Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 10, Chapter 28 (Sections 1-24), Volume 11, Chapter 28 (Sections 25-end, plus index) - § 20. Amendment Striking Portion of Text of Bill or Amendment

[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 10, Chapter 28 (Sections 1-24), Volume 11, Chapter 28 (Sections 25-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 28. Amendments and the Germaneness Rule]
[B. Application of Ruke to Particular Forms of Amendment or Proposition]
[§ 20. Amendment Striking Portion of Text of Bill or Amendment]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[Page 8324-8334]

CHAPTER 28

Amendments and the Germaneness Rule

B. APPLICATION OF RULE TO PARTICULAR FORMS OF AMENDMENT OR PROPOSITION

Sec. 20. Amendment Striking Portion of Text of Bill or Amendment

A proposal to strike out a portion of a text may be ruled out of
order as not germane to the proposition under consideration. Generally,
an amendment which, by striking out a portion of the text, changes the
purpose and scope of the bill is not germane.⁽¹²⁾ Thus, if
the effect of an amendment striking out language is to alter the

[[Page 8325]]

scope and import of the text to such extent as to present a different
subject from that under consideration, the amendment is not
germane.⁽¹³⁾ Similarly, it is sometimes stated that a
proposal to eliminate portions of a text, thereby extending the scope
of its provisions to subjects other than those originally presented, is
in violation of the rule requiring germaneness.⁽¹⁴⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 20.3, 20.4, infra.
13. See Sec. 15.44, supra.
14. See Sec. Sec. 9.12, supra, and 20.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conversely, an amendment which by striking out a portion of the
text limits, narrows or does not change the purpose and scope of the
bill may be germane.⁽¹⁵⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 20.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perfecting amendments to a title in a bill may be offered while
there is pending a motion to strike out the title, and are required to
be germane to the text to which offered, not to the motion to strike
out.⁽¹⁶⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 18.2, supra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment as Changing Scope and Meaning of Text

Sec. 20.1 An amendment simply striking out language already in a bill
may not be ruled out as non-germane unless the effect of such
amendment would change the scope and meaning of the text.

The proceedings of June 7, 1977, relating to the Federal Employees
Political Activities Act of 1977,⁽¹⁷⁾ wherein the Chair
ruled out amendments to strike language because the effect of the
amendments was to enlarge the scope of the bill, are discussed in
Sec. 20.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provision Excluding Uniformed Services From Coverage of Bill Affecting
Federal Employees--Amendment To Strike Exclusion

Sec. 20.2 To a bill governing the political activities of a certain
class of federal employees, an amendment broadening the scope of
the bill to cover another class of federal employees is not
germane; thus, where a bill contained a provision excluding from
its coverage a particular class (members of the uniformed
services), the effect of which was to narrow the scope of the bill
to another single class (federal civilian employees), amendments
proposing to strike out that exclusion from coverage, thereby
broadening

[[Page 8326]]

the scope of the bill to include the separate class, were held not
germane.

On June 7, 1977,⁽¹⁸⁾ during consideration of the Federal
Employees' Political Activities Act of 1977,⁽¹⁹⁾ the Chair
held that an amendment which by deleting an exception to the definition
of the class covered by the bill and by inserting new provisions has
the effect of including another class, is not germane. The amendment
and proceedings related thereto were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 123 Cong. Rec. 17713, 17714, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. H.R. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendments offered by Mr. [Thomas N.] Kindness [of Ohio]:
Page 28, line 12, strike out ``but does not include a member of
the uniformed services'' and insert ``including any member of
the uniformed services''. . . .
Page 38, line 14, immediately before the period insert ``or
by reason of being a member of the uniformed services''.
Page 45, before line 8, insert the following:
``(j) The preceding provisions of this section shall not
apply in the case of a violation by a member of a uniformed
service. Procedures with respect to any such violation shall,
under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, be the
same as those applicable with respect to violations of section
892 of title 10.
Page 46, after line 12, insert the following:
``(c) The preceding provisions of this section shall not
apply in the case of a violation by a member of the uniformed
services. Any such violation shall, under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary concerned, be subject to the same
penalties as apply in the case of a violation of section 892 of
title 10.''.
Page 47, after line 21, insert the following:
``(d) In the case of members of the uniformed services, the
Secretary concerned shall carry out the responsibilities
imposed on the Commission under the preceding provisions of
this section.''. . .
Page 48, after line 17, insert:
``(c) In the case of members of the uniformed services, the
Secretary concerned shall prescribe the regulations the
Commission is required to prescribe under this section, section
7322(9), and section 7324(c)(2) and (3) of this title.''. . .

Mr. [William] Clay [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I raise the
point of order on the grounds that the matter contained in the
amendment is in violation of the germaneness rule stated in clause
7 of House rule XVI.
The instant amendment proposes to make the bill applicable to
an entirely new class of individuals other than what is covered
under the bill.
The reported bill applies only to civilian employees in
executive branch agencies, including the Postal Service and the
District of Columbia government, who are presently under the Hatch
Act.
The amendment seeks to add a totally different class of
individuals to the bill; namely, military personnel who are not now
covered by the Hatch Act. Accordingly the amendment is not germane
to the bill. . . .
Mr. Kindness: Responding [to] the point of order, Mr. Chairman,
the bill,

[[Page 8327]]

as before us at this time, has been expanded in considerable degree
by the Clay amendment and by other amendments that have been
adopted during the course of the consideration of the bill in the
Committee of the Whole.
However, I would point out that the amendment is germane, and I
particularly direct the attention of the chairman and the Members
to line 12 of page 28 where, in the definition of the word
``employee'' the words appear, on line 12, ``but does not include a
member of the uniformed services.''
Mr. Chairman, that is the very crux of this whole point. The
committee has given consideration, apparently, to the inclusion or
exclusion of members of uniformed services under the provisions of
this bill. A conscious decision was apparently made; and as
reported to the House, this bill has that conscious decision
reflected in it not to include members of the uniformed services.
Mr. Chairman, the issue is directly before the House in that
form, so that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio is
in order, is pertinent, and is germane. It could not be nongermane.
The Chairman: ⁽²⁰⁾ The Chair is prepared to rule on
the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. James R. Mann (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) makes a point of order
that the striking of the language, ``but does not include a member
of the uniformed services,'' and the remainder of the amendment
broadens the scope of the bill in violation of rule XVI, clause 7.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kindness) argues that because the
exclusion from coverage for the military is in the bill and has
received consideration, that the germaneness rule should be more
liberally interpreted.
An annotation to clause 7, rule XVI, says that, in general, an
amendment simply striking out words already in a bill may not be
attacked as not germane unless such action would change the scope
and meaning of the text. Cannon's VIII, section 2921; Deschler's
chapter 28, sec. 15.3.
On October 28, 1975, Chairman Jordan of Texas ruled, during the
consideration of a bill H.R. 2667, giving the right of
representation to Federal employees during questioning as follows:

In a bill amending a section of title 5, United States
Code, granting certain rights to employees of executive
agencies of the Federal Government, an amendment extending
those rights to, in that case, legislative branch employees, as
defined in a different section of that title, was held to go
beyond the scope of the bill and was ruled out as not germane.

The class of employees included in this legislation is confined
to civilian employees of the Government, and those specifically so
stated and described as being civilian employees of the executive
agencies, of the Postal Service and of the District of Columbia
government, and a reference to the Hatch Act as currently in force
indicates that military personnel are not included in that act.
It is obvious that the purpose and the scope of the act before
us as referred to in its entirety as amended by this bill, is, ``to
restore to Federal civilian and Postal Service employees their
rights to participate voluntarily, as pri

[[Page 8328]]

vate citizens, in the political processes of the Nation, to protect
such employees from improper political solicitations, and for other
purposes.''
The Chair finds that the striking of the language excluding
military employees and inserting language covering the military
broadens the class of the persons covered by this bill to an extent
that it substantially changes the text and substantially changes
the purpose of the bill. The fact that the exclusion of military
personnel was stated in the bill does not necessarily bring into
question the converse of that proposition. The Chair therefore
finds that the amendment is not germane and sustains the point of
order. . . .
Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, I have [a] parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is this:
Is there a way to appeal the ruling of the Chair within the rules
of the House?
The Chairman: Yes, there is.
Mr. Kindness: So that I may respectfully appeal the ruling of
the Chair at this point?
The Chairman: If the gentleman from Ohio desires to do so.
Does the gentleman desire to appeal the ruling of the Chair?
Mr. Kindness: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not so desire at this
point.

Subsequently, Mr. Kindness offered another amendment deleting the
language excluding the uniformed services from coverage under the bill:

Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Kindness: Page 8, line 12, strike
out ``but does not include a member of the uniformed services''
and insert ``including any member of the uniformed services''.
Page 35, line 2, strike out ``or a member of a uniformed
service.''.

Mr. Clay: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the
amendment is not germane, that it goes beyond the scope of the
bill, and that it amends existing law not cited in the bill. . . .
Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, I carefully listened to the ruling
of the Chair on a prior amendment which dealt in greater detail
with the subject of members of the uniformed services who are
specifically excluded from this bill but only by the language that
is included in this amendment. All this amendment does is to strike
language that is in the bill. That has to be germane. It has to be
a part of the bill before us, in the most germane sense, the most
consistent sense.
I would urge that the point of order is not well taken on its
face, because the amendment only strikes language that is in the
bill.
The Chairman: The Chair feels that it covered the point made at
this time by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kindness) in its first
ruling, in which the Chair cited from the House Rules and Manual of
the 95th Congress, paragraph 7, of rule XVI and precedents
contained in Cannon's volume VIII, sections 2917-2921.
Let the Chair quote the language that the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kindness) would find to be most favorable. The language is as
follows:

In general, an amendment simply striking out words already
in a bill

[[Page 8329]]

may not be ruled out as not germane unless such action would
change the scope and meaning of the text.

The Chair would say that the gentleman's position was stronger
in the first instance wherein he did supply language, and the Chair
feels in making this second ruling that the broadening aspect of
the gentleman's initial language is such as to take it out of the
scope of the bill. By reversing that language and striking it out
and putting it in affirmative terms, as the gentleman now does, the
gentleman's amendment is subject to the point of order, and the
ruling is the same.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in
order.

Amendment Broadening Definition of Criminal Offense

Sec. 20.3 To a bill making it a penal offense for three or more persons
acting in concert without authority of law to kill or injure any
person in the custody of a peace officer, an amendment proposing to
strike out the words ``in the custody of a peace officer'' was held
to be not germane.

In the 75th Congress, an anti-lynching bill ⁽¹⁾ was
under consideration, which stated: ⁽²⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. H.R. 1507 (Committee on Rules discharged).
2. See 81 Cong. Rec. 3544, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 15, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Be it enacted, etc., That for the purposes of this act the
phrase ``mob or riotous assemblage,'' when used in this act, shall
mean an assemblage composed of three or more persons acting in
concert without authority of law to kill or injure any person in
the custody of any peace officer with the purpose or consequence of
depriving such person of due process of law or the equal protection
of the laws.

An amendment was offered, as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]:
On page 1, strike out all of lines 3 to 9, inclusive, and insert in
lieu thereof the following:

That for the purpose of this act the phrase ``mob or
riotous assemblage'' when used in this act shall mean an
assemblage composed of two or more persons acting in concert
without authority of law to kill, injure, or kidnap any person
with the purpose or consequence of depriving such person of due
process of law and the equal protection of the law.

Mr. Joseph A. Gavagan, of New York, raised the point of order that
the amendment was not germane to the bill. He stated:

. . . The gentleman's amendment refers to the crime of
kidnaping, entirely different from the crime we are attempting to
legislate in this bill.

The Chairman,⁽³⁾ in ruling on the point of order,
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

. . . The gentleman from Mississippi offers an amendment to the
first section of the bill to include kidnaping in addition to the
crime of lynching, but in addition thereto the gentleman, by

[[Page 8330]]

his amendment, strikes out the words in line 7 ``in the custody of
any peace officer.'' The gentleman's amendment would extend the
class to which this bill applies to kidnaping. The addition of
kidnaping might not be objectionable, but this bill applies to the
death or injury of persons ``in the custody of a peace officer'',
while the proposed amendment takes those words, quoted, out of the
bill. The Chair does not think the amendment is germane, and
sustains the point of order.

The following amendment was then offered:

Amendment by Mr. Colmer: Page 1, line 5, strike out the word
``three'' and insert in lieu thereof the word ``two'', and in line
7, strike out the words ``in the custody of any peace officer.''

Mr. Gavagan having again raised a point of order, the Chairman
ruled as follows:

. . . The ruling of the Chair just made on the previous
amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi will apply to
this amendment, as to the second provision in the amendment
striking out the language of the bill ``in the custody of any peace
officer.'' The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Exportation of Arms to Spain--Amendment To Strike Reference to Spain

Sec. 20.4 To a joint resolution prohibiting the exportation of arms and
ammunition to Spain, an amendment proposing to strike out the
reference to Spain was held to be not germane.

In the 75th Congress, a bill ⁽⁴⁾ was under consideration
which prohibited the exportation of arms to Spain.⁽⁵⁾ An
amendment was offered ⁽⁶⁾ as described above. In response to
a point of order raised by Mr. Samuel D. McReynolds, of
Tennessee,⁽⁷⁾ the Speaker ⁽⁸⁾ stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. S.J. Res. 3.
5. See 81 Cong. Rec. 90, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 6, 1937.
6. Id. at p. 96.
7. Id. at p. 97.
8. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, what is the purpose and scope of the Senate resolution
which is under consideration? There can be no controversy that it
relates entirely to the question of the shipment of arms and
ammunition to Spain--one particular country--and regulates certain
phases of shipments to warring civil factions in that country; but
under the suggestion made in the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas it certainly departs entirely from the limitation with
reference to the shipment of munitions to the one Government of
Spain, and broadens the field so as to apply to any government.

Relying on the principle that, ``an amendment which, by striking
out a portion of the text, changes the purpose and scope of a bill, is
not germane,'' the Speaker sustained the point of order.

[[Page 8331]]

Prohibition on Use of Federal Payment Funds for Abortions--Motion To
Strike Reference to Federal Payment Funds

Sec. 20.5 A motion to strike out a portion of the text of an amendment,
thereby extending its scope to a more general subject, is not
germane; thus, to a substitute amendment to the District of
Columbia Appropriation bill prohibiting the use of annual federal
payment funds therein for the performance of abortions, an
amendment striking the reference to federal payment funds, thereby
broadening the scope of the substitute to cover any funds contained
in the bill (such as ``local'' District of Columbia funds), was
held to be not germane.

During consideration of H.R. 4580 ⁽⁹⁾ in the Committee
of the Whole on July 17, 1979,⁽¹⁰⁾ the Chair sustained a
point of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. The District of Columbia Appropriations for fiscal 1980.
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 19064, 19066, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment offered by Mr. Dornan: Page 17, after line 2, add
the following new section:
``Sec. 221. None of the funds appropriated under this Act
shall be used to pay for abortions.''. . .

Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment
as a substitute for the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas as a
substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Dornan: ``None of
the funds in this Act provided by the Federal payment shall be
used to perform abortions.''. . .

Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman to the amendment offered by
Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas as a substitute for the amendment
offered by Mr. Dornan: delete from the amendment of the
gentleman from Texas the following words: ``provided by the
Federal payment''.

A point of order was made, as follows:

Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas: . . . As I understand the
amendment it in essence takes it back to the original Dornan
amendment without providing for the substitute. . . .
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, that is not a point of order, it
simply is an accurate description of the amendment. . . .
Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I suppose the point
of order is that it is a sham amendment in that it just repeats the
intent of the original amendment.

[[Page 8332]]

The Chairman: ⁽¹¹⁾ In the opinion of the Chair, the
gentleman from Texas is suggesting that the perfecting amendment
broadens the scope of the substitute amendment, and for that reason
is not germane. The point of order is sustained under the
precedents that a motion to strike cannot broaden the scope of the
pending proposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Albert A. Gore, Jr. (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Chair could cite a
precedent for his ruling?
The Chairman: Deschler's Procedure chapter 28, section 15.3.

Surplus Agricultural Commodities--Language Concerning Transportation of
Commodities

Sec. 20.6 To that provision in a bill authorizing the President to
furnish emergency assistance to friendly nations from stocks of
surplus agricultural commodities to be made available ``f.o.b.
vessels in United States ports,'' an amendment striking out
``f.o.b. vessels in United States ports'' was held germane, taking
into account other provisions in the bill already read for
amendment.

In the 83d Congress, during consideration of the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Act of 1954,⁽¹²⁾ an amendment was
offered ⁽¹³⁾ as described above. A point of order was raised
against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. S. 2475 (Committee on Agriculture).
13. 100 Cong. Rec. 8370, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., June 16, 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order that the amendment is not germane in that it extends
the scope of authority which is given the Commodity Credit
Corporation under this bill. . . . If the amendment were adopted,
it would mean that the obligation of the Commodity Credit
Corporation would be to furnish transportation anywhere in the
world we might ship these commodities. . . .

In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Thor C. Tollefson,
of Washington, stated:

. . . This bill provides for the disposition of agricultural
surplus products to foreign nations and involves necessarily the
transportation of those surplus farm products. . . . The language
of the present bill gives the President authority on page 6, line
21, and I read, ``and shall make funds available to finance the
sale and exportation of surplus agricultural commodities.''
That is contained, of course, in section 1, but it is in the
bill, and it gives the President authority to finance the sale and
to finance the exportation which would exclude the transshipment of
products not only in the United States but on vessels to carry them
abroad.

The Chairman,⁽¹⁴⁾ in ruling on the point of order,
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Gerald R. Ford, Jr. (Mich.).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 8333]]

It seems to the Chair, on the basis of section 204 of the bill,
and other related portions of the bill which deal with the question
of transportation of the commodities which are involved in this
legislation, that the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Tollefson] is germane; and the Chair so rules.

Motion To Strike Not Germane as Substitute

Sec. 20.7 During consideration of a bill relating to salaries of
government employees, it was held that, to an amendment seeking to
change specific dollar amounts, an amendment offered as a
substitute proposing to strike out other portions of the bill not
amended by the original amendment was not germane.

In the 77th Congress, a bill ⁽¹⁵⁾ was under
consideration comprising an amendment to the Classification Act of 1923
to increase certain salaries. An amendment was offered ⁽¹⁶⁾
whose purpose was described by the proponent as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 6217 (Committee on Civil Service).
16. 88 Cong. Rec. 5885, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., July 1, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Robert] Ramspeck [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, this is the
amendment which I stated during general debate I would offer for
the purpose of eliminating the new salary provisions over and
beyond the present range of the Classification Act.
Under the present classification law the Civil Service
Commission has no authority to allocate any position at a salary
greater than $9,000 a year unless it is specifically provided for
by Congress. Under this bill we originally provided a new grade
starting at $9,000 and going to $10,000. The purpose of this
amendment is to eliminate this new grade and confine the range of
the Classification Act to a top figure of $9,000.

Mr. Edward H. Rees, of Kansas, offered, as a substitute, an
amendment striking out specified portions of the bill.⁽¹⁷⁾
The following proceedings related to a point of order raised by Mr.
Cochran:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 5887.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Mississippi]: An amendment is
pending. The Clerk read this as an amendment and I doubt if it is
germane.
The Chairman: ⁽¹⁸⁾ The Chair rules that the
gentleman can offer this after the Ramspeck amendment has been
disposed of. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. A. Willis Robertson (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

. . . [T]he question is on the Ramspeck amendment. . . .
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
. . .
The gentleman from Kansas has offered a substitute for the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia. The only way that
can fail to receive

[[Page 8334]]

consideration is by a point of order being made against it.
The Chairman: The Chair understood that the gentleman from
Missouri made the point of order that if (the Rees amendment) was a
substitute it was not germane to the Ramspeck amendment and that,
therefore, the Ramspeck amendment would have to be disposed of
first before the gentleman from Kansas could offer his amendment.

Pro Forma Amendment

Sec. 20.8 A pro forma amendment to ``strike out the last word'' is
germane.⁽¹⁹⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 17.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------