[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is withdrawn the same day.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and it shall then be in possession of the House, but may be withdrawn at 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.