423-424; 2 U.S.C. 658b-c),
establishes points of order to enforce those requirements (sec. 425; 2
U.S.C. 658d), and precludes the consideration of a rule or order waiving
such points of order in the House (sec. 426(a); 2 U.S.C. 658e(a)). The
latter provision also prescribes that such points of order be disposed
of by putting the question of consideration with respect to the
proposition against which they are lodged (sec. 426(b); 2 U.S.C.
658e(b)). See Sec. 1007, infra.

[[Page 564]]
motion to adjourn provided for in this clause and shall be determined
without debate.

Sec. 782. Precedence of privileged motions.

4. When a
question is under debate, no motion shall be received but to adjourn, to
lay on the table, for the previous question (which motions shall be
decided without debate), to postpone to a day certain, to refer, or to
amend, or postpone indefinitely; which several motions shall have
precedence in the foregoing order; and no motion to postpone to a day
certain, to refer, or to postpone indefinitely, being decided, shall be
again allowed on the same day at the same stage of the question. After
the previous question shall have been ordered on the passage of a bill
or joint resolution one motion to recommit shall be in order, and the
Speaker shall give preference in recognition for such purpose to a
Member who is opposed to the bill or joint resolution. However, with
respect to any motion to recommit with instructions after the previous
question shall have been ordered, it always shall be in order to debate
such motion for ten minutes before the vote is taken on that motion,
except that on demand of the floor manager for the majority it shall be
in order to debate such motion for one hour. One half of any debate on
such motions shall be given to debate by the mover of the motion and one
half to debate in opposition to the motion. It shall be in order at any
time during a day for the Speaker, in his discretion, to entertain
motions that (1) the Speaker be authorized to declare a recess; and (2)
when the House adjourns it stand adjourned to a day and time certain.
Either motion shall be of equal privilege with the

The first form of this clause appears in 1789, but amendments have
been made at various times (V, 5301; VIII, 2757). That portion of the
clause relating to debate on the motion to recommit with instructions
was included as section 123 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1970 and was made a part of the standing rules in the 92d Congress (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 14). The final two sentences of the clause
were added in the 93d Congress to enable a privileged, nondebatable
motion to fix the adjournment (H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 1973, pp. 26-27), and
amended in the 102d Congress to enable a privileged, nondebatable motion
for recess authority (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, p. ----). The clause was
also amended in the 99th Congress to provide that on the demand of the
majority floor manager of a bill or joint resolution, the ten minutes of
debate on a motion to recommit with instructions, the previous question
having been ordered, may be extended to one hour, equally divided and
controlled (H. Res. 7, Jan. 3, 1985, p. 393).

The application of the first sentence of the clause is confined to
cases wherein a question is ``under debate'' (V, 5379). It has been held
that a question ceases to be ``under debate'' after the previous
question has been ordered (V, 5415). But with the exception of the
motion to adjourn it is obvious that the motions specified in this rule
can only be used when some question is ``under debate.''

[[Page 565]]
virtue of unanimous consent permission to announce to the House the
legislative program (Dec. 14, 1982, p. 30549), or a call of the yeas and
nays (V, 6053), or the actual act of voting by other means (V, 5360), or
be made after the House has voted to go into Committee of the Whole (IV,
4728; V, 5367, 5368), or defer the right of a Member to take the oath
(I, 622) and may not be repeated in the absence of intervening business
(Speaker Albert, July 31, 1975, p. 26243); and when no question is under
debate it may not displace a motion to fix the day to which the House
shall adjourn (V, 5381). The Speaker has refused to recognize for a
motion to adjourn pending a vote on a proposition, where a special order
provided that the House vote thereon ``without intervening motion'' (IV,
3211-3213).

Sec. 783. The motion to adjourn.

The motion to adjourn not
only has the highest precedence when a question is under debate, but,
with certain restrictions, it has the highest privilege under all other
conditions. Even questions of privilege (III, 2521), such as a motion
privileged under the Constitution (VIII, 2641), the filing of a
privileged report pursuant to clause 4(a) of rule XI (Apr. 29, 1985, p.
9699), a motion to suspend the rules (Aug. 11, 1992, p. ----), and the
motion to reconsider yield to it (V, 5605), and a conference report may
defer it only until the report is before the House (V, 6451-6453). The
motion may be made after the yeas and nays are ordered and before the
roll call has begun (V, 5366), before the reading of the Journal (IV,
2757) or the Speaker's approval thereof (Speaker Wright, Nov. 2, 1987,
p. 30386), pending a motion to reconsider (Sept. 20, 1979, pp. 25512-
13), after the House rejects a motion to table a motion to instruct
conferees and before the vote occurs on the motion to instruct (May 29,
1980, pp. 12717-19), or when the Speaker is absent and the Clerk is
presiding (I, 228), and in the absence of a quorum has precedence over
the motion for a call of the House (VIII, 2642), takes priority of a
motion to dispense with further proceedings under the call (VIII, 2643),
and takes precedence of a motion directing the Sergeant-at-Arms to
arrest absentees during a call of the House (June 6, 1973, p. 18403).
But the motion to adjourn may not interrupt a Member who has the floor
(V, 5369, 5370; VIII, 2646; Mar. 25, 1993, p. ----) as, for example, by

When the House has fixed the hour of daily meeting, the simple motion
to adjourn may neither be amended (V, 5754) by specifying a particular
day (V, 5360) or hour (V, 5364) (but see Sec. 784, infra, for a
discussion of the equally privileged motion to fix the day and time to
which the House shall adjourn); nor by stating the purposes of
adjournment (V, 5371, 5372; VIII, 2647). However, when the hour of daily
meeting is not fixed, the motion to adjourn may fix it (V, 5362, 5363).
A motion to adjourn is in order in simple form only (VIII, 2647), is not
debatable (V, 5359), may not be laid on the table (Aug. 3, 1990, p. ----
), is not in order in Committee of the Whole (IV, 4716), and is not
entertained when the Committee of the Whole rises to report proceedings
incident to securing a quorum (VI, 673; VIII, 2436). After the motion is
made neither another motion nor an appeal may intervene before the
taking of the vote (V, 5361). When the House adopts the motion to
adjourn, it must adjourn immediately; and a unanimous consent request
that the House proceed to the calling of special order speeches is not
in order (Sept. 27, 1993, p. ----).

[[Page 566]]
to a time certain later in the day, thereby meeting for two legislative
days on the same calendar day (Nov. 17, 1981, p. 27771; Oct. 29, 1987,
p. 29933; June 29, 1995, p. ----). When the Speaker exercises his
discretion to entertain ``at any time'' a motion that when the House
adjourn it stand adjourned to a day and time certain, the motion is of
equal privilege with the simple motion to adjourn and takes precedence
over a pending question on which the vote has been objected to for lack
of a quorum (Nov. 17, 1981, p. 27770). The motion is not subject to the
motion to lay on the table since it is not debatable and the precedence
conferred on the motion to table only applies to a question that is
``under debate'' (Nov. 17, 1981, p. 27770).

Sec. 784. Motion to fix the day to which the House shall
adjourn.

The motion to fix the day and time to which the House shall
adjourn, in its present form, was included in this clause of rule XVI
and given privileged status in the 93d Congress (H. Res. 6, Jan. 3,
1973, pp. 26-27). At several times during the 19th Century the motion to
fix the day to which the House should adjourn was included within the
rule as to the precedence of motions but was dropped because of its use
in obstructive tactics (V, 5301, 5379). The following precedents relate
to the use of the motion in its earlier form: No question being under
debate, a motion to fix the day to which the House should adjourn,
already made, was held not to give way to a motion to adjourn (V, 5381).
But if the motion to adjourn be made first, the motion to fix the day or
for a recess is not entertained (V, 5302). The motion to fix the day is
not debatable under the practice of the House (V, 5379, 5380; VIII,
2648, 3367), requires a quorum for adoption (IV, 2954; June 19, 1975, p.
19789; June 22, 1976, p. 19755), and is only in order if offered on the
day on which the adjournment applies (Speaker pro tempore O'Neill, Sept.
23, 1976, p. 32104). The House may convene and adjourn twice on the same
calendar day pursuant to a motion under this clause that when the House
adjourn it adjourn

Sec. 785. Motion to lay on the table.

The motion to lay on
the table is used in the House for a final, adverse disposition of a
matter without debate (V, 5389), and is in order before the Member
entitled to prior recognition for debate has begun his remarks (V, 5391-
5395; VIII, 2649, 2650). Under the explicit terms of this clause, the
motion is not debatable (Oct. 16, 1991, p. ----). The motion is
applicable to a motion to reconsider (VIII, 2652, 2659), motion to
postpone to a day certain (VIII, 2654, 2657), resolution presenting
question of privilege (VI, 560), appeal from decision of the Chair
(VIII, 3453), motion to discharge committee from resolution of inquiry
(VI, 415), motion that the Journal be approved as read (Sept. 13, 1965,
p. 23600), proposal to investigate with view to impeachment (VI, 541),
concurrent resolution to adjourn sine die (Mar. 27, 1936, p. 4512) and a
resolution to expel a Member (Oct. 1, 1976, p. 35111). But a question of
privilege (affecting the right of a Member to a seat) that has been laid
on the table may be taken therefrom on motion made and agreed to by the
House (V, 5438). The motion to lay on the table has the precedence given
it by the rule, but may not be made after the previous question is
ordered (V, 5415-5422; VIII, 2655), or even after the yeas and nays have
been ordered on the demand for the previous question (V, 5408, 5409);
but pending the demand for the previous question on a motion that is
under debate, the motion to lay the primary motion on the table is
preferential and is voted on first (Speaker Albert, Sept. 22, 1976, pp.
31876-82; Speaker O'Neill, July 10, 1985, pp. 18397-18400). The previous
question having been ordered on a bill to final passage, the motion to
lay the bill on the table may not then be offered pending a motion to
reconsider the vote whereby the bill had been passed or rejected (Sept.
20, 1979, pp. 25512-13).

[[Page 567]]
to the table pending motions for their disposition (VIII, 2657). The
Journal does not accompany a proposed amendment to the table (V, 5435,
5436); the original question does not accompany an appeal (V, 5434); a
resolution does not accompany another resolution with which it is
connected, or a preamble (V, 5248, 5430); and a petition does not
accompany the motion to receive it when the latter is laid on the table
(V, 5431-5433); a bill does not accompany a motion to instruct conferees
which is laid on the table (VIII, 2658).
When a bill is laid on the table, pending motions connected therewith
go to the table also (V, 5426, 5427); and when a proposed amendment is
laid on the table the pending bill goes there also (V, 5423; VIII,
2656), and if a pending amendment to a special order reported from the
Committee on Rules were tabled, it would carry the resolution with it
and is thus considered dilatory under clause 4(b) of rule XI (Sept. 25,
1990, p. ----). This rule holds good as to a House bill with Senate
amendments (V, 5424, 6201-6203; Sept. 28, 1978, p. 32334), but laying on
the table the motion to postpone consideration of Senate amendments was
held not to carry

A motion to lay on the table a motion to reconsider the vote by which
an amendment to a resolution had been agreed to would not carry the
resolution to the table (VIII, 2652).

The motion is not in order in Committee of the Whole (IV, 4719, 4720;
VIII, 2330, 2556a, 3455; Mar. 16, 1995, p. ----), or on motions to go
into the Committee of the Whole (VI, 726). It may not be amended (V,
5754), for example, to operate for a specified time (Oct. 16, 1991, p.
----), or applied to the motions for adjournment (Aug. 3, 1990, p. ----
), the previous question (V, 5410-5411; Oct. 4, 1994, p. ----), to
suspend the rules (V, 5405), to commit after the previous question is
ordered (V, 5412-5414; VIII, 2653, 2655), or to any motion relating to
the order of business (V, 5403, 5404). It may not be applied to a motion
to discharge a committee under rule XXVII (June 11, 1945, p. 5892) but
may be applied to the motion to discharge a committee from consideration
of a resolution of inquiry (V, 5407). It is generally not applicable to
motions that are neither debatable nor amendable and hence cannot be
applied to a motion to dispense with further proceedings under a call of
the House (Speaker McCormack, Aug. 27, 1962, pp. 17651-54), or to a
motion that when the House adjourn it stand adjourned to a day and time
certain (Nov. 17, 1981, p. 27770). The motion to lay on the table is
applicable to debatable secondary or privileged motions for disposal of
another matter; thus a motion to refer (V, 5433; Aug. 13, 1982, pp.
20969, 20975-78) or a motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment
in disagreement may be laid on the table (Speaker O'Neill, Feb. 22,
1978, p. 4072) without carrying the pending matter to the table. The
motion is not applicable to a conference report (V, 6540).

[[Page 568]]
ished business in the House, recognition for debate does not begin anew
but recommences from the point where it was interrupted (June 10, 1980,
p. 13801). It is not in order to postpone pending business to Calendar
Wednesday (VIII, 2614), but if so postponed by consent, when
consideration is concluded on that Wednesday, the remainder of the day
is devoted to business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule (VII,
970). The motion is not used in Committee of the Whole, but a motion
that a bill be reported with the recommendation that it be postponed is
in order in the Committee of the Whole proceeding under the general
rules of the House (IV, 4765; VIII, 2372), is debatable (VIII, 2372),
and is a preferential motion (VIII, 2372, 2615), but debate is confined
to the advisability of postponement only (VIII, 2372). It has been held
in order to postpone an appeal (VIII, 2613). A bill under consideration
in the morning hour may not be made a special order by a motion to
postpone to a day certain (IV, 3164).

Sec. 786. The motions to postpone.

As indicated in the rule,
the motions to postpone are two in number and distinct: One to postpone
to a day certain; the other to postpone indefinitely. Each must apply to
the whole and not a part of the pending proposition (V, 5306). Neither
may be entertained after the previous question is ordered (V, 5319-5321;
VIII, 2616, 2617), or be applied to a special order providing for the
consideration of a class of bills (V, 4958); but when a bill comes
before the House under the terms of a special order that assigns a day
merely, a motion to postpone may be applied to the bill (IV, 3177-3182).
Business postponed to a day certain is in order on that day immediately
after the approval of the Journal and disposition of business on the
Speaker's Table, unless displaced by more highly privileged business
(VIII, 2614). Where consideration of a measure postponed to a day
certain resumes as unfin

The motion to postpone to a day certain may not specify the hour (V,
5307). The motion may be amended (V, 5754; VIII, 2824). It is debatable
within narrow limits only (V, 5309, 5310), the merits of the bill to
which it is applied not being within those limits (V, 5311-5315; VIII,
2372, 2616, 2640).

The motion to postpone indefinitely opens to debate all the merits of
the proposition to which it is applied (V, 5316). It may not be applied
to the motion to refer (V, 5317), to suspend the rules (V, 5322), or
motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole (VI, 726), and it is
reasonable to infer that it is equally inapplicable to the other
secondary or privileged motions enumerated in the rule and to motions
relating to the order of business. However, the motion to postpone
indefinitely may be applied to the motion that the House resolve itself
into the Committee of the Whole pursuant to the provisions of a statute,
enacted under the rule-making power of the House of Representatives,
that specifically allows such a motion in the consideration of a
resolution disapproving a certain executive action (Mar. 10, 1977, p.
7021; Aug. 3, 1977, p. 26528).

[[Page 569]]
Member or a Member opposed to the question to which the motion is
applied is entitled to a priority of recognition, and whether the
prohibition in clause 4(b) of rule XI against a special order reported
from the Committee on Rules denying a motion to recommit a bill or joint
resolution pending final passage is applicable. The motion may not be
used in direct form in Committee of the Whole (IV, 4721; VIII, 2326);
and where a bill is being considered under the provisions of a
resolution stating that ``at the conclusion of the consideration of the
bill for amendment under the five-minute rule the Committee shall rise
and report the bill back to the House with such amendments as may have
been adopted,'' a motion that the Committee rise and report to the House
with the recommendation that the bill be recommitted to the legislative
committee reporting it is not in order (Aug. 10, 1950, p. 12219). It may
be made after the engrossment and third reading of a bill, even though
the previous question may not have been ordered (V, 5562, 5563).

Sec. 787. The motions to refer.

The parliamentary motion to
refer is explicitly recognized and given status in four different
situations under House rules: The ordinary motion provided for in the
first sentence of this clause; the motion to recommit with or without
instructions after the previous question has been ordered on a bill or
joint resolution to final passage, provided in the second sentence of
this clause; the motion to commit, with or without instructions, pending
the motion for or after ordering of the previous question as provided in
clause 1 of rule XVII (V, 5569) and the motion to refer, with or without
instructions, pending a vote in the House to strike out the enacting
clause as provided in clause 7 of rule XXIII. The terms ``refer,''
``commit,'' and ``recommit'' are sometimes used interchangeably (V,
5521; VIII, 2736), but when used in the precise manner and situation
contemplated in each rule, reflect certain differences based upon
whether the question to which applied is ``under debate,'' whether the
motion itself is debatable, whether a Minority

If the previous question is rejected on a preferential motion to
dispose of Senate amendments in disagreement, the preferential motion
remains ``under debate'' and the motion to refer may be offered under
this clause (Speaker Albert, Sept. 16, 1976, pp. 30887-88). A motion to
refer takes precedence over motion to amend when a question is under
debate (such as where the previous question has been rejected), and the
Chair recognizes the Member seeking to offer the preferential motion
before the less preferential motion is read (Aug. 13, 1982, pp. 20969,
20975-78).

[[Page 570]]
for five minutes in favor of the motion may not reserve time (Speaker
Wright, June 29, 1988, p. 16510; June 29, 1989, p. 13938).
The simple motion to refer under the first sentence of this clause is
debatable within narrow limits (V, 5054) and may be offered by any
Member (who need not qualify as being in opposition to the pending
question) when that question is ``under debate,'' i.e., when the
previous question has not been moved or ordered, but the merits of the
proposition sought to be referred may not be brought into the debate (V,
5564-5568; VI, 65, 549; VIII, 2740). The motion to refer with
instructions is also debatable (V, 5561); but the previous question is
preferential (Mar. 22, 1990, p. 4997), and when the previous question is
ordered on a bill to final passage, debate on a straight motion to
recommit under the second sentence of this clause is no longer in order
and only a motion to recommit with instructions is debatable for the ten
minutes specified in the rule (June 22, 1995, p. ----). Prior to the
amendment of clause 4 of rule XVI in the 92d Congress, no debate was
permitted on a motion to recommit with instructions after the previous
question was ordered (V, 5561, 5582-5584; VIII, 2741). The ten minutes'
debate provided under this clause on motions to recommit with
instructions does not apply to a motion to recommit with instructions a
simple or concurrent resolution or conference report, since the clause
limits its applicability to bills and joint resolutions (Nov. 15, 1973,
p. 37151; Mar. 29, 1976, p. 8444; Speaker O'Neill, June 19, 1986, p.
14698). The manager of a bill or joint resolution and not the proponent
of a motion to recommit with instructions has the right to close
controlled debate on a motion to recommit (Speaker Wright, Dec. 3, 1987,
p. 34066); the Member recognized

Sec. 788. Instructions with the motion to refer.

The motion
to refer may specify that the reference shall be to a select as well as
a standing committee (IV, 4401) without regard for rules of jurisdiction
(IV, 4375; V, 5527) and may provide for reference to another committee
than that reporting the bill (VIII, 2696, 2736), or to the Committee of
the Whole (V, 5552-5553), and even that the committee be endowed with
power to send for persons and papers (IV, 4402). Unless the previous
question is ordered the motion may be amended (VIII, 2712, 2738), in
part (V, 5754); by substitute (VIII, 2698, 2738, 2759); or by adding
instructions (V, 5521, 5570, 5582-5584; VIII, 2695, 2762; Aug. 13, 1982,
pp. 20969, 20975-78). The ordering of the previous question on a bill
and all amendments to final passage precludes debate (other than that
specified in clause 4 of rule XVI) on a motion to recommit but does not
exclude amendments to such motion (V, 5582; VIII, 2741) and unless the
previous question is ordered on a motion to recommit with instructions,
the motion is open to amendment germane to the bill (see V, 6888; VIII,
2711), and a substitute striking out all of the proposed instructions
and substituting others cannot be ruled out as interfering with the
right of the minority to move recommitment (VIII, 2759). The Member
offering a motion to recommit a bill with instructions may, at the
conclusion of the 10 minutes of debate thereon, yield to another Member
to offer an amendment to the motion if the previous question has not
been ordered on the motion to recommit (Speaker Albert, July 19, 1973,
p. 24967).

The motion to recommit may not be accompanied by preamble or otherwise
include argument, explanation, or other matter in the nature of debate
(V, 5589; VIII, 2749). Thus, a motion to recommit a bill to a standing
committee with recommendations for producing legislation that the
President could sign was held inadmissible in both form and content
(Feb. 27, 1992, p. ----).

[[Page 571]]
to offer a motion to recommit with instructions to incorporate an
amendment in the restricted title (Jan. 11, 1934, pp. 479-83). Where an
amendment in the nature of a substitute has been adopted, and no motion
to recommit with an amendment is in order, the minority has sometimes
used a motion that directs a committee to study an issue and to report
``promptly'' its recommendations (Mar. 29, 1990, p. 1834). Instructions
must be germane to the bill regardless of whether they directly propose
an amendment thereto (Sept. 23, 1992, p. ----). In the 104th Congress
clause 4(b) of rule XI was amended to preclude the Committee on Rules
from reporting a special order that would prevent the Minority Leader or
his designee from offering a motion to recommit with instructions to
report back an amendment otherwise in order (but for the adoption of a
prior amendment). See Sec. 729a, supra.
It is not in order to propose as instructions anything that might not
be proposed directly as an amendment (V, 5529-5541; VIII, 2705), such as
to eliminate an amendment adopted by the House (VIII, 2712), strike out
an amendment that has been adopted and insert something in its place
(VIII, 2715), to amend an adopted amendment (VIII, 2720, 2721, 2724), to
propose an amendment containing legislation on a general appropriation
bill (Sept. 1, 1976, pp. 28883-84), or to propose instructions to add a
limitation to a general appropriation bill except pursuant to clause
2(d) of rule XXI (Sept. 19, 1983, p. 24646; Speaker Foley, Aug. 1, 1989,
p. 17159, and Aug. 3, 1989, p. 18546, each time sustained by tabling of
appeal; July 1, 1992, p. ----; June 22, 1995, p. ----); but it has been
held in order to re-offer an amendment rejected by the House (VIII,
2728); and where a special rule providing for the consideration of a
bill prohibited the offering of amendments to a certain title of the
bill during its consideration (in both the House and the Committee of
the Whole), it was held not in order

It has been a practice to permit a motion to recommit with
instructions that the committee report ``forthwith,'' in which case the
chairman makes report at once without awaiting action by the committee
(V, 5545-5547; VIII, 2730), and the bill is before the House for
immediate consideration (V, 5550; VIII, 2735). If one motion to recommit
is ruled out, a proper motion is admissible (VIII, 2736, 2760, 2761,
2763). The motion may be withdrawn in the House at any time before
action or decision thereon (VIII, 2764). The simple motion to recommit
and the motion to recommit with instructions are of equal privilege and
have no relative precedence (VIII, 2714, 2758, 2762; Nov. 25, 1970, p.
38997). When a bill is recommitted it is before the committee as a new
subject (IV, 4557; V, 5558), but the committee must confine itself to
the instructions, if there be any (IV, 4404; V, 5526). Where the House
has recommitted a bill to a committee with instructions to report it
back forthwith with certain amendments, the amendments must be adopted
by the House after the report by the Committee (VIII, 2734).

[[Page 572]]
the minority party may have successfully led the opposition to the
previous question on the special order governing consideration of the
bill and offered a ``modified closed rule'' permitting only minority
Members to offer perfecting amendments to the majority text (June 26,
1981, p. 14740). But while the motion to recommit is the prerogative of
the minority if opposed, a Member who in the Speaker's determination
leads the opposition to the previous question on the motion to recommit,
such as the chairman of the committee reporting the bill, is entitled to
offer an amendment to the motion to recommit, regardless of party
affiliation (June 26, 1981, pp. 14791-93). A Member who is opposed to
the bill ``in its present form'' (i.e., in the form before the House
when the motion is made) qualifies to offer the motion (Speaker Martin,
Apr. 15, 1948, p. 4547; Speaker McCormack, Mar. 12, 1964, p. 5147;
Speaker Albert, Feb. 19, 1976, p. 3920). The Chair does not assess the
degree of a Member's opposition (Oct. 23, 1991, p. ----). These
principles of recognition have been applied to motions to ``commit'' or
``recommit'' simple or concurrent resolutions as well under clause 1 of
rule XVII in situations where the resolution or a similar measure has
been reported from committee (Nov. 28, 1979, p. 33914).
As stated in the second sentence of clause 4 of rule XVI, recognition
to offer the motion to recommit, whether a ``straight'' motion or with
instructions, is the prerogative of a Member who is opposed to the bill
or joint resolution (Speaker Martin, Mar. 19, 1954, p. 3967); and the
Speaker looks first to the Minority Leader or his designee (as imputed
by the form of clause 4(b) of rule XI adopted in the 104th Congress),
then to minority members of the committee reporting the bill, in order
of their rank on the committee (Speaker Garner, Jan. 6, 1932, p. 1396;
Speaker Byrns, July 2, 1935, p. 10638), then to other Members on the
minority side (Speaker Rayburn, Aug. 16, 1950, p. 12608). Until a
qualifying Minority Member has had his motion read by the Clerk, he is
not entitled to the floor so as to prevent another qualifying senior
Minority Member from the reporting committee from seeking recognition to
offer the motion to recommit (Speaker O'Neill, Apr. 24, 1979, pp. 8360-
61). If no Member of the minority qualifies, a majority Member who is
opposed to the bill may be recognized (Speaker Garner, Apr. 1, 1932, p.
7327). The priority of recognition of a Member of the minority who is
opposed is not diminished by the fact that

<> 5.
The hour at which the House adjourns shall be entered on the Journal.

Sec. 789. Repetition of motions.

The rule specifies that the
motions to postpone and refer shall not be repeated on the same day at
the same stage of the question (V, 5301, 5591; VIII, 2738, 2760). Under
the practice, also, a motion to adjourn may be repeated only after
intervening business (V, 5373; VIII, 2814), debate (V, 5374), the
ordering of the yeas and nays (V, 5376, 5377), decision of the Chair on
a question of order (V, 5378), reception of a message (V, 5375). The
motion to lay on the table may also be repeated after intervening
business (V, 5398-5400); but the ordering of the previous question (V,
5709), a call of the House (V, 5401), or decision of a question of order
have been held not to be such intervening business, it being essential
that the pending matter be carried to a new stage in order to permit a
repetition of the motion (V, 5709).

This clause was adopted in 1837, and amended in 1880 (V, 6740).

[[Page 573]]
members or any portion of the members of the standing committees of the
House and the joint standing committees shall not be divisible, nor
shall any resolution or order reported by the Committee on Rules,
providing a special order of business be divisible.

Sec. 791. Division of the question.

6. On the demand of any
Member, before the question is put, a question shall be divided if it
includes propositions so distinct in substance that one being taken away
a substantive proposition shall remain: Provided, That any motion or
resolution to elect the

This clause was first adopted in 1789, and was amended in 1837 (V,
6107). The first part of the proviso was adopted April 2, 1917 (VIII,
2175) and the last part May 3, 1933 (VIII, 3164).

The House may by adoption of a resolution reported from the Committee
on Rules suspend the rule providing for the division of a question (VII,
775).

[[Page 574]]
A resolution with two resolve clauses separately certifying the
contemptuous conduct of two individuals is divisible (Feb. 27, 1986, p.
3040).

Sec. 792. Principles governing the division of the
question.

The principle that there must be at least two substantive
propositions in order to justify division is insisted on rigidly (V,
6108-6113), as failure to do so produces difficulties (III, 1725). The
question may not be divided after it has been put (V, 6162), or after
the yeas and nays have been ordered (V, 6160, 6161); but division of the
question may be demanded after the previous question is ordered (V,
5468, 6149; VIII, 3173). In passing on a demand for division the Chair
considers only substantive propositions and not the merits of the
question presented (V, 6122). It seems to be most proper, also, that the
division should depend on grammatical structure rather than on the
legislative propositions involved (I, 394; V, 6119), but a question
presenting two propositions grammatically is not divisible if either
does not constitute a substantive proposition when considered alone
(VII, 3165). Thus a resolution censuring a Member and adopting a report
of a committee thereon, which recommends censure on the basis of the
committee's findings, is not divisible since those questions are
substantially equivalent (Speaker O'Neill, Oct. 13, 1978, pp. 37016-17);
and an adjournment resolution that also authorizes the receipt of veto
messages from the President during the adjournment is not subject to a
division of the question, as the receipt authority would be nonsensical
standing alone (June 30, 1976, p. 21702); however, a concurrent
resolution on the budget is subject to a demand for a division of the
question if, for example, the resolution grammatically and substantively
relates to different fiscal years (May 7, 1980, pp. 10185-87), or
includes a separate, hortatory section having its own grammatical and
substantive meaning (Speaker Foley, Mar. 5, 1992, p. ----). Decisions
have been made that a resolution affecting two individuals may be
divided, although such division may involve a reconstruction of the text
(I, 623; V, 6119-6121). The better practice seems to be, however, that
this reconstruction of the text should be made by the adoption of a
substitute amendment of two branches, rather than by interpretation of
the Chair (II, 1621). But merely formal words, such as ``resolved,'' may
be supplied by interpretation of the Chair (V, 6114-6118).

Except on resolutions to elect Members to committees or on resolutions
reported from the Committee on Rules providing a special order of
business, where division of the question is prohibited by clause 6, a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules may be divided where
otherwise appropriate. Thus a resolution reported from that Committee
establishing several select committees in grammatically divisible
titles, not being a special order of business, is subject to a demand
for a division of the question (Jan. 8, 1987, p. 1036). However, it is
not in order to demand a division of a subject incorporated by reference
in the pending text, as when a resolution to adopt a series of rules,
not made a part of the resolution, was before the House, it was held not
in order to demand a separate vote on each rule (V, 6159).

The question on engrossment and third reading under clause 1 of rule
XXI is not divisible (Speaker Foley, Aug. 3, 1989, p. 18544); and in
voting on the engrossment or passage of a bill or joint resolution, a
separate vote may not be demanded on the various portions (V, 6144-6146;
VIII, 3172), or on the preamble (V, 6147).

[[Page 575]]
form of a motion to strike out and insert (Oct. 15, 1986, p. 32135).
Each Senate amendment must be voted on as a whole (VIII, 3175) but the
Committee of the Whole having reported a Senate amendment with the
recommendation that it be agreed to with an amendment, a separate vote
was had on the amendment to the Senate amendment (VIII, 2420). When
Senate amendments to a House bill are considered in the House a separate
vote may be had on each amendment (VIII, 2383, 2400, 3191), and separate
votes may be had on nongermane portions of Senate amendments as provided
in clause 5 of rule XXVIII.
A measure containing a series of simple resolutions may be divided (V,
6149), and a division of the question may be demanded on a resolution
confirming several nominations (Speaker Albert, Mar. 19, 1975, p. 7344).
Where an amendment is offered to an appropriation bill providing that no
part of the appropriation may be paid to named individuals, the
amendment may be divided for a separate vote on each name (Feb. 5, 1943,
p. 645). An amendment (to a joint resolution making continuing
appropriations) containing separate paragraphs appropriating funds for
different programs may be substantively and grammatically divisible
although preceded by the same prefatory language applicable to all the
paragraphs, and the Clerk will read each paragraph as including the
prefatory language prior to the Chair's putting the question thereon
(Nov. 8, 1983, p. 31495). An amendment proposing to change a figure in
one paragraph of an appropriation bill and also to insert a new
(``fetch-back'') paragraph at another point in the bill is divisible
(July 15, 1993, p. ----). A division may be demanded on the motion to
recede from disagreement to a Senate amendment and concur therein (see
Sec. 525, supra; V, 6209; VIII, 3197-3199, 3203), on a proposition to
strike out various unrelated phrases (VIII, 3166; Mar. 28, 1984, p.
6898), on a resolution of impeachment (VI, 545), but may not be demanded
on Senate amendments when sending to conference (V, 6151-6156; VIII,
3175). A division of the question may not be demanded, with respect to a
motion to concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment, between
concurring and amending (VIII, 3176), and may not be demanded on
separate parts of the proposed amendment if it is not properly divisible
under the same tests that apply to any other amendment (Aug. 3, 1973,
pp. 28124-26; Oct. 11, 1984, p. 32188). Thus a proposed amendment to a
Senate amendment is not divisible under clause 7 of this rule if in the

When a motion is made to lay several connected propositions on the
table a division is not in order (V, 6138-6140), nor is a division in
order where the previous question is moved on two related propositions,
as on a special order reported from the Committtee on Rules and a
pending amendment thereto (Sept. 25, 1990, p. ----). On a motion to
commit with instructions it is not in order to demand a separate vote on
the instructions or various branches thereof (V, 6134-6137; VIII, 2737,
3170; Speaker Rayburn, Apr. 11, 1956, p. 6157; June 29, 1993, p. ----).
However, an amendment reported forthwith pursuant to instructions
contained in a successful motion to recommit may be divided on the
question of its adoption if composed of substantively and grammatically
distinct propositions (June 29, 1993, p. ----). A motion to recommit a
bill to conference with various instructions may not be divided (Sept.
29, 1994, p. ----). However, a motion to instruct conferees after 20
days of conference (when multiple motions are in order) may be divided
(Speaker Byrns, May 26, 1936, p. 7951), provided that separate
substantive propositions are presented (Speaker Rayburn, May 9, 1946, p.
4750).

A division of the question may not be demanded on a motion to strike
out and insert (V, 5767, 6123; VIII, 3169; clause 7 of rule XVI), on
bills or joint resolutions for reference (IV, 4376) or change of
reference (VII, 2125), a motion to elect Members to committees of House
(VIII, 2175, 3164; clause 6 of rule XVI), a question against which a
point of order is pending (VIII, 3432), a proposition under a motion to
suspend the rules (V, 6141-6143; VIII, 3171), or on substitutes for
pending amendments (V, 6127; VIII, 3168; Aug. 17, 1972, pp. 28887-90;
July 2, 1980, pp. 18288-92), but a perfecting amendment to an amendment
may be divisible if not in the form of a motion to strike out and insert
(V, 6131). A proposition reported from the Committee of the Whole as an
entire and distinct amendment may not be divided, but must be voted on
in the House as a whole (IV, 4883-4892). An amendment reported forthwith
pursuant to instructions contained in a successful motion to recommit
may be divided on the question of its adoption if composed of
substantively and grammatically distinct propositions (June 29, 1993, p.
----). A separate vote may not be demanded in the House on an amendment
adopted in the Committee of the Whole to an amendment (VIII, 2422, 2426,
2427).

[[Page 576]]
the question, the second is open to debate and amendments, unless the
previous question is ordered (see Sec. 482, supra). Where a division of
the question is demanded on a portion of an amendment, the Chair puts
the question first on the remaining portions of the amendment, and that
portion on which the division is demanded remains open for further
debate and amendment (Oct. 21, 1981, pp. 24785-89). However, where no
further debate or amendment is in order on the divided portion, the
Chair may put the question first on the divided portion(s) and then
immediately on the remaining portion (Aug. 17, 1972, Deschler's
Precedents, vol. 9, ch. 27, sec. 22.14; June 8, 1995, p. ----). Where a
division of the question is demanded on more than one portion of an
amendment, the Chair may put the question first on the remaining
portions of the amendment (if any), then (after further debate) on the
first part on which a division is demanded, and then (after further
debate) on the last part on which a division is demanded (Oct. 21, 1981,
pp. 24785-89). Where a motion to concur in a Senate amendment is divided
pursuant to a special rule permitting that procedure, the Chair puts the
question first on the first portion of the Senate amendment, and then on
the remaining portion (Mar. 4, 1993, p. ----).
On a decision of the Speaker involving two distinct questions, there
may be a division on appeal (V, 6157). After the vote on the first
member of

Absent a contrary order, the question may be divided on an amendment
en bloc comprising discrete instructions to amend, even though unanimous
consent has just been granted for the en bloc consideration (July 25,
1990, p. ----; July 18, 1991, p. ----). A demand for a division of the
question on a separate portion of an amendment may be withdrawn before
the question is put on the first portion thereof (July 15, 1993, p. ----
), but once the Chair has put the question on the first portion of the
amendment, a demand for a division may be withdrawn only by unanimous
consent (Sept. 9, 1976, pp. 29538-40).

Sec. 793. Motion to strike out and insert not
divisible.

7. A motion to strike out and insert is indivisible, but a
motion to strike out being lost shall neither preclude amendment nor
motion to strike out and insert; * * *

This clause was adopted in 1811, and amended in 1822 (V, 5767).

[[Page 577]]
as it would have the effect of dividing the motion to strike out and
insert (June 29, 1939, pp. 8282, 8284-85; June 19, 1979, pp. 15566-68).

When it is proposed to strike out and insert not one but several
connected matters, it is not in order to demand a separate vote on each
of those matters (V, 6124, 6125), as when an amendment in the nature of
a substitute containing several resolutions is proposed; but after this
amendment has been agreed to, it is in order to demand a division of the
original resolution as amended (V, 6127, 6128). When, however, an
amendment simply adding or inserting is proposed, it is in order to
divide the amendment (V, 6129-6133). To a motion to strike certain words
and insert others, a simple motion to strike out the words may not be
offered as a substitute,

Sec. 794. Germane amendments.

* * * and no motion or
proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall
be admitted under color of amendment.

This clause was adopted in 1789, and amended in 1822 (V, 5767, 5825).

[[Page 578]]
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 (June 20, 1975, p. 19967).
It introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary
law (V, 5825), but of high value in the procedure of the House (V,
5866). Prior to the adoption of rules, when the House is operating under
general parliamentary law, as modified by the usage and practice of the
House, an amendment may be subject to the point of order that it is not
germane to the proposition to which offered (Jan. 3, 1969, p. 23). The
principle of the rule applies to a proposition by which it is proposed
to modify the pending bill, and not to a portion of the bill itself (V,
6929); thus a point of order will not lie that an appropriation in a
general appropriation bill is not germane to the rest of the bill (Dec.
16, 1963, p. 24753). In general, an amendment simply striking out words
already in a bill may not be ruled out as not germane (V, 5805; VIII,
2918) unless such action would change the scope and meaning of the text
(VIII, 2917-2921; Mar. 23, 1960, p. 6381); and a pro forma amendment
``to strike out the last word'' has been considered germane (July 28,
1965, p. 18639). While a committee may report a bill or resolution
embracing different subjects, it is not in order during consideration in
the House to introduce a new subject by way of amendment (V, 5825). The
rule that amendments should be germane applies to amendments reported by
committees (V, 5806), but a resolution providing for consideration of
the bill with committee amendments may waive points of order (Oct. 10,
1967, p. 28406), and the point of order under this rule does not apply
to a special order reported from the Committee on Rules ``self-
executing'' the adoption in the House of a nongermane amendment to a
bill, since the amendment is not separately before the House during
consideration of the special order (Feb. 24, 1993, p. ----; July 27,
1993, p. ----). A resolution reported from the Committee on Rules
providing for the consideration of a bill relating to a certain subject
may be amended neither by an amendment that would substitute the
consideration of an unrelated proposition (V, 5834-5836; VIII, 2956;
Sept. 14, 1950, p. 14844) nor an amendment that would permit the
additional consideration of a non-germane amendment to the bill (May 29,
1980, pp. 12667-73; Aug. 13, 1982, p. 20972). The Chair will not
interpret as a point of order under a specific rule of the House, on
which he must rule, an objection to a substitute as ``narrowing the
scope'' of a pending amendment, absent some stated or necessarily
implied reference to the germaneness or other rule (June 25, 1987, p.
17415). The burden of proof is on the proponent of an amendment to
establish its germaneness (VIII, 2995), and where

Sec. 795. Proposition to which amendment must be
germane.

Under the later practice an amendment should be germane to the
particular paragraph or section to which it is offered (V, 5811-5820;
VIII, 2922, 2936; Oct. 14, 1971, pp. 36194, 36211; Sept. 19, 1986, p.
24729), without reference to subject matter of other titles not yet read
(July 31, 1990, p. ----), and an amendment inserting an additional
section should be germane to the portion of the bill to which it is
offered (V, 5822; VIII, 2927, 2931; July 14, 1970, pp. 24033-35), though
it may be germane to more than one portion of a bill (Mar. 27, 1974, pp.
8508-09), and when offered as a separate paragraph is not required to be
germane to the paragraph immediately preceding or following it (VII,
1162; VIII, 2932-2935).

While it is a proper test of germaneness that instructions in a motion
to recommit must be germane to the section of the bill to which offered
(VIII, 2709), instructions inserting a new title at the end of a bill
need only be germane to the bill as a whole (Sept. 19, 1986, p. 24769).

Subject to clause 2(c) of rule XXI (requiring that limitation
amendments to general appropriation bills be offered at the end of the
reading of the bill for amendment), an amendment limiting the use of
funds by a particular agency funded in a general appropriation bill may
be germane to the paragraph carrying the funds, or to any general
provisions portion of the bill affecting that agency or all agencies
funded by the bill (July 16, 1979, p. 18807). However, to a paragraph
containing funds for an agency but not transferring funds to that
account from other paragraphs in the bill, an amendment increasing that
amount by transfer from an account in another paragraph is not germane,
since affecting budget authority for a different agency not the subject
of the pending paragraph (July 17, 1985, p. 19436).

In passing on the germaneness of an amendment, the Chair considers the
relationship between the amendment and the bill as modified by the
Committee of the Whole (Apr. 23, 1975, p. 11545; July 8, 1987, p.
19013).

[[Page 579]]
1975, p. 29322; July 11, 1985, pp. 18601-02; Oct. 8, 1985, pp. 26548-
51). While the heading of the final title of a bill as ``miscellaneous''
does not thereby permit amendments to that title which are not germane
thereto, the inclusion of sufficiently diverse provisions in such title
affecting various provisions in the bill may permit further amendments
which need only be germane to the bill as a whole (Apr. 10, 1979, pp.
8034-37).
An amendment adding a new section to a bill being read by titles must
be germane to the pending title (Sept. 17, 1975, p. 28925), but where a
bill is considered as read and open to amendment at any point, an
amendment must be germane to the bill as a whole and not to a particular
section (Sept. 29, 1975, p. 30761; Jan. 30, 1986, p. 1052). Where a
title of a bill is open to amendment at any point, the germaneness of an
amendment perfecting one section therein depends on its relationship to
the title as a whole and not merely on its relationship to the one
section (June 25, 1991, p. ----). An amendment in the form of a new
title, when offered at the end of a bill containing several diverse
titles on a general subject, need not be germane to the portion of the
bill to which offered, it being sufficient that the amendment be germane
to the bill as a whole in its modified form (Nov. 4, 1971, p. 39267;
July 2, 1974, p. 22029; Sept. 18,

Under clause 4 of rule XXVIII, a portion of a conference report
incorporating part of a Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute
to a House bill, or incorporating part of a Senate bill that the House
has amended, must be germane to the bill in the form passed by the
House; thus where a House-passed bill contained several sections and
titles amending diverse portions of the Internal Revenue Code relating
to tax credits, a modified Senate provision adding a new section dealing
with another tax credit was held germane to the House-passed measure as
a whole (Speaker Albert, Mar. 26, 1975, p. 8900); but a Senate provision
in a conference report, on a Senate bill with a House amendment in the
nature of a substitute, which authorized appointment of a special
prosecutor for any criminal offenses committed by certain Federal
officials was held not germane to the bill as passed by the House, which
related to offenses directly related to official duties and
responsibilities of Federal officials (Oct. 12, 1978, pp. 36459-61).

The test of germaneness of an amendment to or a substitute for an
amendment in the nature of a substitute is its relationship to the
substitute and not its relationship to the bill to which the amendment
in the nature of a substitute has been offered (July 19, 1973, p. 24958;
July 22, 1975, p. 23990; June 1, 1976, pp. 16051-56; July 28, 1982, pp.
18355-58, 18361), and an amendment to a substitute is not required to
affect the same page and line numbers as the substitute in order to be
germane, it being sufficient that the amendment is germane to the
subject matter of the substitute (Aug. 1, 1979, pp. 21944-47). When an
amendment in the nature of a substitute is offered at the end of the
first section of a bill, the test of germaneness is the relationship
between the amendment and the entire bill, and the germaneness of an
amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill is not necessarily
determined by an incidental portion of the amendment which if offered
separately might not be germane to the portion of the bill to which
offered (July 8, 1975, p. 21633).

The test of germaneness of an amendment offered as a substitute for a
pending amendment is its relationship to the pending amendment and not
its relationship to the underlying bill (Feb. 14, 1995, p. ----).

[[Page 580]]

An amendment germane to the bill as a whole, but hardly germane to any
one section, may be offered at an appropriate place with notice of
motions to strike out the following sections which it would supersede
(V, 5823; July 29, 1969, p. 21221). Where a perfecting amendment to the
text is offered pending a vote on a motion to strike out the same text,
the perfecting amendment must be germane to the text to which offered,
not to the motion to strike (Oct. 3, 1969, p. 28454).

Sec. 796. Instructions to committees and amendments
thereto.

The rule that amendments must be germane applies to amendments
to the instructions in a motion to instruct conferees (VIII, 3230,
3235), and the test of an amendment to a motion to instruct conferees is
the relationship of the amendment to the subject matter of the House or
Senate version of the bill (Deschler-Brown Precedents, vol. 11, ch. 28,
sec. 28.2). The rule of germaneness similarly applies to the
instructions in a motion to recommit a bill to a committee of the House,
as it is not in order to propose as part of a motion to recommit any
proposition that would not have been germane if proposed as an amendment
to the bill in the House (V, 5529-5541; VIII, 2708-2712; Mar. 2, 1967,
p. 5155), and the instructions must be germane to the bill as perfected
in the House (Mar. 22, 1949, p. 2936; Nov. 19, 1993, p. ----), even
where the instructions do not propose a direct amendment to the bill but
merely direct the committee to pursue an unrelated approach (Speaker
O'Neill, Mar. 2, 1978, p. 5272; July 16, 1991, p. ----) or direct the
committee not to report the bill back to the House until an unrelated
contingency occurs (VIII, 2704). Under the same rationale as amendments
to a motion to instruct conferees, amendments to a motion to recommit to
a standing committee with instructions must be germane to the subject
matter of the bill (see V, 6888; VIII, 2711).

The fact that an amendment is offered in conjunction with a motion to
recommit a bill with instructions to a standing committee does not
affect the requirement that the subject matter of the amendment be
germane and within the jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill
(Mar. 2, 1967, p. 5155; July 16, 1991, p. ----).

[[Page 581]]
to the House bill (VIII, 3425), but under changes in the rules points
of order may be made and separate votes demanded on portions of Senate
amendments and conference reports containing language that would not
have been germane if offered in the House. Clause 4 of rule XXVIII
permits points of order against language in a conference report which
was originally in the Senate bill or amendment and which would not have
been germane if offered to the House-passed version, and permits a
separate motion to reject such portion of the conference report if found
non-germane (Oct. 15, 1986, pp. 31498-99). For purposes of that rule,
the House-passed version, against which Senate provisions are compared,
is that finally committed to conference, taking into consideration all
amendments adopted by the House, including House amendments to Senate
amendments (July 28, 1983, p. 21401). Clause 5 of rule XXVIII permits
points of order against motions to concur or concur with amendment in
non-germane Senate amendments, the stage of disagreement having been
reached, and, if such points of order are sustained, permits separate
motions to reject such non-germane matter. Clause 5 of rule XXVIII is
not applicable to a provision contained in a motion to recede and concur
with an amendment (the stage of disagreement having been reached) which
is not contained in any form in the Senate version, the only requirement
in such circumstances being that the motion as a whole be germane to the
Senate amendment as a whole under clause 7 of rule XVI (Oct. 4, 1978,
pp. 33502-06; June 30, 1987, p. 18294).

Sec. 797. Senate amendments and matter contained in
conference reports.

In the consideration of Senate amendments to a House
bill an amendment must be germane to the particular Senate amendment to
which it is offered (V, 6188-6191; VIII, 2936; May 14, 1963, p. 8506;
Dec. 13, 1980, p. 34097), and it is not sufficient that an amendment to
a Senate amendment is germane to the original House bill if it is not
germane to the subject matter of a Senate amendment that merely inserts
new matter and does not strike out House provisions (V, 6188; VIII,
2936). But where a Senate amendment proposes to strike out language in a
House bill, the test of the germaneness of a motion to recede and concur
with an amendment is the relationship between the language in the motion
and the provisions in the House bill proposed to be stricken, as well as
those to be inserted, by the Senate amendment (June 8, 1943, p. 5511;
June 15, 1943, p. 5899; Dec. 12, 1974, pp. 39272-73). The test of the
germaneness of an amendment to a motion to concur in a Senate amendment
with an amendment is the relationship between the amendment and the
motion, and not between the amendment and the Senate amendment to which
the motion has been offered (Aug. 3, 1973, the Deschler-Brown
Precedents, vol. 11, ch. 28, sec. 27.6). Formerly, a Senate amendment
was not subject to the point of order that it was not germane

[[Page 582]]
access to committee hearings and meetings, an amendment to another
clause of that rule relating to committee staffing was held not germane
(Mar. 7, 1973, p. 6714). But to an amendment in the nature of a
substitute comprehensively amending several sections of the Clean Air
Act with respect to the impact of the shortages of energy resources upon
standards imposed under that Act, an amendment to another section of
that Act suspending for a temporary period the authority of the
Administrator of the E.P.A. to control automobile emissions was held
germane (Dec. 14, 1973, pp. 41688-89), and to a section of a bill
prescribing the functions of a new Federal Energy Administration by
conferring wide discretionary powers upon the Administrator, an
amendment directing the Administrator to issue preliminary summer
guidelines for citizen fuel use was held germane as a further
delineation of those functions (Mar. 6, 1974, pp. 5436-37); however, to
a title of a bill that only addresses the administrative structure of a
new department and not its authority to carry out transferred programs,
an amendment prohibiting the department from withholding funds to carry
out certain objectives is not germane (June 12, 1979, pp. 14485-86). To
an amendment authorizing the use of funds for a specific study, an
amendment naming any program established in the bill for an unrelated
purpose for a specified Senator was held not germane (Aug. 15, 1986, p.
22075).

Sec. 798a. Subject matter as test of
germaneness.

An amendment must relate to the subject matter under
consideration: to a bill seeking to eliminate wage discrimination based
on the sex of the employee, an amendment to make the provisions of the
bill applicable to discrimination based on race was ruled out as not
germane (July 25, 1962, p. 14778). To a bill establishing an office in
the Department of the Interior to manage biological information, an
amendment addressing socioeconomic matters was held not germane (Oct.
26, 1993, p. ----). To a bill authorizing military assistance to Israel
and funds for the United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East, an
amendment expressing the sense of Congress that the President conduct
negotiations to obtain a peace treaty in the Middle East and the
resumption of diplomatic and trade relations between Arab nations and
the U.S. and Israel was held not germane (Dec. 11, 1973, pp. 40842-43).
To a concurrent resolution expressing Congressional concern over certain
domestic policies of a foreign government and urging that government to
improve those internal problems in order to enhance better relations
with the United States, amendments expressing the necessity for U.S.
diplomatic initiatives as a consequence of that foreign government's
policies are not germane (July 12, 1978, pp. 20500-05). But to a
proposition directing a feasibility investigation, an amendment
requiring the submission of legislation to implement that investigation
is germane (Dec. 14, 1973, pp. 41747-48). To a resolution amending
several clauses of a rule of the House but confined in its scope to the
issue of

An amendment that is germane, not being ``on a subject different from
that under consideration,'' belongs to a class illustrated by the
following: To a bill providing for an interoceanic canal by one route,
an amendment providing for a different route (V, 5909); to a bill
providing for the reorganization of the Army, an amendment providing for
the encouragement of marksmanship (V, 5910); to a proposition to create
a board of inquiry, an amendment specifying when it shall report (V,
5915); to a bill relating to ``oleomargarine and other imitation dairy
products,'' an amendment on the subject of ``renovated butter'' (V,
5919); to a resolution rescinding an order for final adjournment, an
amendment fixing a new date therefor (V, 5920).

[[Page 583]]
purpose of the bill (Aug. 2, 1973, pp. 27673-75; July 8, 1975, p.
21633; Sept. 29, 1980, pp. 27832-52). But to a bill relating to one
government agency, an amendment having as its fundamental purpose a
change in the law relating to another agency was held not germane even
though it contemplated a consultative role for the agency covered by the
bill (July 8, 1987, p. 19014).

Sec. 798b. Fundamental purpose as test of
germaneness.

Whether or not an amendment is germane should be judged from the
provisions of its text rather than from the motives that circumstances
may suggest (V, 5783, 5803; Dec. 13, 1973, pp. 41267-69; Aug. 15, 1974,
pp. 28438-39). Thus an amendment that does relate to the subject matter
of the bill is not subject to challenge solely on the basis that it may
be characterized as private legislation benefitting certain individuals,
offered to a public bill (May 30, 1984, p. 14495). The fundamental
purpose of an amendment must be germane to the fundamental purpose of
the bill (VIII, 2911). Thus for a bill proposing to accomplish a result
by methods comprehensive in scope, a committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute seeking to achieve the same result was held germane
where it was shown that additional provisions not contained in the
original bill were merely incidental conditions or exceptions that were
related to the fundamental

[[Page 584]]

In order to be germane, an amendment must not only have the same end
as the matter sought to be amended, but must contemplate a method of
achieving that end that is closely allied to the method encompassed in
the bill or other matter sought to be amended (Aug. 11, 1970, p. 28165).
Thus to a proposition to accomplish a result through regulation by a
governmental agency, an amendment to accomplish the same fundamental
purpose through regulation by another governmental agency was held
germane (Dec. 15, 1937, pp. 1572-89; June 9, 1941, p. 4905; Dec. 19,
1973, pp. 42618-19); to a bill to achieve a certain purpose by
conferring discretionary authority to set fair labor standards upon an
independent agency, an amendment in the nature of a substitute to attain
that purpose by a more inflexible method (prescribing fair labor
standards) was held germane (Dec. 15, 1937, pp. 1590-94; Oct. 14, 1987,
p. 27885); to a proposition to accomplish the broad purpose of settling
land claims of Alaska natives by a method general in scope, an amendment
accomplishing the same purpose by a method more detailed in its
provisions was held germane (Oct. 20, 1971, p. 37079); to an amendment
comprehensively amending the Natural Gas Act to de-regulate interstate
sales of new natural gas and regulate aspects of intrastate gas use, a
substitute providing regulatory authority for interstate and intrastate
gas sales of large producers was held germane (Feb. 4, 1976, p. 2387);
to a bill providing a temporary extension of existing authority, an
amendment achieving the same purpose by providing a nominally permanent
authority was held germane where both the bill and the amendment were
based on reported economic projections under which either would achieve
the same, necessarily temporary result by method of direct or indirect
amendment to the same existing law (May 13, 1987, p. 12344); and to a
bill subjecting employers who fail to apprise their workers of health
risks to penalties under other laws and regulations, a substitute
subjecting such employers to penalties prescribed in the substitute
itself was held germane (Oct. 14, 1987, p. 27885). To a bill raising
revenue by several methods of taxation the Committee of the Whole,
overruling the Chair, held that an amendment proposing a tax on
undistributed profits was germane (VII, 3042). To an amendment freezing
the obligation of funds for fiscal year 1996 for missile defense until
the Secretary of Defense rendered a specified readiness certification,
an amendment permitting an increase in the obligation of such funds on
the basis of legislative findings concerning readiness was held germane,
as each proposition addressed the relationship between 1996 funding
levels for missile defense and readiness (Feb. 15, 1995, p. ----).

[[Page 585]]
representation of the District of Columbia in Congress, with
instructions that the Committee on the Judiciary consider a resolution
retroceding populated portions of the District to Maryland, was held not
germane (Speaker O'Neill, Mar. 2, 1978, p. 5272). To a bill to provide
financial assistance to domestic agriculture through price support
payments, an amendment to protect domestic agriculture by restricting
imports in competition therewith was not germane as proposing an
unrelated method of assistance within the jurisdiction of another
committee (Oct. 14, 1981, p. 23899). It is not germane to change a
direct appropriation of new budget authority from the general fund into
a reappropriation (in effect a rescission) of funds previously
appropriated for an entirely different purpose in a special reserve
account (Feb. 28, 1985, p. 4146). To a proposition changing
Congressional budget procedures to require consideration of balanced
budgets, an amendment changing concurrent resolutions on the budget to
joint resolutions, bringing executive enforcement mechanisms into play,
was held not germane (July 18, 1990, p. ----).
However, an amendment to accomplish a similar purpose by an unrelated
method, not contemplated by the bill, is not germane. Thus, to a bill to
aid in the control of crime through research and training an amendment
to accomplish that result through regulation of the sale of firearms was
held not germane (Aug. 8, 1967, pp. 21846-50); to a bill providing
relief to foreign countries through government agencies, an amendment
providing for relief to be made through the International Red Cross was
held not germane (Dec. 10, 1947, pp. 11242-44); and to a bill conserving
energy by civil penalties on manufacturers of autos with low gas
mileage, an amendment conserving energy by tax rebates to purchasers of
high-mileage autos was held not germane (June 12, 1975, p. 18695). To a
bill authorizing financial assistance to unemployed individuals for
employment opportunities, an amendment providing instead for tax
incentives to stimulate employment was held not germane as employing an
unrelated method within the jurisdiction of a different committee of the
House (Sept. 21, 1983, p. 25145); to a bill to promote technological
advancement by fostering Federal research and development, and amendment
exhorting to do so by changes in tax and antitrust laws was held not
germane (July 16, 1991, p. ----); to a bill extending unemployment
compensation benefits during a period of economic recession, an
amendment to stimulate economic growth by tax incentives and regulatory
reform was held not germane (Sept. 17, 1991, p. ----); to an amendment
to achieve a national production goal for synthetic fuels for national
defense needs by loans and grants and development of demonstration
synthetic fuel plants, a substitute to require by regulation that any
fuel sold in commerce require a certain percentage of synthetic fuels
was held not germane, as broader in scope and an unrelated method (June
26, 1979, pp. 16663-74); to a proposition whose fundamental purpose was
registration and public disclosure by, but not regulation of the
activities of, lobbyists, amendments prohibiting lobbying in certain
places, restricting monetary contributions by lobbyists, and providing
civil penalties for violating rules of the House in relation to floor
privileges, were held not germane (Sept. 28, 1976, pp. 33070-71), but to
a similar bill, an amendment requiring disclosure of any lobbying
communication made on the floor of the House or Senate or in adjoining
rooms, but not regulating such conduct, was held germane (Apr. 26, 1978,
pp. 11641-42); to a bill providing assistance to Vietnam war victims,
amendments containing foreign policy declarations as to culpability in
the Vietnam war were held not germane (Apr. 23, 1975, p. 11510); to a
bill authorizing foreign military assistance programs, an amendment
authorizing contributions to an international agency for nuclear missile
inspections was held not germane (Mar. 3, 1976, p. 5226); and to a bill
seeking to accomplish a purpose by one method (creation of an executive
branch agency), an amendment accomplishing that result by a method not
contemplated in the bill (creation of office within Legislative Branch
as function of committee oversight) was ruled not germane (Nov. 5, 1975,
p. 35041). A motion to recommit a joint resolution, proposing a
constitutional amendment for

[[Page 586]]
transferred to the department is not necessarily germane, where the
purpose of the authorization is to allow appropriations in general
appropriation bills for the department to carry out its functions, but
where changes in the laws to be administered by the department remain
within the jurisdiction of other committees of the House (June 19, 1979,
pp. 15570-71). To a bill reported by the Committee on Public Works
authorizing funds for highway construction and mass transportation
systems using motor vehicles, an amendment relating to urban mass
transit (then within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and
Currency) and the railroad industry (within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce) was held not germane (Oct.
5, 1972, p. 34115). To a bill reported from the Committee on Science and
Technology authorizing environmental research and development activities
of an agency, an amendment expressing the sense of Congress with respect
to that agency's regulatory and enforcement authority, within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, was held not
germane (Feb. 9, 1984, p. 2423); to a bill authorizing environmental
research and development activities of an agency for two years, an
amendment adding permanent regulatory authority for that agency by
amending a law not within the jurisdiction of the committee reporting
the bill was held not germane (June 4, 1987, p. 14757); and to a bill
addressing various research programs and authorities, an amendment
addressing matters of fiscal and economic policy and regulation was held
not germane (July 16, 1991, p. ----; Sept. 22, 1992, pp. ---- and ----).
To a bill reported from the Committee on Armed Services amending several
laws within that committee's jurisdiction on military procurement and
policy, an amendment to the Renegotiation Act, a matter within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs and
not solely related to military contracts was held not germane (June 26,
1985, pp. 17417-19), as was an amendment requiring reports on Soviet
Union compliance with arms control commitments, a matter exclusively
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (Deschler-
Brown Precedents, vol. 10, ch. 28, sec. 4.26). To a bill reported from
the Committee on Energy and Commerce relating to mentally ill
individuals, an amendment prohibiting the use of General Revenue Sharing
funds (within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government
Operations) was held not germane (Jan. 30, 1986, p. 1053). To a bill
reported from the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries authorizing
various activities of the Coast Guard, an amendment urging the Secretary
of State in consultation with the Coast Guard to elicit cooperation from
other nations concerning certain Coast Guard and military operations (a
matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs) was
held not germane (July 8, 1987, p. 19013). To a bill reauthorizing
programs administered by two agencies within one committee's
jurisdiction, an amendment more general in scope affecting agencies
within the jurisdiction of other committees is not germane (May 12,
1994, p. ----).

[[Page 587]]

Sec. 798c. Committee jurisdiction as test of
germaneness.

An amendment when considered as a whole should be within the
jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill, although committee
jurisdiction over the subject of an amendment and of the original bill
is not the exclusive test of germaneness (Aug. 2, 1973, pp. 27673-75),
and the Chair relates the amendment to the bill in its perfected form
(Aug. 17, 1972, p. 28913). To a bill reported from the Committee on
Agriculture providing price support programs for various agricultural
commodities, an amendment repealing price control authority for all
commodities under an act reported from the Committee on Banking and
Currency is not germane (July 19, 1973, pp. 24950-51). To a bill
reported from the Committee on Ways and Means providing for a temporary
increase in the public debt ceiling for the current fiscal year (not
directly amending the Second Liberty Bond Act), an amendment proposing
permanent changes in that act and also affecting budget and
appropriation procedures (matters within the jurisdiction of other House
committees) was held not germane (Nov. 7, 1973, pp. 36240-41). To a bill
relating to intelligence activities of the Executive Branch, an
amendment effecting a change in the rules of the House by directing a
committee to impose an oath of secrecy on its members and staff was held
not germane (May 1, 1991, p. ----). To a bill reported by the Committee
on Government Operations creating an executive agency to protect
consumers, an amendment conferring on Congressional committees with
oversight over consumer protection the authority to intervene in
judicial or administrative proceedings (a rule-making provision within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules) was ruled not germane (Nov.
6, 1975, p. 35373). Similarly, to a bill reported from the Committee on
Government Operations creating a new department, transferring the
administration of existing laws to it and authorizing appropriations to
carry out the Act subject to provisions in existing law, an amendment
prohibiting the use of funds so authorized to carry out a designated
funding program

Committee jurisdiction is not the sole test of germaneness where the
proposition to which the amendment is offered is so comprehensive
(overlapping several committees' jurisdictions) as to diminish the
pertinency of that test and the amendment as offered does not
demonstrably affect a law within another committee's jurisdiction (July
21, 1976, pp. 23167-68; Oct. 8, 1985, pp. 26548-51), or where the
portion of the bill also contains language, related to the amendment,
not within the jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill (Apr. 2,
1976, p. 9254; Aug. 10, 1984, p. 23975), or where the bill has been
amended to include matter within the jurisdiction of another committee,
thus permitting further similar amendments to be germane (July 11, 1985,
pp. 18601-02), or where if offered as a new final title the bill as a
whole and as amended contains matters within another committee's
jurisdiction (Sept. 19, 1986, p. 24769). To a bill reported from the
Committee on Agriculture relating to the food stamp program, an
amendment requiring the collection from certain recipients of the money
value of food stamps received, by the Secretary of the Treasury after
consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, was held germane since
the performance of new duties by the Secretary of the Treasury and by
the Internal Revenue Service that do not affect the application of the
Internal Revenue Code, is not a matter solely within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Ways and Means (July 27, 1977, pp. 25249-52).

[[Page 588]]
ity of mortgage interest), a matter within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Ways and Means, was held not germane (Aug. 1, 1990, p. ----
).
But committee jurisdiction is a relevant test where the pending text
is entirely within one committee's jurisdiction and where the amendment
falls within another committee's purview (Jan. 29, 1976, p. 1582; July
25, 1979, pp. 20601-03; June 27, 1985, pp. 17417-19). Thus to a bill
reported from the Committee on Armed Services authorizing military
procurement and personnel strengths for one fiscal year, a proposition
imposing permanent prohibitions and conditions on troop withdrawals from
the Republic of Korea was held not germane since proposing permanent law
to a one-year authorization and including statements of policy within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (May 24, 1978, pp.
15293-95); and to a bill reported from the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs designating certain areas in a State as wilderness, an
amendment providing unemployment benefits to workers displaced by the
designation was held not germane (Mar. 21, 1983, p. 6347); to a bill
reported from the Committee on Education and Labor dealing with
education, an amendment regulating telephone communications (a matter
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce) was
held not germane (Apr. 19, 1988, p. 7355); to a bill reported from the
Committee on Education and Labor authorizing a variety of civilian
national service programs, an amendment establishing a contingent
military service obligation (a matter within the selective service
jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services) was held not germane
(July 28, 1993, p. ----); and to a bill reported by the Committee on
Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs dealing with housing and community
development grant and credit programs, an amendment expressing the sense
of Congress on tax policy (the deductibil

In a conference report on a House bill reported from the Committee on
Public Works and Transportation, authorizing funds for local public
works employment, a Senate amendment to mandate expenditure of already
appropriated funds (as a purported disapproval of deferral of such funds
under the Impoundment Control Act) and to set discount rates for
reclamation and public works projects, subjects within the jurisdictions
of the Committees on Appropriations and Interior and Insular Affairs,
was held not germane (Speaker O'Neill, May 3, 1977, pp. 13242-43).

To a bill amending an existing law to grant to merchant mariners
benefits ``substantially equivalent to'' those granted to veterans in a
separate law in the jurisdiction of another committee, an amendment
directly changing the separate law to extend its benefits to merchant
mariners was held not germane (Sept. 9, 1992, p. ----); but where the
pending bill incorporates by reference provisions of a law from another
committee and conditions the bill's effectiveness upon actions taken
pursuant to a section of that law, an amendment to alter that section of
the law may be germane (Apr. 8, 1974, pp. 10108-10).

The test of the germaneness of an amendment in the nature of a
substitute for a bill is its relationship to the bill as a whole, and is
not necessarily determined by the content of an incidental portion of
the amendment which, if considered separately, might be within the
jurisdiction of another committee (Aug. 2, 1973, p. 27673; June 1, 1976,
pp. 16021-25). However, the House may by adopting a special rule allow a
point of order that a section of a committee amendment in the nature of
a substitute would not have been germane if offered separately to the
bill as introduced (May 23 and 24, 1978, pp. 15094-96 and 15293-95; Aug.
11, 1978, p. 25705).

The fact that an amendment is offered in conjunction with a motion to
recommit a bill with instructions does not affect the requirement that
the subject matter of the amendment be germane and within the
jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill (Mar. 2, 1967, p.
5155). Thus, to a bill reported from the Committee on Foreign Affairs
addressing U.S. claims against Iraq, a motion to recommit with
instructions to prohibit the admission of former members of Iraq's armed
forces to the United States as refugees (a matter within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary) is not germane (Apr. 28,
1994, p. ----).

[[Page 589]]
relating to commerce between the States, an amendment relating to
commerce within the several States (V, 5841); to a proposition to
relieve destitute citizens of the United States in Cuba, a proposition
declaring a state of war in Cuba and proclaiming neutrality (V, 5897);
to a proposition for the appointment of a select committee to
investigate a certain subject, an amendment proposing an inquiry of the
Executive on that subject (V, 5891); to a bill granting a right of way
to a railroad, an amendment providing for the purchase of the railroad
by the Government (V, 5887); to a provision for the erection of a
building for a mint, an amendment to change the coinage laws (V, 5884);
to a resolution proposing expulsion, an amendment proposing censure (VI,
236); to a resolution authorizing the administration of the oath to a
Member-elect, an amendment authorizing such oath administration but
adding several conditions of punishment predicated on acts committed in
a prior Congress (Jan. 3, 1969, pp. 23-25); to a general tariff bill, an
amendment creating a tariff board (Chairman Garrett of Tennessee, May 6,
1913, p. 1234; also Speaker Clark, May 8, 1913, p. 1381); to a
proposition to sell two battleships and build a new battleship with the
proceeds, a proposition to devote the proceeds to building wagon roads
(VIII, 2973).

Sec. 798d. Various tests of germaneness are not
exclusive.

The standards by which the germaneness of an amendment may be
measured, as set forth in Secs. 798a-c, supra, are not exclusive; an
amendment and the matter to which offered may be related to some degree
under the tests of subject matter, purpose, and jurisdiction, and still
not be considered germane under the precedents. Thus, the following have
been held not to be germane: To a proposition relating to the terms of
Senators, an amendment changing the manner of their election (V, 5882);
to a bill

[[Page 590]]
for the relief of other persons who are not aliens (May 14, 1975, p.
14360); to a bill providing relief for agricultural producers, an
amendment extending such relief to commercial fishermen, another class
within the jurisdiction of another committee (Apr. 24, 1978, pp. 11080-
81); to a bill governing the political activities of federal civilian
employees, an amendment to cover members of the uniformed services (June
7, 1977, pp. 17713-14); to a bill covering the civil service system for
federal civilian employees, an amendment bringing other classes of
employees (postal and District of Columbia employees) within the scope
of the bill (Sept. 7, 1978, pp. 28437-39; Oct. 9, 1985, pp. 26951-54);
to a portion of an appropriation bill containing funds for a certain
purpose to be expended by one agency, an amendment containing funds for
another agency for the same purpose (July 24, 1981, p. 17226); to an
amendment exempting national defense budget authority from the reach of
a proposed Presidential rescission authority, an amendment exempting
social security (Feb. 2, 1995, p. ----); to a Senate amendment striking
an earmarking from an appropriation bill, a House amendment reinserting
part of the amount but adding other earmarking for unrelated programs
(Nov. 15, 1989, p. 29019); to a Senate amendment relating to a
feasibility study of a land transfer in one state, a House amendment
requiring an environmental study of land in another state (Nov. 15,
1989, p. 29035); to a bill prohibiting certain uses of polygraphy in the
private sector, an amendment applying the terms of the bill to the
Congress (Nov. 4, 1987, p. 30870); to a bill to determine the
equitability of federal pay practices under statutory systems applicable
to agencies of the executive branch, an amendment to extend the scope of
the determination to pay practices in the legislative branch (ruling
sustained by Committee of Whole, Sept. 28, 1988, p. 26422); to a special
appropriation bill providing funds and authority for agricultural credit
programs but containing no transfers of funds, reappropriations, or
rescissions, an amendment (contained in a motion to recommit) deriving
funds for the bill by transfer of unobligated balances in the Energy
Security Reserve and thus decreasing and transferring funds provided for
a program unrelated to the subject matter or method of funding provided
in the bill (Feb. 28, 1985, p. 4146); to a bill prohibiting importation
of goods ``made in whole or in part by convict, pauper, or detained
labor, or made in whole or in part from materials that have been made in
whole or in part in any manner manipulated by convict or prison labor,''
an amendment prohibiting importation of goods produced by child labor, a
second discrete class (VIII, 2963); similarly, to an amendment
authorizing grants to states for purchase of one class of equipment
(photographic and fingerprint equipment) for law enforcement purposes,
an amendment including assistance for the purchase of a different class
of equipment (bulletproof vests) (Oct. 12, 1979, pp. 28121-24); to a
bill repealing section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act and
making conforming changes in two related sections of labor law--all
pertaining solely to the so-called ``right-to-work'' issue--an amendment
excluding from the applicability of certain labor-management agreements

[[Page 591]]
members of religious groups (July 28, 1965, p. 18633); to a bill
relating to the design of certain coin currency, an amendment specifying
the metal content of other coin currency (Sept. 12, 1973, pp. 29376-77);
to a proposition to accomplish a single purpose without amending a
certain existing law, an amendment to accomplish another individual
purpose by changing that existing law (Dec. 14, 1973, pp. 41723-25); to
a bill regulating poll closing time in Presidential general elections,
an amendment extending its provisions to Presidential primary elections
(Jan. 29, 1986, p. 684); to a bill authorizing grants to private
entities furnishing health care to underserved populations, an amendment
authorizing grants to States to control a public health hazard was held
not germane as relating to a different category of recipient (Mar. 5,
1986, p. 3604); and to a bill siting a certain type of repository for a
specified kind of nuclear waste, an amendment prohibiting the
construction at another site of another type of repository for another
kind of nuclear waste (July 21, 1992, p. ----).

Sec. 798e. One individual proposition not germane to
another.

One individual proposition may not be amended by another
individual proposition even though the two belong to the same class
(VIII, 2951-2953, 2963-2966, 3047; Jan. 29, 1986, p. 684; Oct. 22, 1990,
p. ----; Oct. 24, 1991, p. ----). Thus, the following are not germane:
To a bill proposing the admission of one Territory into the Union, an
amendment for admission of another Territory (V, 5529); to a bill
amending a law in one particular, amending the law in another particular
(VIII, 2949); to a proposition to appropriate or to authorize
appropriations for only one year (and containing no provisions extending
beyond that year), an amendment to extend the authorization or
appropriation to another year (VIII, 2913; Nov. 13, 1980, pp. 29523-28;
see also May 2, 1979, p. 9564; Oct. 12, 1979, pp. 28097-99); to a
measure earmaking funds in an appropriation bill, an amendment
authorizing the program for which the appropriation is made (Nov. 15,
1989, p. 29019); to a bill for the relief of one individual, an
amendment proposing similar relief for another (V, 5826-5829); to a
resolution providing a special order for one bill, an amendment to
include another bill (V, 5834-5836); to a provision for extermination of
the cotton-boll weevil, an amendment including the gypsy moth (V, 5832);
to a provision for a clerk for one committee, an amendment for a clerk
to another committee (V, 5833); to a Senate amendment dealing with use
of its contingent fund for art restoration in that body, a proposed
House amendment for use of the House contingent fund for a similar but
broader purpose (May 24, 1990, p. 12203); to a bill prohibiting
transportation of messages relative to dealing in cotton futures, an
amendment adding wheat, corn, etc. (VIII, 3001); to a bill prohibiting
cotton futures, an amendment prohibiting wheat futures (VIII, 3001); to
a bill for the relief of certain aliens, an amendment

[[Page 592]]

Sec. 798f. A general provision not germane to a specific
subject.

A specific subject may not be amended by a provision general in
nature, even when of the class of the specific subject (V, 5843-5846;
VIII, 2997, 2998; July 31, 1985, pp. 21832-34; see also Procedure, ch.
28, sec. 8). Thus the following are not germane: To a bill for the
admission of one Territory into the Union, an amendment providing for
the admission of several other Territories (V, 5837); to a bill relating
to all corporations engaged in interstate commerce, an amendment
relating to all corporations (V, 5842); to a bill modifying an existing
law as to one specific particular, an amendment relating to the terms of
the law other than those dealt with by the bill (V, 5806-5808); to a
bill amending an existing law in one particular, an amendment amending
other laws and more comprehensive in scope (Nov. 19, 1993, pp. ----, --
--, ----); to an amendment addressing particular educational
requirements imposed on educational agencies by the underlying bill, an
amendment addressing any requirements imposed on educational agencies by
the underlying bill (Mar. 21, 1994, p. ----); to a bill reauthorizing
programs administered by the Economic Development Administration and the
Appalachian Regional Commission, an amendment providing for the waiver
of any Federal regulation that would interfere with economic development
(May 12, 1994, p. ----); to a bill amending the war-time prohibition act
in one particular, an amendment repealing that act (VIII, 2949); to a
bill proscribing certain picketing in the District of Columbia, an
amendment making the provisions thereof applicable throughout the United
States (Aug. 22, 1966, p. 20113); to a bill dealing with enforcement of
United Nations sanctions against one country in relation to a specific
trade commodity, an amendment imposing United States sanctions against
all countries for all commodities and communications (Mar. 14, 1977, pp.
7446-47); and to a bill authorizing funds for radio broadcasting to
Cuba, an amendment broadening the bill to include broadcasting to all
Dictatorships in the Caribbean Basin (Aug. 10, 1982, pp. 20256, 20257).

A bill dealing with an individual proposition but rendered general in
its scope by amendment is then subject to further amendment by
propositions of the same class (VIII, 3003). While a specific
proposition covering a defined class may not be amended by a proposition
more general in scope, the Chair may consider all pending provisions
being read for amendment in determining the generality of the class
covered by that proposition (Jan. 30, 1986, p. 1051).

[[Page 593]]
To a bill relating to aircraft altitude over units of the national park
system, an amendment relating to aircraft collision avoidance generally
is not germane (Sept. 18, 1986, p. 24084). To a Senate amendment
prohibiting the use of funds appropriated for a fiscal year for a
specified purpose, a proposed House amendment prohibiting the use of
funds appropriated for that or any prior fiscal year for an unrelated
purpose is not germane (June 30, 1987, p. 18294). To a Senate amendment
raising an employment ceiling for one year, a House amendment proposing
also to address in permanent law a hiring preference system for such
employees is not germane (Oct. 11, 1989, p. 24089). To a Senate
amendment providing for a training vessel for one state maritime
academy, a proposed House amendment relating to training vessels for all
state maritime academies is not germane (June 30, 1987, p. 18296). To a
bill amending an existing law to authorize a program, an amendment
restricting authorizations under that or any other act is beyond the
scope of the bill and not germane (Dec. 10, 1987, p. 34676). To a
proposition waiving a requirement in existing law that an authorizing
law be enacted prior to the obligation of certain funds, an amendment
affirmatively enacting bills containing not only that authorization but
also other policy matters is not germane as beyond the issue of funding
availability (Sept. 28, 1988, p. 26108). To a proposition pertaining
only to a certain appropriation account in a bill, an amendment relating
not only to that account but also to funds in other acts is more general
in scope and therefore not germane (Sept. 30, 1988, p. 27148). To an
omnibus farm bill, with myriad programs to improve agricultural economy,
an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act but not limited to agricultural
pursuits was held not germane (Aug. 1, 1990, p. ----).
To a bill limited in its applicability to certain departments and
agencies of government, an amendment applicable to all departments and
agencies is not germane (Sept. 27, 1967, p. 26957). Thus, to a bill
establishing an office without regulatory authority in the Department of
the Interior to manage biological information, an amendment addressing
requirements of compensation for Constitutional takings by other
regulatory agencies was held not germane (Oct. 26, 1993, p. ----); and
to a bill amending an authority of an agency under an existing law, an
amendment independently expressing the sense of Congress on regulatory
agencies generally was held not germane (May 14, 1992, p. ----). To a
proposition authorizing activities of certain government agencies for a
temporary period, an amendment permanently changing existing law to
cover a broader range of government activities is not germane (May 5,
1988, p. 9938), and to a bill proposing a temporary change in law, an
amendment making permanent changes in that law is not germane (Nov. 19,
1991, p. ----). To a proposition temporarily suspending certain
requirements of the Clean Air Act, an amendment temporarily suspending
other requirements of all other environmental protection laws was held
not germane (Dec. 14, 1973, pp. 41751-52). To a joint resolution
proposing an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting the U.S. or any
state from denying persons 18 years of age or older the right to vote,
an amendment requiring the U.S. and all states to treat persons 18 years
and older as having reached the age of majority for all purposes under
the law was ruled out as not germane (Mar. 23, 1971, p. 7567). To a bill
authorizing Federal funding for qualifying State national service
programs, an amendment conditioning a portion of such funding on the
enactment of State laws immunizing volunteers in nonprofit or public
programs, generally, from certain legal liabilities was held not germane
(July 28, 1993, p. ----). To a bill to enable the Department of HEW to
investigate and prosecute fraud and abuse in medicare and medicaid
health programs, a committee amendment to prohibit any officer or
employee from disclosing any identifiable medical record absent patient
approval was held not germane (Sept. 23, 1977, pp. 30534-35). To an
amendment to a budget resolution changing one functional category only,
an amendment changing several other categories as well as that category,
and covering an additional fiscal year, is not germane (May 2, 1979, pp.
9556-64). For an amendment striking from a bill one activity from those
covered by the law being amended, a substitute striking out the entire
subsection of the bill, thereby eliminating the applicability of
existing law to a number of activities, is not germane (Sept. 23, 1982,
pp. 24963-64).

[[Page 594]]
ual was held not to be germane (V, 5848-5849). To a proposition
relating in many diverse respects to the political rights of the people
of the District of Columbia, an amendment conferring upon that
electorate the additional right of electing a nonvoting Delegate to the
Senate was held germane (Oct. 10, 1973, pp. 33656-57). To a bill
bringing two new categories within the coverage of existing law, an
amendment to include a third category of the same class was held germane
(Nov. 27, 1967, p. 33769). To a bill containing definitions of several
of the terms used therein, an amendment modifying one of the definitions
and adding another may be germane (Sept. 26, 1967, p. 26878). To a bill
authorizing a broad program of research and development, an amendment
directing specific emphasis in the administration of the program is
germane (Dec. 19, 1973, p. 42607). To a bill providing for investigation
of relationships between environmental pollution and cancer, an
amendment to investigate the impact of personal health habits, as
cigarette smoking, on that relationship was held germane (Sept. 15,
1976, pp. 30496-98). To a supplemental appropriation bill containing
funds for several departments and agencies, an amendment in the form of
a new chapter providing funds for capital outlays for subway
construction in the District of Columbia was held germane (May 11, 1971,
p. 14437). To a proposal authorizing military procurement, including
purchase of food supplies, an amendment authorizing establishment that
fiscal year of a military preparedness grain reserve was held germane as
a more specific authorization (July 20, 1982, pp. 17073, 17074, 17092,
17093). To a Senate amendment providing for prepayment of loans by those
within a certain class of borrowers who meet a specified criterion, a
proposed House amendment eliminating the criterion to broaden the
applicability of the Senate amendment to additional borrowers within the
same class was held germane (June 30, 1987, p. 18308). To an amendment
addressing a range of criminal prohibitions, an amendment addressing
another criminal prohibition within that range was held germane (Oct.
17, 1991, p. ----).

Sec. 798g. Specific subjects germane to general propositions
of the class.

A general subject may be amended by specific propositions
of the same class (VIII, 3002, 3009, 3012; see also Procedure, ch. 28,
sec. 9). Thus, the following have been held to be germane: To a bill
admitting several Territories into the Union, an amendment adding
another Territory (V, 5838); to a bill providing for the construction of
buildings in each of two cities, an amendment providing for similar
buildings in several other cities (V, 5840); to a resolution embodying
two distinct phases of international relationship, an amendment
embodying a third (V, 5839); and to an amendment prohibiting indirect
assistance to several countries, an amendment to include additional
countries within that prohibition (Aug. 3, 1978, p. 24244); to a portion
of a bill providing two categories of economic assistance to foreign
countries, an amendment adding a further specific category is germane
(Apr. 9, 1979, pp. 7755-57). And where a bill seeks to accomplish a
general purpose (support of arts and humanities) by diverse methods, an
amendment that adds a specific method to accomplish that result (artist
employment through National Endowment for Arts) may be germane (Apr. 26,
1976, p. 11101; see also June 12, 1979, p. 14460). But to a resolution
authorizing a class of employees in the service of the House, an
amendment providing for the employment of a specified individ

[[Page 595]]
ent of federal assistance (a class not necessarily covered by the class
covered by the bill), were ruled not to be germane (June 26, 1984, pp.
18847, 18857, and 18861). But to the same bill, an amendment merely
defining a word used in the bill was held germane (June 26, 1984, p.
18865). Unless a bill so extensively amends existing law as to open up
the entire law to amendment, the germaneness of an amendment to the bill
depends on its relationship to the subject of the bill and not to the
entire law being amended (Oct. 28, 1975, p. 34031). But a bill amending
several sections of an existing law may be sufficiently broad to permit
amendments that are germane to other sections of that law not mentioned
in the bill (Feb. 19, 1975, p. 3596; Sept. 14, 1978, pp. 29487-88). To a
bill continuing and re-enacting an existing law amendments germane to
the existing act sought to be continued have been held germane to the
pending bill (VIII, 2940, 2941, 2950, 3028; Oct. 31, 1963, p. 20728;
June 1, 1976, pp. 16045-46); but where a bill merely extends an
official's authority under existing law, an amendment permanently
amending that law has been held not in order (Sept. 29, 1969, pp. 27341-
43). Thus where a bill authorized appropriations to an agency for one
year but did not amend the organic law by extending the existence of
that agency, an amendment extending the life of another entity mentioned
in the organic law was held not germane (May 20, 1976, pp. 14912-13). An
amendment making permanent changes in the law relating to organization
of an agency is not germane to a title of a bill only authorizing
appropriations for such agency for one fiscal year (Nov. 29, 1979, p.
34090); to a general appropriation bill providing funds for one fiscal
year, an amendment changing a permanent appropriation in existing law
and changing Congressional procedures for consideration of that general
appropriation bill in future years is more general in scope and in part
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules and therefore is not
germane (June 29, 1987, p. 18083); and to a temporary authorization bill
prescribing the use of an agency's funds for two years but not amending
permanent law, an amendment permanently changing the organic law
governing that agency's operations is not germane (Dec. 2, 1982, pp.
28537-38, concerning Sept. 28, 1982, p. 25465). However, to a bill
authorizing appropriations for a department for one fiscal year, where
the effect of the department's activities pursuant to that authorization
may extend beyond such year, an amendment directing a specific use of
those funds to perform an activity that may not be completed within the
fiscal year was nevertheless germane, since limited to funds in the bill
(Oct. 18, 1979, pp. 28763-64). Similarly, to a one-year authorization
bill containing diverse limitations and directions to the agency in
question during such year, an amendment further directing the agency to
obtain information from the private sector, and to make such information
public during such year, was held germane (Oct. 18, 1979, pp. 28815-17).
While an amendment making a permanent change in existing law has been
held not germane to a bill proposing a temporary change in that law,
where it is apparent that the fundamental purpose of the amendment is to
have only temporary effect

[[Page 596]]
and to accomplish the same result as the bill it may be germane. Thus
to a bill providing a temporary extension of existing authority, an
amendment achieving the same purpose by providing a nominally permanent
authority was held germane where both the bill and the amendment were
based on reported economic projections under which either would achieve
the same, necessarily temporary result by method of direct or indirect
amendment to the same existing law (May 13, 1987, p. 12344). However, to
a proposal continuing the availability of appropriated funds and also
imposing diverse legislative conditions upon the availability of
appropriations, an amendment directly and permanently changing existing
law as to the eligibility of recipients of funds was held to be
nongermane (Dec. 10, 1981, pp. 30536-38). To a bill extending an
existing law in modified form, an amendment proposing further
modification of that law may be germane (Apr. 23, 1969, p. 10067; Feb.
19, 1975, p. 3596). But to a bill amending a law in one particular, an
amendment repealing the law is not germane (Jan. 14, 1964, p. 423). To a
bill amending a general law in several particulars, an amendment
providing for the repeal of the whole law was held germane (V, 5824),
but the bill amending the law must so vitally affect the whole law as to
bring the entire act under consideration before the Chair will hold an
amendment repealing the law or amending any section of the law germane
to the bill (VIII, 2944; Apr. 2, 1924, p. 5437). Where a bill repeals a
provision of law, an amendment modifying that provision rather than
repealing it may be germane (Oct. 30, 1969, p. 32466); but the
modification must relate to the provision of law being repealed (July
28, 1965, p. 18636). Generally to a bill amending one existing law, an
amendment changing the provisions of another law or prohibiting
assistance under any other law is not germane (May 11, 1976, p. 13419;
Aug. 12, 1992, p. ----). To a bill amending the Bretton Woods Act in
relation to the International Monetary Fund, an amendment prohibiting
the alienation of gold to the IMF or to any other international
organization or its agents was held not germane (July 27, 1976, pp.
24040-41). However, to a bill comprehensively amending several laws
within the same class, an amendment further amending one of those laws
on a subject within that class is germane (May 12, 1976, p. 13530); and
to a bill authorizing funding for the intelligence community for one
fiscal year and making diverse changes in permanent laws relating
thereto, an amendment changing another permanent law to address
accountability for intelligence activites was held germane (Oct. 17,
1990, p. ----). To a title of a bill dealing with a number of unrelated
authorities of the Secretary of Agriculture, an amendment amending
another act within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture to
require the adoption of a minimum standard for the contents of ice cream
was held germane since restricted to the authority of the Secretary of
Agriculture (July 22, 1977, pp. 24558-70). But to a section of a bill
amending a section of the National Labor Relations Act dealing with
procedural rules governing labor elections and organizations, an
amendment changing the same section of law to require promulgation

[[Page 597]]
of rules defining certain conduct as an unfair labor practice was held
not germane, where neither the pending section nor the bill itself
addressed the subject of unfair labor practices dealt with in another
section of the law (Oct. 5, 1977, pp. 32507-08). To a bill narrowly
amending one subsection of existing law dealing with one specific
criminal activity, an amendment postponing the effective date of the
entire section, affecting other criminal provisions and classes of
persons as well as the one amended by the bill, or an amendment to
another subsection of the law dealing with a related but separate
prohibition was held not germane (May 16, 1979, pp. 11470-72), but to an
amendment adding sundry punitive sections to the Federal criminal code,
an amendment creating an exception to the prohibition of another such
section was held germane (Oct. 17, 1991, p. ----).

Sec. 799. Amendments to bills amending existing law.

To a
bill amending a general law on a specific point an amendment relating to
the terms of the law rather than to those of the bill was ruled not to
be germane (V, 5808; VIII, 2707, 2708); thus a bill amending several
sections of one title of the United States Code does not necessarily
bring the entire title under consideration so as to permit an amendment
to any portion thereof (Oct. 11, 1967, p. 28649), and where a bill
amends existing law in one narrrow particular, an amendment proposing to
modify such existing law in other particulars will generally be ruled
out as not germane (Aug. 16, 1967, p. 22768; VIII, 2709, 2839, 3013,
3031; May 12, 1976, p. 13532). To a bill narrowly amending an anti-
discrimination provision in the Education Amendments of 1972 only to
clarify the definition of a discriminating entity subject to the
statutory penalties (denial of federal funding), amendments re-defining
a class of discrimination (sex), expanding the definition of persons who
are the subject of discrimination (to include the unborn), and deeming a
new entity (Congress) to be a recipi

[[Page 598]]
by the bill may be germane, so long as not amending a rule of the House
(June 11, 1991, p. ----). To a title of a bill limiting in several
respects an official's authority to construe legal authorities
transferred to him in the bill, an amendment further restricting his
authority to construe under any circumstances certain other laws to be
administered by him was held germane as an additional, although more
restrictive, curtailment of existing authorities transferred by the bill
(June 11, 1979, pp. 14226-38).

Sec. 800. Amendments imposing conditions,
qualifications, and limitations.

Restrictions, qualifications, and limitations
sought to be added by way of amendment must be germane to the provisions
of the bill. Thus, to a bill authorizing the funding of a variety of
programs that satisfy several stated requirements, in order to
accomplish a general purpose, an amendment conditioning the availability
of those funds upon implementation by their recipients of another
program related to that general purpose is germane (June 18, 1973, pp.
20100-01); an amendment delaying operation of a proposed enactment
pending an ascertainment of a fact is germane when the fact to be
ascertained relates solely to the subject matter of the bill (VIII,
3029; Dec. 15, 1982, pp. 30957-61); to a bill authorizing funds for
military procurement and construction, an amendment declaring that none
of the funds be used to carry out military operations in North Vietnam
was held germane (Mar. 2, 1967, p. 5143). To a bill authorizing the
insurance of vessels, an amendment denying such insurance to vessels
charging exorbitant rates is germane (VIII, 3023), and to a bill
authorizing changes in railroad rates, an amendment is germane which
provides that such changes shall not include increases in rates (VIII,
3022). To a bill authorizing humanitarian and evacuation assistance to
war refugees, an amendment making such authorization contingent on a
report to Congress on costs of a portion of the evacuation program (but
not requiring implementation of any new program) is germane (Apr. 23,
1975, p. 11529), and to a bill authorizing an agency to undertake
certain activities, an amendment allowing Congress to disapprove
regulations issued pursuant thereto is a germane restriction if the
disapproval mechanism does not amend the rules or procedures of the
House (May 4, 1976, p. 12348). An amendment proposing changes in the
rules of the House by providing a privileged procedure for expedited
review of an agency's regulations is not germane to a proposition not
containing such changes (Aug. 13, 1982, pp. 20969, 20975-78); to a bill
directing the furnishing of certain intelligence information to the
House but not amending any House procedure, an amendment imposing
relevant conditions of security on the handling of such information in
committee for the period covered

[[Page 599]]
funds (July 26, 1973, p. 26210). Similarly, to a bill authorizing
certain housing programs, an amendment restricting the amounts of direct
spending in the bill to the levels set in the concurrent resolution on
the budget was held germane as merely a measure of availability of funds
in the bill and not a provision directly affecting the Congressional
budget process (June 11, 1987, p. 15540).
But it is not in order to amend a bill to delay the effectiveness of
the legislation pending an unrelated contingency (VIII, 3035, 3037),
such as the enactment of state legislation (June 29, 1967, p. 17921;
July 28, 1993, p. ----). Thus an amendment delaying the bill's
effectiveness or availability of authorizations pending unrelated
determinations involving agencies and committee jurisdictions not within
the purview of the bill is not germane (Feb. 7, 1973, pp. 3708-09; July
8 and 9, 1981, p. 15010 and p. 15218), and to a bill authorizing
military assistance to Israel and funds for a U.N. Emergency Force in
the Middle East, an amendment postponing the availability of funds to
Israel until the President certifies the existence of a designated level
of domestic energy supplies is not germane (Dec. 11, 1973, p. 40837). An
amendment conditioning the availability of funds to certain recipients
based upon their compliance with Federal law not otherwise applicable to
them and within the jurisdiction of other House committees may be ruled
out as not germane (conditioning defense funds for procurement contracts
with foreign contractors on their compliance with domestic law regarding
discrimination) (June 16, 1983, p. 16060). An amendment delaying the
availability of an appropriation pending the enactment of certain
revenue legislation into law is an unrelated contingency and is not
germane (Oct. 25, 1979, pp. 29639-40). An amendment conditioning the use
of funds on the conduct of Congressional hearings addressing an
unrelated subject is not germane (July 22, 1994, p. ----). However, an
amendment to an authorization bill that conditions the expenditure of
funds covered by the bill by restricting their availability during
months in which there is an increase in the public debt may be germane
as long as the amendment does not directly affect other provisions of
law or impose contingencies predicated upon other unrelated actions of
Congress (Sept. 25, 1979, pp. 26150-52); an amendment proposing a
conditional restriction on the availability of funds to carry out an
activity, that merely requires observation of similar activities of
another country, which similar conduct already constitutes the policy
basis for the funding of that governmental activity, may be germane as a
related contingency (May 16, 1984, p. 12510); and an amendment
restricting the payment of Federal funds in a bill to States that enact
certain laws relating to the activities being funded may be germane
(July 28, 1993, p. ----). Likewise, an amendment that conditions the
obligation or expenditure of funds authorized in the bill by adopting as
a measure of their availability the expenditure during the fiscal year
of a comparable percentage of funds authorized by other acts is germane
as long as the amendment does not directly affect the use of other

To a bill requiring that a certain percentage of autos sold in the
U.S. be manufactured domestically, and imposing an import restriction
for autos on persons violating that requirement, an amendment waiving
those restrictions with respect to a foreign nation where the President
has issued a proclamation that that nation is not imposing unfair import
restrictions on any U.S. product was held to be a non-germane and
unrelated contingency, dealing with overall trade issues rather than
domestic content requirement for autos sold in the U.S. (Nov. 2, 1983,
p. 30776). But an amendment to the same bill prohibiting its
implementation if resulting in U.S. violation to resolve conflicts under
those agreements, was held germane since the bill already
comprehensively addressed those subject matters by ``disclaiming'' any
purpose to amend international agreements or to confer court
jurisdiction relative thereto, and by conferring court jurisdiction over
adjudication of penalties assessed under the bill (Nov. 2, 1983, p.
30546).

To a bill regulating immigration, an amendment providing that the
operation of the act should not conflict with an agreement with Japan is
not germane (VIII, 3050), to a bill proposing relief for women and
children in Germany, an amendment delaying the effectiveness of such
relief until a soldier's compensation act shall have been enacted is not
germane (VIII, 3035), and to a bill authorizing radio broadcasting to
Cuba, an amendment prohibiting the use of those funds until Congress has
considered a Constitutional Amendment mandating a balanced budget is not
germane (Aug. 10, 1982, p. 20250). To a proposition conditioning the
availability of funds upon the enactment of an authorizing statute for
the enforcing agency, a substitute conditioning the availability of some
of those funds upon a prohibition of certain imports into the U.S. is
not germane, a contingency unrelated to that to which offered (Nov. 7,
1985, pp. 30984-85). It is not germane to condition assistance to a
particular class of recipient covered by the bill upon an unrelated
contingency such as action or inaction by another class of recipient or
agent not covered by the bill (Mar. 5, 1986, p. 3613). However, while a
bill relating to benefits based on indemnification of liability arising
out of an activity does not ordinarily admit as germane amendments
relating to regulation of that activity, an amendment conditioning
benefits upon agreement by its recipient to be governed by certain
safety regulations may be germane if related to the activity giving rise
to the liability (July 29, 1987, p. 21448).

[[Page 600]]
funds being withheld and cannot affect other funds in the bill not
related to that factual situation; thus to a general appropriation bill
containing funds not only for a former President but also for other
departments and agencies, an amendment delaying the availability of all
funds in the bill until the former President had made restitution of a
designated amount of money was held not germane (Oct. 2, 1974, pp.
33620-21). But an amendment postponing the effective date of a title of
a bill to a date certain is germane (July 25, 1973, p. 25828), as is an
amendment to an authorization bill that conditions the obligation of
funds therein by adopting as a measure of their availability the
expenditure during that fiscal year of a comparable percentage of funds
authorized by other Acts, if the amendment does not directly affect the
use of other funds (July 26, 1973, p. 26210); and an amendment that
conditions the availability of funds covered by a bill by adopting as a
measure of their availability the monthly increases in the public debt
may be germane so long as the amendment does not directly affect other
provisions of law or impose unrelated contingencies (Sept. 25, 1979, pp.
26150-52). To a provision to become effective immediately, an amendment
deferring the time at which it shall become effective, without involving
affirmative legislation, was held germane (VIII, 3030). To a bill
authorizing defense assistance to a foreign nation, an amendment
delaying the availability of that assistance until that nation's former
ambassador testified before a House committee, which had been directed
by the House to investigate gifts by that nation's representatives to
influence Members and employees, was held germane as a contingency that
sought to compel the furnishing of information related to efforts to
induce defense assistance to that nation (Aug. 2, 1978, pp. 23932-33).
While it may be in order on a general appropriation bill to delay the
availability of certain funds therein if the contingency does not impose
new duties on executive officials, the contingency must be related to
the

Where a proposition confers broad discretionary power on an executive
official, an amendment is germane which directs that official to take
certain actions in the exercise of the authority. Thus to an amendment
in the nature of a substitute authorizing the Federal Energy
Administrator to restrict exports of certain energy resources, an
amendment directing that official to prohibit the exportation of
petroleum products for use in Indochina military operations was held
germane (Dec. 14, 1973, p. 41753). But it is not in order by way of
amendment to a bill authorizing funds for military assistance to certain
foreign countries, to make the availability of those funds contingent
upon efforts by those countries to control narcotic traffic to the U.S.,
and to authorize the President to offer the assistance of federal
agencies for that purpose, where the subjects of narcotics and the
accessibility of federal agencies are not contained in the bill (June
17, 1971, pp. 20589-90).

[[Page 601]]
tween the student's home and the closest school was held germane (Dec.
13, 1973, pp. 41267-69). Similarly, a bill providing for the deportation
of aliens may be amended to exempt a portion of such aliens from
deportation (VIII, 3029), a bill providing aid to shipping may be
amended to limit such aid to ships equipped with saving devices (VIII,
3027), a bill prohibiting the issuance of injunctions by the courts in
labor disputes may be amended to except all labor disputes affecting
public utilities (VIII, 3024), and to a proposition denying benefits to
recipients failing to meet a certain qualification, a substitute denying
the same benefits to some recipients but excepting others is germane
(July 28, 1982, pp. 18355-58, 18361). To a bill extending the
authorities of one government agency, including requirements for
consultation with several other agencies, an amendment requiring that
agency to perform a function based upon an analysis furnished by yet
another agency was held germane as an additional limitation on the
authority of the agency being extended which did not separately mandate
the performance of an unrelated function by another entity (July 27,
1978, pp. 23107-08). To a proposition authorizing a program to be
undertaken, a substitute providing for a study to determine the
feasibility of undertaking the same type of program may be germane as a
more limited approach involving the same agency (June 26, 1985, pp.
17453, 17458, and 17460) (in effect overruling VIII, 2989).
Where a provision delegates certain authority, an amendment proposing
to limit such authority is germane (VIII, 3022); to a provision
conferring presidential authority to establish priorities among users of
petroleum products and requiring priority to education and
transportation users, an amendment restricting such regulatory authority
by requiring that petroleum products allocated for public school
transportation be used only be

[[Page 602]]
1600), and may not be made applicable to a trust fund provided (IV,
4017) or to money appropriated in other acts (IV, 3927; VII, 1495, 1597-
1599). Thus to a general appropriation bill providing funds for the
Department of Agriculture and including specific allocation of funds for
pest control, an amendment was germane that prohibited the use of funds
for use of presticides prohibited by state or local law (May 26, 1969,
p. 13753). But to a provision prohibiting aid to a certain country
unless certain conditions were met, an amendment prohibiting aid to
another country until that nation took certain acts, and referring to
funds provided in other acts, was not germane (Nov. 17, 1967, p. 32968).
To a proposal to restrict availability of agency funds for a year and
amending the organic law as it relates to the internal functions
thereof, an amendment further restricting funding but also applying
``with respect to the use of funds in the bill'' provisions of criminal
and other laws not applicable thereo was held not germane (Oct. 26,
1989, p. 26269). See also Procedure, ch. 28, sec. 22-27.

An amendment seeking to restrict the use of funds must be limited to
the subject matter and scope of the provisions sought to be amended; to
a bill authorizing funds for foreign assistance, an amendment placing
restrictions on funds authorized or appropriated in prior years is not
germane (Aug. 24, 1967, p. 24002), and to an amendment changing a dollar
amount in a bill, a substitute therefor not only changing the figure but
also restricting the use of any funds in furtherance of a certain
activity is not germane (June 7, 1972, p. 19920). To a proposition
restricting the availability of funds to a certain category of
recipients, an amendment further restricting the availability of funds
to a subcategory of the same recipients is germane (Sept. 25, 1979, pp.
26135-43), and to a bill authorizing appropriations for an agency, an
amendment to prohibit the use of such funds for any purpose to which the
funds may otherwise be applied is germane (Nov. 5, 1981, p. 26716). To a
provision authorizing funds for a fiscal year, an amendment restricting
the availability of funds appropriated pursuant thereto for a specified
purpose until enactment of a subsequent law authorizing that purpose is
germane (July 21, 1983, p. 20198). To an amendment precluding the
availability of an authorization for part of a fiscal year and then
permitting availability for the remainder of the year based upon a
contingency, an amendment constituting a prohibition on the availability
of the same funds for the entire fiscal year is a germane alternative
(May 16, 1984, p. 12567). A legislative amendment to an appropriation
bill must not only retrench expenditures under clause 2 of rule XXI but
must also be germane to the provisions to which offered. A limitation
must apply solely to the money of the appropriation under consideration
(VII, 1596,

Sec. 801. Dilatory motions pending motions to suspend
rules.

8. Pending a motion to suspend the rules, the Speaker may
entertain one motion that the House adjourn; but after the result
thereon is announced he shall not entertain any other motion till the
vote is taken on suspension.

This clause of the rule was adopted in 1868 (V, 5743), and amended in
1911 (VIII, 2823). A motion for a recess (V, 5748-5751) and for a call
of the House when there was no doubt of the presence of a quorum (V,
5747) were held to be dilatory motions within the meaning of the rule.
But where a motion to suspend the rules has been made and, after one
motion to adjourn has been acted on, a quorum has failed, another motion
to adjourn has been admitted (V, 5744-5746).

Sec. 802. Privileged motion for consideration of revenue
and appropriation bills.

9. At any time after the reading of the Journal
it shall be in order, by direction of the appropriate committees, to
move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the purpose of considering bills raising
revenue, or general appropriation bills.

[[Page 603]]

As early as 1835 the necessity of giving the appropriation bills
precedence became apparent, and in 1837 a rule was adopted that
established the principle that continues in the present rule (IV, 3072).

<> 10. No dilatory motion shall be
entertained by the Speaker.

Although clause 4(a) of rule XI was amended by the Committee Reform
Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong.,
Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), to eliminate the authority of the Committee on
Ways and Means to report as privileged bills raising revenue (see
Sec. 726, supra), this clause was not changed, but the privileged nature
of the motion under this clause with respect to revenue bills was
derived from and was dependent upon the former privilege conferred upon
the Committee on Ways and Means under clause 4(a) of rule XI to report
revenue measures to the House at any time (IV, 3076). When both types of
reports were privileged under that rule prior to the 94th Congress,
motions to consider revenue bills and appropriation bills were of equal
privilege (IV, 3075, 3076). The motion may designate the particular
appropriation bill to be considered (IV, 3074). The motion is privileged
at any time after the approval of the Journal (subject to relevant
report and hearing availability requirements), but only if offered at
the direction of the committee (July 23, 1993, p. ----). The motion is
in order on District Mondays (VI, 716-718; VII, 876, 1123); and takes
precedence of the motion to go into Committee of the Whole House to
consider the Private Calendar (IV, 3082-3085; VI, 719, 720). Before the
adoption of clause 4 of rule XIII it could be made on a ``suspension
day'' as on other days (IV, 3080). On Wednesdays the privilege of the
motion is limited by clause 7 of rule XXIV. It may not be amended (VI,
52, 723), debated (VI, 716), laid on the table, or indefinitely
postponed (VI, 726), and the previous question may not be demanded on it
(IV, 3077-3079). Although highly privileged, it may not take precedence
of a motion to reconsider (IV, 3087), or a motion to change the
reference of a bill (VII, 2124). The motion is less highly privileged
than the motion to discharge a committee from further consideration of a
bill under clause 3 of rule XXVII (VII, 1011, 1016), and on consent days
the call of the former Consent Calendar (abolished in the 104th
Congress) took precedence (VII, 986).

This clause was adopted in 1890 (V, 5706) to make permanent a
principle already enunciated in a ruling of the Speaker, who had
declared that the ``object of a parliamentary body is action, not
stoppage of action'' (V, 5713).

[[Page 604]]
ation (V, 5731-5733). The point of ``no quorum'' has also been ruled
out (V, 5724-5730; VIII, 2801, 2808), and clause 6 of rule XV, as
adopted in the 93d Congress and as amended in the 95th Congress prevents
the making of a point of no quorum under certain circumstances. A demand
for tellers has been held dilatory (V, 5735, 5736; VIII, 2436, 2818-
2821); but the constitutional right of the Member to demand the yeas and
nays may not be overruled (V, 5737; VIII, 3107). (For ruling by Speaker
Gillett construing dilatory motions, see VIII, 2804.) See also
Sec. 729a, supra, for discussion of dilatory motions pending
consideration of Rules Committee report, and Sec. 874, infra, for rule
prohibiting offering of dilatory amendments printed in Record.

The Speaker has declined to entertain debate or appeal on a question
as to the dilatoriness of a motion, as to do so would be to nullify the
rule (V, 5731); but has recognized that the authority conferred by the
rule should not be exercised until the object of the dilatory motion
``becomes apparent to the House'' (V, 5713-5714). Usually, but not
always, the Speaker awaits a point of order from the floor before acting
(V, 5715-5722). The rule has been applied to the motions to adjourn (V,
5721, 5731-5733; VIII, 2796, 2813), to reconsider (V, 5735; VIII, 2797,
2815, 2822), to fix the time of five-minute debate in Committee of the
Whole (V, 5734; VIII, 2817), and to lay on the table (VIII, 2816); and
to the question of consider