    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 105th Congress]
    [105th Congress]
    [House Document 104-272]
    [Rules of the House of Representatives]
    [Pages 588-634]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    [[Page 588]]

                                    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    is withdrawn the same day.

      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    and it shall then be in possession of the House, but may be withdrawn at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).

    [[Page 589]]

    organization of the House declined to put a question, a Member-elect
    put the question from the floor (I, 67).
      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
    also 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

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

    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
    (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).

    [[Page 590]]

    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).
      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

      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).

      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. 32667), 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.

    [[Page 591]]

    (V, 4967, 4968). The question of consideration being pending, a motion to
    refer is not in order (V, 5554).

    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

      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.
    ----).

    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 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).

      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).

    [[Page 592]]

    may be demanded before points of order are raised against
    the substance of the report (VIII, 2439; Speaker Albert, Sept. 28, 1976,
    p. 33019).

    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

    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 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 593]]

    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 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

      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. 39). 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 594]]

    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. ----; Oct. 1, 1997, p. --
    --) as, for example, by 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

    [[Page 595]]

      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.
    22195), 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. ----).

    Sec. 784. Motion to fix the day to which the House shall
    adjourn and motion to authorize the Speaker to declare a
    recess.

      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 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).

      Under the express terms of clause 4, the motion to authorize the
    Speaker to declare a recess is nondebatable and has equal privilege with
    the motion to adjourn. The House (without the consent of the Senate) may
    authorize the Speaker to declare a recess for up to three days (Dec. 15,
    1995, p. ----).

    [[Page 596]]

    tion of inquiry (VI, 415),
    a motion that the Journal be approved as read (Sept. 13, 1965, p.
    23600), a proposal to investigate with a view to impeachment (VI, 541),
    a 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).

    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. 17, 1991, p. 26749). The motion is
    applicable to a motion to reconsider (VIII, 2652, 2659), a motion to
    postpone to a day certain (VIII, 2654, 2657), a resolution presenting a
    question of privilege (VI, 560), a privileged resolution offered at the
    direction of a party caucus electing Members to committees (Feb. 5,
    1997, p. ----), an appeal from a decision of the Chair (VIII, 3453), a
    motion to discharge a committee from a resolu-

      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. 25575). 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 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).

      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).

    [[Page 597]]

    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).
      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. 17, 1991, p.
    26749), or applied to the motions for adjournment (Aug. 3, 1990, p.
    22195), 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,

    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 unfinished 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).

    [[Page 598]]

      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).

    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 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).

    [[Page 599]]

    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).
      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

      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 for five minutes in favor of the motion
    may not reserve time (Speaker Wright, June 29, 1988, p. 16510; June 29,
    1989, p. 13938).

    [[Page 600]]

    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 ten 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).

    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

      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. ----).

      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 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.

    [[Page 601]]

    votes pursuant to section 426(b)(3) of
    the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 not to consider a motion to
    recommit against which a Member has made a point of order under section
    425(a) of that Act, a proper motion to recommit remains available (Mar.
    28, 1996, p. ----). 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).
      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). Similarly, if the House

    [[Page 602]]

    ``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 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. 28258). These principles of recognition have been
    applied to motions to

    <>   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).

    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 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.

      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).

    [[Page 603]]

      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).

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

    [[Page 604]]

      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).

      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
    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.

    [[Page 605]]

    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).
      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 Committee on Rules and a pending
    amendment thereto (Sept. 25, 1990, p. 25575). On a motion to commit

      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 606]]

    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. ----). Where the question on
    adopting an amendment is divided by special rule (rather than on demand
    from the floor), the Chair puts the question on each divided portion of
    the amendment in the order in which it appears (May 23, 1996, 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 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

      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. 19174; July 18, 1991, p. 18851). 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).

      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, 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).

    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 607]]

    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 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).

    [[Page 608]]

    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).

    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. 20816), 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

      The test of germaneness in the case of a motion to recommit with
    instructions is the relationship of the instructions to the bill taken
    as a whole (and not merely to the separate portion of the bill
    specifically proposed to be amended in the instructions) (Mar. 28, 1996,
    p. ----).

      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).

      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. 16152). 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, 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).

    [[Page 609]]

    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).
      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

      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. ----).

      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).

    [[Page 610]]

    the instructions must be germane to the bill as perfected
    in the House (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. 18397) 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).

    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 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. 18397).

    [[Page 611]]

    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, 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 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,

    [[Page 612]]

    tinuation of appropriations in the absence of timely
    enactment of a regular appropriation bill was held not germane (June 18,
    1997, p. ----).

    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). To a resolution
    amending several clauses of a rule of the House but confined in its
    scope to the issue of 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). 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). To one
    of two reconciliation bills reported by the Budget Committee, an
    amendment making a prospective indirect change to the other
    reconciliation bill not then pending before the House was held not
    germane (June 25, 1997, p. ----). To a bill reauthorizing the National
    Sea Grant College Program, a proposal to amend existing law to provide
    for automatic con-

      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 proposition directing a feasibility investigation, an
    amendment requiring the submission of legislation to implement that
    investigation (Dec. 14, 1973, pp. 41747-48); 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 (as a further delineation of those
    functions) (Mar. 6, 1974, pp. 5436-37); 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); and to a resolution rescinding an order
    for final adjournment, an amendment fixing a new date therefor (V,
    5920).

      A bill comprehensively addressing a subject requires careful analysis
    to determine whether an amendment addresses a different subject. For
    example, to an amendment in the nature of a substitute comprehensively
    amending several sections of the Clean Air Act with respect to the
    impact of shortages of energy resources on standards imposed under that
    Act, an amendment to another section of the Act suspending temporarily
    the authority of the Administrator of the EPA to control automobile
    emissions was held germane (Dec. 14, 1973, pp. 41688-89). On the other
    hand, to a bill comprehensively restructuring the production and
    distribution of food, an amendment proposed in a motion to recommit to
    provide nutrition assistance, including food stamps and soup kitchen
    programs, was held not germane (Feb. 26, 1996, p. ----).

    [[Page 613]]

    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 purpose of the bill (Aug. 2, 1973, pp. 27673-
    75; July 8, 1975, p. 21633;

      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 614]]

    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. 18397); 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. 23156); 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
    representation of the District of Columbia in Congress, with instructions
    that the Committee on the Judiciary consider a resolution retroceding pop-

    [[Page 615]]

    ulated 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. 17920).
      However, an amendment to accomplish a similar purpose by an unrelated
    method, not contemplated by the bill, is not germane. Thus, to a

    [[Page 616]]

    tion 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
    (then 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.
    18391; 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. ----). To a bill reported by the Committee on Transportation
    and Infrastructure reforming and privatizing Amtrak, an amendment
    rescinding previously appropriated funds for certain administrative
    expenses, a matter within the ju-

    [[Page 617]]

    risdiction of the Committee on Appropriations, is not germane (Nov.
    30, 1995, p. ----).

    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. 9669). 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 transferred to the department is not necessarily
    germane, where the purpose of the authorization is to allow
    appropriations in general appropria-

      Committee jurisdiction is not the sole test of germaneness where: (1)
    the proposition to which the amendment is offered is so comprehensive
    (overlapping several committees' jurisdictions) as to diminish the
    pertinency of that test; (2) the amendment does not demonstrably affect
    a law within another committee's jurisdiction (July 21, 1976, pp. 23167-
    68; Oct. 8, 1985, pp. 26548-51); (3) 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 (4) 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; 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 618]]

    ity of mortgage interest), a matter within the jurisdiction of the
    Committee on Ways and Means, was held not germane (Aug. 1, 1990,
    p. 21256).
      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, 1978, pp. 15094-96; May 24, 1978, pp. 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 619]]

    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 (May 6, 1913, p. 1234; 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 Sec. Sec. 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 620]]

    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
    members of religious groups (July 28, 1965, p. 18633); to a bill
    relating

    [[Page 621]]

    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); 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. ----); and to a bill addressing
    violent crimes, an amendment addressing nonviolent crimes, such as
    crimes of fraud and deception or crimes against the environment (May 7,
    1996, pp. ----, ----).

    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. 28561). 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 for the relief of
    other persons who are not aliens (May 14, 1975, p. 14360);

    [[Page 622]]

    casting to all Dictatorships in the Caribbean Basin (Aug. 10, 1982,
    pp. 20256-57); and to a bill prohibiting a certain class of abortion
    procedures, an amendment prohibiting any or all abortion procedures
    (Mar. 20, 1997, p. ----).

    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); to a bill authorizing funds for radio broadcasting to Cuba, an
    amendment broadening the bill to include broad-

      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).

      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. 32893). To a joint resolution continuing funding within one
    executive department, neither an amendment addressing funding for other
    departments nor one addressing the compensation of Federal employees on
    government-wide bases is germane (Dec. 20, 1995, pp. ----, ----).

    [[Page 623]]

    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). 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. 21573).
      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

    [[Page 624]]

    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
    individual 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, such 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. 26767). To a bill addressing violent crimes, an amendment
    addressing violent crimes involving the environment was held germane
    (May 7, 1996, 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); to an amendment prohibiting indirect
    assistance to several countries, an amendment to include additional
    countries within that prohibition (Aug. 3, 1978, p. 24244); and to a
    portion of a bill providing two categories

    [[Page 625]]

    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 recipient 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 be-

    [[Page 626]]

    yond 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 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 di-

    [[Page 627]]

    verse 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. 30171). 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 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. 26767).

    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

    [[Page 628]]

    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 by the bill may be germane, so long as
    not amending a rule of the House (June 11, 1991, p. 14204). 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). To a
    bill not only granting consent of Congress to an interstate compact but
    also imposing conditions on the granting of that consent, an amendment
    stating an additional related condition to that consent and not directly
    changing the compact may be germane (Oct. 7, 1997, p. ----).

    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,

    [[Page 629]]

    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 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, 1981, p. 15010; July 9, 1981, 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

      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).

    [[Page 630]]

    stitute 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).
      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 sub-

      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 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).

    [[Page 631]]

    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).
      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

      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 between 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).

    [[Page 632]]

    (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, 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
    thereto was held not germane (Oct. 26, 1989, p. 26269). See also
    Procedure, ch. 28, secs. 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

    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.

    [[Page 633]]

      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 general
    appropriation bills.

      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).

    [[Page 634]]

    <>   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). Ultimately, this
    clause was amended to delete as obsolete the reference to bills raising
    revenue (H. Res. 254, Nov. 30, 1995, p. ----). 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 (the former Consent Calendar) 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).

      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). For example, the Chair
    has held that a virtually consecutive invocation of rule XXX, resulting
    in a second pair of votes on use of a chart and on reconsideration
    thereof, was not dilatory under clause 10 of rule XVI (or clause 4(b) of
    rule XI) (July 31, 1996, p. ----). 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 consideration (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.