    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 117th Congress]
    [117th Congress]
    [House Document 116-177]
    [Rules of the House of Representatives]
    [Pages 720-776]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                                    Rule XVI

    Motions
                            motions and amendments

    [[Page 721]]

    A dilatory motion may not be entertained by the Speaker.

    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    and, unless it is withdrawn the same day, shall be entered on the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.

      In 1880 the first sentence of this clause was composed of language
    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).

      Because of this provision it has been held not in order to amend or
    strike 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, including the motion to adjourn, be
    reduced to writing and in the proper form (Mar. 30, 1993, p. 6791; 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 chair 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).

    [[Page 722]]

    motions, see VIII, 2804. For discussion of dilatory motions pending
    consideration of a report from the Committee on Rules, see
    Sec. Sec. 857-858, supra.

    Withdrawal

    Sec. 903. Dilatory motions.

      The  Speaker has declined to
    entertain debate or appeal on a question as to the dilatoriness of a
    motion, because doing so would 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 the Committee of the Whole (V, 5734; VIII,
    2817), and to lay on the table (VIII, 2816), and to the question of
    consideration (V, 5731-5733). The point of no quorum 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 a ruling by Speaker Gillett construing dilatory

    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.

      The provisions of this clause were adopted first in 1789. At that time
    a second was required for every motion, but in practice this requirement
    became obsolete very early, and it was dropped from the rule in 1880 (V,
    5304). 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 House always insists that the motion be stated or read before
    debate shall begin (V, 4937, 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 the question
    on 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 proponent 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).

    [[Page 723]]

    quired 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)
    including pending the resumption of postponed proceedings de novo
    pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX (Sept. 29, 2010, pp. 17119, 17120).
      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, in which a
    second is not re

      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 the
    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, pp. 8490, 8491; Nov. 7, 2007, p. 30353).
    An amendment disposed of in the Committee of the Whole by voice vote
    (June 17, 2004, pp. 12944, 12945) or ruled out of order (May 18, 2016,
    p. _; May 25, 2016, p. _) may not be withdrawn. During a designated
    public health emergency in the 116th and 117th Congresses, the House by
    special order of business conferred withdrawal authority for amendments
    in the House on which the previous question had been ordered at any time
    before the question was put thereon (e.g., H. Res. 1053, July 20, 2020,
    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 that 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). A motion on which the previous question has
    been ordered by a special order of business may be withdrawn by
    unanimous consent (V, 5355; Sept. 30, 1993, p. 23151; Apr. 4, 2017, p.
    _).

    [[Page 724]]

    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).
      If 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 (V, 5349; Feb. 26, 1985, p. 3501) or if a
    voice vote (and the record vote on the associated motion for the
    previous question) has been vacated (Sept. 25, 2008, pp. 21820, 21821),
    the resolution may be withdrawn. A privileged resolution called up in
    the House is debated under the hour rule; and the Member calling up such
    a resolution

      Where proceedings are postponed on a motion for the previous question
    pending a point of no quorum against a voice vote thereon (pursuant to
    former clause 5 of rule I (current clause 8 of rule XX)), the manager
    may withdraw such 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.

      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 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 that 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.

    [[Page 725]]

    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).

    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

      The intervention of an adjournment does not destroy the right to raise
    the question of consideration (V, 4946), but this right did not hold
    true in a case in which 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).

    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 a 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 merely for reference, 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 measure the consideration of which has been provided by a
    special order of business (IV, 3175; V, 4953-4957; June 22, 2006, p.
    12280; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 6.11; Jan. 31, 2007, p. 2736),
    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 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).

    [[Page 726]]

      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),
    and the question of consideration is not available after the House has
    resolved into the Committee of the Whole (May 10, 2007, p. 12191).

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

      A  point of order against consideration of a bill 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).

    Sec. 910. Unfunded mandates; congressional earmarks;
    paygo.

      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.

      Clause 9 of rule XXI establishes a point of order against
    consideration of certain measures for failure to disclose (or disclaim
    the presence of) certain earmarks, tax benefits, and tariff benefits
    (paragraphs (a) and (b)), and permits a vote on the question of
    consideration of a rule or order waiving such points of order (paragraph
    (c)). Certain cognizability thresholds are established for points of
    order under the rule (paragraph (d)). See Sec. 1068d, infra.

      Both points of order may be raised against the same special order of
    business (May 14, 2008, pp. 9050, 9052; Jan. 28, 2014, pp. 2107, 2109;
    May 21, 2014, pp. 8827, 8831).

      Clause 10(c)(3) of rule XXI requires the Chair to put the question of
    consideration with regard to measures that include an emergency
    designation for pay-as-you-go principles. See Sec. 1068f, infra.

    Sec. 4. Paygo Estimates and Paygo Scorecards.

      The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (tit. I, P.L. 111-139)
    requires the Chair to put the question of consideration with regard to
    measures that include a pay-as-you-go emergency designation:

                                      * * *

      (g) Emergency Legislation.--

              (1) Designation in Statute.--If a provision of direct spending

            or revenue legislation in a PAYGO Act is enacted as an emergency

    [[Page 727]]

            re

            quirement that the Congress so designates in statute pursuant to

            this section, the amounts of new budget authority, outlays, and

            revenue in all fiscal years resulting from that provision shall

            be treated as an emergency requirement for the purposes of this

            Act.

              (2) Designation in the House of Representatives.--If a PAYGO

            Act includes a provision expressly designated as an emergency

            for the purposes of this title, the Chair shall put the question

            of consideration with respect thereto.

    Precedence of motions
      The question of consideration applies to an emergency designation
    contained in an amendment between the Houses (in addition to a bill or
    joint resolution) (e.g., May 28, 2010, p. 9882; July 22, 2010, p. 13735)
    but not to a measure considered under suspension of the rules (e.g.,
    Feb. 25, 2010, p. 1924; July 30, 2014, p. 13654). Failure of the Chair
    to put the question of consideration of a measure under this provision
    may be overtaken by subsequent action of the House on the measure (July
    1, 2010, p. 12558). When a bill is considered pursuant to a unanimous-
    consent request, the Chair does not put the question of consideration
    thereon (Sept. 11, 2017, p. _). Where a measure contained an emergency
    designation under section 4(g)(1) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of
    2010 and an emergency designation for purposes of pay-as-you-go
    principles under clause 10(c) of rule XXI, the Chair put a single
    question of consideration with respect thereto pending consideration of
    the measure (e.g., May 28, 2010, p. 9882).

    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):

          (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.

    [[Page 728]]

    decided, may not be allowed again on the same day at the same stage of
    the question.
      (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

      (c)(1) It shall be in order at any time for the Speaker, in the
    discretion of the Speaker, 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 appeared in 1789, but amendments have
    been made at various times (V, 5301; VIII, 2757). Paragraph (c) (former
    final two sentences of the clause) was 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). A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th
    Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). 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).

      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.

    [[Page 729]]

    tion 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).

    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 mo

      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); (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) including,
    for example, by virtue of unanimous-consent permission to announce to
    the House the legislative program (Dec. 14, 1982, p. 30549). It may not:
    (1) interrupt a call of the yeas and nays (V, 6053) or the actual act of
    voting by other means (V, 5360); (2) be made after the House has voted
    to go into Committee of the Whole (IV, 4728; V, 5367, 5368); (3) defer
    the right of a Member to take the oath (I, 622); (4) be repeated in the
    absence of intervening business (Speaker Albert, July 31, 1975, p.
    26243). 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. 10725; Apr. 18, 2002, p. 4969). A Member's mere
    revelation that the Member seeks to offer a motion to adjourn does not
    suffice to make that motion ``pending,'' and thus the Chair remains able
    to declare a recess under clause 12(a) of rule I (Oct. 28, 1997, p.
    23524; June 25, 2003, p. 16241; July 13, 2009, p. 17493). Where a Member
    prefaced a motion to adjourn with remarks in the nature of debate, the
    Chair advised that the Member had not been recognized for debate and
    queried for a motion (Dec. 8, 2015, p. 19606).

    [[Page 730]]

    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 not be amended (V, 5754), whether by specifying a
    particular day (V, 5360) or hour (V, 5364) (but see Sec. 913, infra, for
    a discussion of the equally privileged motion to fix the day and time to
    which the House shall adjourn); or 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. 1291), may not be laid on the
    table (Aug. 3, 1990, p. 22195), is not in order in the 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

    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;
    Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 9.1). When the Speaker exercises
    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 because it is not debatable and the
    precedence conferred on the motion to table only applies to a question
    that is ``under debate'' (Nov. 17, 1981, p. 27770).

      Under the express terms of clause 4, the motion to authorize the
    Speaker to declare a recess is nondebatable and has equal privilege with
    the motion to adjourn. The House (without the consent of the Senate) may
    authorize the Speaker to declare a recess for up to three days (Dec. 15,
    1995, p. 37102).

    [[Page 731]]

    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; June 22, 2006, p. 12299), 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), a Senate
    amendment in disagreement (Mar. 3, 2015, pp. 3114, 3115), 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); 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).

    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 remarks (V, 5391-
    5395; VIII, 2649, 2650). Under the explicit terms of this clause, the
    motion is not debatable (Oct. 17, 1991, p. 26754). 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),

      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 true 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 a preamble or another resolution with
    which it is connected (V, 5428, 5430); a petition does not accompany the
    motion to receive it when the latter is laid on the table (V, 5431-
    5433); and a bill does not accompany a motion to instruct conferees that
    is laid on the table (VIII, 2658).

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

    [[Page 732]]

      The motion is not in order in the 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 resolve 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. 26754).

      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: (1) a motion to
    suspend the rules (V, 5405); (2) a motion to commit after the previous
    question is ordered (V, 5412-5414; VIII, 2653, 2655); (3) 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 733]]

    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). The House has postponed, along with the underlying
    matter, an appeal from a decision of the Chair thereon (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 privileged business (VIII, 2614). If 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 move to postpone pending business to Calendar Wednesday
    (VIII, 2614), but if so postponed by consent, when consideration is
    concluded on that Wednesday, proceedings under the Calendar Wednesday
    rule are in order (VII, 970). The motion is not available in the
    Committee of the Whole (July 14, 1998, p. 15305), but a motion that a
    bill be reported with the

      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
    only within narrow limits (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 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 734]]

    ment 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 three different
    situations under House rules: the ordinary motion provided for in this
    clause; the motion to recommit (or commit, as the case may be), without
    instructions, pending the motion for or after ordering of the previous
    question as provided in clause 2 of rule XIX (V, 5569); and the motion
    to refer, with or without instructions, pending a vote in the House to
    strike 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 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 the Committee of the Whole (IV, 4721; VIII, 2326); and
    if a bill is being considered under the provisions of a resolution
    stating that ``at the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for
    amend

      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). Where a motion
    for the previous question on a resolution has preempted a pending motion
    to refer such resolution, the motion to refer remains pending and
    debatable under the hour rule upon rejection of the motion for the
    previous question (Apr. 22, 2010, p. 6084). A motion to refer takes
    precedence over a 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).

    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).

    [[Page 735]]

    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).

    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). As a
    matter of 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-

    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 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.

      Paragraphs (a) and (b) (former clause 6) were first adopted in 1789,
    and were 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 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).

    [[Page 736]]

      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), because 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 because 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, because 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).

      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 resolving clauses separately certifying the
    contemptuous conduct of two individuals is divisible (Feb. 27, 1986, p.
    3040); as is a resolution with one resolving 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. 7344) may be
    divided. A resolution of impeachment presenting discrete articles may be
    divided (VI, 545; Dec. 18, 1998, p. 11064; June 19, 2009, pp. 15754,
    15759-61; Mar. 11, 2010, p. 3153; Dec. 18, 2019, p. _).

    [[Page 737]]

    priate. 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).
      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 if
    otherwise appro

      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 puts the question thereon (Nov. 8,
    1983, p. 31495). A division may be demanded on an amendment to strike
    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 amendments 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 738]]

    the effect of dividing the motion to strike 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
    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 and insert (V, 6131). When it is
    proposed to strike and insert not one but several connected matters, it
    is not in order to demand a separate vote on each of those matters (V,
    6124, 6125), as when an amendment in the nature of a substitute
    containing several resolutions is proposed; but after this amendment has
    been agreed to, it is in order to demand a division of the original
    resolution as amended (V, 6127, 6128). When, however, an amendment
    simply adding or inserting is proposed, it is in order to divide the
    amendment (V, 6129-6133). To a motion to strike certain words and insert
    others, a simple motion to strike the words may not be offered as a
    substitute, because it would have

      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 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 special 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).

      On a motion to commit with instructions it was 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
    was divided on the question of its adoption when composed of
    substantively and grammatically distinct propositions (June 29, 1993, p.
    14618; May 28, 2010, p. 9946). A motion to recommit a bill to conference
    with various instructions was not divisible (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 conference report is considered as a whole (Oct. 8, 2009, p.
    24376).

    [[Page 739]]

    sition reported from the Committee of the Whole as an entire and
    distinct amendment may not be divided (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).
      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 the House (VIII, 2175, 3164),
    a question against which a point of order is pending (VIII, 3432), or a
    proposition under a motion to suspend the rules (V, 6141-6143; VIII,
    3171). A propo

      After the vote on the first portion of the question, the second is
    open to debate and amendment, unless the previous question is ordered
    (see Sec. 482, supra). If a motion to concur in a Senate amendment is
    divided pursuant to a special rule, 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), and even if one portion of a Senate
    amendment is rejected, the Chair puts the question on any remaining
    portion (where the special rule provides that rejection of any portion
    marks no disposition of the question) (June 12, 2015, p. 9533). If 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, if 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). If 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). If 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 740]]

    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, shall be in
    order only if offered by the Majority Leader or a designee, 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 substitute for the original motion
    to amend, to which one amendment may be offered but which

      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). In the 117th Congress,
    this provision was amended to restrict the ability to offer an amendment
    to the title of a measure to the Majority Leader or a designee (sec.
    2(u), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). 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 741]]

    p. 10631; Sept. 14, 2004, p. 18429; Apr. 29, 2015, pp. 5861-63) or to
    change the offeror of a pending amendment (Apr. 29, 2015, pp. 5861-63).
      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; Apr. 29, 2015, p. 5849). 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 add a co-offeror of an
    amendment (May 20, 2004,

      A Member may not amend or modify his or her own amendment except by
    unanimous consent (Oct. 1, 1985, p. 25453); and if 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 all
    after its first word and inserting a new text (V, 5793, 5794). Although
    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 perfecting 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 742]]

    the first case the question is the relationship between the substitute
    and 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 in which the amendatory instructions of the substitute
    displace 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

      An amendment in the nature of a substitute always proposes to strike
    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 paragraph, the substitute may be
    moved to the first paragraph, with notice that, if agreed to, motions
    will be made to strike 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). If 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 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 743]]

    20897; May 25, 2006, p. 9823). 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 intervening
    business as would render a point of order untimely under this clause, if
    the Member making the point of order is actively 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; July 9, 2009, p.
    17310), 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 raise a point of order (V, 6906; July
    18, 1990, p. 17930).

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

      Except  as provided in clauses 4 and 5(a) of rule XXI, 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; July 15, 1997, pp. 14492, 14493), but thereafter comes too
    late (V, 6894, 6898-6899) unless the Member was actively seeking
    recognition for that purpose at the time the amendment was offered (July
    28, 1995, p.

    Sec. 925. Withdrawal of the motion to amend.

      Although  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 the Committee of the Whole except by unanimous consent
    (clause 5 of rule XVIII; V, 5221; VIII, 2564, 2859) unless withdrawal
    authority has been conferred by the House (July 22, 1999, p. 17291; Apr.
    3, 2003, pp. 8490, 8491; Nov. 7, 2007, p. 30353). An amendment that has
    been ruled out of order may not thereafter be withdrawn (May 18, 2016,
    p. _; May 25, 2016, p. _).

    [[Page 744]]

    Sec. 926. Precedence of the motion to amend.

      Pursuant  to
    clause 4 of rule XVI, the motion for the previous question takes
    precedence over a motion to amend (Nov. 8, 1971, p. 39944); and if the
    previous question is not ordered, the motion to refer also has
    precedence over 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 chair of the
    committee reporting a bill should be recognized preferentially to offer
    amendments to perfect it over other Members (II, 1450). Amendments may
    not be offered by proxy (VIII, 2830) or when another Member has the
    floor (May 18, 2016, p. _). The motion to strike the enacting clause has
    precedence over the motion to amend, and may be offered while an
    amendment is pending (V, 5328-5331; VIII, 2622-2624); but, except as
    provided in clause 2(d) of rule XXI, 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
    or 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).

    Germaneness
      An amendment to the title of a bill is not in order in the 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 745]]

    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 by 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, 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 if 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). The Chair
    will not render an advisory opinion on whether a pending amendment is
    germane, there being no occasion for a ruling (Apr. 6, 2011, p. 5321).
      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 words
    already in a bill may not be ruled out as not germane (V, 5805; VIII,
    2918) unless such action would expand the scope and meaning of the text
    (VIII, 2917-2921; Mar. 23, 1960, p. 6381); and a pro forma amendment
    ``to strike the last word'' has been considered germane (July 28, 1965,
    p. 18639). Although 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, because the amendment is not separately before the

    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. 20824), 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 was 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). A special order of business directing that certain matter be
    added to the engrossment of a bill does not operate until passage of
    that bill (Mar. 5, 2008, p. 3296).

    [[Page 746]]

    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).
      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,
    because affecting budget authority for a different agency not the
    subject of the pending paragraph (July 17,

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

      An amendment adding a new section to a bill being read by titles must
    be germane to the pending title (Sept. 17, 1975, p. 28925), but if 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). If a title
    of a bill is open to amendment at any point, the germaneness of an
    amendment perfecting one section therein depends on its relationship to
    the title as a whole and not merely on its relationship to the one
    section (June 25, 1991, p. 16152). An amendment in the form of a new
    title, when offered at the end of a bill containing several diverse
    titles on a general subject, need not be germane to the portion of the
    bill to which offered, it being sufficient that the amendment be germane
    to the bill as a whole in its modified form (Nov. 4, 1971, p. 39267;
    July 2, 1974, p. 22029; Sept. 18, 1975, p. 29322; July 11, 1985, p.
    18601; Oct. 8, 1985, pp. 26548-51). Although the heading of the final
    title of a bill as ``miscellaneous'' does not thereby permit amendments
    to that title that are not germane thereto, the inclusion of
    sufficiently diverse provisions in such title affecting various
    provisions in the bill may permit further amendments that need only be
    germane to the bill as a whole (Apr. 10, 1979, pp. 8034-37).

      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 House-passed bill, which related
    to offenses directly related to official duties and responsibilities of
    Federal officials (Oct. 12, 1978, pp. 36459-61).

    [[Page 747]]

    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 that, 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 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),

      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).

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

    Sec. 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 applied to the instructions in a motion to
    recommit a bill to a committee of the House under the former version of
    clause 2 of rule XIX, because it was 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 had to be
    germane to the bill as perfected in the House (Nov. 19, 1993, p. 30513),
    even if the instructions did not propose a direct amendment to the bill
    but merely directed the committee to pursue an unrelated approach
    (Speaker O'Neill, Mar. 2, 1978, p. 5272; July 16, 1991, p. 18397) or
    directed the committee not to report the bill back to the House until an
    unrelated contingency occurred (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 had to be germane to
    the subject matter of the bill (see V, 6888; VIII, 2711).

    [[Page 748]]

    and within the jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill (Mar. 2,
    1967, p. 5155; July 16, 1991, p. 18397).
      The fact that an amendment is offered in conjunction with a motion to
    recommit a bill with instructions to a standing committee did not affect
    the requirement that the subject matter of the amendment be germane

    [[Page 749]]

    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 House provisions (V, 6188; VIII, 2936).
    But if a Senate amendment proposes to strike 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 amendment with an
    amendment is the relationship between the amendment and the motion, and
    not between the amendment and the Senate amendment to which the motion
    has been offered (Aug. 3, 1973, Deschler-Brown, 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 that was originally in the Senate bill or amendment and that
    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) that 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).

    [[Page 750]]

    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 that and other missions (Mar. 11, 1999, p. 4301); to a bill
    addressing 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, a motion to
    recommit with instructions extending unemployment insurance benefits
    (May 9, 2003, p. 11110 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a bill
    reauthorizing the National Transportation Safety Board, an amendment
    extending unemployment insurance benefits (May 15, 2003, p. 11955
    (sustained on appeal)); to an immigration bill addressing (1) issues of
    admissibility, detention, removal, and deportation of various classes of
    aliens (Sept. 21, 2006, pp. 18860-62 (sustained by tabling of appeal))
    or (2) improvements in enforcement and judicial proceedings (Sept. 21,
    2006, pp. 18876-78), a motion to recommit with instructions proposing an
    increase in the number of U.S. Marshals; to a bill confined to housing-
    related matters, an amendment providing funding for various
    infrastructure projects (May 17, 2007, pp. 13224, 13225); to a bill
    settling land claims of two tribal communities in a state, a motion to
    recommit with instructions broaching fuel procurement by Federal
    agencies (June 25, 2008, pp. 13754, 13755 (sustained by tabling of
    appeal)); to a bill addressing economic stabilization and assistance
    funds and housing matters, a motion to recommit with instructions
    addressing the solvency of various Social Security trust funds (Jan. 21,
    2009, pp. 1212, 1213 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a bill
    addressing small business investment programs, a motion to recommit with
    instructions expressing the sense of the House on the consideration of
    appropriation bills (July 8, 2009, p. 17083 (sustained by tabling of
    appeal)); to a bill addressing water recycling projects in one
    geographic area, a motion to recommit with instructions addressing water
    availability under a project in a different geographic area (Oct. 15,
    2009, pp. 25006, 25007 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a bill
    confined to one mortgage refinancing program, an amendment (1) adding
    findings regarding mortgages more broadly (Mar. 10, 2011, pp. 3756,
    3757), (2) establishing a new mortgage refinancing program (Mar. 10,
    2011, pp. 3762, 3763), (3) requiring a study of mortgages more broadly
    (Mar. 10, 2011, pp. 3764, 3765), (4) addressing foreclosure generally
    (Mar. 10, 2011, pp. 3765, 3766), and (5) addressing compensation within
    the financial services industry (Mar. 10, 2011, pp. 3767, 3768); to a
    joint resolution disapproving a Federal Communications Commission
    regulation, a motion to recommit with instructions further continuing
    appropriations for the current fiscal year (Apr. 8, 2011, pp. 5689-91
    (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a bill proposing a bicameral order
    in the form of a joint rule, a motion to recommit with instructions
    proposing a special order of business of the House (Oct. 8, 2013, pp.
    15423, 15424 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a bill extending the
    authority to offer certain health insurance coverage, a motion to
    recommit with instructions address

    [[Page 751]]

    ing health insurance generally (Nov. 15, 2013, p. 17194 (sustained by
    tabling of appeal)); to a bill addressing property issues related to the
    boundary between two states formed by a river, a motion to recommit with
    instructions addressing firearms regulation generally (Dec. 9, 2015, pp.
    19892-96 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a bill addressing
    standards for workplace violence prevention and Medicare eligibility
    based on such standards, a motion to recommit with instructions
    addressing the prioritization of an eclectic group of legislative items
    (Nov. 21, 2019, p. _).

    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 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 (Precedents
    (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 6.20); 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 Committee on
    the Budget, 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 joint resolution continuing appropriations for the
    current fiscal year, a motion to recommit with instructions to revise
    the reconciliation instructions in the concurrent resolution on the
    budget (Sept. 29, 2005, p. 21795); 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); 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

      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 amendment directing the
    Administrator to issue preliminary summer guidelines for citizen fuel
    use (as a further delineation of those functions) (Mar. 6, 1974, p.
    5436).

      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, a motion to recommit with instructions providing nutrition
    assistance, including food stamps and soup kitchen programs, was held
    not germane (Feb. 29, 1996, p. 3257).

    [[Page 752]]

    sively addresses a subject, 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. Thus, 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 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, pp. 11233, 11234).

    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 comprehen

    [[Page 753]]

    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, because each proposition addressed the
    relationship between 1996 funding levels for missile defense and
    readiness (Feb. 15, 1995, p. 5026); to a bill improving food safety
    through a myriad of methods including the tracing of food origins,
    recalls of food, and quarantine of food, a motion to recommit with
    instructions allowing the preemptive purchase of food related to
    activities in the bill (July 30, 2009, pp. 20201, 20202).
      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 (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

    [[Page 754]]

    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 (also broader in scope) (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
    (also 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 (also within the jurisdiction
    of a different committee) (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,
    thereby 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, p. 23156); to a bill
    providing new budget authority, a motion to recommit with instructions
    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 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. 3203).

    [[Page 755]]

      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 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 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

    [[Page 756]]

    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 (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 committee's jurisdiction on military procurement and policy,
    an amendment to the Renegotiation Act, a matter within the jurisdiction
    of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs and not solely
    related to military contracts (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 hous

    [[Page 757]]

    ing 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 Foreign Affairs,
    an amendment expressing support for the armed forces carrying such
    mission within the jurisdiction of both the Committees on Armed Services
    and Foreign Affairs (Mar. 11, 1999, p. 4301); to a bill addressing
    certain diplomatic efforts to curb alleged price-fixing in the global
    oil market within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs,
    an amendment proposing to suspend oil exportation through changes to the
    Mineral Leasing Act within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural
    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 Energy and Commerce (Mar. 22, 2000, p. 3281); to several
    individual bills on various topics within the jurisdiction of various
    other committees, an amendment addressing the Foreign Intelligence
    Surveillance Act of 1978, a matter within the jurisdiction of the
    Committee on the Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on
    Intelligence (July 12, 2007, pp. 18843, 18844; Feb. 26, 2008, p. 2482;
    Feb. 27, 2008, pp. 2627, 2637, 2638; Mar. 5, 2008, pp. 3295, 3296; Mar.
    6, 2008, pp. 3402, 3403 (in each case sustained by tabling of appeal);
    Apr. 16, 2008, pp. 6208, 6219 (sustained on appeal)); to a bill
    addressing a mortgage refinancing program within the jurisdiction of the
    Committee on Financial Services, an amendment modifying an income tax
    deduction within the jurisdiction of the Com

    [[Page 758]]

    mittee on Ways and Means (Mar. 10, 2011, p. 3767); to a bill addressing
    administrative matters in the executive branch within the jurisdictions
    of the Committees on the Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform,
    an amendment addressing adjudication of veterans under title 38, United
    States Code, a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
    Veterans' Affairs (July 6, 2016, p. _ (sustained by tabling appeal)).

    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 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, an amendment imposing permanent prohibitions and
    conditions on troop withdrawals from the Republic of Korea because
    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

      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 rendering further similar
    amendments 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 because 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 Foreign Affairs, 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, pp. 18797,
    18809).

      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 if 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 759]]

    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 amendment that, if considered separately, might be within the
    jurisdiction of

    [[Page 760]]

    on Armed Services and several other committees, a motion to recommit
    with instructions broaching benefits of legislative branch employees
    within the jurisdiction of another committee (the Committee on House
    Administration) (May 28, 2010, pp. 9952, 9953 (sustained by tabling of
    appeal)); to a bill addressing various benefits in the jurisdiction of
    committees other than the Committee on Appropriations, a motion to
    recommit with instructions to rescind appropriations carried in a prior
    appropriation Act (July 1, 2010, pp. 12556, 12557 (sustained by tabling
    of appeal)).
      The fact that an amendment was offered in conjunction with a motion to
    recommit a bill with instructions did 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) (Apr.
    28, 1994, p. 8803); 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, a motion to
    recommit with instructions to waive 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); to a joint
    resolution continuing appropriations for the current fiscal year, a
    motion to recommit with instructions to revise the reconciliation
    instructions in the concurrent resolution on the budget (Sept. 29, 2005,
    p. 21795); to a bill confined to tax issues within the jurisdiction of
    the Committee on Ways and Means, a motion to recommit with instructions
    to report an amendment addressing the minimum wage, a matter within the
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and the Workforce (June 22,
    2006, p. 12298 (sustained by tabling of appeal)), or vice versa (Jan.
    10, 2007, p. 787 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a bill studying
    two rivers under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and issues related
    thereto, within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural Resources,
    a motion to recommit with instructions addressing comprehensive energy
    legislation touching several other committees' jurisdictions (Sept. 10,
    2008, pp. 18416, 18417 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a bill
    confined to taxation issues within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
    Ways and Means, a motion to recommit with instructions addressing laws
    within the jurisdiction of the Committees on Agriculture, Natural
    Resources, and Education and Labor (Sept. 26, 2008, pp. 22060, 22061
    (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a bill addressing payments to
    physicians under the Medicare program and confined to the jurisdiction
    of the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means, a motion to
    recommit with instructions addressing medical malpractice reform within
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary (Nov. 19, 2009, p.
    28243 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a defense authorization bill
    addressing subjects in the jurisdiction of the Committee

      A motion to recommit with instructions proposing a special order of
    business within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules is not
    germane to: various joint resolutions and a bill continuing
    appropriations for specified government entities and programs within the
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations (Oct. 2, 2013, pp.
    14997-98; Oct. 3, 2013, pp. 15078-79, pp. 15087-89; Oct. 4, 2013, pp.
    15196-97, pp. 15206-07; Oct. 7, 2013, p. 15345-46; Oct. 8, 2013, p.
    15423-24; Oct. 9, 2013, p. 15507-08; Oct. 10, 2013, p. 15628-29; Oct.
    11, 2013, p. 15704-05; Oct. 14, 2013, p. 15854-55 (each sustained by
    tabling of appeal)); or bills addressing financial institutions within
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services (Apr. 14, 2016,
    p. 4342; Apr. 14, 2016, p. 4343 (each sustained by tabling of appeal));
    or a bill addressing telecommunications within the jurisdiction of the
    Committee on Energy and Commerce (Apr. 15, 2016, p. _).

    [[Page 761]]

    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
    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. 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

    [[Page 762]]

    of the bill (Sept. 7, 1978, pp. 28437-39; Oct. 9, 1985, pp. 26951-54);
    to a portion of an appropriation bill containing funds for a certain
    purpose to be expended by one agency, an amendment containing funds for
    another agency for the same purpose (July 24, 1981, p. 17226); to an
    amendment exempting national defense budget authority from the reach of
    a proposed Presidential rescission authority, an amendment exempting
    social security (Feb. 2, 1995, p. 5501); to a Senate amendment striking
    an earmark from an appropriation bill, a House amendment reinserting
    part of the amount but adding other earmarks 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 the 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
    law, an amendment to accomplish another purpose by amending that 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

    [[Page 763]]

    populations, an amendment authorizing grants to States to control a
    public health hazard (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 (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 (June 22, 2005, pp.
    13539, 13540 (sustained by tabling of appeal)) or requiring that Social
    Security receipts and outlays be counted as receipts or outlays of the
    United States (June 22, 2005, pp. 13540, 13541 (sustained by tabling of
    appeal)); to a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
    Constitution to afford equal rights on the basis of sex, an amendment to
    add ``race, creed, or color'' (Oct. 12, 1971, pp. 35813, 35814).

    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; June 20,
    2001, pp. 11233, 11234); to a measure continuing appropriations for the
    current fiscal year for a specified period, a motion to recommit with
    instructions making certain funds available beyond such time (Dec. 13,
    2007, p. 34138 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); 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 (also in 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

    [[Page 764]]

    7446); to a bill to enable a department 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. 30534-35);
    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 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
    (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 (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 addressing 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 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 one class of imported goods (those
    produced by forced labor), an amendment addressing all imported goods
    from a specified country (Nov. 5, 1997, p. 24643); to a bill confined to
    a single national historic trail designation, a motion to recommit with
    instructions extending

    [[Page 765]]

    to all trails addressed by the National Trails System Act (July 10,
    2008, pp. 14583, 14584).

    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.

      To a bill limited in its applicability to certain departments and
    agencies of government, an amendment applicable to all departments and
    agencies is not germane (Sept. 27, 1967, p. 26957). Thus, 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, an
    amendment addressing funding for other departments as well as one
    addressing the compensation of Federal employees on a government-wide
    basis (Dec. 20, 1995, pp. 37886, 37888).

      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 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, pp. 34675, 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).

    [[Page 766]]

      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). Although 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).

    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 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, pp. 26767, 26772); to a bill addressing violent crimes, an
    amendment addressing violent crimes involving the environment (May 7,
    1996, p. 10344).

    [[Page 767]]

    ment 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 (July 20, 1982, pp.
    17073, 17074, 17092, 17093).
      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 the 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 amend

    [[Page 768]]

    and changing congressional procedures for consideration of that general
    appropriation bill in future years is more general in scope (and in part
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules) and therefore is not
    germane (June 29, 1987, p. 18083); and to a temporary authorization bill
    prescribing the use of an agency's funds for two years but not amending
    permanent law, an amendment permanently changing the organic law
    governing that agency's operations is not germane (Dec. 2, 1982, p.
    28537, concerning Sept. 28, 1982, p. 25465; Feb. 13, 2008, pp. 2115,
    2116 (sustained by tabling of appeal)). 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, because 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). Although an
    amendment making a permanent change in existing law has been held not
    germane to a bill proposing a temporary change in that law, if 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 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 may be 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). If 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

    [[Page 769]]

    to a bill amending one 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 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, because it was 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, pp. 26767, 26772).

    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 if 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; July 25, 1975, p. 24841; 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 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 included in 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 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 if 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

    [[Page 770]]

    of the funds be used to carry out military operations in North Vietnam
    (Mar. 2, 1967, p. 5143); to a proposition reducing the line-item
    authorization for certain missiles and prohibiting procurement of
    certain other missiles, an amendment proposing a conditional restriction
    on the availability of funds for such procurement that merely requires
    observation of activities of another country, which activities already
    constitute the policy basis for the funding of that governmental
    activity (missile procurement) (May 16, 1984, p. 12510); to a bill
    authorizing Federal funding of certain qualifying state programs, 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); to an authorization bill, an amendment that
    conditions the availability of such funds 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 contingencies textually predicated upon other unrelated
    actions of Congress) (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

    [[Page 771]]

    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

      On the other hand, the following conditions on the availability of
    funds are not germane: an amendment conditioning the use of funds on the
    conduct 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 (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); an amendment conditioning the availability of defense
    funds to foreign contractors based upon their compliance with Federal
    law regarding discrimination not otherwise applicable to them (and
    within the jurisdiction of other committees) (June 16, 1983, p. 16060);
    and an amendment conditioning the availability of grants to states and
    localities based upon their compliance with Federal immigration law
    regarding employment eligibility verification not otherwise applicable
    to them (and within the jurisdiction of other committees) (Mar. 7, 2007,
    pp. 5618, 5619).

      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 772]]

    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).
      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

      Similarly, although 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), and 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 has 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).

    [[Page 773]]

      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); an amendment conditioning authorization for one agency (National
    Science Foundation) on appropriations for another (National Aeronautics
    and Space Administration) (May 2, 2007, pp. 11093-95); 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); and 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).

      Where a proposition confers broad discretionary power on an executive
    official, an amendment is germane that 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 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 that 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 the
    official in the bill, an amendment further restricting such official's
    authority to construe under any circumstances certain other laws to be
    administered by that official (as an additional, although more
    restrictive, curtailment of existing authorities transferred by the
    bill) (June 11, 1979, pp. 14226-38).

      An amendment providing a privileged procedure for expedited review of
    an agency's regulations is not germane if 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 774]]

    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). Although 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 of recipient upon
    an unrelated contingency such as action or inaction by another class of
    recipient or agent not covered by the bill (Mar. 5, 1986, p. 3613).
      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

      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 on autos for 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, because it dealt with
    overall trade issues rather than domestic content requirement for autos
    sold in the United States (Nov. 2, 1983, p. 30542). However, an
    amendment to the same bill prohibiting its implementation if resulting
    in the violation of an international agreement was held germane because
    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,
    pp. 30546, 30547). 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 labor disputes affecting public utilities (VIII,
    3024).

    [[Page 775]]

    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.

          (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 state of
    the Union under clause 5 of rule XVIII.

          (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 and
    amended in 1794, 1880 (IV, 3391), and 1965 (H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 1965, p.
    21). The last change eliminated a provision that 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.

    [[Page 776]]

    to read a bill in full while a separate measure is currently under
    consideration in the House (Feb. 24, 2021, p. _).
      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), although when called
    up pursuant to a unanimous-consent request, it is reported by title only
    (Dec. 18, 2005, p. 30269). 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). The Chair has declined to
    entertain a unanimous-consent request

      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).

    Sec. 943. The third reading after
    engrossment.

      The former  right to demand the reading in full of the engrossed copy
    of a bill could be made immediately after it had been ordered to be
    engrossed and before it had been read a third time by title (IV, 3400,
    3403, 3404; VII, 1061); and 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 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. 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). If 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, consideration of
    a similar but not identical bill on the same subject was afterwards held
    to be in order (IV, 3384).