[Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 118th Congress]
[118th Congress]
[House Document 117-161]
[Rules of the House of Representatives]
[Pages 729-786]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


 
                                Rule XVI


Motions
                         motions and amendments




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

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and, unless it is withdrawn the same day, shall be entered on the 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


  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).


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 
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.





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).

  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 required on a motion to suspend the rules, the motion may 
be withdrawn at any time before action is taken thereon (July 27, 1981, 
p. 17563) including pending the resumption of postponed proceedings de 
novo pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX (Sept. 29, 2010, pp. 17119, 17120).

  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. 6698; May 25, 2016, p. 7381) 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. 
5324). The House by special order of business has provided for the 
withdrawal of motions to suspend the rules on which the yeas and nays 
had been ordered and further proceedings postponed pursuant to clause 8 
of rule XX (e.g. sec. 10, H. Res. 667, Sept. 21, 2021, p. _), including 
as part of a provision establishing an en bloc motion to suspend the 
rules and dispose of multiple measures (e.g. sec. 6(c), H. Res. 330, 
Apr. 20, 2021, p. _).

  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 is recognized for an hour notwithstanding the fact that the 
resolution has been previously considered, debated, and then withdrawn 
before action thereon (Apr. 8, 1964, pp. 7303-08).

  Where proceedings are postponed on a motion for the previous question 
pending a point of no quorum 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.



Sec. 907. Raising the question of consideration.

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


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


  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; 
germaneness.

  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.

  In the 118th Congress, the House established a point of order against 
a rule or order waiving points of order against an amendment otherwise 
in violation of clause 7 of rule XVI (the germaneness rule), and 
permitting a vote on the question of consideration of any rule or order 
asserted to be in violation (sec. 3(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _).

  More than one of these 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).

  Former clause 10(c)(3) of rule XXI required 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. 1068i, 
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 

        requirement 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 former 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.

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

  (c)(1) It shall be in order at any time for the Speaker, in 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.



Sec. 912. The motion to adjourn.

  The  motion to adjourn not 
only has the highest precedence when a question is under debate, but, 
with certain restrictions, it has the highest privilege under all other 
conditions. Even the following yield to it: (1) a question of privilege 
(III, 2521), including a resolution considered to be a ``question of 
high constitutional privilege'' such as one declaring the Office of 
Speaker vacant and to direct the House to proceed at once to the 
election of a new Speaker (VIII, 2641); (2) the filing of a privileged 
report pursuant to former clause 4(a) of rule XI (current clause 5 of 
rule XIII) (Apr. 29, 1985, p. 9699); (3) a motion to suspend the rules 
(Aug. 11, 1992, p. 23086); (4) a motion to reconsider (V, 5605; see also 
clause 3 of rule XIX); (5) in the absence of a quorum, the motion for a 
call of the House (VIII, 2642); (6) a motion to dispense with further 
proceedings under the call (VIII, 2643); (7) a motion directing the 
Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest absentees during a call of the House (June 6, 
1973, p. 18403). A conference report may defer it only until the report 
is before the House (V, 6451-6453).


  Pursuant to clause 6(b) of rule XIII or clause 1(b) of rule XV, only 
one motion to adjourn is in order pending consideration of a privileged 
report from the Committee on Rules or a motion that the House suspend 
the rules, respectively. The motion may be made: (1) after the yeas and 
nays are ordered and before the roll call has begun (V, 5366); (2) 
before the reading of the Journal (IV, 2757) or the Speaker's approval 
thereof (Speaker Wright, Nov. 2, 1987, p. 30386); (3) pending a motion 
to reconsider (Sept. 20, 1979, p. 25512); (4) after the House rejects a 
motion to table a motion to instruct conferees and before the vote 
occurs on the motion to instruct (May 29, 1980, pp. 12717-19); (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).

  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; 
Jan. 3, 2023, p. _), and such motion may set the time for convening on 
the same day as the adjournment, such that the House meets for two 
legislative days on the same calendar day (Jan. 4, 2023, p. _). 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 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).



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).



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), 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).


  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).

  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.




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 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).


  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).



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 
amendment under the five-minute rule the Committee shall rise and report 
the bill back to the House with such amendments as may have been 
adopted,'' a motion that the Committee rise and report to the House with 
the recommendation that the bill be recommitted to the legislative 
committee reporting it is not in order (Aug. 10, 1950, p. 12219). It may 
be made after the engrossment and third reading of a bill, even though 
the previous question may not have been ordered (V, 5562, 5563).


  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).



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, 5398-5400); but the ordering of the previous question (V, 
5709), a call of the House (V, 5401), or decision of a question of order 
have been held not to be such intervening business, it being essential 
that the pending matter be carried to a new stage in order to permit a 
repetition of the motion (V, 5709).




919. Division of the question.

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


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

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




Sec. 920. Motion to strike 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).

  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. _).

  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 appropriate. Thus a resolution reported from that committee 
establishing several select committees in grammatically divisible 
titles, not being a special order of business, is subject to a demand 
for a division of the question (Jan. 8, 1987, p. 1036). However, it is 
not in order to demand a division of a subject incorporated by reference 
in the pending text, as when a resolution to adopt a series of rules, 
not made a part of the resolution, was before the House, it was held not 
in order to demand a separate vote on each rule (V, 6159).

  The question on engrossment and third reading under former clause 1 of 
rule XXI (current clause 8(c) of rule XVI) is not divisible (Speaker 
Foley, Aug. 3, 1989, p. 18544); and in voting on the engrossment or 
passage of a bill or joint resolution, a separate vote may not be 
demanded on the various portions (V, 6144-6146; VIII, 3172), or on the 
preamble (V, 6147).

  Where an amendment is offered to an appropriation bill providing that 
no part of the appropriation may be paid to named individuals, the 
amendment may be divided for a separate vote on each name (Feb. 5, 1943, 
p. 645). An amendment (to a joint resolution making continuing 
appropriations) containing separate paragraphs appropriating funds for 
different programs may be substantively and grammatically divisible 
although preceded by the same prefatory language applicable to all the 
paragraphs, and the Clerk will read each paragraph as including the 
prefatory language before the Chair 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).

  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 the effect of dividing the motion to 
strike and insert (June 29, 1939, pp. 8282, 8284; June 19, 1979, pp. 
15566-68).

  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).

  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 proposition 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).

  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).




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 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.


  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).


  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, 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).

  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).

  An amendment offered as a substitute and rejected may again be offered 
as an original amendment without presenting an equivalent question. In 
the first case the question is the relationship between the substitute 
and 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 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).



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. 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. 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. 6698; May 25, 2016, p. 7381).




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. 6695). 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).

  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 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).



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).

  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, 1985, p. 19436). Similarly, 
an amendment to a general appropriation bill in the form of a limitation 
on funds therein but extending to activities prescribed by laws 
unrelated to the functions of departments and agencies addressed by the 
bill is not germane (July 10, 2000, p. 13605).

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

  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).

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


  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 and 
within the jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill (Mar. 2, 
1967, p. 5155; July 16, 1991, p. 18397).



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).




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 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 addressing 
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. _); and to a bill limiting the drawdown of petroleum 
products in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve pending the development of a 
plan to increase the percentage of federal lands leased for oil and gas 
production, amendments (1) addressing the subsequent implementation of 
such plan (Jan. 26, 2023, p. _), (2) addressing rules issued by 
financial regulators (Jan. 26, 2023, p. _), (3) addressing drawdowns in 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve more generally (Jan. 26, 2023, p. _), 
(4) addressing conditions on the drawdown of petroleum products related 
to compliance with international agreements (Jan. 26, 2023, p. _), and 
(5) addressing sundry additional energy-related subject matters (Jan. 
27, 2023, p. _).


  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); 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); and to a bill limiting the drawdown of petroleum products in the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve pending the development of a plan to 
increase the percentage of federal lands leased for oil and gas 
production, amendments (1) limiting the availability of leases under the 
plan (Jan. 26, 2023, p. _), (2) excluding certain entities from 
participation under the plan (Jan. 26, 2023, p. _), and (3) changing the 
calculation of the amount of land that needs to be leased in order to 
offset the drawdown (Jan. 27, 2023, p. _).

  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).



Sec. 933. Fundamental purpose as test of 
germaneness.

  The  fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to 
the fundamental purpose of the bill (VIII, 2911). The Chair discerns the 
fundamental purpose of a bill by examining the text of the bill and its 
report language (Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, Sec. 5.6; Aug. 3, 1999, p. 
19213), rather than the motives that circumstances may suggest (V, 5783, 
5803; Dec. 13, 1973, pp. 41267-69; Aug. 15, 1974, p. 28438). To a bill 
that comprehensively addresses a subject, 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).


  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 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).

  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 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).



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 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 housing and community 
development grant and credit programs, an amendment expressing the sense 
of Congress on tax policy (the deductibility of mortgage interest), a 
matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means (Aug. 
1, 1990, p. 21256); to a bill reported from the Committee on Education 
and Labor authorizing a variety of civilian national service programs, 
an amendment establishing a contingent military service obligation (a 
matter within the selective service jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Armed Services) (July 28, 1993, p. 17398); to a bill reauthorizing 
programs administered by two agencies within one committee's 
jurisdiction, an amendment more general in scope affecting agencies 
within the jurisdiction of other committees (May 12, 1994, p. 10024); to 
a bill reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
reforming and privatizing Amtrak, an amendment rescinding previously 
appropriated funds for certain administrative expenses, a matter within 
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations (Nov. 30, 1995, p. 
35071); to a measure expressing a sense of Congress with respect to the 
availability of public funds for expenses incurred in the evaluation of 
a problem, an amendment addressing legislative responses to that 
problem, within the jurisdiction of other committees (Feb. 4, 1998, p. 
794); to a bill reported from Government Reform and Oversight proposing 
to alter responsibilities of executive branch agencies under an existing 
law, an amendment proposing to extend the application of that law to 
entities of the legislative branch, a matter within the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on House Administration (Mar. 12, 1998, p. 3389); to a 
resolution authorizing the deployment of troops to implement a peace 
agreement within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 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 Committee 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, pp. 10523-24 (sustained by tabling appeal)); to a bill addressing 
a drawdown of petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, an 
amendment requiring a report of the Federal Election Commission within 
the jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration (Jan. 26, 
2023, p. _).


  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).

  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 another committee (Aug. 2, 1973, p. 27673; June 1, 1976, 
pp. 16021-25). However, the House may by adopting a special rule allow a 
point of order that a section of a committee amendment in the nature of 
a substitute would not have been germane if offered separately to the 
bill as introduced (May 23, 1978, pp. 15094-96; May 24, 1978, pp. 15293-
95; Aug. 11, 1978, p. 25705).

  The fact that an amendment 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 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)).

  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. 4416).



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 
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. 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 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 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. 937. A general provision not germane to a specific 
subject.

  A  specific subject may not be amended by a provision general in 
nature, even when of the class of the specific subject (V, 5843-5846; 
VIII, 2997, 2998; July 31, 1985, pp. 21832-34; see also Deschler-Brown, 
ch. 28, Sec. 9). Thus the following are not germane: to a bill for the 
admission of one territory into the Union, an amendment providing for 
the admission of several other territories (V, 5837); to a bill relating 
to all corporations engaged in interstate commerce, an amendment 
relating to all corporations (V, 5842); to a bill proscribing certain 
picketing in the District of Columbia, an amendment making the 
provisions thereof applicable throughout the United States (Aug. 22, 
1966, p. 20113); to a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution prohibiting the United States or any State from denying 
persons 18 years of age or older the right to vote, an amendment 
requiring the United States and all States to treat persons 18 years and 
older as having reached the age of majority for all purposes under the 
law (Mar. 23, 1971, p. 7567); to a bill dealing with enforcement of 
United Nations sanctions against one country in relation to a specific 
trade commodity, an amendment imposing United States sanctions against 
all countries for all commodities and communications (Mar. 14, 1977, p. 
7446); to a bill to enable 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 to all trails addressed by the National Trails 
System Act (July 10, 2008, pp. 14583, 14584).


  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).

  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).


  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 amendment in the form of a new chapter providing funds for 
capital outlays for subway construction in the District of Columbia (May 
11, 1971, p. 14437); to a proposal authorizing military procurement, 
including purchase of food supplies, an amendment authorizing 
establishment that fiscal year of a military preparedness grain reserve 
(July 20, 1982, pp. 17073, 17074, 17092, 17093).



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 
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 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. 940. Amendments imposing conditions, 
qualifications, and limitations.

  Restrictions,  qualifications, and limitations 
sought to be added by way of amendment must be germane to the provisions 
of the bill. Conditioning the availability of funds may be germane if 
the condition is related to the general purpose and within the scope of 
the pending proposition (Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, Sec. Sec. 29-34). Thus, 
the following are germane: to a bill authorizing the funding of a 
variety of programs that satisfy several stated requirements in order to 
accomplish a general purpose, an amendment conditioning the availability 
of those funds upon implementation by their recipients of another 
program related to that general purpose (June 18, 1973, p. 20100); to a 
bill authorizing funds for military procurement and construction, an 
amendment declaring that none of the funds be used to carry out military 
operations in North Vietnam (Mar. 2, 1967, p. 5143); 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); to an amendment precluding the 
availability of an authorization for part of a fiscal year and then 
permitting availability for the remainder of the year based upon a 
contingency, an amendment constituting a prohibition on the availability 
of the same funds for the entire fiscal year (May 16, 1984, p. 12567); 
to a bill limiting the drawdown of petroleum products in the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve pending the development of a plan to increase the 
percentage of federal lands leased for oil and gas production, an 
amendment conditioning the effectiveness of the bill on a certification 
regarding the impact of the increased oil and gas drilling resulting 
from such plan on other energy projects on federal lands (Jan. 26, 2023, 
p. _).


  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); to a bill limiting the drawdown of petroleum products 
in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve pending the development of a plan to 
increase the percentage of federal lands leased for oil and gas 
production, an amendment conditioning the effectiveness of the bill on a 
certification regarding the status of the Russian invasion of Ukraine 
(Jan. 26, 2023, p. _).

  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).

  An amendment delaying the availability of authorizations pending 
unrelated determinations involving agencies and committee jurisdictions 
not within the purview of the bill is also not germane (Feb. 7, 1973, p. 
3708; July 8, 1981, p. 15010; July 9, 1981, p. 15218). Thus, the 
following are not germane: to a bill authorizing military assistance to 
Israel and funds for a U.N. emergency force in the Middle East, an 
amendment postponing the availability of funds to Israel until the 
President certifies the existence of a designated level of domestic 
energy supplies (Dec. 11, 1973, p. 40837); an amendment delaying the 
availability of an appropriation pending the enactment of certain 
revenue legislation (Oct. 25, 1979, p. 29639); to a bill authorizing 
radio broadcasting to Cuba, an amendment prohibiting the use of those 
funds until Congress has considered a constitutional amendment mandating 
a balanced budget (Aug. 10, 1982, p. 20250).

  Similarly, 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).

  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).

  It is germane to condition or restrict assistance to a particular 
class of recipient covered by the underlying measure. Thus, the 
following are germane: to a bill providing aid to shipping, an amendment 
to limit such aid to ships equipped with saving devices (VIII, 3027); to 
a bill authorizing the insurance of vessels, an amendment denying such 
insurance to vessels charging exorbitant rates (VIII, 3023); to a 
proposition denying benefits to recipients failing to meet a certain 
qualification, a substitute denying the same benefits to some recipients 
but excepting others (July 28, 1982, pp. 18355-58, 18361). 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).

  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).



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 786]]

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).