    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 109th Congress]
    [109th Congress]
    [House Document 108-241]
    [Rules of the House of Representatives]
    [Pages 672-723]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                                    Rule XVI

    Motions
                             motions and amendments

    902. Motions reduced to writing and entered on the
    Journal.

      1.  Every motion entertained by the Speaker shall be reduced to
    writing on the demand of a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner
    and, unless it is withdrawn the same day, shall be entered on the
    Journal with the name of the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner
    offering it. A dilatory motion may not be entertained by the Speaker.

      The first sentence of this clause was made up in 1880 of old rules
    adopted in 1789 and 1806 (V, 5300). The last sentence of this clause
    (formerly clause 10 of rule XVI) 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, and
    not stoppage of action'' (V, 5713). When the House recodified its rules,
    it consolidated clause 1 and former clause 10 of rule XVI under this
    clause (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).

    [[Page 673]]

    ing the motion to adjourn (Sept. 27, 1993, p. 22608; Jan. 4, 1995, p.
    509), 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. 17617). Although a motion to recommit is properly presented in
    writing, no rule requires that the proponent distribute copies on the
    floor (June 28, 2000, p. 12749).
      Because of this provision 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, includ

    Withdrawal

    Sec. 903. Dilatory motions.

      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 former rule XXX (current clause 6 of
    rule XVII), resulting in a second pair of votes on use of a chart and on
    reconsideration thereof, was not dilatory under this provision (or
    former clause 4(b) of rule XI (current clause 6(b) of rule XIII)) (July
    31, 1996, p. 20700). 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),
    to lay on the table (VIII, 2816), and to the question of consideration
    (V, 5731-5733). The point of ``no quorum'' also has been ruled out (V,
    5724-5730; VIII, 2801, 2808), and former clause 6 of rule XV (current
    clause 7 of rule XX), 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. For a discussion of dilatory motions pending consideration
    of Rules Committee report, see Sec. Sec. 857-858, supra.

    904. Stating and withdrawing of motions.

      2.  When a motion
    is entertained, the Speaker shall state it or cause it to be read aloud
    by the Clerk before it is debated. The motion then shall be in the
    possession of the House but may be withdrawn at any time before a
    decision or amendment thereon.

    [[Page 674]]

    became obsolete very early, and it was dropped from the rule in 1880 (V,
    5304). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House
    recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
    47).
      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

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

      Under certain circumstances (such as the practice of extinguishing
    reconsideration by laying a motion to reconsider on the table), a Member
    may offer a double motion (V, 5637).

    Sec. 905. Conditions of withdrawal of motions.

      A motion  may
    be withdrawn at any time before a decision thereon, including a motion
    to instruct conferees (Oct. 31, 2000, p. 25737) and a contempt
    resolution (Oct. 27, 2000, p. 25200). Unanimous consent is not required
    to withdraw a pending unanimous-consent request (Dec. 16, 1985, p.
    36575).

      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). A motion
    was 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 (a second is no longer required) (V, 6844; VIII,
    3405, 3419), even on another suspension day (V, 6844). However, the
    motion could not be withdrawn if a second were ordered, except by
    unanimous consent (VIII, 3420). In the modern practice, where a second
    is not required on a motion to suspend the rules, the motion may be
    withdrawn at any time before action is taken thereon (July 27, 1981, p.
    17563).

    [[Page 675]]

      A motion may be withdrawn although an amendment has been offered and
    is pending (V, 5347; VI, 373; VIII, 2639). 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 a decision is had thereon
    (VI, 587; VIII, 2332, 2764). The same right to withdraw an amendment
    exists in the House as in Committee of the Whole (IV, 4935; June 26,
    1973, p. 21315) and in standing committees where general procedures of
    the House as in the Committee of the Whole apply (Sec. 427, supra).
    However, unanimous consent to withdraw an amendment is required in
    Committee of the Whole (V, 5221, 5753; VI, 570; VIII, 2465, 2859, 3405),
    unless withdrawal authority has been conferred by the House (July 22,
    1999, p. 17291; Apr. 3, 2003, p. ----). An amendment disposed of in the
    Committee of the Whole by voice vote may not be withdrawn (June 17,
    2004, p. ----).

      A motion may be withdrawn after the affirmative side has been taken on
    a division (V, 5348). 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. If the motion is
    withdrawn, the Chair is not obligated to rule on the point of order
    (VIII, 3405; Dec. 3, 1979, p. 34385).

      A decision which prevents withdrawal may consist of the following: (1)
    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); (2) the ordering
    of the previous question (V, 5355; June 29, 1995, p. 17967), or the
    demand therefor (V, 5489), or (3) the refusal to lay on the table (V,
    5351, 5352; VIII, 2640).

      Where the Speaker has put the question on adoption of a resolution to
    a voice vote without the ordering of the previous question, and the yeas
    and nays have not been ordered, the resolution may be withdrawn (V,
    5349; Feb. 26, 1985, p. 3501). A privileged resolution called up in the
    House is debated under the hour rule; and the Member calling up such a
    resolution is recognized for an hour notwithstanding the fact that the
    resolution has been previously considered, debated, and then withdrawn
    before action thereon (Apr. 8, 1964, pp. 7303-08).

      Where proceedings are postponed on a motion for the previous question
    pending a point of no quorum on a voice vote thereon (pursuant to former
    clause 5 of rule I (current clause 8 of rule XX)), the manager may
    withdraw the motion when it is again before the House as unfinished
    business (July 24, 1989, p. 15818).

    Question of consideration
      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. 15661). A motion being withdrawn, all
    proceedings on an appeal arising from a point of order related to it
    fell thereby (V, 5356).

    906. The question of consideration.

      3.  When a motion or
    proposition is entertained, the question, ``Will the House now consider
    it?'' may not be put unless demanded by a Member, Delegate, or Resident
    Commissioner.

    [[Page 676]]

    the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
    1999, p. 47). 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. 27643). See also clause 6 of rule XIV (Sec. 884,
    supra), which provides that questions relating to the priority of
    business are not debatable.
      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. Clerical and stylistic changes were effected
    when

    Sec. 907. 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 offering of a motion to lay on the
    table but before its disposition (V, 4943). The demand for the question
    of consideration may not be prevented by a motion for the previous
    question (V, 5478), but after the previous question is ordered it may
    not be demanded (V, 4965, 4966), even on another day, unless other
    business has intervened (V, 4967, 4968). The question of consideration
    pending, a motion to refer is not in order (V, 5554).

      The intervention of an adjournment does not destroy the right to raise
    the question of consideration (V, 4946), but this right did not hold
    good in a case where the yeas and nays had been ordered and the House
    had adjourned pending the failure of a quorum on the roll call (V,
    4949). A question of consideration undisposed of at an adjournment does
    not recur as unfinished business on a succeeding day (V, 4947, 4948). It
    is not in order to reconsider the vote whereby the House refuses to
    consider a bill (V, 5626, 5627), although it is in order to reconsider
    an affirmative vote on the question of consideration (Oct. 4, 1994, p.
    27644).

    [[Page 677]]

    the Whole under clause 2 of rule XVIII. The question 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, see Sec. 858, supra).

    Sec. 908. 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 that has been made a special order (IV, 3175;
    V, 4953-4957), unless the order provides for immediate consideration (V,
    4960) or provides for the Speaker's declaration that the House resolve
    into the Committee of

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

    Sec. 909. Relation of question of consideration to points of
    order.

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

    Precedence of motions

    Sec. 910. Unfunded mandates.

      The  Unfunded Mandates Reform
    Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-4; 109 Stat. 48) 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 permit
    votes on whether to enforce those requirements (sec. 425; 2 U.S.C.
    658d), and permits a vote on the question of 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 the question of consideration with respect to the
    proposition against which they are lodged (after 20 minutes of debate)
    (sec. 426(b); 2 U.S.C. 658e(b)). See Sec. 1127, infra.

    911. Precedence of privileged motions.

      4.  (a) When a
    question is under debate, only the following motions may be entertained
    (which shall have precedence in the following order):

    [[Page 678]]

          (1) To adjourn.

          (2) To lay on the table.

          (3) For the previous question.

          (4) To postpone to a day certain.

          (5) To refer.

          (6) To amend.

          (7) To postpone indefinitely.

      (b) A motion to adjourn, to lay on the table, or for the previous
    question shall be decided without debate. A motion to postpone to a day
    certain, to refer, or to postpone indefinitely, being decided, may not
    be allowed again on the same day at the same stage of the question.

      (c)(1) It shall be in order at any time for the Speaker, in his
    discretion, to entertain a motion--

          (A) that the Speaker be authorized to declare a recess; or

          (B) that when the House adjourns it stand adjourned to a day and
    time certain.

      (2) Either motion shall be of equal privilege with the motion to
    adjourn and shall be decided without debate.

      The first form of this clause appears in 1789, but amendments have
    been made at various times (V, 5301; VIII, 2757). Paragraph (c) (former
    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). When the House recodified its rules in the 106th
    Congress, the provision of this clause addressing the motion for the
    previous question was transferred to clause 2 of rule XIX (H. Res. 5,
    Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).

    [[Page 679]]

      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). For a discussion of the motion for
    the previous question, see Sec. Sec. 994-1000, infra.

    Sec. 912. 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 the following yield to it: (1) a question of privilege
    (III, 2521), including a resolution considered to be a ``question of
    high constitutional privilege'' such as one declaring the office of
    Speaker vacant and to direct the House to proceed at once to the
    election of a new Speaker (VIII, 2641); (2) the filing of a privileged
    report pursuant to former clause 4(a) of rule XI (current clause 5 of
    rule XIII) (Apr. 29, 1985, p. 9699); (3) a motion to suspend the rules
    (Aug. 11, 1992, p. 23086); (4) a motion to reconsider (V, 5605; see also
    clause 3 of rule XIX); (5) in the absence of a quorum, the motion for a
    call of the House (VIII, 2642); (6) a motion to dispense with further
    proceedings under the call (VIII, 2643); (7) a motion directing the
    Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest absentees during a call of the House (June 6,
    1973, p. 18403). A conference report may defer it only until the report
    is before the House (V, 6451-6453).

      Pursuant to clause 6(b) of rule XIII or clause 1(b) of rule XV, only
    one motion to adjourn is in order pending consideration of a privileged
    report from the Committee on Rules or a motion that the House suspend
    the rules, respectively. The motion may be made: (1) after the yeas and
    nays are ordered and before the roll call has begun (V, 5366); (2)
    before the reading of the Journal (IV, 2757) or the Speaker's approval
    thereof (Speaker Wright, Nov. 2, 1987, p. 30386); (3) pending a motion
    to reconsider (Sept. 20, 1979, p. 25512); (4) 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 (5)
    when the Speaker is absent and the Clerk is presiding (I, 228). The
    motion to adjourn may not interrupt a Member who has the floor (V, 5369,
    5370; VIII, 2646; Mar. 25, 1993, p. 6373; Oct. 1, 1997, p. 20902) 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
    motion to adjourn is not available when the previous question has been
    ordered by special rule to final passage without intervening motion (IV,
    3211-3213, June 14, 2001, p. ----). A Member's mere revelation that he
    seeks to offer a motion to adjourn does not suffice to make that motion
    ``pending,'' and thus the Chair remains able to declare a short recess
    under clause 12 of rule I (Oct. 28, 1997, p. 23524; June 25, 2003, p. --
    --).

    [[Page 680]]

    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;
    Feb. 13, 2002, p. ----), 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. 22608).
      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. 913, infra, for a
    discussion of

    Sec. 913. 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 and given
    privileged status in the 93d Congress (H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 1973, p. 26).
    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 precedent relates 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 (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 (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. 17716). 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).

    [[Page 681]]

    the Speaker to declare a recess for up to three days (Dec. 15, 1995, p.
    37102).
      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

    Sec. 914. 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. 1541), an appeal from a decision of the Chair (VIII, 3453), a
    motion to discharge a committee from a resolution of inquiry (VI, 415),
    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, p. 25512).

    [[Page 682]]

    the latter is laid on the table (V, 5431-5433); a bill does not
    accompany a motion to instruct conferees which is laid on the table
    (VIII, 2658).
      When a bill is laid on the table, pending motions connected therewith
    go to the table also (V, 5426, 5427); and when a proposed amendment is
    laid on the table the pending bill goes there also (V, 5423; VIII,
    2656), and if a pending amendment to a special order reported from the
    Committee on Rules were tabled, it would carry the resolution with it
    and is thus considered dilatory under former clause 4(b) of rule XI
    (current clause 6(b) of rule XIII) (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

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

      The motion is not in order in Committee of the Whole (IV, 4719, 4720;
    VIII, 2330, 2556a, 3455; Mar. 16, 1995, p. 8112; July 21, 1999, p.
    17054) and does not apply to 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).

      The motion to lay on the table generally is not applicable to motions
    that are neither debatable nor amendable. As such, it is not applicable
    to the following motions: (1) to adjourn (Aug. 3, 1990, p. 22195); (2)
    that when the House adjourn it stand adjourned to a day and time certain
    (Nov. 17, 1981, p. 27770); (3) to dispense with further proceedings
    under a call of the House (Speaker McCormack, Aug. 27, 1962, pp. 17651-
    54); (4) to order the previous question (V, 5410, 5411; Oct. 4, 1994, p.
    27649). Furthermore, the motion may not be applied to a motion: (1) to
    suspend the rules (V, 5405); (2) to commit after the previous question
    is ordered (V, 5412-5414; VIII, 2653, 2655); (3) to any motion relating
    to the order of business (V, 5403, 5404). It may not be applied to a
    motion to discharge a committee under former clause 3 of rule XXVII
    (current clause 2 of rule XV) (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).

      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).

    Sec. 914a. The motion for the previous question.

        The
    precedents relating to the motion for the previous question are
    annotated in Sec. Sec. 994-1000.

    [[Page 683]]

    leged 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
    available in Committee of the Whole (July 14, 1998, p. 15305), but a
    motion that a bill be reported with the recommendation that it be
    postponed is in order in the Committee of the Whole proceeding under the
    general rules of the House (IV, 4765; VIII, 2372), is debatable (VIII,
    2372), and is a preferential motion (VIII, 2372, 2615), but debate is
    confined to the advisability of postponement only (VIII, 2372). It has
    been held in order to postpone an appeal (VIII, 2613). A bill under
    consideration in the morning hour may not be made a special order by a
    motion to postpone to a day certain (IV, 3164).

    Sec. 915. The motions to postpone.

      As  indicated in the rule,
    the motions to postpone are two in number and distinct. The first one is
    to postpone to a day certain, and the second one is 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 privi

      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), the motion to suspend the rules (V,
    5322), or the 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 rulemaking power of the House
    of Representatives, that specifically allows such a motion in the
    consideration of a resolution disapproving a certain executive action
    (Mar. 10, 1977, p. 7021; Aug. 3, 1977, p. 26528).

    [[Page 684]]

    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 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. For a
    discussion of the motion to recommit, see the annotations under clause 2
    of rule XIX. The motion may not be used in direct form in Committee of
    the Whole (IV, 4721; VIII, 2326); and where a bill is being considered
    under the provisions of a resolution stating that ``at the conclusion of
    the consideration of the bill for amendment under the five-minute rule
    the Committee shall rise and report the bill back to the House with such
    amendments as may have been adopted,'' a motion that the Committee rise
    and report to the House with the recommendation that the bill be
    recommitted to the legislative committee reporting it is not in order
    (Aug. 10, 1950, p. 12219). It may be made after the engrossment and
    third reading of a bill, even though the previous question may not have
    been ordered (V, 5562, 5563).

    Sec. 916. 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 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 clause 2 of rule XIX; 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 XIX (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 9 of
    rule XVIII. 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

      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, p. 30887). A motion to
    refer takes precedence over motion to amend when a question is under
    debate (such as where the previous question has been rejected), and the
    Chair recognizes the Member seeking to offer the preferential motion
    before the less preferential motion is read (Aug. 13, 1982, pp. 20969,
    20975-78).

      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).

    [[Page 685]]

    Sec. 917. 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).

    Divisibility

    Sec. 918. 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, 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), or 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).

    919. Division of the question.

      5.  (a) Except as provided in
    paragraph (b), a question shall be divided on the demand of a Member,
    Delegate, or Resident Commissioner before the question is put if it
    includes propositions so distinct in substance that, one being taken
    away, a substantive proposition remains.

      (b)(1) A motion or resolution to elect members to a standing committee
    of the House, or to a joint standing committee, is not divisible.

      (2) A resolution or order reported by the Committee on Rules providing
    a special order of business is not divisible.

    Sec. 920. Motion to strike out and insert not
    divisible.

      (c)  A motion to strike and insert is not divisible, but
    rejection of a motion to strike does not preclude another motion to
    amend.

    [[Page 686]]

    entered on the Journal) was transferred to clause 2(c)(2) of rule II,
    paragraphs (a) and (b) were found in former clause 6, and paragraph (c)
    was found in the first part of former clause 7 (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
    p. 47).
      Paragraphs (a) and (b) (former clause 6) was first adopted in 1789,
    and was amended in 1837 (V, 6107). Paragraph (b)(1) (first part of the
    former proviso) was adopted April 2, 1917 (VIII, 2175), and paragraph
    (b)(2) (last part of the former proviso) was adopted May 3, 1933 (VIII,
    3164). Paragraph (c) (first part of former clause 7) was adopted in
    1811, and amended in 1822 (V, 5767). When the House recodified its rules
    in the 106th Congress, former clause 5 of this rule (requiring time of
    adjournment to be

      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. 921. 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, p. 37016); 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. 4657).

    [[Page 687]]

    7344) may be divided. A resolution of impeachment presenting discrete
    articles may be divided (VI, 545; Dec. 18, 1998, p. 11064).
      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); as is a resolution with one resolve clause certifying
    contemptuous conduct of several individuals (Oct. 27, 2000, p. 25200,
    contrast, Deschler-Brown, ch. 30, Sec. 49.1). A measure containing a
    series of simple resolutions (V, 6149), and a resolution confirming
    several nominations (Speaker Albert, Mar. 19, 1975, p.

      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 this clause, 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 former clause 1 of
    rule XXI (current clause 8(c) of rule XVI) 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).

      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 before the Chair's putting the question thereon (Nov.
    8, 1983, p. 31495). A division may be demanded on an amendment to strike
    out various unrelated phrases (VIII, 3166; Mar. 28, 1984, p. 6898). 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. 15843).
    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).

    [[Page 688]]

    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; June 19, 1979, pp. 15566-
    68).
      A division of the question may not be demanded on a motion to strike
    out and insert (V, 5767, 6123; VIII, 3169), including substitutes for
    pending amendments (V, 6127; VIII, 3168; Aug. 17, 1972, pp. 28887-90;
    July 2, 1980, pp. 18288-92), although an amendment comprising two
    discrete instructions to strike and insert may be divided (June 4, 1998,
    p. 5418) and a perfecting amendment to an amendment may be divided if
    not in the form of a motion to strike out and insert (V, 6131). 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

      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), 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 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 10 of rule XXII.

      It is not in order to divide a motion to lay several connected
    propositions on the table (V, 6138-6140). Similarly, it is not in order
    to divide a motion for the previous question on two related
    propositions, as on a spe`cial order reported from the Committee on
    Rules and a pending amendment thereto (Sept. 25, 1990, p. 25575). An
    appeal from a decision of the Speaker involving two distinct questions
    may be divided (V, 6157).

    [[Page 689]]

      On a motion to commit with instructions it is not in order to demand a
    separate vote on the instructions or various branches thereof (V, 6134-
    6137; VIII, 2737, 3170; Speaker Rayburn, Apr. 11, 1956, p. 6157; June
    29, 1993, p. 14618). 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. 14618). A motion
    to recommit a bill to conference with various instructions may not be
    divided (Sept. 29, 1994, p. 27681). However, a motion to instruct
    conferees under clause 7(c) of rule XXII (when multiple motions are in
    order) may be divided (Speaker Byrns, May 26, 1936, p. 7951; Sept. 20,
    2000, p. 18622), provided that separate substantive propositions are
    presented (Speaker Rayburn, May 9, 1946, p. 4750).

      A division of the question may not be demanded 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), 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). 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). 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).

      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 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. 4163). 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,
    ch. 27, Sec. 22.14; June 8, 1995, p. 15302). Where a division of the
    question is demanded on more than one portion of an amendment, the Chair
    may put the question first on the remaining portions of the amendment
    (if any), then (after further debate) on the first part on which a
    division is demanded, and then (after further debate) on the last part
    on which a division is demanded (Oct. 21, 1981, pp. 24785-89). Where 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. 12316).

    Amendments
      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. 15843), 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).

    [[Page 690]]

    substitute for the original motion to amend, to which one amendment may
    be offered but which may not be voted on until the original amendment is
    perfected. An amendment may be withdrawn in the House at any time before
    a decision or amendment thereon. An amendment to the title of a bill or
    resolution shall not be in order until after its passage or adoption and
    shall be decided without debate.

    922. Amendments to text and to title.

      6.  When an amendable
    proposition is under consideration, a motion to amend and a motion to
    amend that amendment shall be in order, and it also shall be in order to
    offer a further amendment by way of

      This provision (formerly rule XIX) was adopted in 1880, with an
    amendment adding the portion in relation to the title in 1893. The rule
    of 1880, however, merely stated in form of rule what had been the
    practice of the House for many years (V, 5753). Before the House
    recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in
    former rule XIX (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). For further discussion
    see Deschler, ch. 27, Sec. Sec. 15-19.

    Sec. 923. Conditions of the motion to amend.

      It  is not in
    order to offer more than one motion to amend of the same nature at a
    time (V, 5755; VIII, 2831), but the four motions specified by the rule
    may be pending at the same time (V, 5793; VIII, 2883, 2887). Where,
    pursuant to a special rule, a committee amendment in the nature of a
    substitute is being read as original text for purpose of amendment,
    there may be pending to that text the four stages of amendment permitted
    by this rule (Apr. 23, 1969, p. 10066). When a request for a recorded
    vote in the Committee of the Whole is postponed under authority of a
    special order of the House (such authority now found in clause 6(g) of
    rule XVIII), the amendment becomes unfinished business and is no longer
    pending, thereby permitting the offering of another amendment (May 10,
    2000, p. 7513). An amendment in the third degree is not specified by the
    rule and is not permissible (V, 5754; VIII, 2580, 2888, 2891), even when
    the third degree is in the nature of a substitute for an amendment to a
    substitute (V, 5791; VIII, 2889).

    [[Page 691]]

      An amendment must contain instructions to the Clerk as to the portion
    of the bill it seeks to amend and is subject to a point of order if not
    in proper form (Oct. 3, 1985, p. 25970). An amendment may not propose to
    change portions of a measure not yet read for amendment (Mar. 24, 1999,
    p. 5418). Under a ``modified-closed'' rule permitting only amendments
    printed in the report accompanying the rule, the Chair will permit an
    amendment to be offered in the form actually submitted for printing
    rather than requiring that it be offered in the erroneous form printed
    (Mar. 10, 1994, p. 4405). The Chair does not entertain a unanimous-
    consent request to designate a co-offeror of an amendment (May 20, 2004,
    p. ----; Sept. 14, 2004, p. ----).

      A Member may not amend or modify his own amendment except by unanimous
    consent (Oct. 1, 1985, p. 25453); and where the Chair recognizes the
    proponent of an amendment to propound such a unanimous-consent request
    before commencing debate, the Chair does not charge time consumed under
    a reservation of objection against the proponent's time for debate on
    the amendment (Feb. 3, 1993, p. 1978; May 27, 1993, p. 11849). Under the
    five-minute rule, the proponent of an amendment may not yield to another
    to offer an amendment to the amendment; rather an amendment to the
    amendment may be offered after the proponent of the pending amendment
    has explained it (Sept. 7, 1995, p. 24071).

      Two independent amendments may be voted on at once only by unanimous
    consent of the House (V, 5979). Amendments en bloc, once pending, are
    open to perfecting amendment at any point (June 12, 1991, p. 14337). If
    a point of order is sustained against a discrete portion of an en bloc
    amendment, the entire en bloc amendment may not be considered; however,
    each constituent amendment may be offered separately if otherwise in
    order (Sept. 16, 1981, pp. 20735-38). An amendment considered with
    others en bloc and rejected may be offered separately at a subsequent
    time (Deschler, ch. 27, Sec. 35.15; Nov. 4, 1991, p. 29932).

      The substitute provided for in this rule has been construed as a
    substitute for the amendment and not as a substitute for the original
    text (VIII, 2883). A substitute amendment may be amended by striking out
    all after its first word and inserting a new text (V, 5793, 5794). While
    this is in effect a substitute, it is not technically so. A substitute
    always proposes to replace all the words of a pending amendment. The
    amendatory instructions contained in a substitute direct changes to be
    made in the original language rather than to the pending amendment.
    Although a substitute may change parts of a bill not changed by the
    pending amendment, the substitute must be germane to the pending
    amendment (VIII, 2879, 2880; Deschler, ch. 27, Sec. 18.6). A substitute
    may result in similar language to the original text proposed to be
    changed by the pending amendment, but may not result in identical
    language (Deschler, ch. 27, Sec. 18.15). To an amendment adding a new
    section, an amendment making perfecting changes in the bill rather than
    in the amendment is not a proper perfecting amendment, but may, if
    germane, be offered as a substitute for the amendment (Deschler, ch. 27,
    Sec. 18.7). The Chair will not look behind the form of the amendment in
    determining whether it is a perfecting amendment or a substitute (June
    13, 1994, p. 12731). Once a perfecting amendment to an amendment is
    disposed of, the original amendment, as amended or not, remains open to
    further perfecting amendment (June 20, 1991, p. 15610); and all such
    amendments are disposed of before voting on substitutes for the original
    amendment and amendments thereto (July 26, 1984, p. 21253).

    [[Page 692]]

    the amendment to which offered, and in the second case the question is
    the relationship between the original amendment and the text of the bill
    (V, 5797; VIII, 2843). An amendment that is adopted as amended by a
    substitute may not be reoffered in its original form if it would
    directly change the amended portion of the bill. However, it may be
    reoffered if the original amendment amends a different part of the bill
    (as in the case where the amendatory instructions of the substitute
    displaces the language of the original amendment). In such a case the
    vote on the amendment as amended by the substitute is not equivalent to
    a direct vote on the original amendment (June 25, 1987, p. 17416). An
    amendment considered with others en bloc and rejected may be offered
    separately at a subsequent time (Deschler, ch. 27, Sec. 35.15; Nov. 4,
    1991, p. 29932).
      An amendment offered as a substitute and rejected may again be offered
    as an original amendment without presenting an equivalent question. In
    the first case the question is the relationship between the substitute
    and

      An amendment in the nature of a substitute always proposes to strike
    out all after the enacting or resolving words in order to insert a new
    text (V, 5785, footnote). An amendment in the nature of a substitute may
    be proposed before amendments to the pending portion of original text
    have been acted on, but may not be voted on until such amendments have
    been disposed of (V, 5787). When a bill is considered by sections or
    paragraphs an amendment in the nature of a substitute is properly
    offered after the reading for amendment is concluded (V, 5788). However,
    when it is proposed to offer a single substitute for several paragraphs
    of a bill that is being considered by paragraphs, the substitute may be
    moved to the first paragraph, with notice that, if agreed to, motions
    will be made to strike out the remaining paragraphs (V, 5795; VIII,
    2898, 2900-2903; July 29, 1969, p. 21218). An amendment in the nature of
    a substitute, as well as the original proposition, may be perfected by
    amendments before the vote on it is taken (V, 5786). Where there is
    pending an amendment in the nature of a substitute, it is in order to
    offer a perfecting amendment to the pending portion of original text
    (VIII, 2861; Apr. 27, 1976, p. 11411; see also Deschler, ch. 27,
    Sec. 5.34). An amendment in the nature of a substitute having been
    agreed to, the vote is then taken on the original proposition as amended
    (II, 983; V, 5799, 5800), and no further amendment is in order (Speaker
    O'Neill, Mar. 26, 1985, p. 6274). If a perfecting amendment to an
    amendment in the nature of a substitute, striking out all after the
    short title and inserting a new text, is agreed to, further amendments
    to the text so perfected are not in order, but amendments are in order
    to add new language at the end of the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute as amended (May 16, 1979, p. 11420).

    [[Page 693]]

    intervening business as would render a point of order untimely under
    this clause, where the Member making the point of order is on his feet
    seeking recognition (July 16, 1991, p. 18391; see Deschler-Brown, ch.
    31, Sec. Sec. 6.39, 6.41). When enough of an amendment has been read to
    show that it is out of order, a point of order may be raised without
    waiting for the reading to be completed (V, 6886-6887; VIII, 2912,
    3437), though the Chair may decline to rule until the entire proposition
    has been read (Dec. 14, 1973, pp. 41716-18). A timely reservation of a
    point of order by one Member inures to the benefit of any other Member
    who desires to press a point of order (V, 6906; July 18, 1990, p.
    17930).

    Sec. 924. Relation of point of order to motion to
    amend.

      A  point of order against an amendment is timely if made or
    reserved before formal recognition of the proponent to commence debate
    thereon (July 16, 1991, p. 18391), but thereafter comes too late (V,
    6894, 6898-6899) except as provided in clauses 4 and 5(a) of rule XXI.
    To preclude a point of order, debate should be on the merits of the
    proposition (V, 6901). The mere making of a unanimous-consent request to
    dispense with the reading of an amendment and to revise and extend
    remarks thereon is not such

    Sec. 925. Withdrawal of the motion to amend.

      While  the rule
    provides that either an ordinary or substitute amendment may be
    withdrawn in the House (V, 5753) or ``in the House as in Committee of
    the Whole'' (IV, 4935; June 26, 1973, p. 21315), it may not be withdrawn
    or modified in Committee of the Whole except by unanimous consent
    (clause 5 of rule XVIII; V, 5221; VIII, 2564, 2859).

    Sec. 926. Precedence of the motion to amend.

      Pursuant  to
    clause 4 of rule XVI, the motion for the previous question takes
    precedence of a motion to amend (Nov. 8, 1971, p. 39944); and if the
    previous question is not ordered, the motion to refer also has
    precedence of the motion to amend (V, 5555; VI, 373). Amendments
    reported by a committee are acted on before those offered from the floor
    (V, 5773; VIII, 2862, 2863), but a floor amendment to the text of a
    pending section is considered before a committee amendment adding a new
    section at the end of the pending section (Oct. 4, 1972, pp. 33779-82),
    and there is a question as to the extent to which the chairman of the
    committee reporting a bill should be recognized to offer amendments to
    perfect it in preference to other Members (II, 1450). Amendments may not
    be offered by proxy (VIII, 2830). The motion to strike out the enacting
    clause has precedence of the motion to amend, and may be offered while
    an amendment is pending (V, 5328-5331; VIII, 2622-2624); but the motion
    to amend takes precedence over a motion that the Committee of the Whole
    rise and report the bill with the recommendation that it pass (July 27,
    1937, p. 7699).

    Sec. 927. Relation of the motion to amend to other
    motions.

      With  some exceptions an amendment may attach itself to secondary
    and privileged motions (V, 5754). Thus, the motions to postpone, refer,
    amend, for a recess, and to fix the day to which the House shall adjourn
    may be amended (V, 5754; VIII, 2824). But the motions for the previous
    question, to lay on the table, to adjourn (V, 5754) and to go into
    Committee of the Whole to consider a privileged bill may not be amended
    (IV, 3078, 3079; VI, 723-725).

    [[Page 694]]

    Germaneness
      An amendment to the title of a bill is not in order in Committee of
    the Whole (Jan. 29, 1986, p. 682).

    928. Germane amendments.

      7.  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).
    Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this clause
    and clause 5(c) occupied a single former clause 7 (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
    1999, p. 47).

    [[Page 695]]

    p. 17415). The burden of proof is on the proponent of an amendment to
    establish its germaneness (VIII, 2995; July 10, 2000, p. 13605), 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). Before 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. 3542; July 27,
    1993, p. 17117). 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 a different proposition (V, 5834-5836; VIII, 2956;
    Sept. 14, 1950, p. 14844) nor an amendment that would permit the
    additional consideration of a nongermane 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 an
    objection to a substitute as narrowing the scope of a pending amendment,
    absent some stated or necessarily implied reference to germaneness or
    other rule (June 25, 1987,

    Sec. 929. 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 more than one portion of a bill (Mar. 27, 1974, p.
    8508), 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).

      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. 6932).

      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). Similarly, an
    amendment to a general appropriation bill in the form of a limitation on
    funds therein but extending to activities prescribed by laws unrelated
    to the functions of departments and agencies addressed by the bill is
    not germane (July 10, 2000, p. 13605).

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

    [[Page 696]]

    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, p. 18601; Oct. 8,
    1985, pp. 26548-51). While the heading of the final title of a bill as
    ``miscellaneous'' does not thereby permit amendments to that title which
    are not germane thereto, the inclusion of sufficiently diverse
    provisions in such title affecting various provisions in the bill may
    permit further amendments which need only be germane to the bill as a
    whole (Apr. 10, 1979, pp. 8034-37).
      An amendment adding a new section to a bill being read by titles must
    be germane to the pending title (Sept. 17, 1975, p. 28925), but where a
    bill is considered as read and open to amendment at any point, an
    amendment must be germane to the bill as a whole and not to a particular
    section (Sept. 29, 1975, p. 30761; Jan. 30, 1986, p. 1052). Where a
    title of a bill is open to amendment at any point, the germaneness of an
    amendment perfecting one section therein depends on its relationship to
    the title as a whole and not merely on its relationship to the one
    section (June 25,

      Under clause 10 of rule XXII, a portion of a conference report
    incorporating part of a Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute
    to a House bill, or incorporating part of a Senate bill that the House
    has amended, must be germane to the bill in the form passed by the
    House; thus where a House-passed bill contained several sections and
    titles amending diverse portions of the Internal Revenue Code relating
    to tax credits, a modified Senate provision adding a new section dealing
    with another tax credit was held germane to the House-passed measure as
    a whole (Speaker Albert, Mar. 26, 1975, p. 8900); but a Senate provision
    in a conference report, on a Senate bill with a House amendment in the
    nature of a substitute, which authorized appointment of a special
    prosecutor for any criminal offenses committed by certain Federal
    officials was held not germane to the bill as passed by the House, which
    related to offenses directly related to official duties and
    responsibilities of Federal officials (Oct. 12, 1978, pp. 36459-61).

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

      The test of germaneness of an amendment offered as a substitute for a
    pending amendment is its relationship to the pending amendment and not
    its relationship to the underlying bill (Feb. 14, 1995, p. 4714).

    [[Page 697]]

    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).
      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

    Sec. 930. 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 germaneness of an amendment to a motion to instruct
    conferees, in addition to the measurement of scope of conference, is the
    relationship of the amendment to the subject matter of the House or
    Senate version of the bill (Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, Sec. 28.2). The rule
    of germaneness similarly applies to the instructions in a motion to
    recommit a bill to a committee of the House, as it is not in order to
    propose as part of a motion to recommit any proposition that would not
    have been germane if proposed as an amendment to the bill in the House
    (V, 5529-5541; VIII, 2708-2712; Mar. 2, 1967, p. 5155), and the
    instructions must be germane to the bill as perfected in the House (Nov.
    19, 1993, p. 30513), 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).

      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 698]]

    ment 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, 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 10 of rule XXII 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 nongermane (Oct. 15, 1986, p. 31498). For
    purposes of that rule, the House-passed version, against which Senate
    provisions are compared, is that finally committed to conference, taking
    into consideration all amendments adopted by the House, including House
    amendments to Senate amendments (July 28, 1983, p. 21401). Clause 10 of
    rule XXII permits points of order against motions to concur or concur
    with amendment in nongermane Senate amendments, the stage of
    disagreement having been reached, and, if such points of order are
    sustained, permits separate motions to reject such nongermane matter.
    Clause 10 of rule XXII 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. 931. 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, p. 39272). The test of the
    germaneness of an amendment to a motion to concur in a Senate amend

    [[Page 699]]

    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 (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 (June 12, 1979, p. 14485); 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 (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 (June 25, 1997, p. 12488); to a bill
    reauthorizing the National Sea Grant College Program, a proposal to
    amend existing law to provide for automatic continuation of
    appropriations in the absence of timely enactment of a regular
    appropriation bill (June 18, 1997, p. 11333); to a bill regulating
    immigration, an amendment reaffirming an agreement with Japan (VIII,
    3050); to a bill opposing concessional loans to a country and outlining
    principles governing the conduct of industrial cooperation projects of
    U.S. nationals in that country, an amendment waiving provisions of other
    law by requiring changes in tariff schedules to achieve overall trade
    reciprocity between that country and the United States (Nov. 6, 1997, p.
    24824); to a resolution authorizing the deployment of troops to
    implement a peace agreement, an amendment expressing support for the
    armed forces in carrying out such mission (Mar. 11, 1999, p. 4301); to a
    bill addessing enforcement of State liquor laws, an amendment addressing
    enforcement of State firearm laws (Aug. 3, 1999, p. 19213); to a bill
    addressing taxation under the Internal Revenue Code, an amendment
    extending unemployment insurance benefits (May 9, 2003, p. ----); to a
    bill reauthorizing the National Transportation Safety Board, an
    amendment extending unemployment insurance benefits (May 15, 2003, p. --
    -- (sustained on appeal)).

    Sec. 932. Subject matter as test of
    germaneness.

      An  amendment must relate to the subject matter under
    consideration. Thus, the following are not germane: 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 (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
    (Oct. 26, 1993, p. 26082); 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 United States and Israel (Dec. 11, 1973, p. 40842); 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 United States
    diplomatic initiatives as a consequence of that foreign government's
    policies (July 12, 1978, pp. 20500-05); to a resolution amending several
    clauses

    [[Page 700]]

    ment directing the Administrator to issue preliminary summer guidelines
    for citizen fuel use (as a further delineation of those functions) (Mar.
    6, 1974, p. 5436).
      An amendment that is germane, not being ``on a subject different from
    that under consideration,'' belongs to a class illustrated by the
    following: to a bill providing for an interoceanic canal by one route,
    an amendment providing for a different route (V, 5909); to a bill
    providing for the reorganization of the Army, an amendment providing for
    the encouragement of marksmanship by enlisted personnel (V, 5910); to a
    proposition to create a board of inquiry, an amendment specifying when
    it shall report (V, 5915); to a bill relating to ``oleomargarine and
    other imitation dairy products,'' an amendment on the subject of
    ``renovated butter'' (V, 5919); to a resolution rescinding an order for
    final adjournment, an amendment fixing a new date therefor (V, 5920); to
    a proposition directing a feasibility investigation, an amendment
    requiring the submission of legislation to implement that investigation
    (Dec. 14, 1973, p. 41747); and to a section of a bill prescribing the
    functions of a new Federal Energy Administration by conferring wide
    discretionary powers upon the Administrator, an amend

      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, p. 41688). 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. 29, 1996, p. 3257).

    Sec. 933. Fundamental purpose as test of
    germaneness.

      The  fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to
    the fundamental purpose of the bill (VIII, 2911). The Chair discerns the
    fundamental purpose of a bill by examining the text of the bill and its
    report language (Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, Sec. 5.6; Aug. 3, 1999, p.
    19213), rather than the motives that circumstances may suggest (V, 5783,
    5803; Dec. 13, 1973, pp. 41267-69; Aug. 15, 1974, p. 28438). To a bill
    that comprehensively addresses a subject matter, an amendment that
    relates to that subject matter may not be ruled out as nongermane merely
    because the amendment may be characterized as private legislation
    benefitting certain individuals offered to a public bill (May 30, 1984,
    p. 14495). Similarly, to a bill proposing to accomplish a result by
    methods comprehensive in scope, an 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; Sept. 29, 1980, pp. 27832-52). On the other hand, an
    amendment may relate to the same subject matter yet still stray from
    adherence to a common fundamental purpose. For example, an amendment
    singling out one constituent element of a larger subject for specific
    and unrelated scrutiny is not germane (Aug. 3, 1999, p. 19213).
    Similarly, to a bill appropriating for only one fiscal year (and
    containing no provisions extending beyond that fiscal year), an
    amendment to extend an appropriation to another fiscal year is not
    germane (June 20, 2001, p. ----).

    [[Page 701]]

    (the Committee of the Whole overruling the Chair) (VII, 3042); 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 (Dec. 15, 1937, pp. 1572-89;
    June 9, 1941, p. 4905; Dec. 19, 1973, p. 42618); 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) (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 (Oct. 20, 1971, p. 37079); to an amendment
    comprehensively amending the Natural Gas Act to deregulate 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 (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); 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 (Oct. 14, 1987, p.
    27885); 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, as each proposition addressed the relationship
    between 1996 funding levels for missile defense and readiness (Feb. 15,
    1995, p. 5026).
      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 the following are germane: to a bill raising revenue by several
    methods of taxation, an amendment proposing a tax on undistributed
    profits

    [[Page 702]]

    in certain places, restricting monetary contributions by lobbyists, and
    providing civil penalties for violating Rules of the House in relation
    to floor privileges (Sept. 28, 1976, p. 33070) (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, p. 11641)); 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) (Nov. 5, 1975, p.
    35041); to a bill authorizing foreign military assistance programs, an
    amendment authorizing contributions to an international agency for
    nuclear missile inspections (Mar. 3, 1976, p. 5226); to a joint
    resolution proposing a constitutional amendment for representation of
    the District of Columbia in Congress, a motion to recommit with
    instructions that the Committee on the Judiciary consider a resolution
    retroceding populated portions of the District to Maryland (Speaker
    O'Neill, Mar. 2, 1978, p. 5272, implicitly overruling V, 5582); to a
    bill prohibiting poll taxes, a motion to recommit the bill with
    instructions that the committee report it back in the form of a joint
    resolution amending the Constitution to accomplish the purpose of the
    bill (Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, Sec. 23.8); 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, as broader in
    scope and an unrelated method (June 26, 1979, pp. 16663-74); 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 as proposing an unrelated
    method of assistance within the jurisdiction of another committee (Oct.
    14, 1981, p. 23899); to a bill authorizing financial assistance to
    unemployed individuals for employment opportunities, an amendment
    providing instead for tax incentives to stimulate employment as
    employing an unrelated method within the jurisdiction of a different
    committee of the House (Sept. 21, 1983, p. 25145); to a bill relating to
    one government agency, an amendment having as its fundamental purpose a
    change in the law relating to another agency, even though it
    contemplated a consultative role for the agency covered by the bill
    (July 8, 1987, p. 19014); 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 (July 18, 1990, p.
    17920); 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 (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 (Sept. 17, 1991,

    [[Page 703]]

    p. 23156); an amendment 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 bill
    addressing substance abuse through prevention and treatment, an
    amendment imposing civil penalties on drug dealers (Sept. 16, 1998, p.
    20587); to a resolution impeaching the President, an amendment censuring
    the President (Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28107); to a bill authorizing a State
    attorney general to bring a civil action in Federal court against a
    person who has violated a State law regulating intoxicating liquor, an
    amendment singling out certain violations of liquor laws on the basis of
    their regard for any and all firearms issues (Aug. 3, 1999, p. 19213);
    to the same bill, an amendment creating new Federal laws to regulate
    intoxicating liquor (Aug. 3, 1999, p. 19216); to a bill addressing
    persons convicted of sex offenses against children with criminal
    punishment, an amendment addressing such perpetrators by treatment and
    rehabilitation (Mar. 14, 2002, p. ----).
      However, an amendment to accomplish a similar purpose by an unrelated
    method, not contemplated by the bill, is not germane. Thus, the
    following are not germane: to a bill providing relief to foreign
    countries through government agencies, an amendment providing for relief
    to be made through the International Red Cross (Dec. 10, 1947, pp.
    11242-44); to a bill to aid in the control of crime through research and
    training an amendment to accomplish that result through regulation of
    the sale of firearms (Aug. 8, 1967, pp. 21846-50); to a bill providing
    assistance to Vietnam war victims, amendments containing foreign policy
    declarations as to culpability in the Vietnam war (Apr. 23, 1975, p.
    11510); 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 (June 12, 1975, p. 18695);
    to a proposition whose fundamental purpose was registration and public
    disclosure by, but not regulation of the activities of, lobbyists,
    amendments prohibiting lobbying

    [[Page 704]]

    for reclamation and public works projects, subjects within the
    jurisdictions of the Committees on Appropriations and Interior and
    Insular Affairs (May 3, 1977, p. 13242); 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 since including statements of policy within the
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (May 24, 1978, pp.
    15293-95); 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, where the purpose of the authorization is
    to allow appropriations in general appropriation bills for the
    department to carry out its functions but where changes in the laws to
    be administered by the department remain within the jurisdiction of
    other committees of the House (June 19, 1979, p. 15570); 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) (Oct. 5, 1972, p. 34115); 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 (a subject in the jurisdiction of
    other committees) (Mar. 21, 1983, p. 6347); 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 (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 (June 4, 1987, p. 14757); 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) (Apr. 19, 1988, p. 7355); to a
    bill addressing various research programs and authorities, an amendment
    addressing matters of fiscal and economic policy and regulation (July
    16, 1991, p. 18391; Sept. 22, 1992, pp. 26734, 26741); to a bill
    reported from the Committee on Ways and Means addressing unemployment
    compensation, an amendment addressing stimuli for economic growth
    involving the jurisdictions of the Committees on Banking, Finance, and
    Urban Affairs and the Judiciary (Sept. 17, 1991, p. 23177); to a bill
    reported from the Committee on Armed Services amending several laws
    within that commit

    [[Page 705]]

    tee'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 (June 26, 1985, pp. 17417-19) and 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, 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)
    (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) (July 8, 1987, p.
    19013); 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 deductibility of mortgage interest), a matter within the
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means (Aug. 1, 1990, p.
    21256); 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) (July 28, 1993, p. 17398); 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 (May 12, 1994, p. 10024); 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 jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations (Nov. 30, 1995, p.
    35071); to a measure expressing a sense of Congress with respect to the
    availability of public funds for expenses incurred in the evaluation of
    a problem, an amendment addressing legislative responses to that
    problem, within the jurisdiction of other committees (Feb. 4, 1998, p.
    794); to a bill reported from Government Reform and Oversight proposing
    to alter responsibilities of executive branch agencies under an existing
    law, an amendment proposing to extend the application of that law to
    entities of the legislative branch, a matter within the jurisdiction of
    the Committee on House Administration (Mar. 12, 1998, p. 3389); to a
    resolution authorizing the deployment of troops to implement a peace
    agreement within the jurisdiction of the Committee on International
    Relations, an amendment expressing support for the armed forces carrying
    such mission within the jurisdiction of both the Committees on Armed
    Services and International Relations (Mar. 11, 1999, p. 4301); to a bill
    addressing certain diplomatic efforts to curb alleged price-fixing in
    the global oil mar

    [[Page 706]]

    ket within the jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations,
    an amendment proposing to suspend oil exportation through changes to the
    Mineral Leasing Act within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
    Resources and an amendment proposing to change the Energy Policy and
    Conservation Act to reauthorize Presidential authority to draw down the
    strategic petroleum reserve, a matter within the jurisdiction of the
    Committee on Commerce (Mar. 22, 2000, p. 3281).

    Sec. 934. Committee jurisdiction as test of
    germaneness.

      An  amendment when considered as a whole should be within the
    jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill (Jan. 29, 1976, p.
    1582; July 25, 1979, pp. 20601-03; June 27, 1985, pp. 17417-19),
    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). Thus, the following are
    not germane: 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 (July 19,
    1973, p. 24950); 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) (Nov. 7, 1973, p. 36240); 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 (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
    rulemaking provision within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules)
    (Nov. 6, 1975, p. 35373); to a proposition reported from the Committee
    on Public Works and Transportation, authorizing funds for local public
    works employment, an amendment to mandate expenditure of already
    appropriated funds (as a purported disapproval of deferral of such funds
    under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974) and to set discount rates

      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, p. 23167;
    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, p. 18601; Sept. 19, 1986, p.
    24769). Thus, to a bill reported from the Committee on Agriculture
    relating to the food stamp program, an amendment requiring the Secretary
    of the Treasury, after consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture,
    to collect from certain recipients the monetary value of food stamps
    received was held germane since the performance of new duties by the
    Secretary of the Treasury and by the Internal Revenue Service not
    affecting 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). On the other hand, to a comprehensive farm bill
    authorizing a variety of programs within the jurisdiction of the
    Committees on Agriculture and International Relations, and amended to
    include matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and
    Commerce (but not amending laws within the jurisdiction of other
    committees), an amendment proposing to alter an existing interstate
    dairy compact and grant consent to additional compacts, matters within
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, is not germane (Oct.
    4, 2001, p. ----).

      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. 23951); 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).

    [[Page 707]]

    ment 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 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 amend

      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 the following are not germane: 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. 8803); and to a bill amending a law reported
    by the Committee on Banking and Financial Services opposing concessional
    loans to a country and outlining principles governing the conduct of
    industrial cooperation projects of U.S. nationals in that country, an
    amendment proposed in a motion to recommit waiving provisions of other
    law by requiring changes in tariff schedules to achieve overall trade
    reciprocity between that country and the United States, a subject within
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means (Nov. 6, 1997, p.
    24824).

    [[Page 708]]

    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); to a bill authorizing a State attorney general to bring a
    civil action in Federal court against a person who has violated a State
    law regulating intoxicating liquor, an amendment singling out certain
    violations of liquor laws on the basis of their regard for any and all
    firearms issues (Aug. 3, 1999, p. 19213).

    Sec. 935. 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. 932-934, 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 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.

    [[Page 709]]

    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. 5501); 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 to the
    design of certain coin currency, an amendment specifying the metal
    content of other coin currency (Sept. 12, 1973, p. 29376); 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

    [[Page 710]]

    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. 18718);
    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. 10342, 10343); to a bill naming a facility
    after a specific person, an amendment proposing to substitute the name
    of a different person is not germane (VIII, 2955) where it could not be
    shown that the amendment intended a return to the facility's existing
    designation (Feb. 4, 1998, p. 792); to a joint resolution addressing
    whether public funds should be available for specified endeavors of one
    group, an amendment addressing the same question for unrelated endeavors
    of another group (Feb. 4, 1998, p. 819); to a bill proposing to alter
    responsibilities of executive branch agencies under an existing law, an
    amendment proposing to extend the application of that law to entities of
    the legislative branch (Mar. 12, 1998, p. 3389); to a joint resolution
    proposing an amendment to the Constitution authorizing Congress to
    prohibit physical desecration of the flag, a motion to recommit with
    instructions proposing an amendment to the Constitution requiring a
    balanced budget or requiring that Social Security receipts and outlays
    be counted as receipts or outlays of the United States (June 22, 2005,
    p. ----, p. ----).

    Sec. 936. 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. 32346; 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 earmarking 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); 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, p. 11080); to a bill governing the
    political activities of Federal civilian employees, an amendment to
    cover members of the uniformed services (June 7, 1977, p. 17713); 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

    [[Page 711]]

    35); to an amendment to a budget resolution changing one functional
    category only, an amendment changing several other categories and
    covering an additional fiscal year (May 2, 1979, pp. 9556-64); to a bill
    authorizing funds for radio broadcasting to Cuba, an amendment
    broadening the bill to include broadcasting to all dictatorships in the
    Caribbean Basin (Aug. 10, 1982, p. 20256); to a bill relating to
    aircraft altitude over units of the National Park System, an amendment
    relating to aircraft collision avoidance generally (Sept. 18, 1986, p.
    24084); to a proposition prohibiting the use of funds appropriated for a
    fiscal year for a specified purpose, an 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 proposition
    providing for a training vessel for one state maritime academy, an
    amendment relating to training vessels for all state maritime academies
    is not germane (June 30, 1987, p. 18296); to a proposition waiving a
    requirement in existing law that an authorizing law be enacted before
    the obligation of certain funds, an amendment affirmatively enacting
    bills containing not only that authorization but also other policy
    matters (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 (Sept. 30, 1988, p.
    27148); to a proposition raising an employment ceiling for one year, an
    amendment proposing also to address in permanent law a hiring preference
    system for such employees (Oct. 11, 1989, p. 24089); 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 (Aug.
    1, 1990, p. 21573); 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
    (July 28, 1993, p. 17401); 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. 5771); 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. 10024); to a bill
    prohibiting a certain class of abortion procedures, an amendment
    prohibiting any or all abortion procedures (Mar. 20, 1997, p. 4425); to
    a bill addressing a class of imported goods (those produced by forced
    labor), an amendment addressing all imported goods from one specified
    country (Nov. 5, 1997, p. 24643); and to a general appropriation bill,
    an amendment in the form of a limitation on funds therein for activities
    unrelated to the functions of departments and agencies addressed by the
    bill (July 10, 2000, p. 13605).

    Sec. 937. 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 Deschler-Brown,
    ch. 28, Sec. 9). 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 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 joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
    Constitution prohibiting the United States or any State from denying
    persons 18 years of age or older the right to vote, an amendment
    requiring the United States and all States to treat persons 18 years and
    older as having reached the age of majority for all purposes under the
    law (Mar. 23, 1971, p. 7567); 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, p.
    7446); to a bill to enable the Department of HEW to investigate and
    prosecute fraud and abuse in medicare and medicaid health programs, an
    amendment to prohibit any officer or employee from disclosing any
    identifiable medical record absent patient approval (Sept. 23, 1977, pp.
    30534-

    [[Page 712]]

    is not germane (Sept. 27, 1967, p. 26957). Thus, the following are not
    germane: 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 (Oct. 26, 1993, p. 26076); 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 (May 14, 1992, p. 11287); 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 (May 5, 1988, p. 9938); and 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 a government-wide
    basis (Dec. 20, 1995, pp. 37886, 37888).
      To a bill limited in its applicability to certain departments and
    agencies of government, an amendment applicable to all departments and
    agencies

      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 is not germane (V, 5806-5808). Thus, the following are not
    germane: to a bill amending the war-time prohibition act in one
    particular, an amendment repealing that act (VIII, 2949); to a
    proposition temporarily suspending certain requirements of the Clean Air
    Act, an amendment temporarily suspending other requirements of all other
    environmental protection laws (Dec. 14, 1973, p. 41751); to 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 (Sept. 23, 1982, p. 24963); to a bill amending an existing
    law to authorize a program, an amendment restricting authorizations
    under that or any other act (Dec. 10, 1987, p. 34676); to a bill
    proposing a temporary change in law, an amendment making permanent
    changes in that law (Nov. 19, 1991, p. 32893); and to a bill amending an
    existing law in one particular, an amendment amending other laws and
    more comprehensive in scope (Nov. 19, 1993, pp. 30513, 30515, 30517).

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

    [[Page 713]]

    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); to a portion of a bill
    providing two categories of economic assistance to foreign countries, an
    amendment adding a further specific category (Apr. 9, 1979, pp. 7755-
    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
    (Nov. 27, 1967, p. 33769); to a proposition 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 (June 30, 1987, p. 18308); to an
    amendment addressing a range of criminal prohibitions, an amendment
    addressing another criminal prohibition within that range (Oct. 17,
    1991, p. 26767); to a bill addressing violent crimes, an amendment
    addressing violent crimes involving the environment (May 7, 1996, p.
    10344).

    Sec. 938. 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 Deschler-Brown, ch.
    28, Sec. 11). 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

    [[Page 714]]

      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 the Arts) may be germane (Apr. 26, 1976, p. 11101; see
    also June 12, 1979, p. 14460). However, 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). Other examples of amendments that have been held to be
    germane under this theory include: 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 (Oct. 10, 1973, p.
    33656); to a bill containing definitions of several of the terms used
    therein, an amendment modifying one of the definitions and adding
    another (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 (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 (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 (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,
    as a more specific authorization (July 20, 1982, pp. 17073, 17074,
    17092, 17093).

    [[Page 715]]

    permanent law, an amendment permanently changing the organic law
    governing that agency's operations is not germane (Dec. 2, 1982, p.
    28537, concerning Sept. 28, 1982, p. 25465). However, to a bill
    authorizing appropriations for a department for one fiscal year, where
    the effect of the department's activities pursuant to that authorization
    may extend beyond such year, an amendment directing a specific use of
    those funds to perform an activity that may not be completed within the
    fiscal year was nevertheless germane, since limited to funds in the bill
    (Oct. 18, 1979, p. 28763). 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. 23238). 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

    [[Page 716]]

    germane (July 27, 1976, p. 24040). However, to a bill comprehensively
    amending several laws within the same class, an amendment further
    amending one of those laws on a subject within that class is germane
    (May 12, 1976, p. 13530); and to a bill authorizing funding for the
    intelligence community for one fiscal year and making diverse changes in
    permanent laws relating thereto, an amendment changing another permanent
    law to address accountability for intelligence activities 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, p. 32507). 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. 939. Amendments to bills amending existing law.

      To  a
    bill amending a general law on a specific point an amendment relating to
    the terms of the law rather than to those of the bill was ruled not to
    be germane (V, 5808; VIII, 2707, 2708); thus a bill amending several
    sections of one title of the United States Code does not necessarily
    bring the entire title under consideration so as to permit an amendment
    to any portion thereof (Oct. 11, 1967, p. 28649), and where a bill
    amends existing law in one narrow 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, 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, p. 29487). 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, p. 16045); 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, p. 14912). 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

    [[Page 717]]

    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 16, 1984, p.
    12510); an amendment restricting the payment of Federal funds in a bill
    to States that enact certain laws relating to the activities being
    funded (July 28, 1993, p. 17403); an amendment that conditions the
    availability 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 as long as the
    amendment does not directly affect the use of other funds (July 26,
    1973, p. 26210); 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 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); 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 (Sept. 25,
    1979, pp. 26135-43); to a bill authorizing appropriations for an agency,
    an amendment prohibiting the use of funds for any purpose to which the
    funds may otherwise be applied (Nov. 5, 1981, p. 26716); 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 as long as the amendment does not directly affect other provisions
    of law or impose unrelated contingencies (Sept. 25, 1979, pp. 26150-52);
    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, as a contingency
    that sought to compel the furnishing of information related to efforts
    to induce defense assistance to that nation (Aug. 2, 1978, p. 23932); 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 (July 21, 1983, p. 20198); 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) (Apr. 23, 1975, p. 11529); and 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 (May 16, 1984, p. 12567).

    Sec. 940. 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. Conditioning the availability of funds may be germane if
    the condition is related to the general purpose and within the scope of
    the pending proposition (Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, Sec. Sec. 29-34). Thus,
    the following are germane: 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 (June 18, 1973, p. 20100); 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 (Mar. 2, 1967, p. 5143); an amendment to an
    authorization bill that conditions the expenditure of funds covered by
    the bill by restricting their availability during months in which there
    is an increase in the public debt, as long as the amendment does not
    directly affect other provisions of law or impose contingencies
    textually predicated upon other unrelated actions

    [[Page 718]]

    duct of congressional hearings addressing an unrelated subject (July 22,
    1994, p. 17613); to a proposition conditioning the availability of funds
    upon the enactment of an authorizing statute for the enforcing agency, a
    substitute conditioning the availability of some of those funds upon a
    prohibition of certain imports into the United States, a contingency
    unrelated to that to which offered (Nov. 7, 1985, p. 30984); to a bill
    authorizing funds for military assistance to certain foreign countries,
    an amendment to make the availability of those funds contingent upon
    efforts by those countries to control narcotic traffic to the United
    States, 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, p. 20589); to a bill authorizing funds for foreign
    assistance, an amendment placing restrictions on funds authorized or
    appropriated in prior years (Aug. 24, 1967, p. 24002); 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 (June 7, 1972, p. 19920); 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 (Oct. 26, 1989, p. 26269); 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 (Nov. 17,
    1967, p. 32968); and 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 (conditioning defense funds for procurement contracts with
    foreign contractors on their compliance with domestic law regarding
    discrimination) (June 16, 1983, p. 16060).
      On the other hand, the following conditions on the availability of
    funds are not germane: an amendment conditioning the use of funds on the
    con

      An amendment to a general appropriation bill in the form of a
    limitation on funds therein for activities unrelated to the functions of
    departments and agencies addressed by the bill is not germane (July 10,
    2000, p. 13605).

    [[Page 719]]

      An amendment delaying the availability of authorizations pending
    unrelated determinations involving agencies and committee jurisdictions
    not within the purview of the bill is also not germane (Feb. 7, 1973, p.
    3708; July 8, 1981, p. 15010; July 9, 1981, p. 15218). Thus, the
    following are not germane: 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 (Dec. 11, 1973, p. 40837); an amendment delaying the
    availability of an appropriation pending the enactment of certain
    revenue legislation (Oct. 25, 1979, p. 29639); 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 (Aug. 10, 1982, p. 20250).

      Similarly, 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 (VII, 1596, 1600), may not be
    made applicable to a trust fund provided (IV, 4017), or may not be made
    applicable to money appropriated in other acts (IV, 3927; VII, 1495,
    1597-1599). 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 is not germane (Oct. 2, 1974, p. 33620). On the other hand, 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
    pesticides prohibited by State or local law (May 26, 1969, p. 13753).

      It is not in order to amend a bill to delay the effectiveness of the
    legislation pending an unrelated contingency (VIII, 3035, 3037). Thus
    the following are not germane: An amendment delaying the bill's
    effectiveness pending unrelated determinations involving agencies and
    committee jurisdictions not within the purview of the bill (Feb. 7,
    1973, p. 3708; July 8, 1981, p. 15010; July 9, 1981, p. 15218); an
    amendment delaying the bill's effectiveness pending enactment of
    unrelated State legislation (June 29, 1967, p. 17921; July 28, 1993, p.
    17401); 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 (VIII, 3035); to a bill naming
    an airport, an amendment conditioning the naming on approval by an
    entity without jurisdiction over the administration of the airport (Feb.
    4, 1998, p. 794). On the other hand, the following are germane: an
    amendment delaying operation of a proposed enactment pending an
    ascertainment of a fact when the fact to be ascertained relates to the
    subject matter of the bill (VIII, 3029; Dec. 15, 1982, pp. 30957-61); an
    amendment postponing the effective date of a title of a bill to a date
    certain (July 25, 1973, p. 25828); to a provision to become effective
    immediately, an amendment deferring the time at which it shall become
    effective, without involving affirmative legislation (VIII, 3030).

    [[Page 720]]

    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 (Dec. 13, 1973,
    pp. 41267-69); 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, 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, p. 23107); 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, as a more limited
    approach involving the same agency (June 26, 1985, pp. 17453, 17458,
    17460) (in effect overruling VIII, 2989); and to a bill limiting 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 (as
    an additional, although more restrictive, curtailment of existing
    authorities transferred by the bill) (June 11, 1979, pp. 14226-38).
      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 or proposes to limit
    such authority (VIII, 3022). Thus the following are germane: to an
    amendment in the nature of a substitute authorizing the Federal Energy
    Administrator to restrict exports of certain energy resources, an
    amendment directing that official to prohibit the exportation of
    petroleum products for use in Indochina military operations (Dec. 14,
    1973, p. 41753); to a provision conferring Presidential authority to
    establish priorities among users of petroleum products and requiring
    priority to education and transportation users, an

      An amendment providing a privileged procedure for expedited review of
    an agency's regulations is not germane where the bill does not contain
    such procedures (Aug. 13, 1982, pp. 20969, 20975-78). On the other hand
    to a bill authorizing an agency to undertake certain activities, an
    amendment allowing Congress to disapprove regulations issued pursuant
    thereto if the disapproval mechanism does not amend the rules or
    procedures of the House is germane (May 4, 1976, p. 12348); and to a
    bill directing the furnishing of certain intelligence information to the
    House without amending any House procedure, an amendment imposing
    relevant conditions of security on the handling of such information in
    committee (also without amending any House procedure) for the period
    covered by the bill is also germane (June 11, 1991, p. 14204).

    [[Page 721]]

    of recipient upon a related contingency such as action or inaction by
    another class of recipient or agent not covered by the bill (Mar. 5,
    1986, p. 3613).
      It is germane to condition or restrict assistance to a particular
    class of recipient covered by the underlying measure. Thus, the
    following are germane: to a bill providing aid to shipping, an amendment
    to limit such aid to ships equipped with saving devices (VIII, 3027); to
    a bill authorizing the insurance of vessels, an amendment denying such
    insurance to vessels charging exorbitant rates (VIII, 3023); 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 (July 28, 1982, pp. 18355-58, 18361). 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). On the other hand, it is not germane to
    condition or restrict assistance to a particular class

      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.
    21475). 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).

    Readings
      Amendments providing exceptions or exemptions must also be within the
    scope of the proposition. Thus, to a bill requiring that a certain
    percentage of autos sold in the United States 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 United States product was held not germane, dealing with overall
    trade issues rather than domestic content requirement for autos sold in
    the United States (Nov. 2, 1983, p. 30776). However, an amendment to the
    same bill prohibiting its implementation if resulting in United States
    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). Similarly, the following are germane: to a
    bill providing for the deportation of aliens, an amendment to exempt a
    portion of such aliens from deportation (VIII, 3029); to a bill
    prohibiting the issuance of injunctions by the courts in labor disputes,
    an amendment to except all labor disputes affecting public utilities
    (VIII, 3024).

    941. Reading, engrossment, and passage of bills.

      8.  Bills
    and joint resolutions are subject to readings as follows:

          (a) A first reading is in full when the bill or joint resolution
    is first considered.

    [[Page 722]]

    state of the Union under clause 5 of rule XVIII.
          (b) A second reading occurs only when the bill or joint resolution
    is read for amendment in a Committee of the Whole House on the

          (c) A third reading precedes passage when the Speaker states the
    question: ``Shall the bill [or joint resolution] be engrossed [when
    applicable] and read a third time?'' If that question is decided in the
    affirmative, then the bill or joint resolution shall be read the final
    time by title and then the question shall be put on its passage.

      This provision (formerly clause 1 of rule XXI) was adopted in 1789,
    amended in 1794, 1880 (IV, 3391), and on Jan. 4, 1965 (H. Res. 8, 89th
    Cong., p. ----). This latest amendment eliminated the provision which
    permitted a Member to demand the reading in full of the engrossed copy
    of a House bill. Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
    Congress, this provision was found in former clause 1 of rule XXI. The
    recodification also clarified paragraphs (a) and (b) to reflect the
    modern practice of first and second readings (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
    p. 47).

    Sec. 942. First and second readings.

      Formerly a  bill was
    read for the first time by title at the time of its introduction, but
    since 1890 all bills have been introduced by filing them with the Clerk,
    thus rendering a reading by title impossible at that time (IV, 3391).
    But the titles of all bills introduced are printed in the Journal and
    Record, thereby carrying out the real purpose of the rule.

      Under paragraph (a), the first reading of a bill is in full and occurs
    when a bill is called up in the House (IV, 3391). The initial step of
    consideration in the Committee of the Whole is sometimes referred to as
    the ``first reading.'' Under clause 5 of rule XVIII that reading is in
    full and occurs before general debate commences. However, it customarily
    is dispensed with by unanimous consent or special rule, although a
    motion to dispense with the first reading is not in order (VIII, 2335,
    2436). The Speaker may object to a request for unanimous consent to
    dispense with the first reading (IV, 3390; VII, 1054).

      Under paragraph (b), the second reading of a bill comprises its
    reading for amendment in the Committee of the Whole (Apr. 28, 1977, p.
    12635).

    [[Page 723]]

    question had been ordered (IV, 3395-3399; VII, 1062). A privileged
    motion may not intervene before the third reading (IV, 3405), and the
    question on engrossment and third reading is not subject to a demand for
    division of the question (Aug. 3, 1989, p. 18544). A vote on passage
    must first be reconsidered to remedy the omission to read a bill a third
    time (IV, 3406). Senate bills are not engrossed in the House; but are
    ordered to a third reading. The demand for the reading of the engrossed
    copy of a Senate bill cannot be made in the House (VIII, 2426).

    Sec. 943. The third reading after
    engrossment.

      The right to  demand the reading in full of the engrossed copy of a
    bill formerly guaranteed by the rule existed only immediately after it
    had passed to be engrossed and before it had been read a third time by
    title (IV, 3400, 3403, 3404; VII, 1061); or before the yeas and nays had
    been ordered on passage (IV, 3402). The right to demand the reading in
    full caused the bill to be laid aside until engrossed even though the
    previous

    Sec. 944. Voting on bills.

      A bill in  the House (as
    distinguished from the Committee of the Whole) is amended pending the
    engrossment and third reading (V, 5781; VI, 1051, 1052). The question on
    engrossment and third reading being decided in the negative the bill is
    rejected (IV, 3420, 3421). A bill must be considered and voted on by
    itself (IV, 3408). Where the two Houses pass similar but distinct bills
    on the same subject it is necessary that one or the other House act
    again on the subject (IV, 3386). The requirement of a two-thirds vote
    for proposed constitutional amendments has been construed in the later
    practice to apply only to the vote on the final passage (V, 7029, 7030;
    VIII, 3504). A bill having been rejected by the House, a similar but not
    identical bill on the same subject was afterwards held to be in order
    (IV, 3384).