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


 




                                Rule XVI


Motions
                         motions and amendments




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

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and, unless it is withdrawn the same day, shall be entered on the 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


  The first sentence of this clause was made up in 1880 of old rules 
adopted in 1789 and 1806 (V, 5300). The last sentence of this clause 
(formerly clause 10 of rule XVI) was adopted in 1890 (V, 5706) to make 
permanent a principle already enunciated in a ruling of the Speaker, who 
had declared that the ``object of a parliamentary body is action, and 
not stoppage of action'' (V, 5713). When the House recodified its rules, 
it consolidated clause 1 and former clause 10 of rule XVI under this 
clause (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).


[[Page 673]]

ing the motion to adjourn (Sept. 27, 1993, p. 22608; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 
509), and the demand may be initiated by the Chair (July 24, 1986, p. 
17641). Consistent with this clause, the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole requires that each amendment be reduced to writing (July 22, 
1994, p. 17617). Although a motion to recommit is properly presented in 
writing, no rule requires that the proponent distribute copies on the 
floor (June 28, 2000, p. 12749).
  Because of this provision it has been held not in order to amend or 
strike out a Journal entry setting forth a motion exactly as made (IV, 
2783, 2789). A motion not entertained is not entered on the Journal (IV, 
2813, 2844-2846). See Sec. 71, supra, for discussion of Journal entries. 
Any Member may demand that a motion be reduced to writing and in the 
proper form, includ


Withdrawal


Sec. 903. Dilatory motions.

  The  Speaker has declined to 
entertain debate or appeal on a question as to the dilatoriness of a 
motion, as to do so would be to nullify the rule (V, 5731); but has 
recognized that the authority conferred by the rule should not be 
exercised until the object of the dilatory motion ``becomes apparent to 
the House'' (V, 5713, 5714). For example, the Chair has held that a 
virtually consecutive invocation of former rule XXX (current clause 6 of 
rule XVII), resulting in a second pair of votes on use of a chart and on 
reconsideration thereof, was not dilatory under this provision (or 
former clause 4(b) of rule XI (current clause 6(b) of rule XIII)) (July 
31, 1996, p. 20700). Usually, but not always, the Speaker awaits a point 
of order from the floor before acting (V, 5715-5722). The rule has been 
applied to the motions to adjourn (V, 5721, 5731-5733; VIII, 2796, 
2813), to reconsider (V, 5735; VIII, 2797, 2815, 2822), to fix the time 
of five-minute debate in Committee of the Whole (V, 5734; VIII, 2817), 
to lay on the table (VIII, 2816), and to the question of consideration 
(V, 5731-5733). The point of ``no quorum'' also has been ruled out (V, 
5724-5730; VIII, 2801, 2808), and former clause 6 of rule XV (current 
clause 7 of rule XX), as adopted in the 93d Congress and as amended in 
the 95th Congress prevents the making of a point of no quorum under 
certain circumstances. A demand for tellers has been held dilatory (V, 
5735, 5736; VIII, 2436, 2818-2821), but the constitutional right of the 
Member to demand the yeas and nays may not be overruled (V, 5737; VIII, 
3107). For ruling by Speaker Gillett construing dilatory motions, see 
VIII, 2804. For a discussion of dilatory motions pending consideration 
of Rules Committee report, see Sec. Sec. 857-858, supra.





904. Stating and withdrawing of motions.

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



[[Page 674]]

became obsolete very early, and it was dropped from the rule in 1880 (V, 
5304). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House 
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 
47).
  The provisions of this clause were adopted first in 1789. At that time 
a second was required for every motion, but in practice this requirement

  The House always insists that the motion shall be stated or read 
before debate shall begin (V, 4983) and the Clerk's reading may be 
dispensed with only by unanimous consent (Dec. 15, 1975, p. 40671; see 
also Sec. 432, supra). It is the duty of the Speaker to put a motion in 
order under the rules and practice without passing on its constitutional 
effect (IV, 3550; VIII, 2225, 3031, 3071, 3427). In a case wherein a 
clerk presiding during organization of the House declined to put a 
question, a Member-elect put the question from the floor (I, 67).

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



Sec. 905. Conditions of withdrawal of motions.

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


  While the House was dividing on a second of the previous question 
(this second is no longer required) on a motion to refer a resolution, 
the Member was permitted to withdraw the resolution (V, 5350). A motion 
was withdrawn after the previous question had been ordered on an appeal 
from a decision on a point of order as to the motion (V, 5356).

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


[[Page 675]]

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

  A motion may be withdrawn after the affirmative side has been taken on 
a division (V, 5348). Withdrawal of a pending resolution is not in order 
when the absence of a quorum has been announced by the Chair (Oct. 14, 
1970, pp. 36665-69). A motion that the House resolve into the Committee 
of the Whole for the consideration of a bill may be withdrawn pending a 
point of order against consideration of the bill. If the motion is 
withdrawn, the Chair is not obligated to rule on the point of order 
(VIII, 3405; Dec. 3, 1979, p. 34385).

  A decision which prevents withdrawal may consist of the following: (1) 
the ordering of the yeas and nays (V, 5353), either directly on the 
motion or on a motion to lay it on the table (V, 5354); (2) the ordering 
of the previous question (V, 5355; June 29, 1995, p. 17967), or the 
demand therefor (V, 5489), or (3) the refusal to lay on the table (V, 
5351, 5352; VIII, 2640).

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

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


Question of consideration
  A Member having the right to withdraw a motion before a decision 
thereon has the resulting power to modify the motion (V, 5358; Oct. 23, 
1990, p. 32667), and a Member having the right to withdraw a motion to 
instruct conferees before a decision thereon has the resulting power to 
modify the motion by offering a different motion at the same stage of 
proceedings (July 14, 1993, p. 15661). A motion being withdrawn, all 
proceedings on an appeal arising from a point of order related to it 
fell thereby (V, 5356).




906. The question of consideration.

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



[[Page 676]]

the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
1999, p. 47). It is the means by which the House protects itself from 
business that it does not wish to consider (V, 4936; VIII, 2436). The 
refusal to consider does not amount to the rejection of a bill or 
prevent its being brought before the House again (V, 4940), and an 
affirmative vote does not prevent the question of consideration from 
being raised on a subsequent day when the bill is again called up as 
unfinished business (VIII, 2438). It has once been held that a question 
of privilege which the House has refused to consider may be brought up 
again on the same day (V, 4942). The question of consideration is not 
debatable (VIII, 2447), and thus not subject to the motion to lay on the 
table (Oct. 4, 1994, p. 27643). See also clause 6 of rule XIV (Sec. 884, 
supra), which provides that questions relating to the priority of 
business are not debatable.
  The question of consideration is an outgrowth of the practice of the 
House, and was in use as early as 1808. The rule was adopted in 1817 in 
order to limit its use. Clerical and stylistic changes were effected 
when



Sec. 907. Raising the question of consideration.

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


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


[[Page 677]]

the Whole under clause 2 of rule XVIII. The question may be raised 
against a bill on the Union Calendar on Calendar Wednesday before 
resolving into the Committee of the Whole even after one Wednesday has 
been devoted to it (VIII, 2447); but it may not be raised against a 
report from the Committee on Rules relating to the order of considering 
individual bills (V, 4961-4963; VIII, 2440, 2441, see Sec. 858, supra).


Sec. 908. Questions subject to the question of 
consideration.

  The  question of consideration may be demanded against a 
matter of the highest privilege, such as the right of a Member to his 
seat (V, 4941), a question involving the privilege of the House (VI, 
560), against the motion to reconsider (VIII, 2437), but not against a 
bill returned with the President's objection (V, 4960, 4970). It may not 
be raised against a proposition before the House for reference merely, 
as a petition (V, 4964). It may not be demanded against a class of 
business in order under a special order or rule, but may be demanded 
against each bill individually (IV, 3308, 3309; V, 4958, 4959). It may 
be raised against a bill that has been made a special order (IV, 3175; 
V, 4953-4957), unless the order provides for immediate consideration (V, 
4960) or provides for the Speaker's declaration that the House resolve 
into the Committee of


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



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

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



Precedence of motions


Sec. 910. Unfunded mandates.

  The  Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-4; 109 Stat. 48) added a new part B to title IV of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658-658g) that imposes 
several requirements on committees with respect to ``Federal mandates'' 
(secs. 423-424; 2 U.S.C. 658b-c), establishes points of order to permit 
votes on whether to enforce those requirements (sec. 425; 2 U.S.C. 
658d), and permits a vote on the question of consideration of a rule or 
order waiving such points of order in the House (sec. 426(a); 2 U.S.C. 
658e(a)). The latter provision also prescribes that such points of order 
be disposed of by the question of consideration with respect to the 
proposition against which they are lodged (after 20 minutes of debate) 
(sec. 426(b); 2 U.S.C. 658e(b)). See Sec. 1127, infra.




911. Precedence of privileged motions.

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



[[Page 678]]

      (1) To adjourn.

      (2) To lay on the table.

      (3) For the previous question.

      (4) To postpone to a day certain.

      (5) To refer.

      (6) To amend.

      (7) To postpone indefinitely.

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

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

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

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


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

  The first form of this clause appears in 1789, but amendments have 
been made at various times (V, 5301; VIII, 2757). Paragraph (c) (former 
final two sentences of the clause) were added in the 93d Congress to 
enable a privileged, nondebatable motion to fix the adjournment (H. Res. 
6, Jan. 3, 1973, pp. 26-27), and amended in the 102d Congress to enable 
a privileged, nondebatable motion for recess authority (H. Res. 5, Jan. 
3, 1991, p. 39). When the House recodified its rules in the 106th 
Congress, the provision of this clause addressing the motion for the 
previous question was transferred to clause 2 of rule XIX (H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).


[[Page 679]]

  The application of the first sentence of the clause is confined to 
cases wherein a question is ``under debate'' (V, 5379). It has been held 
that a question ceases to be ``under debate'' after the previous 
question has been ordered (V, 5415). For a discussion of the motion for 
the previous question, see Sec. Sec. 994-1000, infra.



Sec. 912. The motion to adjourn.

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


  Pursuant to clause 6(b) of rule XIII or clause 1(b) of rule XV, only 
one motion to adjourn is in order pending consideration of a privileged 
report from the Committee on Rules or a motion that the House suspend 
the rules, respectively. The motion may be made: (1) after the yeas and 
nays are ordered and before the roll call has begun (V, 5366); (2) 
before the reading of the Journal (IV, 2757) or the Speaker's approval 
thereof (Speaker Wright, Nov. 2, 1987, p. 30386); (3) pending a motion 
to reconsider (Sept. 20, 1979, p. 25512); (4) after the House rejects a 
motion to table a motion to instruct conferees and before the vote 
occurs on the motion to instruct (May 29, 1980, pp. 12717-19); or (5) 
when the Speaker is absent and the Clerk is presiding (I, 228). The 
motion to adjourn may not interrupt a Member who has the floor (V, 5369, 
5370; VIII, 2646; Mar. 25, 1993, p. 6373; Oct. 1, 1997, p. 20902) as, 
for example, by virtue of unanimous-consent permission to announce to 
the House the legislative program (Dec. 14, 1982, p. 30549), or a call 
of the yeas and nays (V, 6053), or the actual act of voting by other 
means (V, 5360), or be made after the House has voted to go into 
Committee of the Whole (IV, 4728; V, 5367, 5368), or defer the right of 
a Member to take the oath (I, 622) and may not be repeated in the 
absence of intervening business (Speaker Albert, July 31, 1975, p. 
26243); and when no question is under debate it may not displace a 
motion to fix the day to which the House shall adjourn (V, 5381). The 
motion to adjourn is not available when the previous question has been 
ordered by special rule to final passage without intervening motion (IV, 
3211-3213, June 14, 2001, p. ----). A Member's mere revelation that he 
seeks to offer a motion to adjourn does not suffice to make that motion 
``pending,'' and thus the Chair remains able to declare a short recess 
under clause 12 of rule I (Oct. 28, 1997, p. 23524; June 25, 2003, p. --
--).


[[Page 680]]

the equally privileged motion to fix the day and time to which the House 
shall adjourn); nor by stating the purposes of adjournment (V, 5371, 
5372; VIII, 2647). However, when the hour of daily meeting is not fixed, 
the motion to adjourn may fix it (V, 5362, 5363). A motion to adjourn is 
in order in simple form only (VIII, 2647), is not debatable (V, 5359; 
Feb. 13, 2002, p. ----), may not be laid on the table (Aug. 3, 1990, p. 
22195), is not in order in Committee of the Whole (IV, 4716), and is not 
entertained when the Committee of the Whole rises to report proceedings 
incident to securing a quorum (VI, 673; VIII, 2436). After the motion is 
made neither another motion nor an appeal may intervene before the 
taking of the vote (V, 5361). When the House adopts the motion to 
adjourn, it must adjourn immediately; and a unanimous-consent request 
that the House proceed to the calling of special-order speeches is not 
in order (Sept. 27, 1993, p. 22608).
  When the House has fixed the hour of daily meeting, the simple motion 
to adjourn may neither be amended (V, 5754) by specifying a particular 
day (V, 5360) or hour (V, 5364) (but see Sec. 913, infra, for a 
discussion of



Sec. 913. Motion to fix the day to which the House shall 
adjourn and motion to authorize the Speaker to declare a 
recess.

  The  motion to fix the day and time to which the House shall 
adjourn, in its present form, was included in this clause and given 
privileged status in the 93d Congress (H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 1973, p. 26). 
At several times during the 19th Century, the motion to fix the day to 
which the House should adjourn was included within the rule as to the 
precedence of motions but was dropped because of its use in obstructive 
tactics (V, 5301, 5379). The following precedent relates to the use of 
the motion in its earlier form: No question being under debate, a motion 
to fix the day to which the House should adjourn, already made, was held 
not to give way to a motion to adjourn (V, 5381). But if the motion to 
adjourn be made first, the motion to fix the day or for a recess is not 
entertained (V, 5302). The motion to fix the day is not debatable (V, 
5379, 5380; VIII, 2648, 3367), requires a quorum for adoption (IV, 2954; 
June 19, 1975, p. 19789; June 22, 1976, p. 19755), and is only in order 
if offered on the day on which the adjournment applies (Sept. 23, 1976, 
p. 32104). The House may convene and adjourn twice on the same calendar 
day pursuant to a motion under this clause that when the House adjourn 
it adjourn to a time certain later in the day, thereby meeting for two 
legislative days on the same calendar day (Nov. 17, 1981, p. 27771; Oct. 
29, 1987, p. 29933; June 29, 1995, p. 17716). When the Speaker exercises 
his discretion to entertain at any time a motion that when the House 
adjourn it stand adjourned to a day and time certain, the motion is of 
equal privilege with the simple motion to adjourn and takes precedence 
over a pending question on which the vote has been objected to for lack 
of a quorum (Nov. 17, 1981, p. 27770). The motion is not subject to the 
motion to lay on the table since it is not debatable and the precedence 
conferred on the motion to table only applies to a question that is 
``under debate'' (Nov. 17, 1981, p. 27770).



[[Page 681]]

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



Sec. 914. Motion to lay on the table.

  The  motion to lay on 
the table is used in the House for a final, adverse disposition of a 
matter without debate (V, 5389), and is in order before the Member 
entitled to prior recognition for debate has begun his remarks (V, 5391-
5395; VIII, 2649, 2650). Under the explicit terms of this clause, the 
motion is not debatable (Oct. 17, 1991, p. 26749). The motion is 
applicable to a motion to reconsider (VIII, 2652, 2659), a motion to 
postpone to a day certain (VIII, 2654, 2657), a resolution presenting a 
question of privilege (VI, 560), a privileged resolution offered at the 
direction of a party caucus electing Members to committees (Feb. 5, 
1997, p. 1541), an appeal from a decision of the Chair (VIII, 3453), a 
motion to discharge a committee from a resolution of inquiry (VI, 415), 
a proposal to investigate with a view to impeachment (VI, 541), a 
concurrent resolution to adjourn sine die (Mar. 27, 1936, p. 4512), and 
a resolution to expel a Member (Oct. 1, 1976, p. 35111). But a question 
of privilege (affecting the right of a Member to a seat) that has been 
laid on the table may be taken therefrom on motion made and agreed to by 
the House (V, 5438). The motion to lay on the table has the precedence 
given it by the rule, but may not be made after the previous question is 
ordered (V, 5415-5422; VIII, 2655), or even after the yeas and nays have 
been ordered on the demand for the previous question (V, 5408, 5409); 
but pending the demand for the previous question on a motion that is 
under debate, the motion to lay the primary motion on the table is 
preferential and is voted on first (Speaker Albert, Sept. 22, 1976, pp. 
31876-82; Speaker O'Neill, July 10, 1985, pp. 18397-18400). The previous 
question having been ordered on a bill to final passage, the motion to 
lay the bill on the table may not then be offered pending a motion to 
reconsider the vote whereby the bill had been passed or rejected (Sept. 
20, 1979, p. 25512).



[[Page 682]]

the latter is laid on the table (V, 5431-5433); a bill does not 
accompany a motion to instruct conferees which is laid on the table 
(VIII, 2658).
  When a bill is laid on the table, pending motions connected therewith 
go to the table also (V, 5426, 5427); and when a proposed amendment is 
laid on the table the pending bill goes there also (V, 5423; VIII, 
2656), and if a pending amendment to a special order reported from the 
Committee on Rules were tabled, it would carry the resolution with it 
and is thus considered dilatory under former clause 4(b) of rule XI 
(current clause 6(b) of rule XIII) (Sept. 25, 1990, p. 25575). This rule 
holds good as to a House bill with Senate amendments (V, 5424, 6201-
6203; Sept. 28, 1978, p. 32334), but laying on the table the motion to 
postpone consideration of Senate amendments was held not to carry to the 
table pending motions for their disposition (VIII, 2657). The Journal 
does not accompany a proposed amendment to the table (V, 5435, 5436); 
the original question does not accompany an appeal (V, 5434); a 
resolution does not accompany another resolution with which it is 
connected, or a preamble (V, 5248, 5430); and a petition does not 
accompany the motion to receive it when

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

  The motion is not in order in Committee of the Whole (IV, 4719, 4720; 
VIII, 2330, 2556a, 3455; Mar. 16, 1995, p. 8112; July 21, 1999, p. 
17054) and does not apply to motions to go into the Committee of the 
Whole (VI, 726). It may not be amended (V, 5754), for example, to 
operate for a specified time (Oct. 17, 1991, p. 26749).

  The motion to lay on the table generally is not applicable to motions 
that are neither debatable nor amendable. As such, it is not applicable 
to the following motions: (1) to adjourn (Aug. 3, 1990, p. 22195); (2) 
that when the House adjourn it stand adjourned to a day and time certain 
(Nov. 17, 1981, p. 27770); (3) to dispense with further proceedings 
under a call of the House (Speaker McCormack, Aug. 27, 1962, pp. 17651-
54); (4) to order the previous question (V, 5410, 5411; Oct. 4, 1994, p. 
27649). Furthermore, the motion may not be applied to a motion: (1) to 
suspend the rules (V, 5405); (2) to commit after the previous question 
is ordered (V, 5412-5414; VIII, 2653, 2655); (3) to any motion relating 
to the order of business (V, 5403, 5404). It may not be applied to a 
motion to discharge a committee under former clause 3 of rule XXVII 
(current clause 2 of rule XV) (June 11, 1945, p. 5892) but may be 
applied to the motion to discharge a committee from consideration of a 
resolution of inquiry (V, 5407).

  The motion to lay on the table is applicable to debatable secondary or 
privileged motions for disposal of another matter; thus a motion to 
refer (V, 5433; Aug. 13, 1982, pp. 20969, 20975-78) or a motion to 
recede and concur in a Senate amendment in disagreement may be laid on 
the table (Speaker O'Neill, Feb. 22, 1978, p. 4072) without carrying the 
pending matter to the table. The motion is not applicable to a 
conference report (V, 6540).



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

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



[[Page 683]]

leged business (VIII, 2614). Where consideration of a measure postponed 
to a day certain resumes as unfinished business in the House, 
recognition for debate does not begin anew but recommences from the 
point where it was interrupted (June 10, 1980, p. 13801). It is not in 
order to postpone pending business to Calendar Wednesday (VIII, 2614), 
but if so postponed by consent, when consideration is concluded on that 
Wednesday, the remainder of the day is devoted to business in order 
under the Calendar Wednesday rule (VII, 970). The motion is not 
available in Committee of the Whole (July 14, 1998, p. 15305), but a 
motion that a bill be reported with the recommendation that it be 
postponed is in order in the Committee of the Whole proceeding under the 
general rules of the House (IV, 4765; VIII, 2372), is debatable (VIII, 
2372), and is a preferential motion (VIII, 2372, 2615), but debate is 
confined to the advisability of postponement only (VIII, 2372). It has 
been held in order to postpone an appeal (VIII, 2613). A bill under 
consideration in the morning hour may not be made a special order by a 
motion to postpone to a day certain (IV, 3164).


Sec. 915. The motions to postpone.

  As  indicated in the rule, 
the motions to postpone are two in number and distinct. The first one is 
to postpone to a day certain, and the second one is to postpone 
indefinitely. Each must apply to the whole and not a part of the pending 
proposition (V, 5306). Neither may be entertained after the previous 
question is ordered (V, 5319-5321; VIII, 2616, 2617), or be applied to a 
special order providing for the consideration of a class of bills (V, 
4958); but when a bill comes before the House under the terms of a 
special order that assigns a day merely, a motion to postpone may be 
applied to the bill (IV, 3177-3182). Business postponed to a day certain 
is in order on that day immediately after the approval of the Journal 
and disposition of business on the Speaker's table, unless displaced by 
more highly privi


  The motion to postpone to a day certain may not specify the hour (V, 
5307). The motion may be amended (V, 5754; VIII, 2824). It is debatable 
within narrow limits only (V, 5309, 5310), the merits of the bill to 
which it is applied not being within those limits (V, 5311-5315; VIII, 
2372, 2616, 2640).

  The motion to postpone indefinitely opens to debate all the merits of 
the proposition to which it is applied (V, 5316). It may not be applied 
to the motion to refer (V, 5317), the motion to suspend the rules (V, 
5322), or the motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole (VI, 
726), and it is reasonable to infer that it is equally inapplicable to 
the other secondary or privileged motions enumerated in the rule and to 
motions relating to the order of business. However, the motion to 
postpone indefinitely may be applied to the motion that the House 
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole pursuant to the 
provisions of a statute, enacted under the rulemaking power of the House 
of Representatives, that specifically allows such a motion in the 
consideration of a resolution disapproving a certain executive action 
(Mar. 10, 1977, p. 7021; Aug. 3, 1977, p. 26528).


[[Page 684]]

question to which applied is ``under debate,'' whether the motion itself 
is debatable, whether a minority Member or a Member opposed to the 
question to which the motion is applied is entitled to a priority of 
recognition, and whether the prohibition against a special order 
reported from the Committee on Rules denying a motion to recommit a bill 
or joint resolution pending final passage is applicable. For a 
discussion of the motion to recommit, see the annotations under clause 2 
of rule XIX. The motion may not be used in direct form in Committee of 
the Whole (IV, 4721; VIII, 2326); and where a bill is being considered 
under the provisions of a resolution stating that ``at the conclusion of 
the consideration of the bill for amendment under the five-minute rule 
the Committee shall rise and report the bill back to the House with such 
amendments as may have been adopted,'' a motion that the Committee rise 
and report to the House with the recommendation that the bill be 
recommitted to the legislative committee reporting it is not in order 
(Aug. 10, 1950, p. 12219). It may be made after the engrossment and 
third reading of a bill, even though the previous question may not have 
been ordered (V, 5562, 5563).


Sec. 916. The motions to refer.

  The  parliamentary motion to 
refer is explicitly recognized and given status in four different 
situations under House rules: The ordinary motion provided for in this 
clause; the motion to recommit with or without instructions after the 
previous question has been ordered on a bill or joint resolution to 
final passage, provided in clause 2 of rule XIX; the motion to commit, 
with or without instructions, pending the motion for or after ordering 
of the previous question as provided in clause 1 of rule XIX (V, 5569); 
and the motion to refer, with or without instructions, pending a vote in 
the House to strike out the enacting clause as provided in clause 9 of 
rule XVIII. The terms ``refer,'' ``commit,'' and ``recommit'' are 
sometimes used interchangeably (V, 5521; VIII, 2736), but when used in 
the precise manner and situation contemplated in each rule, reflect 
certain differences based upon whether the


  If the previous question is rejected on a preferential motion to 
dispose of Senate amendments in disagreement, the preferential motion 
remains ``under debate'' and the motion to refer may be offered under 
this clause (Speaker Albert, Sept. 16, 1976, p. 30887). A motion to 
refer takes precedence over motion to amend when a question is under 
debate (such as where the previous question has been rejected), and the 
Chair recognizes the Member seeking to offer the preferential motion 
before the less preferential motion is read (Aug. 13, 1982, pp. 20969, 
20975-78).

  The simple motion to refer under the first sentence of this clause is 
debatable within narrow limits (V, 5054) and may be offered by any 
Member (who need not qualify as being in opposition to the pending 
question) when that question is ``under debate,'' i.e., when the 
previous question has not been moved or ordered, but the merits of the 
proposition sought to be referred may not be brought into the debate (V, 
5564-5568; VI, 65, 549; VIII, 2740). The motion to refer with 
instructions is also debatable (V, 5561); but the previous question is 
preferential (Mar. 22, 1990, p. 4997).


[[Page 685]]



Sec. 917. Instructions with the motion to refer.

  The  motion 
to refer may specify that the reference shall be to a select as well as 
a standing committee (IV, 4401) without regard for rules of jurisdiction 
(IV, 4375; V, 5527) and may provide for reference to another committee 
than that reporting the bill (VIII, 2696, 2736), or to the Committee of 
the Whole (V, 5552, 5553), and even that the committee be endowed with 
power to send for persons and papers (IV, 4402). Unless the previous 
question is ordered the motion may be amended (VIII, 2712, 2738), in 
part (V, 5754); by substitute (VIII, 2698, 2738, 2759); or by adding 
instructions (V, 5521, 5570, 5582-5584; VIII, 2695, 2762; Aug. 13, 1982, 
pp. 20969, 20975-78).



Divisibility


Sec. 918. Repetition of motions.

  The  rule specifies that the 
motions to postpone and refer shall not be repeated on the same day at 
the same stage of the question (V, 5301, 5591; VIII, 2738, 2760). Under 
the practice, a motion to adjourn may be repeated only after intervening 
business (V, 5373; VIII, 2814), debate (V, 5374), the ordering of the 
yeas and nays (V, 5376, 5377), decision of the Chair on a question of 
order (V, 5378), or reception of a message (V, 5375). The motion to lay 
on the table may also be repeated after intervening business (V, 5398-
5400); but the ordering of the previous question (V, 5709), a call of 
the House (V, 5401), or decision of a question of order have been held 
not to be such intervening business, it being essential that the pending 
matter be carried to a new stage in order to permit a repetition of the 
motion (V, 5709).




919. Division of the question.

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


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

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




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

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



[[Page 686]]

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

  The House may by adoption of a resolution reported from the Committee 
on Rules suspend the rule providing for the division of a question (VII, 
775).



Sec. 921. Principles governing the division of the 
question.

  The  principle that there must be at least two substantive 
propositions in order to justify division is insisted on rigidly (V, 
6108-6113), as failure to do so produces difficulties (III, 1725). The 
question may not be divided after it has been put (V, 6162), or after 
the yeas and nays have been ordered (V, 6160, 6161); but division of the 
question may be demanded after the previous question is ordered (V, 
5468, 6149; VIII, 3173). In passing on a demand for division the Chair 
considers only substantive propositions and not the merits of the 
question presented (V, 6122). It seems to be most proper, also, that the 
division should depend on grammatical structure rather than on the 
legislative propositions involved (I, 394; V, 6119), but a question 
presenting two propositions grammatically is not divisible if either 
does not constitute a substantive proposition when considered alone 
(VII, 3165). Thus a resolution censuring a Member and adopting a report 
of a committee thereon, which recommends censure on the basis of the 
committee's findings, is not divisible since those questions are 
substantially equivalent (Speaker O'Neill, Oct. 13, 1978, p. 37016); and 
an adjournment resolution that also authorizes the receipt of veto 
messages from the President during the adjournment is not subject to a 
division of the question, as the receipt authority would be nonsensical 
standing alone (June 30, 1976, p. 21702). However, a concurrent 
resolution on the budget is subject to a demand for a division of the 
question if, for example, the resolution grammatically and substantively 
relates to different fiscal years (May 7, 1980, pp. 10185-87), or 
includes a separate, hortatory section having its own grammatical and 
substantive meaning (Speaker Foley, Mar. 5, 1992, p. 4657).



[[Page 687]]

7344) may be divided. A resolution of impeachment presenting discrete 
articles may be divided (VI, 545; Dec. 18, 1998, p. 11064).
  Decisions have been made that a resolution affecting two individuals 
may be divided, although such division may involve a reconstruction of 
the text (I, 623; V, 6119-6121). The better practice seems to be, 
however, that this reconstruction of the text should be made by the 
adoption of a substitute amendment of two branches, rather than by 
interpretation of the Chair (II, 1621). But merely formal words, such as 
``resolved,'' may be supplied by interpretation of the Chair (V, 6114-
6118). A resolution with two resolve clauses separately certifying the 
contemptuous conduct of two individuals is divisible (Feb. 27, 1986, p. 
3040); as is a resolution with one resolve clause certifying 
contemptuous conduct of several individuals (Oct. 27, 2000, p. 25200, 
contrast, Deschler-Brown, ch. 30, Sec. 49.1). A measure containing a 
series of simple resolutions (V, 6149), and a resolution confirming 
several nominations (Speaker Albert, Mar. 19, 1975, p.

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

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

  Where an amendment is offered to an appropriation bill providing that 
no part of the appropriation may be paid to named individuals, the 
amendment may be divided for a separate vote on each name (Feb. 5, 1943, 
p. 645). An amendment (to a joint resolution making continuing 
appropriations) containing separate paragraphs appropriating funds for 
different programs may be substantively and grammatically divisible 
although preceded by the same prefatory language applicable to all the 
paragraphs, and the Clerk will read each paragraph as including the 
prefatory language before the Chair's putting the question thereon (Nov. 
8, 1983, p. 31495). A division may be demanded on an amendment to strike 
out various unrelated phrases (VIII, 3166; Mar. 28, 1984, p. 6898). An 
amendment proposing to change a figure in one paragraph of an 
appropriation bill and also to insert a new (``fetch-back'') paragraph 
at another point in the bill is divisible (July 15, 1993, p. 15843). 
Absent a contrary order, the question may be divided on an amendment en 
bloc comprising discrete instructions to amend, even though unanimous 
consent has just been granted for the en bloc consideration (July 25, 
1990, p. 19174; July 18, 1991, p. 18851).


[[Page 688]]

several resolutions is proposed; but after this amendment has been 
agreed to, it is in order to demand a division of the original 
resolution as amended (V, 6127, 6128). When, however, an amendment 
simply adding or inserting is proposed, it is in order to divide the 
amendment (V, 6129-6133). To a motion to strike certain words and insert 
others, a simple motion to strike out the words may not be offered as a 
substitute, as it would have the effect of dividing the motion to strike 
out and insert (June 29, 1939, pp. 8282, 8284; June 19, 1979, pp. 15566-
68).
  A division of the question may not be demanded on a motion to strike 
out and insert (V, 5767, 6123; VIII, 3169), including substitutes for 
pending amendments (V, 6127; VIII, 3168; Aug. 17, 1972, pp. 28887-90; 
July 2, 1980, pp. 18288-92), although an amendment comprising two 
discrete instructions to strike and insert may be divided (June 4, 1998, 
p. 5418) and a perfecting amendment to an amendment may be divided if 
not in the form of a motion to strike out and insert (V, 6131). When it 
is proposed to strike out and insert not one but several connected 
matters, it is not in order to demand a separate vote on each of those 
matters (V, 6124, 6125), as when an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute containing

  A division may be demanded on the motion to recede from disagreement 
to a Senate amendment and concur therein (see Sec. 525, supra; V, 6209; 
VIII, 3197-3199, 3203), but may not be demanded on Senate amendments 
when sending to conference (V, 6151-6156; VIII, 3175). A division of the 
question may not be demanded, with respect to a motion to concur in a 
Senate amendment with an amendment, between concurring and amending 
(VIII, 3176), and may not be demanded on separate parts of the proposed 
amendment if it is not properly divisible under the same tests that 
apply to any other amendment (Aug. 3, 1973, pp. 28124-26; Oct. 11, 1984, 
p. 32188). Thus a proposed amendment to a Senate amendment is not 
divisible if in the form of a motion to strike out and insert (Oct. 15, 
1986, p. 32135). Each Senate amendment must be voted on as a whole 
(VIII, 3175) but the Committee of the Whole having reported a Senate 
amendment with the recommendation that it be agreed to with an 
amendment, a separate vote was had on the amendment to the Senate 
amendment (VIII, 2420). When Senate amendments to a House bill are 
considered in the House, a separate vote may be had on each amendment 
(VIII, 2383, 2400, 3191), and separate votes may be had on nongermane 
portions of Senate amendments as provided in clause 10 of rule XXII.

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


[[Page 689]]

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

  A division of the question may not be demanded on bills or joint 
resolutions for reference (IV, 4376) or change of reference (VII, 2125), 
a motion to elect Members to committees of House (VIII, 2175, 3164), a 
question against which a point of order is pending (VIII, 3432), a 
proposition under a motion to suspend the rules (V, 6141-6143; VIII, 
3171). A proposition reported from the Committee of the Whole as an 
entire and distinct amendment may not be divided, but must be voted on 
in the House as a whole (IV, 4883-4892). A separate vote may not be 
demanded in the House on an amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
Whole to an amendment (VIII, 2422, 2426, 2427).

  After the vote on the first member of the question, the second is open 
to debate and amendments, unless the previous question is ordered (see 
Sec. 482, supra). Where a motion to concur in a Senate amendment is 
divided pursuant to a special rule permitting that procedure, the Chair 
puts the question first on the first portion of the Senate amendment, 
and then on the remaining portion (Mar. 4, 1993, p. 4163). Where a 
division of the question is demanded on a portion of an amendment, the 
Chair puts the question first on the remaining portions of the 
amendment, and that portion on which the division is demanded remains 
open for further debate and amendment (Oct. 21, 1981, pp. 24785-89). 
However, where no further debate or amendment is in order on the divided 
portion, the Chair may put the question first on the divided portion(s) 
and then immediately on the remaining portion (Aug. 17, 1972, Deschler, 
ch. 27, Sec. 22.14; June 8, 1995, p. 15302). Where a division of the 
question is demanded on more than one portion of an amendment, the Chair 
may put the question first on the remaining portions of the amendment 
(if any), then (after further debate) on the first part on which a 
division is demanded, and then (after further debate) on the last part 
on which a division is demanded (Oct. 21, 1981, pp. 24785-89). Where the 
question on adopting an amendment is divided by special rule (rather 
than on demand from the floor), the Chair puts the question on each 
divided portion of the amendment in the order in which it appears (May 
23, 1996, p. 12316).


Amendments
  A demand for a division of the question on a separate portion of an 
amendment may be withdrawn before the question is put on the first 
portion thereof (July 15, 1993, p. 15843), but once the Chair has put 
the question on the first portion of the amendment, a demand for a 
division may be withdrawn only by unanimous consent (Sept. 9, 1976, pp. 
29538-40).


[[Page 690]]

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



922. Amendments to text and to title.

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


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



Sec. 923. Conditions of the motion to amend.

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



[[Page 691]]

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

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

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

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


[[Page 692]]

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

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


[[Page 693]]

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


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

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




Sec. 925. Withdrawal of the motion to amend.

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




Sec. 926. Precedence of the motion to amend.

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




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

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




[[Page 694]]

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




928. Germane amendments.

  7.  No motion or proposition on a 
subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under 
color of amendment.


  This clause was adopted in 1789, and amended in 1822 (V, 5767, 5825). 
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this clause 
and clause 5(c) occupied a single former clause 7 (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
1999, p. 47).


[[Page 695]]

p. 17415). The burden of proof is on the proponent of an amendment to 
establish its germaneness (VIII, 2995; July 10, 2000, p. 13605), and 
where an amendment is equally susceptible to more than one 
interpretation, one of which will render it not germane, the Chair will 
rule it out of order (June 20, 1975, p. 19967).
  It introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary 
law (V, 5825), but of high value in the procedure of the House (V, 
5866). Before the adoption of rules, when the House is operating under 
general parliamentary law, as modified by the usage and practice of the 
House, an amendment may be subject to the point of order that it is not 
germane to the proposition to which offered (Jan. 3, 1969, p. 23). The 
principle of the rule applies to a proposition by which it is proposed 
to modify the pending bill, and not to a portion of the bill itself (V, 
6929); thus a point of order will not lie that an appropriation in a 
general appropriation bill is not germane to the rest of the bill (Dec. 
16, 1963, p. 24753). In general, an amendment simply striking out words 
already in a bill may not be ruled out as not germane (V, 5805; VIII, 
2918) unless such action would change the scope and meaning of the text 
(VIII, 2917-2921; Mar. 23, 1960, p. 6381); and a pro forma amendment 
``to strike out the last word'' has been considered germane (July 28, 
1965, p. 18639). While a committee may report a bill or resolution 
embracing different subjects, it is not in order during consideration in 
the House to introduce a new subject by way of amendment (V, 5825). The 
rule that amendments should be germane applies to amendments reported by 
committees (V, 5806), but a resolution providing for consideration of 
the bill with committee amendments may waive points of order (Oct. 10, 
1967, p. 28406), and the point of order under this rule does not apply 
to a special order reported from the Committee on Rules ``self-
executing'' the adoption in the House of a nongermane amendment to a 
bill, since the amendment is not separately before the House during 
consideration of the special order (Feb. 24, 1993, p. 3542; July 27, 
1993, p. 17117). A resolution reported from the Committee on Rules 
providing for the consideration of a bill relating to a certain subject 
may be amended neither by an amendment that would substitute the 
consideration of a different proposition (V, 5834-5836; VIII, 2956; 
Sept. 14, 1950, p. 14844) nor an amendment that would permit the 
additional consideration of a nongermane amendment to the bill (May 29, 
1980, pp. 12667-73; Aug. 13, 1982, p. 20972). The Chair will not 
interpret as a point of order under a specific rule of the House an 
objection to a substitute as narrowing the scope of a pending amendment, 
absent some stated or necessarily implied reference to germaneness or 
other rule (June 25, 1987,



Sec. 929. Proposition to which amendment must be 
germane.

  Under  the later practice an amendment should be germane to the 
particular paragraph or section to which it is offered (V, 5811-5820; 
VIII, 2922, 2936; Oct. 14, 1971, pp. 36194, 36211; Sept. 19, 1986, p. 
24729), without reference to subject matter of other titles not yet read 
(July 31, 1990, p. 20816), and an amendment inserting an additional 
section should be germane to the portion of the bill to which it is 
offered (V, 5822; VIII, 2927, 2931; July 14, 1970, pp. 24033-35), though 
it may be germane to more than one portion of a bill (Mar. 27, 1974, p. 
8508), and when offered as a separate paragraph is not required to be 
germane to the paragraph immediately preceding or following it (VII, 
1162; VIII, 2932-2935).


  The test of germaneness in the case of a motion to recommit with 
instructions is the relationship of the instructions to the bill taken 
as a whole (and not merely to the separate portion of the bill 
specifically proposed to be amended in the instructions) (Mar. 28, 1996, 
p. 6932).

  Subject to clause 2(c) of rule XXI (requiring that limitation 
amendments to general appropriation bills be offered at the end of the 
reading of the bill for amendment), an amendment limiting the use of 
funds by a particular agency funded in a general appropriation bill may 
be germane to the paragraph carrying the funds, or to any general 
provisions portion of the bill affecting that agency or all agencies 
funded by the bill (July 16, 1979, p. 18807). However, to a paragraph 
containing funds for an agency but not transferring funds to that 
account from other paragraphs in the bill, an amendment increasing that 
amount by transfer from an account in another paragraph is not germane, 
since affecting budget authority for a different agency not the subject 
of the pending paragraph (July 17, 1985, p. 19436). Similarly, an 
amendment to a general appropriation bill in the form of a limitation on 
funds therein but extending to activities prescribed by laws unrelated 
to the functions of departments and agencies addressed by the bill is 
not germane (July 10, 2000, p. 13605).

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


[[Page 696]]

1991, p. 16152). An amendment in the form of a new title, when offered 
at the end of a bill containing several diverse titles on a general 
subject, need not be germane to the portion of the bill to which 
offered, it being sufficient that the amendment be germane to the bill 
as a whole in its modified form (Nov. 4, 1971, p. 39267; July 2, 1974, 
p. 22029; Sept. 18, 1975, p. 29322; July 11, 1985, p. 18601; Oct. 8, 
1985, pp. 26548-51). While the heading of the final title of a bill as 
``miscellaneous'' does not thereby permit amendments to that title which 
are not germane thereto, the inclusion of sufficiently diverse 
provisions in such title affecting various provisions in the bill may 
permit further amendments which need only be germane to the bill as a 
whole (Apr. 10, 1979, pp. 8034-37).
  An amendment adding a new section to a bill being read by titles must 
be germane to the pending title (Sept. 17, 1975, p. 28925), but where a 
bill is considered as read and open to amendment at any point, an 
amendment must be germane to the bill as a whole and not to a particular 
section (Sept. 29, 1975, p. 30761; Jan. 30, 1986, p. 1052). Where a 
title of a bill is open to amendment at any point, the germaneness of an 
amendment perfecting one section therein depends on its relationship to 
the title as a whole and not merely on its relationship to the one 
section (June 25,

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

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

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


[[Page 697]]

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



Sec. 930. Instructions to committees and amendments 
thereto.

  The  rule that amendments must be germane applies to amendments to 
the instructions in a motion to instruct conferees (VIII, 3230, 3235), 
and the test of germaneness of an amendment to a motion to instruct 
conferees, in addition to the measurement of scope of conference, is the 
relationship of the amendment to the subject matter of the House or 
Senate version of the bill (Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, Sec. 28.2). The rule 
of germaneness similarly applies to the instructions in a motion to 
recommit a bill to a committee of the House, as it is not in order to 
propose as part of a motion to recommit any proposition that would not 
have been germane if proposed as an amendment to the bill in the House 
(V, 5529-5541; VIII, 2708-2712; Mar. 2, 1967, p. 5155), and the 
instructions must be germane to the bill as perfected in the House (Nov. 
19, 1993, p. 30513), even where the instructions do not propose a direct 
amendment to the bill but merely direct the committee to pursue an 
unrelated approach (Speaker O'Neill, Mar. 2, 1978, p. 5272; July 16, 
1991, p. 18397) or direct the committee not to report the bill back to 
the House until an unrelated contingency occurs (VIII, 2704). Under the 
same rationale as amendments to a motion to instruct conferees, 
amendments to a motion to recommit to a standing committee with 
instructions must be germane to the subject matter of the bill (see V, 
6888; VIII, 2711).


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


[[Page 698]]

ment with an amendment is the relationship between the amendment and the 
motion, and not between the amendment and the Senate amendment to which 
the motion has been offered (Aug. 3, 1973, Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, 
Sec. 27.6). Formerly, a Senate amendment was not subject to the point of 
order that it was not germane to the House bill (VIII, 3425), but under 
changes in the rules points of order may be made and separate votes 
demanded on portions of Senate amendments and conference reports 
containing language that would not have been germane if offered in the 
House. Clause 10 of rule XXII permits points of order against language 
in a conference report which was originally in the Senate bill or 
amendment and which would not have been germane if offered to the House-
passed version, and permits a separate motion to reject such portion of 
the conference report if found nongermane (Oct. 15, 1986, p. 31498). For 
purposes of that rule, the House-passed version, against which Senate 
provisions are compared, is that finally committed to conference, taking 
into consideration all amendments adopted by the House, including House 
amendments to Senate amendments (July 28, 1983, p. 21401). Clause 10 of 
rule XXII permits points of order against motions to concur or concur 
with amendment in nongermane Senate amendments, the stage of 
disagreement having been reached, and, if such points of order are 
sustained, permits separate motions to reject such nongermane matter. 
Clause 10 of rule XXII is not applicable to a provision contained in a 
motion to recede and concur with an amendment (the stage of disagreement 
having been reached) which is not contained in any form in the Senate 
version, the only requirement in such circumstances being that the 
motion as a whole be germane to the Senate amendment as a whole under 
clause 7 of rule XVI (Oct. 4, 1978, pp. 33502-06; June 30, 1987, p. 
18294).


Sec. 931. Senate amendments and matter contained in 
conference reports.

  In  the consideration of Senate amendments to a House 
bill an amendment must be germane to the particular Senate amendment to 
which it is offered (V, 6188-6191; VIII, 2936; May 14, 1963, p. 8506; 
Dec. 13, 1980, p. 34097), and it is not sufficient that an amendment to 
a Senate amendment is germane to the original House bill if it is not 
germane to the subject matter of a Senate amendment that merely inserts 
new matter and does not strike out House provisions (V, 6188; VIII, 
2936). But where a Senate amendment proposes to strike out language in a 
House bill, the test of the germaneness of a motion to recede and concur 
with an amendment is the relationship between the language in the motion 
and the provisions in the House bill proposed to be stricken, as well as 
those to be inserted, by the Senate amendment (June 8, 1943, p. 5511; 
June 15, 1943, p. 5899; Dec. 12, 1974, p. 39272). The test of the 
germaneness of an amendment to a motion to concur in a Senate amend



[[Page 699]]

of a rule of the House but confined in its scope to the issue of access 
to committee hearings and meetings, an amendment to another clause of 
that rule relating to committee staffing (Mar. 7, 1973, p. 6714); to a 
title of a bill that only addresses the administrative structure of a 
new department and not its authority to carry out transferred programs, 
an amendment prohibiting the department from withholding funds to carry 
out certain objectives (June 12, 1979, p. 14485); to an amendment 
authorizing the use of funds for a specific study, an amendment naming 
any program established in the bill for an unrelated purpose for a 
specified Senator (Aug. 15, 1986, p. 22075); to one of two 
reconciliation bills reported by the Budget Committee, an amendment 
making a prospective indirect change to the other reconciliation bill 
not then pending before the House (June 25, 1997, p. 12488); to a bill 
reauthorizing the National Sea Grant College Program, a proposal to 
amend existing law to provide for automatic continuation of 
appropriations in the absence of timely enactment of a regular 
appropriation bill (June 18, 1997, p. 11333); to a bill regulating 
immigration, an amendment reaffirming an agreement with Japan (VIII, 
3050); to a bill opposing concessional loans to a country and outlining 
principles governing the conduct of industrial cooperation projects of 
U.S. nationals in that country, an amendment waiving provisions of other 
law by requiring changes in tariff schedules to achieve overall trade 
reciprocity between that country and the United States (Nov. 6, 1997, p. 
24824); to a resolution authorizing the deployment of troops to 
implement a peace agreement, an amendment expressing support for the 
armed forces in carrying out such mission (Mar. 11, 1999, p. 4301); to a 
bill addessing enforcement of State liquor laws, an amendment addressing 
enforcement of State firearm laws (Aug. 3, 1999, p. 19213); to a bill 
addressing taxation under the Internal Revenue Code, an amendment 
extending unemployment insurance benefits (May 9, 2003, p. ----); to a 
bill reauthorizing the National Transportation Safety Board, an 
amendment extending unemployment insurance benefits (May 15, 2003, p. --
-- (sustained on appeal)).


Sec. 932. Subject matter as test of 
germaneness.

  An  amendment must relate to the subject matter under 
consideration. Thus, the following are not germane: To a bill seeking to 
eliminate wage discrimination based on the sex of the employee, an 
amendment to make the provisions of the bill applicable to 
discrimination based on race (July 25, 1962, p. 14778); to a bill 
establishing an office in the Department of the Interior to manage 
biological information, an amendment addressing socioeconomic matters 
(Oct. 26, 1993, p. 26082); to a bill authorizing military assistance to 
Israel and funds for the United Nations emergency force in the Middle 
East, an amendment expressing the sense of Congress that the President 
conduct negotiations to obtain a peace treaty in the Middle East and the 
resumption of diplomatic and trade relations between Arab nations and 
the United States and Israel (Dec. 11, 1973, p. 40842); to a concurrent 
resolution expressing congressional concern over certain domestic 
policies of a foreign government and urging that government to improve 
those internal problems in order to enhance better relations with the 
United States, amendments expressing the necessity for United States 
diplomatic initiatives as a consequence of that foreign government's 
policies (July 12, 1978, pp. 20500-05); to a resolution amending several 
clauses



[[Page 700]]

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

  A bill comprehensively addressing a subject requires careful analysis 
to determine whether an amendment addresses a different subject. For 
example, to an amendment in the nature of a substitute comprehensively 
amending several sections of the Clean Air Act with respect to the 
impact of shortages of energy resources on standards imposed under that 
Act, an amendment to another section of the Act suspending temporarily 
the authority of the Administrator of the EPA to control automobile 
emissions was held germane (Dec. 14, 1973, p. 41688). On the other hand, 
to a bill comprehensively restructuring the production and distribution 
of food, an amendment proposed in a motion to recommit to provide 
nutrition assistance, including food stamps and soup kitchen programs, 
was held not germane (Feb. 29, 1996, p. 3257).



Sec. 933. Fundamental purpose as test of 
germaneness.

  The  fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to 
the fundamental purpose of the bill (VIII, 2911). The Chair discerns the 
fundamental purpose of a bill by examining the text of the bill and its 
report language (Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, Sec. 5.6; Aug. 3, 1999, p. 
19213), rather than the motives that circumstances may suggest (V, 5783, 
5803; Dec. 13, 1973, pp. 41267-69; Aug. 15, 1974, p. 28438). To a bill 
that comprehensively addresses a subject matter, an amendment that 
relates to that subject matter may not be ruled out as nongermane merely 
because the amendment may be characterized as private legislation 
benefitting certain individuals offered to a public bill (May 30, 1984, 
p. 14495). Similarly, to a bill proposing to accomplish a result by 
methods comprehensive in scope, an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute seeking to achieve the same result was held germane where it 
was shown that additional provisions not contained in the original bill 
were merely incidental conditions or exceptions that were related to the 
fundamental purpose of the bill (Aug. 2, 1973, pp. 27673-75; July 8, 
1975, p. 21633; Sept. 29, 1980, pp. 27832-52). On the other hand, an 
amendment may relate to the same subject matter yet still stray from 
adherence to a common fundamental purpose. For example, an amendment 
singling out one constituent element of a larger subject for specific 
and unrelated scrutiny is not germane (Aug. 3, 1999, p. 19213). 
Similarly, to a bill appropriating for only one fiscal year (and 
containing no provisions extending beyond that fiscal year), an 
amendment to extend an appropriation to another fiscal year is not 
germane (June 20, 2001, p. ----).



[[Page 701]]

(the Committee of the Whole overruling the Chair) (VII, 3042); to a 
proposition to accomplish a result through regulation by a governmental 
agency, an amendment to accomplish the same fundamental purpose through 
regulation by another governmental agency (Dec. 15, 1937, pp. 1572-89; 
June 9, 1941, p. 4905; Dec. 19, 1973, p. 42618); to a bill to achieve a 
certain purpose by conferring discretionary authority to set fair labor 
standards upon an independent agency, an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to attain that purpose by a more inflexible method 
(prescribing fair labor standards) (Dec. 15, 1937, pp. 1590-94; Oct. 14, 
1987, p. 27885); to a proposition to accomplish the broad purpose of 
settling land claims of Alaska natives by a method general in scope, an 
amendment accomplishing the same purpose by a method more detailed in 
its provisions (Oct. 20, 1971, p. 37079); to an amendment 
comprehensively amending the Natural Gas Act to deregulate interstate 
sales of new natural gas and regulate aspects of intrastate gas use, a 
substitute providing regulatory authority for interstate and intrastate 
gas sales of large producers (Feb. 4, 1976, p. 2387); to a bill 
providing a temporary extension of existing authority, an amendment 
achieving the same purpose by providing a nominally permanent authority 
was held germane where both the bill and the amendment were based on 
reported economic projections under which either would achieve the same, 
necessarily temporary result by method of direct or indirect amendment 
to the same existing law (May 13, 1987, p. 12344); to a bill subjecting 
employers who fail to apprise their workers of health risks to penalties 
under other laws and regulations, a substitute subjecting such employers 
to penalties prescribed in the substitute itself (Oct. 14, 1987, p. 
27885); to an amendment freezing the obligation of funds for fiscal year 
1996 for missile defense until the Secretary of Defense rendered a 
specified readiness certification, an amendment permitting an increase 
in the obligation of such funds on the basis of legislative findings 
concerning readiness, as each proposition addressed the relationship 
between 1996 funding levels for missile defense and readiness (Feb. 15, 
1995, p. 5026).
  In order to be germane, an amendment must not only have the same end 
as the matter sought to be amended, but must contemplate a method of 
achieving that end that is closely allied to the method encompassed in 
the bill or other matter sought to be amended (Aug. 11, 1970, p. 28165). 
Thus the following are germane: to a bill raising revenue by several 
methods of taxation, an amendment proposing a tax on undistributed 
profits


[[Page 702]]

in certain places, restricting monetary contributions by lobbyists, and 
providing civil penalties for violating Rules of the House in relation 
to floor privileges (Sept. 28, 1976, p. 33070) (but to a similar bill, 
an amendment requiring disclosure of any lobbying communication made on 
the floor of the House or Senate or in adjoining rooms, but not 
regulating such conduct, was held germane (Apr. 26, 1978, p. 11641)); to 
a bill seeking to accomplish a purpose by one method (creation of an 
executive branch agency), an amendment accomplishing that result by a 
method not contemplated in the bill (creation of office within 
legislative branch as function of committee oversight) (Nov. 5, 1975, p. 
35041); to a bill authorizing foreign military assistance programs, an 
amendment authorizing contributions to an international agency for 
nuclear missile inspections (Mar. 3, 1976, p. 5226); to a joint 
resolution proposing a constitutional amendment for representation of 
the District of Columbia in Congress, a motion to recommit with 
instructions that the Committee on the Judiciary consider a resolution 
retroceding populated portions of the District to Maryland (Speaker 
O'Neill, Mar. 2, 1978, p. 5272, implicitly overruling V, 5582); to a 
bill prohibiting poll taxes, a motion to recommit the bill with 
instructions that the committee report it back in the form of a joint 
resolution amending the Constitution to accomplish the purpose of the 
bill (Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, Sec. 23.8); to an amendment to achieve a 
national production goal for synthetic fuels for national defense needs 
by loans and grants and development of demonstration synthetic fuel 
plants, a substitute to require by regulation that any fuel sold in 
commerce require a certain percentage of synthetic fuels, as broader in 
scope and an unrelated method (June 26, 1979, pp. 16663-74); to a bill 
to provide financial assistance to domestic agriculture through price 
support payments, an amendment to protect domestic agriculture by 
restricting imports in competition therewith as proposing an unrelated 
method of assistance within the jurisdiction of another committee (Oct. 
14, 1981, p. 23899); to a bill authorizing financial assistance to 
unemployed individuals for employment opportunities, an amendment 
providing instead for tax incentives to stimulate employment as 
employing an unrelated method within the jurisdiction of a different 
committee of the House (Sept. 21, 1983, p. 25145); to a bill relating to 
one government agency, an amendment having as its fundamental purpose a 
change in the law relating to another agency, even though it 
contemplated a consultative role for the agency covered by the bill 
(July 8, 1987, p. 19014); to a proposition changing congressional budget 
procedures to require consideration of balanced budgets, an amendment 
changing concurrent resolutions on the budget to joint resolutions, 
bringing executive enforcement mechanisms into play (July 18, 1990, p. 
17920); to a bill to promote technological advancement by fostering 
Federal research and development, and amendment exhorting to do so by 
changes in tax and antitrust laws (July 16, 1991, p. 18397); to a bill 
extending unemployment compensation benefits during a period of economic 
recession, an amendment to stimulate economic growth by tax incentives 
and regulatory reform (Sept. 17, 1991,

[[Page 703]]

p. 23156); an amendment to change a direct appropriation of new budget 
authority from the general fund into a reappropriation (in effect a 
rescission) of funds previously appropriated for an entirely different 
purpose in a special reserve account (Feb. 28, 1985, p. 4146); to a bill 
addressing substance abuse through prevention and treatment, an 
amendment imposing civil penalties on drug dealers (Sept. 16, 1998, p. 
20587); to a resolution impeaching the President, an amendment censuring 
the President (Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28107); to a bill authorizing a State 
attorney general to bring a civil action in Federal court against a 
person who has violated a State law regulating intoxicating liquor, an 
amendment singling out certain violations of liquor laws on the basis of 
their regard for any and all firearms issues (Aug. 3, 1999, p. 19213); 
to the same bill, an amendment creating new Federal laws to regulate 
intoxicating liquor (Aug. 3, 1999, p. 19216); to a bill addressing 
persons convicted of sex offenses against children with criminal 
punishment, an amendment addressing such perpetrators by treatment and 
rehabilitation (Mar. 14, 2002, p. ----).
  However, an amendment to accomplish a similar purpose by an unrelated 
method, not contemplated by the bill, is not germane. Thus, the 
following are not germane: to a bill providing relief to foreign 
countries through government agencies, an amendment providing for relief 
to be made through the International Red Cross (Dec. 10, 1947, pp. 
11242-44); to a bill to aid in the control of crime through research and 
training an amendment to accomplish that result through regulation of 
the sale of firearms (Aug. 8, 1967, pp. 21846-50); to a bill providing 
assistance to Vietnam war victims, amendments containing foreign policy 
declarations as to culpability in the Vietnam war (Apr. 23, 1975, p. 
11510); to a bill conserving energy by civil penalties on manufacturers 
of autos with low gas mileage, an amendment conserving energy by tax 
rebates to purchasers of high-mileage autos (June 12, 1975, p. 18695); 
to a proposition whose fundamental purpose was registration and public 
disclosure by, but not regulation of the activities of, lobbyists, 
amendments prohibiting lobbying


[[Page 704]]

for reclamation and public works projects, subjects within the 
jurisdictions of the Committees on Appropriations and Interior and 
Insular Affairs (May 3, 1977, p. 13242); to a bill reported from the 
Committee on Armed Services authorizing military procurement and 
personnel strengths for one fiscal year, a proposition imposing 
permanent prohibitions and conditions on troop withdrawals from the 
Republic of Korea since including statements of policy within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (May 24, 1978, pp. 
15293-95); to a bill reported from the Committee on Government 
Operations creating a new department, transferring the administration of 
existing laws to it, and authorizing appropriations to carry out the Act 
subject to provisions in existing law, an amendment prohibiting the use 
of funds so authorized to carry out a designated funding program 
transferred to the department, where the purpose of the authorization is 
to allow appropriations in general appropriation bills for the 
department to carry out its functions but where changes in the laws to 
be administered by the department remain within the jurisdiction of 
other committees of the House (June 19, 1979, p. 15570); to a bill 
reported by the Committee on Public Works authorizing funds for highway 
construction and mass transportation systems using motor vehicles, an 
amendment relating to urban mass transit (then within the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Banking and Currency) and the railroad industry 
(then within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce) (Oct. 5, 1972, p. 34115); to a bill reported from the 
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs designating certain areas in a 
State as wilderness, an amendment providing unemployment benefits to 
workers displaced by the designation (a subject in the jurisdiction of 
other committees) (Mar. 21, 1983, p. 6347); to a bill reported from the 
Committee on Science and Technology authorizing environmental research 
and development activities of an agency, an amendment expressing the 
sense of Congress with respect to that agency's regulatory and 
enforcement authority, within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce (Feb. 9, 1984, p. 2423); to a bill authorizing 
environmental research and development activities of an agency for two 
years, an amendment adding permanent regulatory authority for that 
agency by amending a law not within the jurisdiction of the committee 
reporting the bill (June 4, 1987, p. 14757); to a bill reported from the 
Committee on Education and Labor dealing with education, an amendment 
regulating telephone communications (a matter within the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce) (Apr. 19, 1988, p. 7355); to a 
bill addressing various research programs and authorities, an amendment 
addressing matters of fiscal and economic policy and regulation (July 
16, 1991, p. 18391; Sept. 22, 1992, pp. 26734, 26741); to a bill 
reported from the Committee on Ways and Means addressing unemployment 
compensation, an amendment addressing stimuli for economic growth 
involving the jurisdictions of the Committees on Banking, Finance, and 
Urban Affairs and the Judiciary (Sept. 17, 1991, p. 23177); to a bill 
reported from the Committee on Armed Services amending several laws 
within that commit

[[Page 705]]

tee's jurisdiction on military procurement and policy, an amendment to 
the Renegotiation Act, a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs and not solely related to military 
contracts (June 26, 1985, pp. 17417-19) and an amendment requiring 
reports on Soviet Union compliance with arms control commitments, a 
matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs (Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, Sec. 4.26); to a bill reported from the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, relating to mentally ill individuals, 
an amendment prohibiting the use of general revenue sharing funds 
(within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations) 
(Jan. 30, 1986, p. 1053); to a bill reported from the Committee on 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries authorizing various activities of the 
Coast Guard, an amendment urging the Secretary of State in consultation 
with the Coast Guard to elicit cooperation from other nations concerning 
certain Coast Guard and military operations (a matter within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs) (July 8, 1987, p. 
19013); to a bill reported by the Committee on Banking, Finance and 
Urban Affairs dealing with housing and community development grant and 
credit programs, an amendment expressing the sense of Congress on tax 
policy (the deductibility of mortgage interest), a matter within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means (Aug. 1, 1990, p. 
21256); to a bill reported from the Committee on Education and Labor 
authorizing a variety of civilian national service programs, an 
amendment establishing a contingent military service obligation (a 
matter within the selective service jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Armed Services) (July 28, 1993, p. 17398); to a bill reauthorizing 
programs administered by two agencies within one committee's 
jurisdiction, an amendment more general in scope affecting agencies 
within the jurisdiction of other committees (May 12, 1994, p. 10024); to 
a bill reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
reforming and privatizing Amtrak, an amendment rescinding previously 
appropriated funds for certain administrative expenses, a matter within 
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations (Nov. 30, 1995, p. 
35071); to a measure expressing a sense of Congress with respect to the 
availability of public funds for expenses incurred in the evaluation of 
a problem, an amendment addressing legislative responses to that 
problem, within the jurisdiction of other committees (Feb. 4, 1998, p. 
794); to a bill reported from Government Reform and Oversight proposing 
to alter responsibilities of executive branch agencies under an existing 
law, an amendment proposing to extend the application of that law to 
entities of the legislative branch, a matter within the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on House Administration (Mar. 12, 1998, p. 3389); to a 
resolution authorizing the deployment of troops to implement a peace 
agreement within the jurisdiction of the Committee on International 
Relations, an amendment expressing support for the armed forces carrying 
such mission within the jurisdiction of both the Committees on Armed 
Services and International Relations (Mar. 11, 1999, p. 4301); to a bill 
addressing certain diplomatic efforts to curb alleged price-fixing in 
the global oil mar

[[Page 706]]

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


Sec. 934. Committee jurisdiction as test of 
germaneness.

  An  amendment when considered as a whole should be within the 
jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill (Jan. 29, 1976, p. 
1582; July 25, 1979, pp. 20601-03; June 27, 1985, pp. 17417-19), 
although committee jurisdiction over the subject of an amendment and of 
the original bill is not the exclusive test of germaneness (Aug. 2, 
1973, pp. 27673-75), and the Chair relates the amendment to the bill in 
its perfected form (Aug. 17, 1972, p. 28913). Thus, the following are 
not germane: To a bill reported from the Committee on Agriculture 
providing price support programs for various agricultural commodities, 
an amendment repealing price control authority for all commodities under 
an act reported from the Committee on Banking and Currency (July 19, 
1973, p. 24950); to a bill reported from the Committee on Ways and Means 
providing for a temporary increase in the public debt ceiling for the 
current fiscal year (not directly amending the Second Liberty Bond Act), 
an amendment proposing permanent changes in that Act and also affecting 
budget and appropriation procedures (matters within the jurisdiction of 
other House committees) (Nov. 7, 1973, p. 36240); to a bill relating to 
intelligence activities of the executive branch, an amendment effecting 
a change in the Rules of the House by directing a committee to impose an 
oath of secrecy on its members and staff (May 1, 1991, p. 9669); to a 
bill reported by the Committee on Government Operations creating an 
executive agency to protect consumers, an amendment conferring on 
congressional committees with oversight over consumer protection the 
authority to intervene in judicial or administrative proceedings (a 
rulemaking provision within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules) 
(Nov. 6, 1975, p. 35373); to a proposition reported from the Committee 
on Public Works and Transportation, authorizing funds for local public 
works employment, an amendment to mandate expenditure of already 
appropriated funds (as a purported disapproval of deferral of such funds 
under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974) and to set discount rates


  Committee jurisdiction is not the sole test of germaneness where: (1) 
the proposition to which the amendment is offered is so comprehensive 
(overlapping several committees' jurisdictions) as to diminish the 
pertinency of that test; (2) the amendment does not demonstrably affect 
a law within another committee's jurisdiction (July 21, 1976, p. 23167; 
Oct. 8, 1985, pp. 26548-51); (3) the portion of the bill also contains 
language, related to the amendment, not within the jurisdiction of the 
committee reporting the bill (Apr. 2, 1976, p. 9254; Aug. 10, 1984, p. 
23975); or (4) the bill has been amended to include matter within the 
jurisdiction of another committee thus permitting further similar 
amendments to be germane (July 11, 1985, p. 18601; Sept. 19, 1986, p. 
24769). Thus, to a bill reported from the Committee on Agriculture 
relating to the food stamp program, an amendment requiring the Secretary 
of the Treasury, after consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, 
to collect from certain recipients the monetary value of food stamps 
received was held germane since the performance of new duties by the 
Secretary of the Treasury and by the Internal Revenue Service not 
affecting the application of the Internal Revenue Code is not a matter 
solely within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means (July 
27, 1977, pp. 25249-52). On the other hand, to a comprehensive farm bill 
authorizing a variety of programs within the jurisdiction of the 
Committees on Agriculture and International Relations, and amended to 
include matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce (but not amending laws within the jurisdiction of other 
committees), an amendment proposing to alter an existing interstate 
dairy compact and grant consent to additional compacts, matters within 
the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, is not germane (Oct. 
4, 2001, p. ----).

  To a bill amending an existing law to grant to merchant mariners 
benefits substantially equivalent to those granted to veterans in a 
separate law in the jurisdiction of another committee, an amendment 
directly changing the separate law to extend its benefits to merchant 
mariners was held not germane (Sept. 9, 1992, p. 23951); but where the 
pending bill incorporates by reference provisions of a law from another 
committee and conditions the bill's effectiveness upon actions taken 
pursuant to a section of that law, an amendment to alter that section of 
the law may be germane (Apr. 8, 1974, pp. 10108-10).


[[Page 707]]

ment which, if considered separately, might be within the jurisdiction 
of another committee (Aug. 2, 1973, p. 27673; June 1, 1976, pp. 16021-
25). However, the House may by adopting a special rule allow a point of 
order that a section of a committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute would not have been germane if offered separately to the bill 
as introduced (May 23, 1978, pp. 15094-96; May 24, 1978, pp. 15293-95; 
Aug. 11, 1978, p. 25705).
  The test of the germaneness of an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute for a bill is its relationship to the bill as a whole, and is 
not necessarily determined by the content of an incidental portion of 
the amend

  The fact that an amendment is offered in conjunction with a motion to 
recommit a bill with instructions does not affect the requirement that 
the subject matter of the amendment be germane and within the 
jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill (Mar. 2, 1967, p. 
5155). Thus the following are not germane: to a bill reported from the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs addressing U.S. claims against Iraq, a 
motion to recommit with instructions to prohibit the admission of former 
members of Iraq's armed forces to the United States as refugees (a 
matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary) is not 
germane (Apr. 28, 1994, p. 8803); and to a bill amending a law reported 
by the Committee on Banking and Financial Services opposing concessional 
loans to a country and outlining principles governing the conduct of 
industrial cooperation projects of U.S. nationals in that country, an 
amendment proposed in a motion to recommit waiving provisions of other 
law by requiring changes in tariff schedules to achieve overall trade 
reciprocity between that country and the United States, a subject within 
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means (Nov. 6, 1997, p. 
24824).


[[Page 708]]

23-25); to a general tariff bill, an amendment creating a tariff board 
(May 6, 1913, p. 1234; Speaker Clark, May 8, 1913, p. 1381); to a 
proposition to sell two battleships and build a new battleship with the 
proceeds, a proposition to devote the proceeds to building wagon roads 
(VIII, 2973); to a bill authorizing a State attorney general to bring a 
civil action in Federal court against a person who has violated a State 
law regulating intoxicating liquor, an amendment singling out certain 
violations of liquor laws on the basis of their regard for any and all 
firearms issues (Aug. 3, 1999, p. 19213).


Sec. 935. Various tests of germaneness are not 
exclusive.

  The  standards by which the germaneness of an amendment may be 
measured, as set forth in Sec. Sec. 932-934, supra, are not exclusive; 
an amendment and the matter to which offered may be related to some 
degree under the tests of subject matter, purpose, and jurisdiction, and 
still not be considered germane under the precedents. Thus, the 
following have been held not to be germane: To a proposition relating to 
the terms of Senators, an amendment changing the manner of their 
election (V, 5882); to a bill relating to commerce between the States, 
an amendment relating to commerce within the several States (V, 5841); 
to a proposition to relieve destitute citizens of the United States in 
Cuba, a proposition declaring a state of war in Cuba and proclaiming 
neutrality (V, 5897); to a proposition for the appointment of a select 
committee to investigate a certain subject, an amendment proposing an 
inquiry of the executive on that subject (V, 5891); to a bill granting a 
right of way to a railroad, an amendment providing for the purchase of 
the railroad by the Government (V, 5887); to a provision for the 
erection of a building for a mint, an amendment to change the coinage 
laws (V, 5884); to a resolution proposing expulsion, an amendment 
proposing censure (VI, 236); to a resolution authorizing the 
administration of the oath to a Member-elect, an amendment authorizing 
such oath administration but adding several conditions of punishment 
predicated on acts committed in a prior Congress (Jan. 3, 1969, pp.



[[Page 709]]

funds for a certain purpose to be expended by one agency, an amendment 
containing funds for another agency for the same purpose (July 24, 1981, 
p. 17226); to an amendment exempting national defense budget authority 
from the reach of a proposed Presidential rescission authority, an 
amendment exempting social security (Feb. 2, 1995, p. 5501); to a Senate 
amendment striking an earmarking from an appropriation bill, a House 
amendment reinserting part of the amount but adding other earmarking for 
unrelated programs (Nov. 15, 1989, p. 29019); to a Senate amendment 
relating to a feasibility study of a land transfer in one State, a House 
amendment requiring an environmental study of land in another State 
(Nov. 15, 1989, p. 29035); to a bill prohibiting certain uses of 
polygraphy in the private sector, an amendment applying the terms of the 
bill to the Congress (Nov. 4, 1987, p. 30870); to a bill to determine 
the equitability of Federal pay practices under statutory systems 
applicable to agencies of the executive branch, an amendment to extend 
the scope of the determination to pay practices in the legislative 
branch (ruling sustained by Committee of Whole, Sept. 28, 1988, p. 
26422); to a special appropriation bill providing funds and authority 
for agricultural credit programs but containing no transfers of funds, 
reappropriations, or rescissions, an amendment (contained in a motion to 
recommit) deriving funds for the bill by transfer of unobligated 
balances in the Energy Security Reserve and thus decreasing and 
transferring funds provided for a program unrelated to the subject 
matter or method of funding provided in the bill (Feb. 28, 1985, p. 
4146); to a bill prohibiting importation of goods made in whole or in 
part by convict, pauper, or detained labor, or made in whole or in part 
from materials that have been made in whole or in part in any manner 
manipulated by convict or prison labor, an amendment prohibiting 
importation of goods produced by child labor, a second discrete class 
(VIII, 2963); similarly, to an amendment authorizing grants to States 
for purchase of one class of equipment (photographic and fingerprint 
equipment) for law enforcement purposes, an amendment including 
assistance for the purchase of a different class of equipment 
(bulletproof vests) (Oct. 12, 1979, pp. 28121-24); to a bill repealing 
section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act and making conforming 
changes in two related sections of labor law, all pertaining solely to 
the so-called ``right-to-work'' issue, an amendment excluding from the 
applicability of certain labor-management agreements members of 
religious groups (July 28, 1965, p. 18633); to a bill relating to the 
design of certain coin currency, an amendment specifying the metal 
content of other coin currency (Sept. 12, 1973, p. 29376); to a 
proposition to accomplish a single purpose without amending a certain 
existing law, an amendment to accomplish another individual purpose by 
changing that existing law (Dec. 14, 1973, pp. 41723-25); to a bill 
regulating poll closing time in Presidential general elections, an 
amendment extending its provisions to Presidential primary elections 
(Jan. 29, 1986, p. 684); to a bill authorizing grants to private 
entities furnishing health care to underserved populations, an amendment 
authorizing grants to States to control a public

[[Page 710]]

health hazard was held not germane as relating to a different category 
of recipient (Mar. 5, 1986, p. 3604); to a bill siting a certain type of 
repository for a specified kind of nuclear waste, an amendment 
prohibiting the construction at another site of another type of 
repository for another kind of nuclear waste (July 21, 1992, p. 18718); 
to a bill addressing violent crimes, an amendment addressing nonviolent 
crimes, such as crimes of fraud and deception or crimes against the 
environment (May 7, 1996, pp. 10342, 10343); to a bill naming a facility 
after a specific person, an amendment proposing to substitute the name 
of a different person is not germane (VIII, 2955) where it could not be 
shown that the amendment intended a return to the facility's existing 
designation (Feb. 4, 1998, p. 792); to a joint resolution addressing 
whether public funds should be available for specified endeavors of one 
group, an amendment addressing the same question for unrelated endeavors 
of another group (Feb. 4, 1998, p. 819); to a bill proposing to alter 
responsibilities of executive branch agencies under an existing law, an 
amendment proposing to extend the application of that law to entities of 
the legislative branch (Mar. 12, 1998, p. 3389); to a joint resolution 
proposing an amendment to the Constitution authorizing Congress to 
prohibit physical desecration of the flag, a motion to recommit with 
instructions proposing an amendment to the Constitution requiring a 
balanced budget or requiring that Social Security receipts and outlays 
be counted as receipts or outlays of the United States (June 22, 2005, 
p. ----, p. ----).


Sec. 936. One individual proposition not germane to 
another.

  One  individual proposition may not be amended by another 
individual proposition even though the two belong to the same class 
(VIII, 2951-2953, 2963-2966, 3047; Jan. 29, 1986, p. 684; Oct. 22, 1990, 
p. 32346; Oct. 24, 1991, p. 28561). Thus, the following are not germane: 
To a bill proposing the admission of one territory into the Union, an 
amendment for admission of another territory (V, 5529); to a bill 
amending a law in one particular, amending the law in another particular 
(VIII, 2949); to a proposition to appropriate or to authorize 
appropriations for only one year (and containing no provisions extending 
beyond that year), an amendment to extend the authorization or 
appropriation to another year (VIII, 2913; Nov. 13, 1980, pp. 29523-28; 
see also May 2, 1979, p. 9564; Oct. 12, 1979, pp. 28097-99); to a 
measure earmarking funds in an appropriation bill, an amendment 
authorizing the program for which the appropriation is made (Nov. 15, 
1989, p. 29019); to a bill for the relief of one individual, an 
amendment proposing similar relief for another (V, 5826-5829); to a 
resolution providing a special order for one bill, an amendment to 
include another bill (V, 5834-5836); to a provision for extermination of 
the cotton-boll weevil, an amendment including the gypsy moth (V, 5832); 
to a provision for a clerk for one committee, an amendment for a clerk 
to another committee (V, 5833); to a Senate amendment dealing with use 
of its contingent fund for art restoration in that body, a proposed 
House amendment for use of the House contingent fund for a similar but 
broader purpose (May 24, 1990, p. 12203); to a bill prohibiting 
transportation of messages relative to dealing in cotton futures, an 
amendment adding wheat, corn, etc. (VIII, 3001); to a bill prohibiting 
cotton futures, an amendment prohibiting wheat futures (VIII, 3001); to 
a bill for the relief of certain aliens, an amendment for the relief of 
other persons who are not aliens (May 14, 1975, p. 14360); to a bill 
providing relief for agricultural producers, an amendment extending such 
relief to commercial fishermen, another class within the jurisdiction of 
another committee (Apr. 24, 1978, p. 11080); to a bill governing the 
political activities of Federal civilian employees, an amendment to 
cover members of the uniformed services (June 7, 1977, p. 17713); to a 
bill covering the civil service system for Federal civilian employees, 
an amendment bringing other classes of employees (postal and District of 
Columbia employees) within the scope of the bill (Sept. 7, 1978, pp. 
28437-39; Oct. 9, 1985, pp. 26951-54); to a portion of an appropriation 
bill containing



[[Page 711]]

35); to an amendment to a budget resolution changing one functional 
category only, an amendment changing several other categories and 
covering an additional fiscal year (May 2, 1979, pp. 9556-64); to a bill 
authorizing funds for radio broadcasting to Cuba, an amendment 
broadening the bill to include broadcasting to all dictatorships in the 
Caribbean Basin (Aug. 10, 1982, p. 20256); to a bill relating to 
aircraft altitude over units of the National Park System, an amendment 
relating to aircraft collision avoidance generally (Sept. 18, 1986, p. 
24084); to a proposition prohibiting the use of funds appropriated for a 
fiscal year for a specified purpose, an amendment prohibiting the use of 
funds appropriated for that or any prior fiscal year for an unrelated 
purpose is not germane (June 30, 1987, p. 18294); to a proposition 
providing for a training vessel for one state maritime academy, an 
amendment relating to training vessels for all state maritime academies 
is not germane (June 30, 1987, p. 18296); to a proposition waiving a 
requirement in existing law that an authorizing law be enacted before 
the obligation of certain funds, an amendment affirmatively enacting 
bills containing not only that authorization but also other policy 
matters (Sept. 28, 1988, p. 26108); to a proposition pertaining only to 
a certain appropriation account in a bill, an amendment relating not 
only to that account but also to funds in other acts (Sept. 30, 1988, p. 
27148); to a proposition raising an employment ceiling for one year, an 
amendment proposing also to address in permanent law a hiring preference 
system for such employees (Oct. 11, 1989, p. 24089); to an omnibus farm 
bill, with myriad programs to improve agricultural economy, an amendment 
to the Animal Welfare Act but not limited to agricultural pursuits (Aug. 
1, 1990, p. 21573); to a bill authorizing Federal funding for qualifying 
State national service programs, an amendment conditioning a portion of 
such funding on the enactment of State laws immunizing volunteers in 
nonprofit or public programs, generally, from certain legal liabilities 
(July 28, 1993, p. 17401); to an amendment addressing particular 
educational requirements imposed on educational agencies by the 
underlying bill, an amendment addressing any requirements imposed on 
educational agencies by the underlying bill (Mar. 21, 1994, p. 5771); to 
a bill reauthorizing programs administered by the Economic Development 
Administration and the Appalachian Regional Commission, an amendment 
providing for the waiver of any Federal regulation that would interfere 
with economic development (May 12, 1994, p. 10024); to a bill 
prohibiting a certain class of abortion procedures, an amendment 
prohibiting any or all abortion procedures (Mar. 20, 1997, p. 4425); to 
a bill addressing a class of imported goods (those produced by forced 
labor), an amendment addressing all imported goods from one specified 
country (Nov. 5, 1997, p. 24643); and to a general appropriation bill, 
an amendment in the form of a limitation on funds therein for activities 
unrelated to the functions of departments and agencies addressed by the 
bill (July 10, 2000, p. 13605).


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

  A  specific subject may not be amended by a provision general in 
nature, even when of the class of the specific subject (V, 5843-5846; 
VIII, 2997, 2998; July 31, 1985, pp. 21832-34; see also Deschler-Brown, 
ch. 28, Sec. 9). Thus the following are not germane: To a bill for the 
admission of one territory into the Union, an amendment providing for 
the admission of several other territories (V, 5837); to a bill relating 
to all corporations engaged in interstate commerce, an amendment 
relating to all corporations (V, 5842); to a bill proscribing certain 
picketing in the District of Columbia, an amendment making the 
provisions thereof applicable throughout the United States (Aug. 22, 
1966, p. 20113); to a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution prohibiting the United States or any State from denying 
persons 18 years of age or older the right to vote, an amendment 
requiring the United States and all States to treat persons 18 years and 
older as having reached the age of majority for all purposes under the 
law (Mar. 23, 1971, p. 7567); to a bill dealing with enforcement of 
United Nations sanctions against one country in relation to a specific 
trade commodity, an amendment imposing United States sanctions against 
all countries for all commodities and communications (Mar. 14, 1977, p. 
7446); to a bill to enable the Department of HEW to investigate and 
prosecute fraud and abuse in medicare and medicaid health programs, an 
amendment to prohibit any officer or employee from disclosing any 
identifiable medical record absent patient approval (Sept. 23, 1977, pp. 
30534-



[[Page 712]]

is not germane (Sept. 27, 1967, p. 26957). Thus, the following are not 
germane: to a bill establishing an office without regulatory authority 
in the Department of the Interior to manage biological information, an 
amendment addressing requirements of compensation for constitutional 
takings by other regulatory agencies (Oct. 26, 1993, p. 26076); to a 
bill amending an authority of an agency under an existing law, an 
amendment independently expressing the sense of Congress on regulatory 
agencies generally (May 14, 1992, p. 11287); to a proposition 
authorizing activities of certain government agencies for a temporary 
period, an amendment permanently changing existing law to cover a 
broader range of government activities (May 5, 1988, p. 9938); and to a 
joint resolution continuing funding within one executive department, 
neither an amendment addressing funding for other departments nor one 
addressing the compensation of Federal employees on a government-wide 
basis (Dec. 20, 1995, pp. 37886, 37888).
  To a bill limited in its applicability to certain departments and 
agencies of government, an amendment applicable to all departments and 
agencies

  To a bill modifying an existing law as to one specific particular, an 
amendment relating to the terms of the law other than those dealt with 
by the bill is not germane (V, 5806-5808). Thus, the following are not 
germane: to a bill amending the war-time prohibition act in one 
particular, an amendment repealing that act (VIII, 2949); to a 
proposition temporarily suspending certain requirements of the Clean Air 
Act, an amendment temporarily suspending other requirements of all other 
environmental protection laws (Dec. 14, 1973, p. 41751); to an amendment 
striking from a bill one activity from those covered by the law being 
amended, a substitute striking out the entire subsection of the bill, 
thereby eliminating the applicability of existing law to a number of 
activities (Sept. 23, 1982, p. 24963); to a bill amending an existing 
law to authorize a program, an amendment restricting authorizations 
under that or any other act (Dec. 10, 1987, p. 34676); to a bill 
proposing a temporary change in law, an amendment making permanent 
changes in that law (Nov. 19, 1991, p. 32893); and to a bill amending an 
existing law in one particular, an amendment amending other laws and 
more comprehensive in scope (Nov. 19, 1993, pp. 30513, 30515, 30517).

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


[[Page 713]]

in several other cities (V, 5840); to a resolution embodying two 
distinct phases of international relationship, an amendment embodying a 
third (V, 5839); to an amendment prohibiting indirect assistance to 
several countries, an amendment to include additional countries within 
that prohibition (Aug. 3, 1978, p. 24244); to a portion of a bill 
providing two categories of economic assistance to foreign countries, an 
amendment adding a further specific category (Apr. 9, 1979, pp. 7755-
57); to a bill bringing two new categories within the coverage of 
existing law, an amendment to include a third category of the same class 
(Nov. 27, 1967, p. 33769); to a proposition providing for prepayment of 
loans by those within a certain class of borrowers who meet a specified 
criterion, a proposed House amendment eliminating the criterion to 
broaden the applicability of the Senate amendment to additional 
borrowers within the same class (June 30, 1987, p. 18308); to an 
amendment addressing a range of criminal prohibitions, an amendment 
addressing another criminal prohibition within that range (Oct. 17, 
1991, p. 26767); to a bill addressing violent crimes, an amendment 
addressing violent crimes involving the environment (May 7, 1996, p. 
10344).


Sec. 938. Specific subjects germane to general propositions 
of the class.

  A  general subject may be amended by specific propositions 
of the same class (VIII, 3002, 3009, 3012; see also Deschler-Brown, ch. 
28, Sec. 11). Thus, the following have been held to be germane: To a 
bill admitting several territories into the Union, an amendment adding 
another territory (V, 5838); to a bill providing for the construction of 
buildings in each of two cities, an amendment providing for similar 
buildings



[[Page 714]]

  Where a bill seeks to accomplish a general purpose (support of arts 
and humanities) by diverse methods, an amendment that adds a specific 
method to accomplish that result (artist employment through National 
Endowment for the Arts) may be germane (Apr. 26, 1976, p. 11101; see 
also June 12, 1979, p. 14460). However, to a resolution authorizing a 
class of employees in the service of the House, an amendment providing 
for the employment of a specified individual was held not to be germane 
(V, 5848-5849). Other examples of amendments that have been held to be 
germane under this theory include: to a proposition relating in many 
diverse respects to the political rights of the people of the District 
of Columbia, an amendment conferring upon that electorate the additional 
right of electing a nonvoting Delegate to the Senate (Oct. 10, 1973, p. 
33656); to a bill containing definitions of several of the terms used 
therein, an amendment modifying one of the definitions and adding 
another (Sept. 26, 1967, p. 26878); to a bill authorizing a broad 
program of research and development, an amendment directing specific 
emphasis in the administration of the program (Dec. 19, 1973, p. 42607); 
to a bill providing for investigation of relationships between 
environmental pollution and cancer, an amendment to investigate the 
impact of personal health habits, such as cigarette smoking, on that 
relationship (Sept. 15, 1976, pp. 30496-98); to a supplemental 
appropriation bill containing funds for several departments and 
agencies, an amendment in the form of a new chapter providing funds for 
capital outlays for subway construction in the District of Columbia (May 
11, 1971, p. 14437); to a proposal authorizing military procurement, 
including purchase of food supplies, an amendment authorizing 
establishment that fiscal year of a military preparedness grain reserve, 
as a more specific authorization (July 20, 1982, pp. 17073, 17074, 
17092, 17093).


[[Page 715]]

permanent law, an amendment permanently changing the organic law 
governing that agency's operations is not germane (Dec. 2, 1982, p. 
28537, concerning Sept. 28, 1982, p. 25465). However, to a bill 
authorizing appropriations for a department for one fiscal year, where 
the effect of the department's activities pursuant to that authorization 
may extend beyond such year, an amendment directing a specific use of 
those funds to perform an activity that may not be completed within the 
fiscal year was nevertheless germane, since limited to funds in the bill 
(Oct. 18, 1979, p. 28763). Similarly, to a one-year authorization bill 
containing diverse limitations and directions to the agency in question 
during such year, an amendment further directing the agency to obtain 
information from the private sector, and to make such information public 
during such year, was held germane (Oct. 18, 1979, pp. 28815-17). While 
an amendment making a permanent change in existing law has been held not 
germane to a bill proposing a temporary change in that law, where it is 
apparent that the fundamental purpose of the amendment is to have only 
temporary effect and to accomplish the same result as the bill it may be 
germane. Thus to a bill providing a temporary extension of existing 
authority, an amendment achieving the same purpose by providing a 
nominally permanent authority was held germane where both the bill and 
the amendment were based on reported economic projections under which 
either would achieve the same, necessarily temporary result by method of 
direct or indirect amendment to the same existing law (May 13, 1987, p. 
12344). However, to a proposal continuing the availability of 
appropriated funds and also imposing diverse legislative conditions upon 
the availability of appropriations, an amendment directly and 
permanently changing existing law as to the eligibility of recipients of 
funds was held to be nongermane (Dec. 10, 1981, pp. 30536-38). To a bill 
extending an existing law in modified form, an amendment proposing 
further modification of that law may be germane (Apr. 23, 1969, p. 
10067; Feb. 19, 1975, p. 3596). But to a bill amending a law in one 
particular, an amendment repealing the law is not germane (Jan. 14, 
1964, p. 423). To a bill amending a general law in several particulars, 
an amendment providing for the repeal of the whole law was held germane 
(V, 5824), but the bill amending the law must so vitally affect the 
whole law as to bring the entire act under consideration before the 
Chair will hold an amendment repealing the law or amending any section 
of the law germane to the bill (VIII, 2944; Apr. 2, 1924, p. 5437). 
Where a bill repeals a provision of law, an amendment modifying that 
provision rather than repealing it may be germane (Oct. 30, 1969, p. 
32466); but the modification must relate to the provision of law being 
repealed (July 28, 1965, p. 18636). Generally to a bill amending one 
existing law, an amendment changing the provisions of another law or 
prohibiting assistance under any other law is not germane (May 11, 1976, 
p. 13419; Aug. 12, 1992, p. 23238). To a bill amending the Bretton Woods 
Act in relation to the International Monetary Fund, an amendment 
prohibiting the alienation of gold to the IMF or to any other 
international organization or its agents was held not

[[Page 716]]

germane (July 27, 1976, p. 24040). However, to a bill comprehensively 
amending several laws within the same class, an amendment further 
amending one of those laws on a subject within that class is germane 
(May 12, 1976, p. 13530); and to a bill authorizing funding for the 
intelligence community for one fiscal year and making diverse changes in 
permanent laws relating thereto, an amendment changing another permanent 
law to address accountability for intelligence activities was held 
germane (Oct. 17, 1990, p. 30171). To a title of a bill dealing with a 
number of unrelated authorities of the Secretary of Agriculture, an 
amendment amending another act within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
on Agriculture to require the adoption of a minimum standard for the 
contents of ice cream was held germane since restricted to the authority 
of the Secretary of Agriculture (July 22, 1977, pp. 24558-70). But to a 
section of a bill amending a section of the National Labor Relations Act 
dealing with procedural rules governing labor elections and 
organizations, an amendment changing the same section of law to require 
promulgation of rules defining certain conduct as an unfair labor 
practice was held not germane, where neither the pending section nor the 
bill itself addressed the subject of unfair labor practices dealt with 
in another section of the law (Oct. 5, 1977, p. 32507). To a bill 
narrowly amending one subsection of existing law dealing with one 
specific criminal activity, an amendment postponing the effective date 
of the entire section, affecting other criminal provisions and classes 
of persons as well as the one amended by the bill, or an amendment to 
another subsection of the law dealing with a related but separate 
prohibition was held not germane (May 16, 1979, pp. 11470-72), but to an 
amendment adding sundry punitive sections to the Federal criminal code, 
an amendment creating an exception to the prohibition of another such 
section was held germane (Oct. 17, 1991, p. 26767).


Sec. 939. Amendments to bills amending existing law.

  To  a 
bill amending a general law on a specific point an amendment relating to 
the terms of the law rather than to those of the bill was ruled not to 
be germane (V, 5808; VIII, 2707, 2708); thus a bill amending several 
sections of one title of the United States Code does not necessarily 
bring the entire title under consideration so as to permit an amendment 
to any portion thereof (Oct. 11, 1967, p. 28649), and where a bill 
amends existing law in one narrow particular, an amendment proposing to 
modify such existing law in other particulars will generally be ruled 
out as not germane (Aug. 16, 1967, p. 22768; VIII, 2709, 2839, 3013, 
3031; May 12, 1976, p. 13532). To a bill narrowly amending an anti-
discrimination provision in the Education Amendments of 1972 only to 
clarify the definition of a discriminating entity subject to the 
statutory penalties (denial of Federal funding), amendments re-defining 
a class of discrimination (sex), expanding the definition of persons who 
are the subject of discrimination (to include the unborn), and deeming a 
new entity (Congress) to be a recipient of Federal assistance (a class 
not necessarily covered by the class covered by the bill), were ruled 
not to be germane (June 26, 1984, pp. 18847, 18857, 18861). But to the 
same bill, an amendment merely defining a word used in the bill was held 
germane (June 26, 1984, p. 18865). Unless a bill so extensively amends 
existing law as to open up the entire law to amendment, the germaneness 
of an amendment to the bill depends on its relationship to the subject 
of the bill and not to the entire law being amended (Oct. 28, 1975, p. 
34031). But a bill amending several sections of an existing law may be 
sufficiently broad to permit amendments that are germane to other 
sections of that law not mentioned in the bill (Feb. 19, 1975, p. 3596; 
Sept. 14, 1978, p. 29487). To a bill continuing and re-enacting an 
existing law amendments germane to the existing act sought to be 
continued have been held germane to the pending bill (VIII, 2940, 2941, 
2950, 3028; Oct. 31, 1963, p. 20728; June 1, 1976, p. 16045); but where 
a bill merely extends an official's authority under existing law, an 
amendment permanently amending that law has been held not in order 
(Sept. 29, 1969, pp. 27341-43). Thus where a bill authorized 
appropriations to an agency for one year but did not amend the organic 
law by extending the existence of that agency, an amendment extending 
the life of another entity mentioned in the organic law was held not 
germane (May 20, 1976, p. 14912). An amendment making permanent changes 
in the law relating to organization of an agency is not germane to a 
title of a bill only authorizing appropriations for such agency for one 
fiscal year (Nov. 29, 1979, p. 34090); to a general appropriation bill 
providing funds for one fiscal year, an amendment changing a permanent 
appropriation in existing law and changing congressional procedures for 
consideration of that general appropriation bill in future years is more 
general in scope and in part within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Rules and therefore is not germane (June 29, 1987, p. 18083); and to a 
temporary authorization bill prescribing the use of an agency's funds 
for two years but not amending



[[Page 717]]

of Congress (Sept. 25, 1979, pp. 26150-52); an amendment proposing a 
conditional restriction on the availability of funds to carry out an 
activity, that merely requires observation of similar activities of 
another country, which similar conduct already constitutes the policy 
basis for the funding of that governmental activity (May 16, 1984, p. 
12510); an amendment restricting the payment of Federal funds in a bill 
to States that enact certain laws relating to the activities being 
funded (July 28, 1993, p. 17403); an amendment that conditions the 
availability of funds authorized in the bill by adopting as a measure of 
their availability the expenditure during the fiscal year of a 
comparable percentage of funds authorized by other acts as long as the 
amendment does not directly affect the use of other funds (July 26, 
1973, p. 26210); to a bill authorizing certain housing programs, an 
amendment restricting the amounts of direct spending in the bill to the 
levels set in the concurrent resolution on the budget as merely a 
measure of availability of funds in the bill and not a provision 
directly affecting the congressional budget process (June 11, 1987, p. 
15540); to a proposition restricting the availability of funds to a 
certain category of recipients, an amendment further restricting the 
availability of funds to a subcategory of the same recipients (Sept. 25, 
1979, pp. 26135-43); to a bill authorizing appropriations for an agency, 
an amendment prohibiting the use of funds for any purpose to which the 
funds may otherwise be applied (Nov. 5, 1981, p. 26716); an amendment 
that conditions the availability of funds covered by a bill by adopting 
as a measure of their availability the monthly increases in the public 
debt as long as the amendment does not directly affect other provisions 
of law or impose unrelated contingencies (Sept. 25, 1979, pp. 26150-52); 
to a bill authorizing defense assistance to a foreign nation, an 
amendment delaying the availability of that assistance until that 
nation's former ambassador testified before a House committee, which had 
been directed by the House to investigate gifts by that nation's 
representatives to influence Members and employees, as a contingency 
that sought to compel the furnishing of information related to efforts 
to induce defense assistance to that nation (Aug. 2, 1978, p. 23932); to 
a provision authorizing funds for a fiscal year, an amendment 
restricting the availability of funds appropriated pursuant thereto for 
a specified purpose until enactment of a subsequent law authorizing that 
purpose (July 21, 1983, p. 20198); to a bill authorizing humanitarian 
and evacuation assistance to war refugees, an amendment making such 
authorization contingent on a report to Congress on costs of a portion 
of the evacuation program (but not requiring implementation of any new 
program) (Apr. 23, 1975, p. 11529); and to an amendment precluding the 
availability of an authorization for part of a fiscal year and then 
permitting availability for the remainder of the year based upon a 
contingency, an amendment constituting a prohibition on the availability 
of the same funds for the entire fiscal year (May 16, 1984, p. 12567).


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

  Restrictions,  qualifications, and limitations 
sought to be added by way of amendment must be germane to the provisions 
of the bill. Conditioning the availability of funds may be germane if 
the condition is related to the general purpose and within the scope of 
the pending proposition (Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, Sec. Sec. 29-34). Thus, 
the following are germane: to a bill authorizing the funding of a 
variety of programs that satisfy several stated requirements in order to 
accomplish a general purpose, an amendment conditioning the availability 
of those funds upon implementation by their recipients of another 
program related to that general purpose (June 18, 1973, p. 20100); to a 
bill authorizing funds for military procurement and construction, an 
amendment declaring that none of the funds be used to carry out military 
operations in North Vietnam (Mar. 2, 1967, p. 5143); an amendment to an 
authorization bill that conditions the expenditure of funds covered by 
the bill by restricting their availability during months in which there 
is an increase in the public debt, as long as the amendment does not 
directly affect other provisions of law or impose contingencies 
textually predicated upon other unrelated actions



[[Page 718]]

duct of congressional hearings addressing an unrelated subject (July 22, 
1994, p. 17613); to a proposition conditioning the availability of funds 
upon the enactment of an authorizing statute for the enforcing agency, a 
substitute conditioning the availability of some of those funds upon a 
prohibition of certain imports into the United States, a contingency 
unrelated to that to which offered (Nov. 7, 1985, p. 30984); to a bill 
authorizing funds for military assistance to certain foreign countries, 
an amendment to make the availability of those funds contingent upon 
efforts by those countries to control narcotic traffic to the United 
States, and to authorize the President to offer the assistance of 
Federal agencies for that purpose, where the subjects of narcotics and 
the accessibility of Federal agencies are not contained in the bill 
(June 17, 1971, p. 20589); to a bill authorizing funds for foreign 
assistance, an amendment placing restrictions on funds authorized or 
appropriated in prior years (Aug. 24, 1967, p. 24002); to an amendment 
changing a dollar amount in a bill, a substitute therefor not only 
changing the figure but also restricting the use of any funds in 
furtherance of a certain activity (June 7, 1972, p. 19920); to a 
proposal to restrict availability of agency funds for a year and 
amending the organic law as it relates to the internal functions 
thereof, an amendment further restricting funding but also applying with 
respect to the use of funds in the bill provisions of criminal and other 
laws not applicable thereto (Oct. 26, 1989, p. 26269); to a provision 
prohibiting aid to a certain country unless certain conditions were met, 
an amendment prohibiting aid to another country until that nation took 
certain acts, and referring to funds provided in other acts (Nov. 17, 
1967, p. 32968); and an amendment conditioning the availability of funds 
to certain recipients based upon their compliance with Federal law not 
otherwise applicable to them and within the jurisdiction of other House 
committees (conditioning defense funds for procurement contracts with 
foreign contractors on their compliance with domestic law regarding 
discrimination) (June 16, 1983, p. 16060).
  On the other hand, the following conditions on the availability of 
funds are not germane: an amendment conditioning the use of funds on the 
con

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


[[Page 719]]

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

  Similarly, while it may be in order on a general appropriation bill to 
delay the availability of certain funds therein if the contingency does 
not impose new duties on executive officials, the contingency must be 
related to the funds being withheld and cannot affect other funds in the 
bill not related to that factual situation (VII, 1596, 1600), may not be 
made applicable to a trust fund provided (IV, 4017), or may not be made 
applicable to money appropriated in other acts (IV, 3927; VII, 1495, 
1597-1599). Thus, to a general appropriation bill containing funds not 
only for a former President but also for other departments and agencies, 
an amendment delaying the availability of all funds in the bill until 
the former President had made restitution of a designated amount of 
money is not germane (Oct. 2, 1974, p. 33620). On the other hand, to a 
general appropriation bill providing funds for the Department of 
Agriculture and including specific allocation of funds for pest control, 
an amendment was germane that prohibited the use of funds for use of 
pesticides prohibited by State or local law (May 26, 1969, p. 13753).

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


[[Page 720]]

amendment restricting such regulatory authority by requiring that 
petroleum products allocated for public school transportation be used 
only between the student's home and the closest school (Dec. 13, 1973, 
pp. 41267-69); to a bill extending the authorities of one government 
agency, including requirements for consultation with several other 
agencies, an amendment requiring that agency to perform a function based 
upon an analysis furnished by yet another agency, as an additional 
limitation on the authority of the agency being extended which did not 
separately mandate the performance of an unrelated function by another 
entity (July 27, 1978, p. 23107); to a proposition authorizing a program 
to be undertaken, a substitute providing for a study to determine the 
feasibility of undertaking the same type of program, as a more limited 
approach involving the same agency (June 26, 1985, pp. 17453, 17458, 
17460) (in effect overruling VIII, 2989); and to a bill limiting an 
official's authority to construe legal authorities transferred to him in 
the bill, an amendment further restricting his authority to construe 
under any circumstances certain other laws to be administered by him (as 
an additional, although more restrictive, curtailment of existing 
authorities transferred by the bill) (June 11, 1979, pp. 14226-38).
  Where a proposition confers broad discretionary power on an executive 
official, an amendment is germane which directs that official to take 
certain actions in the exercise of the authority or proposes to limit 
such authority (VIII, 3022). Thus the following are germane: to an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute authorizing the Federal Energy 
Administrator to restrict exports of certain energy resources, an 
amendment directing that official to prohibit the exportation of 
petroleum products for use in Indochina military operations (Dec. 14, 
1973, p. 41753); to a provision conferring Presidential authority to 
establish priorities among users of petroleum products and requiring 
priority to education and transportation users, an

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


[[Page 721]]

of recipient upon a related contingency such as action or inaction by 
another class of recipient or agent not covered by the bill (Mar. 5, 
1986, p. 3613).
  It is germane to condition or restrict assistance to a particular 
class of recipient covered by the underlying measure. Thus, the 
following are germane: to a bill providing aid to shipping, an amendment 
to limit such aid to ships equipped with saving devices (VIII, 3027); to 
a bill authorizing the insurance of vessels, an amendment denying such 
insurance to vessels charging exorbitant rates (VIII, 3023); to a 
proposition denying benefits to recipients failing to meet a certain 
qualification, a substitute denying the same benefits to some recipients 
but excepting others (July 28, 1982, pp. 18355-58, 18361). While a bill 
relating to benefits based on indemnification of liability arising out 
of an activity does not ordinarily admit as germane amendments relating 
to regulation of that activity, an amendment conditioning benefits upon 
agreement by its recipient to be governed by certain safety regulations 
may be germane if related to the activity giving rise to the liability 
(July 29, 1987, p. 21448). On the other hand, it is not germane to 
condition or restrict assistance to a particular class

  To a bill not only granting consent of Congress to an interstate 
compact but also imposing conditions on the granting of that consent, an 
amendment stating an additional related condition to that consent and 
not directly changing the compact may be germane (Oct. 7, 1997, p. 
21475). To a bill regulating immigration, an amendment providing that 
the operation of the act should not conflict with an agreement with 
Japan is not germane (VIII, 3050).


Readings
  Amendments providing exceptions or exemptions must also be within the 
scope of the proposition. Thus, to a bill requiring that a certain 
percentage of autos sold in the United States be manufactured 
domestically, and imposing an import restriction for autos on persons 
violating that requirement, an amendment waiving those restrictions with 
respect to a foreign nation where the President has issued a 
proclamation that that nation is not imposing unfair import restrictions 
on any United States product was held not germane, dealing with overall 
trade issues rather than domestic content requirement for autos sold in 
the United States (Nov. 2, 1983, p. 30776). However, an amendment to the 
same bill prohibiting its implementation if resulting in United States 
violation to resolve conflicts under those agreements, was held germane 
since the bill already comprehensively addressed those subject matters 
by disclaiming any purpose to amend international agreements or to 
confer court jurisdiction relative thereto, and by conferring court 
jurisdiction over adjudication of penalties assessed under the bill 
(Nov. 2, 1983, p. 30546). Similarly, the following are germane: to a 
bill providing for the deportation of aliens, an amendment to exempt a 
portion of such aliens from deportation (VIII, 3029); to a bill 
prohibiting the issuance of injunctions by the courts in labor disputes, 
an amendment to except all labor disputes affecting public utilities 
(VIII, 3024).



941. Reading, engrossment, and passage of bills.

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


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


[[Page 722]]

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


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

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



Sec. 942. First and second readings.

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


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

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


[[Page 723]]

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


Sec. 943. The third reading after 
engrossment.

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







Sec. 944. Voting on bills.

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