[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]
[F. Procedural Matters]
[§ 46. Factors in Chair's Ruling; Refusal by Chair To Rule; Anticipatory and Hypothetical Rulings]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 9225-9235]
CHAPTER 28
Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
F. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
Sec. 46. Factors in Chair's Ruling; Refusal by Chair To Rule;
Anticipatory and Hypothetical Rulings
The Chair ordinarily does not give anticipatory rulings and
declines to prejudge the germaneness of any amendment not actually
before the House. The Chair does not indicate in advance what his
ruling would be as to the germaneness of an amendment if
offered.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 84 Cong. Rec. 8706, 8707, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., July 6, 1939
(remarks of Speaker Sam Rayburn (Tex.) in response to a
parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Costello).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, where there was pending to a bill both an amendment in
the form of a new section and a substitute therefor, the Chair
(4) declined to indicate, in response to a parliamentary
inquiry, whether the pending substitute, if defeated, would thereafter
be germane and in order if subsequently offered as an amendment in the
form of a new section.(5) In this instance, there
[[Page 9226]]
was pending, in addition to the above, an amendment to the substitute.
The Chairman did indicate, in response to parliamentary inquiries, that
defeat of the amendment to the substitute and of the substitute would
not preclude the offering of another germane substitute; and that
adoption of the amendment in the form of a new section would not
preclude the offering of additional germane amendments as new sections
to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
5. See the proceedings at 116 Cong. Rec. 25811, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.,
July 27, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Chair does not anticipate the content of a motion
to recommit and will not rule in advance as to whether particular
instructions which might be offered as part of such a motion would be
germane.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See the remarks of Speaker John W. McCormack (Mass.) at 109 Cong.
Rec. 25249, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 19, 1963, in response to
a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Halleck. See also Sec. 45.7,
supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the Chair on occasion has indicated that it is not
within its province to advise Members as to where an amendment to a
bill could properly be offered.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See the remarks of Chairman Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.) at 84 Cong. Rec.
7501, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 19, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair rules on points of order as raised and does not determine
whether an amendment ruled out at one point as not germane may be
offered at some later stage.
The Chair, however, may sometimes be seen to depart from the above
principles. Thus, the Chairman on infrequent occasion has expressed an
opinion as to whether a proffered amendment might be germane to a
different part of the bill.(8) For example, the Chairman,
while ruling out an amendment as not germane to a particular part of a
bill, has indicated that the amendment would be germane to a later
section of the bill. On Mar. 23, 1933, during consideration of the
District of Columbia Beer Bill,(9) the Chairman
(10) first held that an amendment imposing general
restrictions on the sale of beverages was not germane to that part of
the bill which merely described types of beverage licenses to be
issued; then he stated that the amendment was germane to a later
section of the bill and could be offered during consideration of such
section.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See Sec. 21.8, supra.
9. H.R. 3342 (Committee on the District of Columbia).
10. Ralph Fulton Lozier (Mo.).
11. 77 Cong. Rec. 835, 73d Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 23, 1933.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, while ruling an amendment out of order, the
[[Page 9227]]
Chairman on occasion has indicated how the amendment could properly be
offered.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 18.15, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other instances, the Chair may decline to rule. Thus, the
Speaker does not rule on such questions of germaneness as may be the
province of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 45.7, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair does not rule on the question as to whether an amendment
is ambiguous.(14) And the Chair has declined to pass upon
constitutional questions.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 46.4, infra.
15. See Sec. Sec. 30.21, 33.8, 35.86,
supra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chair Decides Issue on Basis of Text, Not Speculation as to Motives
Behind Amendment
Sec. 46.1 The germaneness of an amendment is determined by the
relationship between its text and the portion of the bill to which
offered, and is not judged by motives for offering the amendment
which circumstances may suggest, nor by the fact that the
amendment, offered to a public bill, may in substance be
characterized as private legislation benefiting individuals.
The proceedings of May 30, 1984, relating to H.R. 5167, the Defense
Department authorization for fiscal 1985, are discussed in Sec. 3.45,
supra.
Chair Decides Issue on Basis of Text, Not Conjecture as to Further
Legislation That Might Result From Amendment
Sec. 46.2 In ruling on a question of germaneness, the Chair confines
his analysis to the text of the amendment and is not guided by
conjecture as to other legislation or administrative actions which
might--but are not required to--result from the amendment.
On July 27, 1977,(16) it was held that to a title of a
bill (17) reported from the Committee on Agriculture
providing for benefits under, and administration of, the food stamp
program, an amendment which provided for recovery of benefits from
persons whose income exceeded specified levels was germane even though
it required the Secretary of the Treasury and, impliedly, the Internal
Revenue
[[Page 9228]]
Service to collect any liability imposed by the amendment's provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 123 Cong. Rec. 25249, 25252, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. H.R. 7171, the Agriculture Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Jeffords to the amendment offered
by Mr. Foley: In title XII, page 28, insert after line 8 the
following new section:
``recovery of benefits where individual's adjusted gross income
for year exceeds twice poverty level
``Sec. 1210(a)(1) if--
``(A) any individual receives food stamps during any
calendar year and
``(B) such individual's adjusted gross income for such
calendar year exceeds the exempt amount,
then such individual shall be liable to pay the United States
the amount determined under subsection (b) with respect to such
individual for such calendar year. Such amount shall be due and
payable on April 15 of the succeeding calendar year and shall
be collected in accordance with the procedures prescribed
pursuant to subsection (g). . . .
Mr. [Fortney H.] Stark [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve
a point of order. I would like to engage the author of the
amendment in colloquy. . . .
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the distinguished gentleman
from Vermont who or what branch of Government the gentleman feels
would collect this money from the people?
Mr. Jeffords: Under the amendment, the Department of the
Treasury would be required to collect the money.
Mr. Stark: It would be the Treasury Department and in no way
did the gentleman intend that the Internal Revenue Service
participate in any of the collection or in collecting the forms or
collecting revenue?
Mr. Jeffords: No, on the contrary, it is my understanding and
belief that the Internal Revenue Service would be charged with and
do the collecting. . . .
Mr. Stark: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the
jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service lies wholly within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
This amendment, as the gentleman has stated it, would be
counting on the Internal Revenue Service to perform the functions
as put down under this amendment. The amendment would not be in
order and would not be within the jurisdiction of this committee. .
. .
Mr. Jeffords: . . . As I understand the rules here, I can ask
for an amendment that can be proposed, as can anybody, to the
collection. We could make the State Department or anyone else do
the collection, but we cannot do what I have not done, and very
specifically have not done in this amendment, which is to change
any statute of the way it is done, which is under the jurisdiction
of the Committee on Ways and Means. If I am wrong on this, there
are so many places in this bill where the same thing is done that I
do not know why a number of Members have not raised points of
order.
We have asked the Postal Service to do something; we have asked
the social security office to do things; we have mandated different
agencies all over
[[Page 9229]]
the place. We do not interfere with any statutes which are under
committee jurisdiction of other committees. I have not done so
here. The question is, do we change any statute which is under the
jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee, and we do not. They
are the guardian over those statutes, but they are not the guardian
over any agency which happens to be involved with those statutes.
Mr. Stark: Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite clear that the
gentleman, in terms of both the committee report and in his
response to questions here, in his statement on the floor that this
amendment, although it really says that the Secretary of the
Treasury shall collect any liability, clearly the intention is that
the Internal Revenue Service shall collect W-2 forms, match them
against income figures which are now under the law not to be given
even to the Secretary of Treasury, but are for collecting income
tax and Internal Revenue matters.
Clearly, the intent of the amendment is to direct the Internal
Revenue Service to participate in that. The jurisdiction of the
Internal Revenue Service and all matters pertaining thereto is
under the Committee on Ways and Means. I would ask that this
amendment be ruled out of order on that basis.
The Chairman: (18) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from California makes the point of order that the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) is
not germane to the food stamp title of the pending bill. The thrust
of the gentleman's point of order is that the collection procedure
for overpayments of food stamp benefits to persons above the
poverty level involves responsibilities of the Treasury Department,
and in effect mandates the establishment of regulations which would
involve the disclosure of tax returns and tax information and
utilization of the Internal Revenue Service--all matters within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
The Chair notes that the amendment does contain the provision
that ``nothing in this section shall be construed to affect in any
manner the application of any provision of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954,'' and it seems to the Chair to follow that, under the
explicit provisions of the amendment. Secretary of the Treasury
would therefore have to establish an independent collection
procedure separate and apart from the mandated use of the Internal
Revenue Service. The Chair does not have to judge the germaneness
of the amendment by contemplating possible future legislative
actions of the Congress not mandated by the amendment.
In the opinion of the Chair, the authority of the Secretary of
the Treasury under the rules of the House as collector of
overpayments of any sort is not subject explicitly and exclusively
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means under
rule X, and even if this were true, committee jurisdiction is not
an exclusive test of germaneness where, as here, the basic thrust
of the amendment is to modify the food stamp program--a matter now
before the Committee of the Whole.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
[[Page 9230]]
Anticipatory Rulings
Sec. 46.3 While the Chair will not ordinarily render anticipatory
rulings as to the propriety of amendments which have not been
offered, the Chair may respond to a parliamentary inquiry as to the
germaneness and form of an amendment (in the nature of a
substitute) which has been printed in the Record and is at the desk
and is manifestly not in order as a substitute for a pending
perfecting amendment.
On May 9, 1979,(19) during consideration of House
Concurrent Resolution 107 (20) in the Committee of the
Whole, the proceedings described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 10485, 10486, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. The first concurrent resolution on the Budget for fiscal 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. [Marjorie S.] Holt [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
perfecting amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Perfecting amendment offered by Mrs. Holt: Strike out
sections 1 through 5 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
That the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant to
section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that
for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1979--
(1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is
$508,200,000,000 and the amount by which the aggregate level of
Federal revenues should be decreased is $6,500,000,000. . . .
Sec. 4. In 1979, each standing committee of the House of
Representatives shall report by July 1 to the House of
Representatives its recommendations and the status of its
actions with respect to new spending authority including all
legislative savings, and other reforms, targeted by the first
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year ending
on September 30 of that same year. This report shall include
any additional legislative savings which the committee believes
should be considered by the House in the programs for which
such committee has responsibility.
In 1980, each standing committee of the House of
Representatives shall include in its March 15 report to the
Budget Committee of the House of Representatives specific
recommendations as to all possible legislative savings for the
programs for which the committee has responsibility. . . .
Mr. [Parren J.] Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, this
gentleman had planned to offer his amendment as a substitute for
the Holt-Regula amendment.
It is my understanding that when the gentlewoman spoke to her
amendment, the gentlewoman called it a perfecting amendment. I do
not know whether that embraces fiscal year 1979 and 1980. My
amendment does.
This inquiry is whether mine can be offered as a substitute to
the Holt-Regula amendment.
The Chairman: (1) The Chair will advise the
gentleman from Maryland
[[Page 9231]]
(Mr. Mitchell) that since the gentleman's amendment which is at the
desk would go to the fiscal years 1979 and 1980 and is in the
nature of a substitute for the entire resolution, it would not be
germane or otherwise in order, since the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Holt) is perfecting in nature and
only goes to the fiscal year 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question of Ambiguity: ``Provisions'' of Supreme Court
Sec. 46.4 To the proposition that specified funds shall not be allotted
to any state failing to comply with the ``provisions'' of the
Supreme Court, an amendment to strike ``provisions'' and insert
``decisions'' was held to be germane without regard to possible
ambiguities in the terms.
In the 84th Congress, during proceedings relating to a bill
(2) to authorize federal aid to states and local communities
in financing a program of school construction, the proposition and
amendment thereto as described above came under
consideration.(3) Mr. Ross Bass, of Tennessee, made the
point of order that the proposed amendment was not germane to the
bill.(4) Subsequently, after a ruling by The
Chairman,(5) that the amendment was germane, Mr. Bass
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. H.R. 7535 (Committee on Education and Labor).
3. See 102 Cong. Rec. 11873, 11875, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 5, 1956.
4. Id. at p. 11875.
5. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I make the point of order that the word ``provisions'' is
ambiguous and has no meaning whatever and would make the amendment
not germane.
The Chairman responded that,
The Chair does not rule on the question of ambiguity. It is a
question of germaneness solely, and the Chair has ruled that the
amendment is germane.
Question of Consistency
Sec. 46.5 While the Chair must rule on points of order which call into
question the germaneness of an amendment to the proposition to
which offered, the Chair may decline to make a germaneness ruling
when the point of order as stated goes to the consistency (and not
the relevancy) of the amendment.
On Oct. 5, 1977,(6) during consideration of H.R. 8410
(7) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair, in holding
that a proper point of order had not been raised, reiterated the
principle that the
[[Page 9232]]
Chair does not rule on the consistency of an amendment with the
proposition to which offered. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 123 Cong. Rec. 32495, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
7. The Labor Reform Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gary A. Myers [of Pennsylvania]: 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. Gary A. Myers to the amendment
offered by Mr. Ford of Michigan as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: Page 17, beginning on line
10, strike out ``during a period of time that employees are
seeking representation by a labor organization,'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``within the 7-day period prior to a
representation election.''.
Page 17, line 15, insert immediately before the semicolon
the following: ``, except that no rule issued pursuant to the
requirements of this paragraph shall require an employer to
reimburse employees for time used to obtain such information
from such labor organization''. . . .
Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, my
point of order is that this amendment is inconsistent with the
substitute as we have just amended it. It expands the substitute to
include decertification and other matters which are not relevant. .
. .
Mr. Gary A. Myers: Mr. Chairman, my opinion is that this simply
limits the provisions which the substitute would provide and that
it does not affect the language of the substitute. On the contrary,
it expands upon it. It simply makes an addition to the substitute
as a section of the bill.
The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair would like to advise the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Thompson) that the Chair cannot rule on the consistency of the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gary A.
Myers) to the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ford).
Therefore, the Chair would have to state that the gentleman has
not raised a proper point of order.
Parliamentarian's Note: While Mr. Thompson's remarks did make
reference to the relevance of the amendment, the Chair apparently did
not take note of the reference, and understood the point of order to
relate only to the consistency of the two propositions.
Question of ``Workability'' of Amendment
Sec. 46.6 In ruling on the germaneness of an amendment, the Chair does
not consider the workability of an amendment which establishes as a
measure of availability of spending authority in the bill a
referenced level contained in another document relating to that
spending authority, so long as the amendment does not directly
affect other provisions of law or impose conditions predicated upon
other unrelated actions of Congress.
The proceedings of June 11, 1987, relating to H.R. 4, the Hous
[[Page 9233]]
ing Authorization Act are discussed in Sec. 34.2, supra.
Probable Effect of Bill and Amendment--Change in Law, Permanent in
Form, Construed as Temporary
Sec. 46.7 Although the Chair will not ordinarily look behind the text
of a bill and consider the probable effect of its provisions, or
amendments thereto, in determining issues of germaneness, the Chair
has ruled that an amendment which in form amounted to a permanent
change in law could in fact be understood to be a temporary change
in law, in light of the fundamental purpose demonstrated by prior
legislative treatment of the subject in question (the statutory
ceiling on public debt), and thus could properly be offered to a
bill whose fundamental purpose was to provide a temporary increase
in the statutory ceiling on the debt.
During consideration of H.R. 2360 (9) in the Committee
of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order in the circumstances
described above. The proceedings of May 13, 1987,(10) were
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Extension of the Public Debt Limit.
10. 133 Cong. Rec. 12344, 12345, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (11) Pursuant to House Resolution 165,
the bill is considered as having been read for amendment under the
5-minute rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Patricia Schroeder (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text of H.R. 2360 is as follows:
H.R. 2360
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a)
during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of
this Act and ending on July 17, 1987 the public debt limit set
forth in subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United
States Code, shall be equal to $2,320,000,000,000.
(b) Effective on and after the date of the enactment of
this Act, section 8201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1986 is hereby repealed. . . .
Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois]: Madam Chairman, I offer
an amendment. . . .
Amendment offered by Mr. Rostenkowski: Strike out
subsection (a) of the first section of the bill and insert the
following: ``That (a) subsection (b) of section 3101 of title
31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar
limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu
thereof `$2,578,000,000,000'.''
Amend the title to read as follows: ``A bill to increase
the statutory limit on the public debt.''. . . .
Mr. [Connie] Mack [of Florida]: Madam Chairman, I make a point
of order against the amendment on the grounds that it violates
clause 7 of the
[[Page 9234]]
rule XVI, the germaneness rule, and ask to be heard on my point of
order.
Madam Chairman, subsection (a) of H.R. 2360, the reported bill,
makes a temporary and indirect change in the permanent public debt
limit through July 17, 1987.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Rostenkowski] makes a permanent and direct change in existing law.
It directly amends title 31, section 3101 of the United States
Code. The base does not.
Let me cite three precedents in support of my position:
Procedure in the House, 97th Congress, chapter 28, section
19.1:
To a bill proposing a temporary change in law, an amendment
making permanent changes in that law is not germane.
Chapter 28, section 19.3:
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 appropriations
procedures was held not germane.
Chapter 28, section 19.4:
To a proposition authorizing appropriations for one fiscal
year, an amendment making permanent changes in law is not
germane. . . .
Mr. Rostenkowski: Madam Chairman, in 1983 the rule providing
for the consideration of H.R. 2990, to increase the public debt
limit, provided for a waiver of clause 7 of rule XVI, the
germaneness rule, against an amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means. The
germaneness waiver was necessary because the committee amendment to
repeal the temporary debt limit and to make the entire ceiling
permanent was not germane to the original bill which only provided
for an increase in the temporary debt limit.
With the enactment of H.R. 2990 into law in 1983, the
distinction between the temporary and permanent public debt limit
was eliminated. It was only with the passage of the 1986 Budget
Reconciliation Act that we again temporarily increased the public
debt limit.
I would argue that the committee amendment to the bill before
us is germane because, first of all, the fundamental purpose of the
committee amendment is consistent with that of the bill, namely a
temporary increase in the public debt. The bill before us provides
debt authority, which is estimated to be sufficient until July 17,
1987. The committee amendment provides debt authority until October
1, 1988. Both the bill and the amendment provide debt authority,
which eventually will prove to be insufficient and, therefore, both
are temporary in nature. In addition, the bill has the effect of
amending the same section of the United States Code as the
committee amendment. Finally, I would argue that the amendment is
germane because it passes the common sense test of not introducing
a subject matter which is ``different from that under
consideration.''
The issue before us is how long to increase the public debt.
The amendment gives the House two choices on these issues. I urge
the Chair to rule the amendment germane.
[[Page 9235]]
The Chairman: If there are no further speakers on the
germaneness issue, the Chair is ready to rule.
The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mack] makes a point of order
that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Rostenkowski] is not germane. The amendment would directly amend
existing law by striking the existing dollar limitation in section
3101 of title 31 of the United States Code and inserting a new
dollar figure, with the intention to increase the Government's
borrowing authority for an unspecified but necessarily temporary
period of time.
However, the bill, H.R. 2360, in subsection (a), refers to, and
in the opinion of the Chair, is tantamount to, a change in the same
provision of the law as the amendment.
Both the bill and the amendment are based upon estimates of
sufficiency of the total amount of borrowing authority over
different periods of time. For this reason, the Chair believes the
amendment to be closely related to the fundamental purpose of the
bill, and to accomplish that purpose by amending the same section
of law referenced in the bill.
Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.
Speaker Declines To Decide Questions That Are Province of Chairman of
Committee of Whole; Hypothetical Questions
Sec. 46.8 The Chair may decline to give an opinion on hypothetical or
anticipatory questions; and the Speaker has declined to rule on
questions that are the province of, and must be decided by, the
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.
For an illustration of circumstances in which the Speaker may
decline to give an opinion on certain questions, see the proceedings
discussed at Sec. 45.7, supra.
[[Page 9235]]