[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]
[A. General Principles]
[Â§ 11. Amendment Adding to Two or More Propositions of Same Class]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 8064-8128]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 11. Amendment Adding to Two or More Propositions of Same Class

    A proposition concerning a number of subjects may be amended by the 
addition of another subject of the same class. An early example of this 
principle can be found in Cannon's Precedents (2) where to a 
bill admitting several Territories into the Union, an amendment adding 
another Territory was held germane. Similarly, where a bill covers two 
or more subjects, a third subject of a related nature is in order as an 
amendment thereto.(3) As an example, where a bill defines 
several unlawful acts, an amendment proposing to include another 
unlawful act of the same class is germane.(4) Similarly, to 
a bill bringing two new categories within the coverage of existing law, 
an amendment to include a third category, of the same class, was held 
to be germane.(5)

 2. See 5 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 5838.
 3. See Sec. 11.24, infra.
 4. See Sec. 11.21, infra.
 5. See Sec. 11.16, infra.

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

Title Containing Diverse ``Miscellaneous'' Provisions--Amendment 
    Imposing Flat Percentage Limitation on Funds Authorized in Bill

Sec. 11.1 While the heading of a title of a bill as ``miscellaneous'' 
    does not necessarily permit amendments to that title which are not 
    germane thereto, the inclusion of sufficiently diverse provisions 
    in such title may permit further amendment which in effect need 
    only be germane to the bill as a whole; accordingly, where the 
    final title of a foreign aid bill as perfected

[[Page 8065]]

    contained a variety of unrelated provisions, such as provisions 
    establishing effective dates for all portions of the bill, 
    provisions stating requirements that authority to make payments in 
    the bill be subject to advance appropriations, as well as 
    provisions postponing the submission date for a report on foreign 
    service personnel, relating to human rights reports, imposing 
    language requirements for personnel in the foreign service, and 
    prohibiting foreign aid to certain countries, an amendment limiting 
    the expenditure of funds authorized in each title of the bill to a 
    certain percentage was held germane. On Apr. 10, 
    1979,(6) during consideration of H.R. 3324, the 
    International Development Cooperation Act of 1979, the following 
    amendments had been agreed to, whereupon a further amendment was 
    offered by Mr. Robert Bauman, of Maryland, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 125 Cong. Rec. 8032, 8034-37, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

                              effective dates

        Sec. 601. The amendments made by titles I, II, III, and V and 
    the provisions of title IV shall take effect on October 1, 1979.

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a technical amendment.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki: Page 46, immediately 
        after line 9, insert the following new section:

                            unified personnel system

            Sec. 602. Section 401(a) of the International Development 
        and Food Assistance Act of 1978 is amended by striking out 
        ``March 15'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``May 1''.

            (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall be effective 
        as of March 15, 1979. . . .

            Amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki: Page 46, immediately 
        after Section 601, insert the following new section:

                            budget act requirements

            Sec. 603. (a) The authority to make payments which is 
        provided in sections 405(a), 406(a), 406(c), 407(e), 408(d), 
        and 412 of this Act shall be effective only to the extent that 
        the budget authority to make such payments is provided for in 
        advance by appropriation Acts.

            (b) Appropriations may not be made for the fiscal year 1979 
        under the authority of section 501(d). . . .

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert J.] Lagomarsino [of 
        California]: Page

[[Page 8066]]

        46, immediately after section 603, insert the following new 
        section:

                              human rights reports

            Sec. 604. Paragraph (1) of section 116(d) of the Foreign 
        Assistance Act of 1961 is amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) the status of internationally recognized human 
        rights, within the meaning of subsection (a)--
            ``(A) in countries that receive assistance under this part, 
        and
            ``(B) in all countries which are members of the United 
        Nations and which are not otherwise the subject of a human 
        rights report under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph or under 
        section 502B(b); and''. . . .
            Amendment offered by Mr. [Leon E.] Panetta [of California]: 
        Page 46, after section 604, insert the following:

                foreign language and area knowledge requirement

            Sec. 605. The heads of affected departments and agencies, 
        in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall review every 
        personnel position in the U.S. Government involving service in 
        foreign countries which are authorized by this Act, the Foreign 
        Assistance Act of 1961, the Agricultural Trade Development and 
        Assistance Act of 1954, the Peace Corps Act, or the Arms Export 
        Control Act, whose incumbent should have a useful knowledge of 
        the language or dialect and the history and culture common to 
        such country. Each position reviewed and designated as 
        requiring language competence and area knowledge shall, within 
        two years after enactment of this Act, be filled only by an 
        individual with appropriate language and area knowledge, except 
        that the heads of affected agencies and departments, in 
        consultation with the Department of State, may make exceptions 
        to this requirement when special or emergency conditions exist. 
        The Secretary, in consultation with the heads of other affected 
        departments and agencies, shall establish foreign language and 
        area studies standards for officers and employees of the U.S. 
        Government who are assigned duties involving service abroad 
        under such Acts. The heads of affected departments and agencies 
        shall arrange for appropriate language training or area studies 
        for such officers and employees. . . .
            Amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: Page 46, immediately after 
        line 9, insert the following new section:

            prohibition on assistance to vietnam, cambodia, and cuba

            Sec. 606. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of 
        this Act, funds authorized to be appropriated in this Act shall 
        not be used for any form of aid, either by monetary payment or 
        by the sale or transfer of any goods of any nature to the 
        Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Cambodia, or Cuba.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. The Zablocki substitute for the Ashbrook amendment was agreed to, 
        and the Ashbrook amendment as amended was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: On page 46, line 7 after 
        Sec. 601 insert (a) and add the following new paragraph:
            ``(b) Provided, That, No more than 90 percent of the funds 
        authorized to be appropriated by each title of this act shall 
        be expended, excluding those funds authorized to be 
        appropriated in section 111, all of title II and section 
        302.''. . .

[[Page 8067]]

        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    listened to the Clerk read the amendment, and I read the amendment, 
    it appears that the amendment provides a limitation on 
    authorization of funds in section 111, all of title II, and section 
    302.
        I believe the gentleman's amendment, therefore, is not in order 
    and is subject to a point of order since he is authorizing to be 
    appropriated by each title no more than 90 percent of the funds. . 
    . .
        Mr. Bauman: . . . The amendment is germane to title VI. Title 
    VI clearly refers to the effective dates of all titles, and this 
    amendment simply has the effect, with three exceptions, of cutting 
    by 10 percent the amount of the funds made effective on those 
    dates.
        Mr. Chairman, it is a simple cut in funding. . . .
        Mr. Zablocki: If I may be heard further, Mr. Chairman, the 
    gentleman's amendment is to title VI, section 601.
        Section 601 sets forth the effective dates of the various 
    titles in the legislation. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Elliott Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland provides a 
    percentage limitation on funds authorized to be appropriated by the 
    bill now pending, with the exception of certain specified sections 
    of authorized funds. Title VI of the bill, entitled ``Miscellaneous 
    Provisions'' has by amendment already been substantially expanded 
    in its scope, and the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Maryland need be germane only to the title as a whole, since the 
    bill is being read by title.
        Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair, and the ruling of 
    the Chair, that the amendment is germane to title VI, and the point 
    of order is overruled.

Bill Amending Bankruptcy Act To Provide Procedure for Adjustment of 
    Municipal Debt--Amendment Defining Certificates of Indebtedness 
    Under Bill as Among Those Eligible for Federal Guarantees

Sec. 11.2 To a section of a bill defining certain terms used in the 
    bill, an amendment further defining other terms used in the bill 
    may be germane; thus, to a bill amending the Bankruptcy Act to 
    provide a judicial procedure for the adjustment of debts of public 
    municipalities, and authorizing courts to issue certificates of 
    indebtedness under general conditions determined by the courts to 
    assure their marketability, an amendment defining such certificates 
    to permit federal guarantee of principal and interest was held 
    germane as a further definition relating to a specific power being 
    added to those general powers already contained in the bill in 
    order to accomplish a

[[Page 8068]]

    fundamental purpose of the bill.

    On Dec. 9, 1975,(9) during consideration of H.R. 10624 
(a bill to revise chapter IX of the Bankruptcy Act), the Chair 
overruled a point of order against the amendment described above. The 
proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 39415, 39419, 39426, 39427, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (10) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Lindy Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H.R. 10624

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
        chapter IX of the Bankruptcy Act is amended to read as follows:

                                  ``Chapter IX

          ``adjustment of debts of political subdivisions and public 
                         agencies and instrumentalities

            ``Sec. 81. Chapter IX Definitions.--As used in this chapter 
        the term--
            ``(1) `claim' includes all claims of whatever character 
        against the petitioner or the property of the petitioner, 
        whether or not such claims are provable under section 68 of 
        this Act and whether secured or unsecured, liquidated or 
        unliquidated, fixed or contingent . . .
            ``(3) `creditor' means holder (including the United States, 
        a State, or subdivision of a State) of a claim against the 
        petitioner;
            ``(4) `claim affected by the plan' means claim as to which 
        the rights of its holder are proposed to be materially and 
        adversely adjusted or modified by the plan;
            ``(5) `debt' means claim allowable under section 88(a) . . 
        .
            ``(2) during the pendency of a case under this chapter, or 
        after the confirmation of the plan if the court has retained 
        jurisdiction under section 96(e), after hearing on such notice 
        as the court may prescribe and for cause shown, permit the 
        issuance of certificates of indebtedness for such consideration 
        as is approved by the court, upon such terms and conditions, 
        and with such security and priority in payment over existing 
        obligations, secured or unsecured, as in the particular case 
        may be equitable. . . 

        Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: Madam Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Ms. Holtzman: Page 2, line 24, strike 
        out ``and''.
            Page 3, strike out the period in line 5 and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``; and''.
            Page 3, immediately after line 5, insert the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(10) `certificate of indebtedness' means certificate 
        issued under section 82(b)(2), the payment of interest and 
        principal of which may be guaranteed by the United States. . . 
        .

        Mr. [Thomas N.] Kindness [of Ohio]: Madam Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment on the basis that the 
    amendment is not germane.
        The amendment is in violation of clause 7, rule XVI of the 
    Rules of the House. This amendment violates several well settled 
    principles of germaneness under a scheme that is no more than a 
    subterfuge.

[[Page 8069]]

        One traditional test of germaneness has been whether the 
    subject being dealt with is defined in the bill. This amendment 
    avoids that hurdle by inserting a self-serving circular substantive 
    definition of ``certificate of indebtedness.'' Putting the 
    substantive power to guarantee certificates of indebtedness in the 
    definition section of the bill cannot be relied upon as a basis for 
    establishing germaneness.
        Of greater significance, this amendment violates the principle 
    stated in chapter 28, section 3.21, of Deschler's Procedure. . . .
        Ms. Holtzman: . . . Just to clarify for the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Kindness), the amendment that has been issued simply deals 
    with the definition of the term ``certificate of indebtedness'' and 
    says, `` `certificate of indebtedness' means certificate issued 
    under section 82(b)(2), the payment of interest and principal of 
    which may be guaranteed by the United States.''. . .
        Madam Chairman, my amendment, which only deals with the 
    definition, is very germane to the bill.
        What this amendment does is to say that a certificate of 
    indebtedness, which is in essence a bond issued by a municipality 
    in bankruptcy, can be defined as a certificate which is guaranteed 
    by the United States.
        Madam Chairman, there is no question that the bill does deal 
    with a certificate of indebtedness. It is possible that there may 
    be guarantees issued by the United States under other statutes. 
    There is no question, therefore, that the definition which does 
    allow the certificate of indebtedness to include one that is 
    guaranteed is an amendment and a definition that is germane to the 
    bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kindness) makes a point of order 
    against the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
    Holtzman) on the grounds that it is not germane to the bill.
        The amendment would add a new definition to those contained in 
    the bill, to define certificates of indebtedness which may be 
    issued under section 82 of the bill as a certificate which may be 
    guaranteed by the United States.
        The Chair would first state that the committee jurisdiction 
    over the subject of an amendment is not an exclusive test of 
    germaneness--Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 4.16. But in 
    any event, the pending amendment does not, in the form in which it 
    is offered, present an issue exclusively within another committee's 
    jurisdiction.
        As to the subject matter and methodology of the pending bill, 
    section 82 thereof allows the bankruptcy court to permit the 
    issuance of certificates of indebtedness, with such security and 
    priority of payment as may be equitable. The committee report, on 
    page 9, specifically states that the court can supply assurance of 
    payment on certificates of indebtedness, to make them marketable, 
    by permitting security and priority of payment on such 
    certificates.
        Therefore, the concept of bankruptcy procedures insuring the 
    marketability of certificates of indebtedness is included in the 
    bill. Defining a term used in the bill in such a way as to allow 
    the further option of Federal guarantees is germane to the 
    fundamental

[[Page 8070]]

    purposes of the bill, since the amendment merely adds to the 
    definition provision and grants to the bankruptcy court an 
    additional specific option to assure security for certificates of 
    indebtedness--a concept already contained in a more general form in 
    the bill.
        The Chair will distinguish the situation presented on December 
    2 and that presently before the Chair for determination. The 
    amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Holtzman) 
    adds a further definition relating to specific power to those 
    general powers granted to the court in the bill; the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute which was offered to the 
    Intergovernmental Assistance Act the other day entirely substituted 
    one program for another. In the present instance, the appropriate 
    test is not whether the amendment proposes to substitute one method 
    for a closely allied method, but whether the amendment adds a 
    specific provision which is germane to the provisions already in 
    the reported bill.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Federal Energy Administration Act--Amendment Containing ``Definitions'' 
    Providing Exemption From Limitation on Authority

Sec. 11.3 To a section containing ``definitions'' of two terms referred 
    to in a bill, an amendment adding a further definition of other 
    terms contained in the bill (and whose effect was to provide an 
    exemption from a limitation on authority contained in another 
    section of the bill) was held to be germane.

    On Mar. 7, 1974,(11) during consideration of the Federal 
Energy Administration Act (H.R. 11793) in the Committee of the Whole, 
Chairman John J. Flynt, Jr., of Georgia, held the following amendment 
to be germane to the section to which it was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 120 Cong. Rec. 5640, 5641, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gillis W.] Long of Louisiana: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Long of Louisiana: Page 30, line 
        15, strike out the period and insert, in lieu thereof, the 
        following: ``; and (3)) any reference to ``domestic crude 
        oil'', ``crude oil'', ``energy prices'', or ``profits'' shall 
        not be deemed to refer to royalty oil or the shares of oil 
        production owned by a State, State entity or political 
        subdivision of a State or to the prices of or revenues from 
        such royalty oil or shares.''. . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, this matter is 
    not the subject matter within section 11. Section 11 is a 
    definition section. I realize that the gentleman is attempting to 
    define certain words, but it seems to me that the language he uses 
    is to add new authority or subtract authority from existing law. I 
    certainly understand the gentleman's concern, but these words 
    included are probably included in statutes. It seems to me

[[Page 8071]]

    what he is doing is expanding or changing laws which are now in 
    existence.
        Also, we do not know the effect of the amendment on the rules 
    of the House.
        Mr. Chairman, I feel it is inappropriate to this section and 
    nongermane and for that reason ask that it be ruled out of order.
        Mr. Long of Louisiana: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Horton) has raised a point of order that what I am 
    attempting to do by this amendment is to define a term, which is 
    what I am attempting to do by this amendment. And it appears to me 
    to be completely within the purposes of this particular section to 
    do so, and it seems to me that it is a perfectly valid place and a 
    correct and specific place for an amendment of this type to be 
    introduced.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Long) has offered an 
    amendment to add a new subsection to section 11 of the bill, which 
    is the definitions section.
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) has made a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it refers to matters 
    not contained in the language of the section as written.
        The Chair has carefully examined both the section as it appears 
    in the bill, and also the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Louisiana (Mr. Long).
        The Chair will state that subsection (1) of section 11 reads as 
    follows:

            Any reference to ``function'' or ``functions'' shall be 
        deemed to include--

        and so forth.
        The amendment sought to be offered by the gentleman from 
    Louisiana (Mr. Long) starts as follows:

            Any reference to ``domestic crude oil'', ``crude oil'', 
        ``energy prices'', or ``profits'' shall not be deemed to refer 
        to--

        And so forth.
        The Chair is constrained to feel that if the language of one 
    subsection of the bill states clearly that certain references shall 
    be deemed to include references, and there are two sections already 
    appearing in the bill, the Chair is constrained to rule that the 
    adding of the third section falls clearly within the reasonable 
    interpretations of the word ``Definitions,'' and therefore holds 
    the amendment is germane and overrules the point of order.

Bill Defining and Promoting Development of Synthetic Fuels--Amendment 
    Adding Methane to Definition

Sec. 11.4 To a bill promoting the development of synthetic fuels, 
    defined as ``fuels and chemical feedstocks produced by the 
    conversion of renewable and nonrenewable resources,'' an amendment 
    including, within the definition of such fuels, methane produced 
    from coal seams, geopressurized brine, tight sands and devonian 
    shale was held germane as adding another subject to subjects of the 
    same class.

[[Page 8072]]

    During consideration of the Defense Production Act Amendments of 
1979 (12) in the Committee of the Whole on June 26, 
1979,(13) Chairman Gerry E. Studds, of Massachusetts, 
overruled a point of order and held the following amendment to be 
germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 3930.
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 16687, 16688, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Timothy E.] Wirth [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wirth: Page 10, line 6, insert 
        after the first period the following new sentence: ``Such terms 
        also include methane produced from such sources as coal seams, 
        geopressurized brine, tight sands and Devonian shale.''.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        [T]he bill deals with production of synthetic fuels. The 
    amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado, 
    deals with production from conventional sources of hydrocarbons 
    from within the Earth. Given that circumstance, regretfully, I 
    observe that the amendment does not conform with the requirements 
    of the rules relating to germaneness.
        The bill also deals with creating synthetic feedstocks. The 
    particular section, section 3, with which we deal at this time, 
    deals with synthetic feedstocks.
        The proposal that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Wirth) has 
    before us deals with a broad series of productions from 
    conventional or semiconventional sources of hydrocarbon from within 
    the Earth and, as such, it is therefore not germane. . . .
        Mr. Wirth: Mr. Chairman, at the bottom of page 9, line 24 in 
    the bill is the definition of what is intended by the committee to 
    be covered by the legislation in H.R. 3930. That definition in the 
    amendment which I have offered is broadened to include coverage by 
    the provisions of this act for hard-to-obtain natural gas.
        The purpose of the legislation, as I understand the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania and the committee, is to increase production of 
    energy and the area of hard-to-get natural gas. That which is 
    described in the amendment which I offered clearly is a matter of 
    the kind of stimulus that the gentleman from Pennsylvania and 
    members of the committee have defined in the bill, and in 
    broadening the definition offered by the committee, this is 
    consistent with the purposes of H.R. 3930.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The section of the bill which defines synthetic fuels, page 9, 
    line 24 reads as follows:

            The term synthetic fuels--``. . . means fuels and chemical 
        feedstocks produced by the conversion of renewable and 
        nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to, . . .'' 
        a consecutive category of resources.

        In the opinion of the Chair, the definition is sufficiently 
    broad as to allow the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Colorado.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

[[Page 8073]]

Bill Prescribing Functions of Federal Energy Administration--Amendment 
    Directing Administrator To Issue Guidelines for Fuel Use

Sec. 11.5 To a proposition conferring discretionary authority, an 
    amendment adding a related function or limiting the exercise of 
    that authority is germane; thus, to a section of a bill prescribing 
    the functions of a new Federal Energy Administration by conferring 
    wide discretionary powers upon the Administrator, an amendment 
    directing the Administrator to issue preliminary summer guidelines 
    for citizen fuel use was held germane as a further delineation of 
    those functions.

    On Mar. 5 (14) and 6,(15) 1974, the Committee 
of the Whole had under consideration a section of the Federal Energy 
Administration Act (H.R. 11793) setting forth the responsibilities of 
the Administrator and stating in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 120 Cong. Rec. 5301, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
15.  Id. at pp. 5436, 5437.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 5. To meet the energy needs of the Nation for the 
    foreseeable future, the Administrator shall--
        (1) advise the President and the Congress with respect to the 
    establishment of a comprehensive national energy policy for the 
    balance of the twentieth century, and in coordination with the 
    Secretary of State, the integration of domestic and foreign 
    policies relating to energy resource management;
        (2) assess the adequacy of energy resources in meeting demands 
    for the immediate and long-range future for all sectors of the 
    economy and for the general public;
        (3) develop effective arrangements for the participation of 
    State and local governments in the resolution of energy problems;

        (4) develop plans and programs for dealing with energy 
    production shortages;
        (5) promote stability in energy prices to the consumer, promote 
    free and open competition in all aspects of the energy field, 
    prevent unreasonable profits within the various segments of the 
    energy industry, and promote free enterprise;
        (6) assure that programs are designed and implemented in a fair 
    and efficient manner so as to minimize hardship and inequity while 
    assuring that the priority needs of the Nation are met;
        (7) develop and oversee the implementation of equitable 
    voluntary and mandatory energy conservation programs and promote 
    efficiencies in the use of energy resources;
        (8) develop and recommend policies on import and export of 
    energy resources;
        (9) collect, evaluate, assemble, and analyze energy information 
    on reserves, production and demand and related economic data;
        (10) identify the need for and take action to expedite the 
    development of energy resources;

[[Page 8074]]

        (11) work with business, labor, consumer and other interests 
    and obtain their cooperation; and
        (12) perform such other functions as may be prescribed by law.
        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that section 5 be considered as 
    read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point. . 
    . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Gunter [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Gunter: Page 19, line 23, add the 
        following new subsection:
            ``(11) Issue preliminary summer guidelines for citizen fuel 
        use within 30 days of the enactment of this Act.
            Page 19, line 23, strike out ``(11)'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``(12)''.
            Page 20, line 1, strike out ``(12)'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``(13)''.

        Mr. Horton: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendments. Basically they are the same arguments I made before and 
    also this sets up a policy or program which is outside the section 
    and not a subject matter of this bill.
        The Chairman: (16) Does the gentleman from Florida 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gunter: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment is rather simple and easy to 
    understand. It requires the Administrator to issue within 30 days, 
    upon enactment of this act, a preliminary summary. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment as stated would simply require the 
    Administrator, to issue within 30 days upon enactment of this act, 
    preliminary summer guidelines for fuel use which, Mr. Chairman, I 
    think falls within the framework of the section specifying the 
    functions. I do not interpret this particular specification as 
    outside of those programs which are spelled out in the committee 
    report, and in the body of the act.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gunter) has offered an 
    amendment to section 5 of the bill, to which amendment the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) has raised a point of order.
        The Chair has carefully read the language of the amendment, and 
    has carefully listened to the arguments made by the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Horton), in support of his point of order, and the 
    arguments made by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gunter), in 
    opposition to the point of order.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the language of the amendment as 
    offered by the gentleman from Florida clearly relates to the 
    functions of the Administrator, which are otherwise enumerated and 
    defined within the section now under consideration.
        The Chair finds nothing in the language of the amendment which 
    mandates the Administrator any more than do the other functions 
    enumerated, nor does the Chair find anything in the amendment which 
    would in any way amend or seek to amend existing law.
        The Chair does not rule now or at any other time on the 
    consistency of amendments; the Chair, therefore, after analyzing 
    the amendment and

[[Page 8075]]

    listening to the argument, rules that the amendment is germane and, 
    therefore, overrules the point of order.

Bill Transferring Functions of Government Affecting Energy to New 
    Department of Energy--Amendment Transferring Additional Function

Sec. 11.6 To a bill transferring to a new Department a variety of 
    governmental authorities relating to energy, an amendment 
    transferring another existing authority within the same class is 
    germane; thus, to a bill creating a new Department of Energy and 
    transferring to it functions of the federal government affecting 
    energy under existing law, an amendment adding a new title to 
    create a public energy administration within the department and to 
    authorize the President to transfer to the administration his oil 
    import purchase authority under existing law was held germane.

    On June 3, 1977,(17) during consideration of H.R. 6804 
(18) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 123 Cong. Rec. 17419, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. The Department of Energy Organization Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Conyers [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conyers: On page 129, after line 
        6, insert the following new title:

                    TITLE VIII--PUBLIC ENERGY ADMINISTRATION

            Section 801. (a) There is established within the Department 
        of Public Energy Administration, at the head of which shall be 
        an administrator appointed by the Secretary.
            (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 205 of this 
        Act, the President, in the exercise of his authority under 
        section 13 of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973, 
        may provide in the regulations promulgated under such section 
        for the delegation of his functions under such section to the 
        Public Energy Administration. The Administrator shall by rule 
        provide for a separation of regulatory and enforcement function 
        assigned to him. . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, first of all the language I have says that:

            There is established within the Department of Public Energy 
        Administration--

        And I am not clear I understand what that means. Perhaps the 
    amendment at the desk is different from the one I have, but if that 
    is the way the amendment reads, I think there is a clarification 
    needed in the amendment.
        But the point of order I make refers to subparagraph (b) which 
    says:

[[Page 8076]]

            Notwithstanding the provisions of section 205 of this Act, 
        the President, in the exercise of his authority under section 
        13 of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973, may 
        provide in the regulations promulgated under such section for 
        the delegation of his functions under such section to the 
        Public Energy Administration.

        It seems to me we are extending the provisions of section 13 of 
    the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 and I do not think 
    we have the authority to do that in this legislation.
        Therefore I make a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Conyers: . . . This amendment, as the Committee knows, is a 
    revision from the original amendment that was debated in the 
    Committee on Government Operations.
        I would argue very strongly that it is merely taking a 
    responsibility and a duty specifically provided in law. It really 
    does not matter which law. If we will examine the act, we will find 
    that we have borrowed authorities from agencies and Departments 
    that have been created by law from before 1973 and after 1973, so 
    that that has absolutely no relevance whatsoever.
        The point that I think is critical to whether this amendment is 
    germane or not is whether or not it transfers an existing 
    authority, which the gentleman by admission that it is already 
    existing in the statute concedes. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment proposes to permit the President to exercise 
    discretionary authority and does not really change the Allocation 
    Act, because the President now has authority under that act. All 
    the amendment, it seems to me to do, is permit him to exercise 
    authority under existing legislation in a new way and in a way 
    comparable to the manner in which he is permitted permissively to 
    grant authority under the act. . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has listened very carefully to the arguments made on 
    behalf of the point of order and against it and is in agreement 
    with the gentleman from Michigan, that the purpose of the bill is 
    merely to transfer certain authorities that exist in other agencies 
    and departments of Government and finds that the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Michigan is consistent with that intent and, 
    therefore, overrules the point of order.

Bill Directing Use of Operating Expenses for Department of Energy--
    Amendment Relating to Use of Alternative Fuels by Department

Sec. 11.7 To a title of the annual Department of Energy authorization 
    bill, providing limitations and directions on the use of operating 
    expenses for the entire Department funded throughout the bill, and 
    specifically limiting the use of funds for physical facilities and 
    for the purchase of gasoline for use of the Department, an 
    amendment providing procedures

[[Page 8077]]

    for the Department to follow in purchasing alternative fuels for 
    use in its vehicles during the fiscal year covered by the bill, was 
    held germane as a further related restriction or direction on the 
    use of operating funds for the fiscal year.

    On Oct. 18, 1979,(20) during consideration of H.R. 3000 
(1) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 125 Cong. Rec. 28795, 28796, 28798-800, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. The Department of Energy Authorization Act for fiscal years 1980 
        and 1981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               TITLE VIII--PROVISIONS REGARDING USE OF FUNDS

                    limitation of reprogramming of funds

        Sec. 801. (a)(1) Subject to the limitations of sections 201(b) 
    and 802, no amount appropriated pursuant to this Act (other than 
    title I) may be used for any program, function, or purpose in 
    excess of the amount expressly authorized to be appropriated for 
    that program, function, or purpose by this Act. . . .

        limitation of funds for facilities for department of energy

        Sec. 809. No funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act 
    may be used for the renovation, furnishing, or repair of facilities 
    to provide temporary or permanent space for personnel relocated as 
    a result of the establishment and activation of the Department of 
    Energy and for which funds were appropriated by chapter V of title 
    I of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1978.

                limitation on use of gasoline by department

        Sec. 810. No funds authorized to be appropriated pursuant to 
    this Act for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980, may be used 
    to purchase motor gasoline or to reimburse any other Federal agency 
    for motor gasoline in an amount which exceeds 85 percent of the 
    amount of motor gasoline purchased (and for which reimbursement was 
    made to another Federal agency or entity) during the fiscal year 
    ending September 30, 1979, by any component of the Department for 
    which funds are authorized to be appropriated by this Act. . . .
        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer: Page 78, line 11, 
        insert ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 810.''.
            Page 78, after line 20, insert the following new 
        subsection:
            (b)(1) The Secretary of Energy shall advertise in the 
        Federal Register to request bids from distributors of 
        alternative fuels produced in the United States for the 
        purchase of such alternative fuels for use during the fiscal 
        year ending September 30, 1980, in motor vehicles owned by the 
        Department of Energy.
            (2) The Secretary shall require that each such distributor 
        who sub

[[Page 8078]]

        mits such a bid include in such bid an agreement--
            (A) to provide a quantity of an alternative fuel--
            (i) which will produce an amount of energy which is not 
        less than the amount of energy produced by 200,000 gallons of 
        motor gasoline, and
            (ii) the cost of which does not exceed the cost that the 
        Secretary would incur to purchase 200,000 gallons of motor 
        gasoline.
            (B) to pay any amount, as determined by the Secretary, by 
        which any cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining any 
        facility for the storage of such alternative fuel exceeds the 
        cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining any facility 
        for the storage of motor gasoline that would have been incurred 
        if such motor gasoline had been purchased by the Secretary in 
        lieu of such alternative fuel.

            (C)(i) to pay the cost of equipping such motor vehicles to 
        consume such alternative fuel, and
            (ii) to deposit in an escrow account established by the 
        Secretary funds sufficient to pay any cost of refitting such 
        motor vehicles to consume motor gasoline if the Secretary 
        determines that the utility of such alternative fuel is 
        inadequate or if such distributor fails to provide the quantity 
        of such alternative fuel specified in such bid, and
            (D) to pay any amount, as determined by the Secretary, by 
        which any cost of repairing or maintaining such motor vehicles 
        equipped to consume such alternative fuel exceeds the cost that 
        would have been incurred to repair and maintain such motor 
        vehicles if such motor vehicles had not been so equipped. . . .
            (5) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``alternative 
        fuel'' means any liquid fuel, other than motor gasoline, 
        consumable by a motor vehicle for propulsion, including 
        gasohol, liquefied methane, liquefied coal, and any liquid 
        hydride. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    insist on my point of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the rules of the House require that amendments to 
    legislation shall be germane, first, to the bill, and second, to 
    the portion of the bill to which they are directed.
        Mr. Chairman, without addressing at this particular moment 
    whether or not the amendment is germane to the bill, I will address 
    the second point, which is the lack of germaneness of the amendment 
    to the portion of the bill to which it is offered.
        Mr. Chairman, if the Chair will observe, the portion of the 
    bill to which the amendment is offered, it can be observed it is a 
    limitation on the use of gasoline by a department. It then is a 
    limitation on funds, which reads as follows:

            No funds authorized to be appropriated pursuant to this Act 
        for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980, may be used to 
        purchase motor gasoline or reimburse any other Federal agency 
        for motor gasoline in an amount which exceeds 85 percent of the 
        amount of the motor gasoline purchase.

        In other words, we have here a limitation. The proposal that is 
    offered by my dear friend, the gentleman from California, is one 
    which would set up a rather large program which would require the 
    Secretary of Energy to do a whole series of things, none of which 
    are consistent with or which are relevant to this limitation. . . .
        I would ask the Chair to note that the section with which we 
    are dealing is a limitation on use of gasoline. This

[[Page 8079]]

    is for alternative fuels, which will have an equivalent energy 
    release of 200,000 gallons of gasoline.
        Now, whether the gentleman speaks of hydrogen or whether the 
    gentleman speaks of different alcohols or synthetic fuels produced 
    from other sources with which I might not presently be familiar, I 
    am not able to say; but the fuels here are much broader and are not 
    petroleum products necessarily, but are synthetics. . . .
        In addition to this, Mr. Chairman, there are other sections 
    relating to synthetics, relating to conservation, and relating to 
    procurement. Those are not the sections in question here, but I 
    would point out, Mr. Chairman, that I am unaware of any portion of 
    the bill to which this would be germane, because, as the Chair 
    would observe, it sets up a very large process for the Department 
    of Energy to procure synthetic fuels. That is something which is 
    not found elsewhere in the legislation. . . .
        Mr. Dannemeyer: Mr. Chairman, section 810 of the committee bill 
    which is before the committee now for its consideration contains a 
    restriction on the use of funds during the existing fiscal year for 
    the purchase of motor gasoline. That is in section 810 of the bill 
    before the committee.
        For instance, it provides that the Department of Energy is 
    required to reduce its consumption of gasoline by not less than 15 
    percent during this 1980 fiscal year.
        That is the very thrust of this proposed amendment. It is 
    designed also to reduce the quantity of gasoline that is being 
    consumed by the Department of Energy through the medium of 
    soliciting alternative sources of supply. It is not specific; it 
    just says, ``alternative fuels'' in the proposed amendment.
        It is submitted that the reduction of gasoline by 15 percent 
    which is mandated in the committee bill is consistent with the 
    thrust of the amendment which seeks delaying of the funds for 
    making available alternative fuels.
        In a nutshell, Mr. Chairman, there is little difference between 
    reducing the use of gasoline by 15 percent, either by cost or other 
    means, and achieving that reduction of gasoline consumption by the 
    use of alternative fuels.
        On that basis, Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposed by the 
    gentleman from California is, I believe, within the scope of 
    section 810 of the committee bill.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (2) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will observe that the rules of the House require that 
    the amendment first be germane to the pending portion of the bill 
    to which it is offered.
        Title VIII deals with operating funds and personnel expenses of 
    the entire Department of Energy for the fiscal year 1980. The 
    amendment appears to the Chair to be confined to fiscal year 1980 
    and to constitute an appropriate restriction or direction on how 
    the Department uses its operating funds for the fiscal year in 
    question, and it is, therefore, germane.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

[[Page 8080]]

Substitute Amendment Imposing Conditions on Use of Auto Stickers in 
    Energy Conservation Plan--Amendment Relating To Use of Stickers But 
    Affecting Different Page and Line Numbers

Sec. 11.8 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. Accordingly, to a substitute 
    requiring that certain emergency energy conservation plans 
    (entailing the use of auto stickers indicating certain days an auto 
    would not be operated) be established (1) only after consultation 
    with state governors, and (2) only after consideration of rural and 
    suburban needs, an amendment striking out and inserting language 
    elsewhere in the bill which also related to the use of auto 
    stickers as part of the energy conservation plans, was held germane 
    to the two diverse conditions already required by the substitute.

    During consideration of the Emergency Energy Conservation Act of 
1979 (3) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 1, 
1979,(4) Chairman Dante B. Fascell, of Florida, overruled a 
point of order against an amendment to a substitute and held that the 
amendment was germane to the substitute. The amendment and proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. S. 1030.
 4. 125 Cong. Rec. 21939, 21944-47, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Toby] Moffett [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Moffett as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Rinaldo: Page 45, after line 9, insert 
        the following new subsection:
            ``(d) Needs of Rural and Certain Other Areas.--Any system 
        under this section shall be established only after consultation 
        with the Governors of the States involved and shall provide 
        appropriate consideration of the needs of those in suburban and 
        rural areas, particularly those areas not adequately served by 
        any public transportation system, through the geographical 
        coverage of the system, through exemptions under subsection 
        (c)(8), or through such other means as may be appropriate.

        Mr. [Andrew] Maguire [of New Jersey]: 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. Maguire to the amendment offered

[[Page 8081]]

        by Mr. Moffett as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. 
        Rinaldo: At the end insert the following: Page 43, beginning on 
        line 24, strike out ``day of each week that vehicle will not be 
        operated'' and insert ``day of each week the owner of that 
        vehicle has selected for that vehicle not to be operated''.

        Mr. [Tom] Loeffler [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the Maguire amendment, although offered to the 
    Moffett amendment, is really a direct amendment to the bill before 
    us. Therefore, it is not germane to the Moffett substitute. In 
    addition, the Moffett substitute goes to page 45, line 9 of the 
    bill before us. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    Jersey (Mr. Maguire) goes to page 43, line 24.
        In addition, it is also not germane for that purpose.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: I do, Mr. Chairman, and I 
    am sure the gentleman from New Jersey desires to do so also.
        Mr. Chairman, the question of where the amendment might lie in 
    the bill with regard to page or section is not important. I would 
    observe to the Chair that the amendment offered originally by the 
    minority goes to several pages in the bill. I would point out that 
    what is involved here is the text of the amendments, and whether or 
    not the language and the purposes and the concepts of the amendment 
    are germane and are relative and relevant to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Connecticut.
        I believe that a reading of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Connecticut will show that the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Maguire) is in fact germane to 
    it in terms of concept and in terms of purposes for which the 
    amendment happens to be offered. For that reason, I think that the 
    point of order should be rejected. . . .
        Mr. Maguire: Mr. Chairman, the key point is that this is a 
    refinement of the material that the Moffett substitute deals with. 
    Therefore, the page on which it appears is irrelevant, and the 
    point of order should be overruled.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair has examined the substitute and the amendment, and 
    states that while the page references are different, the principal 
    matter of concern is the relationship between the amendment and the 
    substitute. Clearly, there is a substantive relationship that goes 
    beyond the question of the pages, since both deal with auto sticker 
    plans.

        On the matter of the scope of the amendment and its 
    germaneness, the Moffett substitute imposes conditions on the 
    entire auto sticker plan in the bill in two diverse aspects. One is 
    a requirement of consultation with Governors, and the other is a 
    special consideration which would be required for suburban and 
    rural areas. The amendment to the substitute clearly deals with 
    another diverse element of the plan itself, and, because of the 
    diverse scope of the substitute, is germane to the substitute.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

[[Page 8082]]

Bill Authorizing Construction of Several Pipelines--Amendment Adding 
    Another

Sec. 11.9 To a bill authorizing construction of pipe lines in one state 
    along a waterway, an amendment adding a similar pipeline along the 
    same waterway in another state was held germane.

    In the 77th Congress, the following amendment was offered to a bill 
(5) authorizing construction of pipelines: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 6999 (Committee on Rivers and Harbors).
 6. 88 Cong. Rec. 5302, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That in addition to the sum herein authorized, there is hereby 
    authorized the sum not to exceed $13,000,000 for the purpose of 
    constructing a crude oil pipe line from either Charleston, S.C., or 
    Savannah, Ga., whichever of the said cities, or both, on the inland 
    waterway meets with the approval of the Secretary of the Navy and 
    the Secretary of War, to the Tinsley oil field located in the 
    vicinity of Yazoo, Miss.
        The following exchange (7) concerned a point of 
    order made against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at pp. 5302, 5303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert E.] Carter [of California]: I make the point of 
    order that the amendment is not germane to the bill. While it is 
    true that the bill does refer to one pipe line, the gentleman's 
    amendment refers to an altogether different pipe line in a 
    different place, to be constructed for a different sum of money. 
    While it is true they refer to similar subjects, I contend that the 
    gentleman's proposal is not germane to this particular paragraph. . 
    . .
        The Chairman (John M. Costello, of California): The Chair is 
    ready to rule.
        The gentleman from South Carolina has offered an amendment 
    which would provide for the building of an additional pipe line, 
    either in South Carolina or Georgia. The bill originally provided 
    for the building of a pipe line and has been amended now to provide 
    for the building of one or more pipe lines which should be built in 
    the interest of national defense to provide for the transportation 
    of materials and supplies for that purpose. The amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from South Carolina applies likewise to the 
    transportation of crude oil and such supplies for the carrying out 
    of national defense.
        It has been previously held in the House in connection with a 
    bill providing for an interoceanic route that an amendment 
    providing for another route was proper and germane.
        It appears to the Chair that the amendment which the gentleman 
    from South Carolina offers, since it provides for additional pipe 
    lines, is germane to the bill, and the Chair overrules the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from California.

Bill To Regulate Air Pollution From Various Sources--Amendment To 
    Regulate Bus Emissions

Sec. 11.10 To a proposition relating to several subjects within

[[Page 8083]]

    a general category, an amendment affecting an additional subject 
    within that same category is germane. Thus, to a title of a 
    comprehensive bill imposing clean air standards to regulate air 
    pollution from a variety of mobile sources, including motor 
    vehicles, an amendment inserting a new section proposing regulatory 
    standards for carbon monoxide emissions into buses was held germane 
    as regulation of the same category of air pollution sources.

    On Sept. 15, 1976,(8)) during consideration of H.R. 
10498 (9) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled 
a point of order against an amendment holding that to a bill being read 
for amendment by title, an amendment in the form of a new section need 
not be germane to a specific section therein, it being sufficient that 
it be germane to the title as a whole. Title II of the bill was before 
the Committee for amendment, and the diversity of the title is evident 
from the following table of contents:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 122 Cong. Rec. 30476, 30477, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         TITLE II--AMENDMENTS RELATING PRIMARILY TO MOBILE SOURCES

        Sec. 201. Limitation on indirect source review authority.
        Sec. 202. Extension of transportation control compliance dates.
        Sec. 203. Light-duty motor vehicle emissions.
        Sec. 204. Emission standards for heavy duty vehicles or engines 
    and certain other vehicles or engines.
        Sec. 205. Aircraft emission standards.
        Sec. 206. Assurance of protection of public health and safety.
        Sec. 207. Test procedures for measuring evaporative emissions.
        Sec. 208. Railroad locomotive emission standards.
        Sec. 209. Motor vehicle parts certification and study by 
    Federal Trade Commission.
        Sec. 210. Vehicle inspection and maintenance. . . .
        Mr. [Edward I.] Koch [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Koch: Page 302, after line 7, 
        insert:

            Carbon Monoxide Standards for Schoolbus Passenger Areas

            Sec. 220. (a) Title II of the Clean Air Act (relating to 
        emission standards for moving sources) is amended by adding the 
        following new part at the end thereof:

          ``part d--carbon monoxide standards for schoolbus passenger 
                                     areas

                          ``establishment of standards

            ``Sec. 241. (a) The Administrator, in conjunction with the 
        Secretary of

[[Page 8084]]

        Transportation, shall study the problem of carbon monoxide 
        intrusion into buses and sustained-use motor vehicles. . . .
            (b) Not later than one year after the enactment of this 
        part, the Administrator shall issue proposed standards setting 
        forth the levels of carbon monoxide in the passenger areas of 
        schoolbuses which are requisite to protect, with an adequate 
        margin of safety, the health of passengers and to permit safe 
        operation of such buses.
            (c) Pursuant to the requirements of section 307(d), the 
        Administrator shall, by regulation, promulgate, with such 
        modifications as he deems appropriate, final standards 
        applicable to the presence of carbon monoxide in the passenger 
        areas of schoolbuses. . . .

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        (T)his amendment would impose a number of additional duties on 
    the Environmental Protection Agency and the Administrator of that 
    Agency and also on the Secretary of the Department of 
    Transportation.
        Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this act pertaining to 
    authority of any agency of the Federal Government to prescribe 
    standards for buses or to prescribe standards for school buses. . . 
    .
        The bill includes authority to prescribe standards for new 
    vehicles, not for those vehicles that are on the road and in 
    operation. . . .
        Mr. Koch: . . .Mr. Chairman, first, as I understand the 
    gentleman, it is just a colloquy on the imposition of standards on 
    heavy duty vehicles that is already in the bill.
        Second, I have a memorandum prepared by the Library of Congress 
    and I will just briefly recite from it, if I may:

            H.R. 10498 amends the Clean Air Act in several respects. 
        Title I of the bill contains 15 sections dealing with 
        amendments relating primarily to statutory sources. Title II 
        has 19 sections relating primarily to mobile sources. And title 
        III has 17 sections of miscellaneous amendments (e.g., 
        redesignation of air quality control regions, fine particulate 
        study, and study and report concerning economic approaches to 
        controlling air pollution). When a bill provides for numerous 
        changes of various sections in existing law, amendments to the 
        bill are sometimes held to be germane where the amendments 
        modify sections of the law not dealt with in the bill. . . .

        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order made by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
    Broyhill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Koch) has offered an amendment 
    which has as its title, ``Carbon Monoxide Standards for School Bus 
    Passenger Areas.'' The Chair would like to first point to the title 
    of the bill itself:

            This Act, together with the following table of contents, 
        may be cited as the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976.

        Then, the Chair would point to title II, and would emphasize 
    and point out the practical nature and the general nature of title 
    II, which is at this point open to amendment at any point. It is 
    entitled, ``Amendments Relating Primarily to Mobile Sources.'' An 
    examination of the table of contents within the title itself 
    indicates that ``mobile sources'' being regulated by title II are

[[Page 8085]]

    of many, many sorts, and very diverse including amendments to the 
    Clean Air Act mentioned by the gentleman from Florida and other 
    changes in that law.
        It is the opinion of the Chair that the gentleman's amendment 
    as a new section is germane to the title as a whole and that it 
    does not escape nor go beyond the purview of title II. The Chair, 
    therefore, overrules the point of order.

Diverse Titles Relating to Hazardous Waste Cleanup--New Title To Create 
    Cause of Action for Victims of Improper Hazardous Waste Disposal

Sec. 11.11 To a bill containing diverse titles relating to hazardous 
    waste cleanup, including new uses of a trust fund to finance 
    removal and remedial actions, contemplating compensatory relief 
    through private suits, and containing provisions regarding 
    relocation costs, replacement of drinking water supplies and other 
    disaster relief, and amended to include a provision relating to 
    deed covenants in government surplus property conveyances (several 
    of such provisions containing subject matter within the 
    jurisdiction of committees other than the Committee on Energy and 
    Commerce which reported the bill), an amendment in the form of a 
    new title creating a new federal cause of action for victims of 
    improper disposal of hazardous waste, with amounts recovered from 
    the liable private parties to go toward reimbursement of the trust 
    fund for remedial expenses was held germane as within the general 
    diverse class of remedies covered by the bill as a whole, where 
    some of those remedies already contained in the bill were within 
    the jurisdiction of the committee (the Committee on the Judiciary) 
    having jurisdiction over the subject of the amendment.

    The proceedings of Aug. 10, 1984, relating to H.R. 5640 (the 
Superfund authorization), are discussed in Sec. 4.10, supra.

Transportation Facilities Eligible for Grants--Amendment Making 
    Additional Groups Within Same Category Eligible

Sec. 11.12 To a section of a bill defining eligibility for certain 
    grants affecting transportation, in terms of four diverse 
    classifications of facilities within the generic category of 
    railroad beds and

[[Page 8086]]

    facilities, an amendment adding two additional groups within the 
    same generic category was held germane.

    During consideration of the Emergency Rail Transportation 
Improvement Act of 1975 (11) in the Committee of the Whole 
on Oct. 23, 1975,(12) the Chair overruled a point of order 
against the amendment described above. The section of the bill pending 
and the amendment offered thereto were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 8672.
12. 121 Cong. Rec. 33776, 33777, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 6. Roadbeds and facilities are eligible for project grants 
    pursuant to section 4 if they--
        (1) have been designated for transfer to the Consolidated Rail 
    Corporation in the final system plan approved by the Board of 
    Directors of the United States Railway Association under section 
    206(c) of the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 (45 U.S.C. 
    716(c)); or
        (2) are utilized by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 
    pursuant to the Rail Passenger Service Act (45 U.S.C. 501 et seq.) 
    for providing intercity rail passenger service or are part of 
    either the basic system or the experimental routes established 
    pursuant to such Act; or
        (3) are owned by a railroad in reorganization under section 77 
    of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C. 205) on the date of enactment of 
    this Act; or
        (4) are utilized for providing intercity rail passenger service 
    by any railroad which is not in reorganization under section 77 of 
    the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C. 205) or subject to reorganization as 
    provided in section 207(b) of the Regional Rail Reorganization Act 
    of 1973 (45 U.S.C. 717(b)). . . .
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conte: On page 21, line 5 of H.R. 
        8672, delete the following: ``(45 U.S.C. 717(b)).'' And, in 
        lieu thereof, insert the following: ``(45 U.S.C. 717(b)); or
            ``(5) have been identified to the Secretary by any State, 
        political subdivision thereof, or regional commission as 
        significantly contributing to improvements in, or the 
        continuation of, essential present or anticipated 
        transportation needs, and the Secretary concurs in such 
        identification; or
            ``(6) are owned by a State or public entity.''. . .

        Mr. [Fred B.] Rooney [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I believe 
    the amendment should be referred to the Committee on Public Works. 
    I have discussed this with the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
    Surface Transportation of the Committee on Public Works and I am 
    informed that at the present time they are working on this 
    legislation. Therefore I do not think it is germane to this 
    legislation and that this committee does not have that 
    jurisdiction. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Jonathan B. Bingham (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Conte) would add two categories to the

[[Page 8087]]

    eligible roadbeds and facilities in section 6 of the bill. The four 
    categories that are now included comprise a diverse group within 
    the generic category of railroad beds and facilities and do not 
    constitute any clearly discernible class different from the 
    categories proposed to be added by the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte). There is nothing in the 
    language of the amendment which would indicate that the facilities 
    covered thereby are within a different class.
        In addition, the Chair would refer to the fact that the 
    findings and purposes of the bill refer to railroad and railroad 
    beds and facilities without excluding any particular type of 
    roadbeds and facilities. For these reasons the point of order is 
    overruled.

Loan Guarantees to Chrysler Corporation--Amendment Imposing Additional 
    Conditions

Sec. 11.13 Where a proposal authorized loan guarantees to the Chrysler 
    Corporation, for purposes of enabling the corporation to remain 
    economically viable and to continue to furnish goods and services, 
    thereby avoiding adverse effects on the economy and domestic 
    employment, but set a variety of conditions on such loan guarantees 
    (such as a prohibition against paying dividends during the term of 
    the loan guarantee), an amendment providing that during that term 
    the corporation shall not purchase or develop manufacturing 
    facilities outside the United States was held germane as a further 
    condition related to the stated purposes of the bill as a whole.

    During consideration of H.R. 5860 in the Committee of the Whole on 
Dec. 18, 1979,(14) the Chair overruled a point of order 
against the amendment described above, which was offered to an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute that had been introduced by Mr. 
William S. Moorhead, of Pennsylvania. The Moorhead amendment stated in 
part: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 125 Cong. Rec. 36791-93, 36818, 36819, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Id. at pp. 36791, 36792.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               authority for commitments for loan guarantees

        Sec. 4. (a) The Board, on such terms as it deems appropriate, 
    may make commitments to guarantee either the principal amount of 
    loans to a borrower or the principal amount of, and interest on, 
    loans to a borrower. A commitment may be made only if, at the time 
    the commitment is issued, the Board determines that--
        (1) there exists an energy-savings plan which--
        (A) is satisfactory to the Board;
        (B) is developed in consultation with other appropriate Federal 
    agencies;

[[Page 8088]]

        (C) focuses on the national need to lessen United States 
    dependence on petroleum; and
        (D) can be carried out by the borrowers;
        (2) the commitment is needed to enable the Corporation to 
    continue to furnish goods or services, and failure to meet such 
    need would adversely and seriously affect the economy of, or 
    employment in, the United States or any region thereof . . .
        (e) With respect to any borrower other than a borrower under 
    subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2) of section 2, the 
    Board may make commitments to guarantee loans and may make loan 
    guarantees under this Act to any such borrower before the energy-
    saving plan required under subsection (a)(1) is developed if the 
    Board determines that such commitments or loan guarantees are 
    necessary to preserve the Corporation for the development of the 
    plan required under subsection (a)(1).
        (f)(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(4), no 
    loan guarantee may be made under this Act unless--
        (A) the Corporation offers for sale not less than $100,000,000 
    of stock of the Corporation which--
        (i) was issued after October 17, 1979; or
        (ii) was held by the Corporation as treasury stock of the 
    Corporation before October 17, 1979;
        (B) the Corporation secures commitments to purchase not less 
    than $100,000,000 of such stock from persons with an existing 
    economic stake in the health of the Corporation; and
        (C) the commitments referred to in subparagraph (B) exceed such 
    persons' outstanding commitments to purchase such stock as of 
    October 17, 1979.
        (2) Any financial commitment or concession made under paragraph 
    (1) may be applied toward the requirements of subsection (c).

    Section 8 (16) of the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute stated several terms and conditions of the loan guarantees, 
including a prohibition against paying dividends during the term of the 
loan guarantee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at pp. 36792, 36793.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        An amendment was offered to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 36818.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fortney H.] Stark [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. . . .
        The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Stark to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: 
        At the end of section 4 [insert] . . .
            ``. . . During the period in which any loan guarantee is 
        outstanding under this Act, the Corporation shall not spend any 
        funds to purchase or expand manufacturing facilities which are 
        not located in the United States.''

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. . . .
        (T)he rules of the House require that the amendment be germane 
    to both

[[Page 8089]]

    the bill and the amendment to which it is offered, as well as to 
    the particular portion of the amendment to which the proposal is 
    offered. This amendment, I think, fails to meet all three of these 
    requirements.
        The particular section of the amendment to which this amendment 
    is offered reads as follows: ``Authority for Commitments for Loan 
    Guarantees.'' This section deals with two things: No. 1, that the 
    builder of the automobile to receive the loan guarantee shall have 
    an energy savings plan. That is the first one. It shall have such a 
    plan as a part of both its operating and its financial plan.
        The section subsequently goes on and lays down what goes into a 
    satisfactory financing plan. If the Chair will follow this, he will 
    find that the particular section deals with the financing plan 
    clear through the section and deals with the actions of the 
    corporation which will be taken to satisfy a satisfactory financing 
    plan and a plan which will assure the protection of the United 
    States and the interest of the taxpayers in the loan.
        The proposal that is offered by the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Stark) dictates what shall be done by Chrysler, not what will 
    respond to the requirements of this particular section which deal 
    with the financial capability and financial ability of the 
    corporation to repay and as to what constitutes a satisfactory 
    financing plan by the corporation. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I point out that the amendment is not germane 
    because it does not fall in the category of conditions that are met 
    in . . . the bill, the amendment to the bill or the particular 
    section to which it is made.
        Mr. Stark: Mr. Chairman, if the Chair will bear with me, my 
    amendment, I believe, is to section 4. The gentleman from Michigan 
    is quite correct that that is the authority for commitments under 
    loan guarantees. On page 4 of the committee print of the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute, on line 14, under the sections which 
    the gentleman from Michigan stated:

            . . . the commitment is needed to enable the Corporation to 
        continue to furnish goods or services, and failure to meet such 
        need would adversely and seriously affect the economy of, or 
        employment in, the United States or any region thereof.

        Going along further, under the financial plan, which the 
    gentleman said should be submitted, on page 6, paragraph (8):

            . . . the financing plan submitted under paragraph (4) 
        provides that expenditures under such financing plan will 
        contribute to the domestic economic viability of the 
        corporation.

        I certainly presume that domestic economic viability of the 
    corporation relates to expenditures in the United States and not 
    overseas.
        So I would submit that my amendment deals directly with 
    assuring that the intent of section 4 will be carried out by the 
    Board and, therefore, is of the most germane nature and very 
    important to the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) . . . [T]he Chair is ready to 
    rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that the argument made by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Stark) is to the point, that both the provisions 
    mentioned are perti

[[Page 8090]]

    nent, and that the amendment is pertinent to the general purposes 
    of the Moorhead amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
    indicated by related provisions in the section in question and 
    especially by the substitute as a whole.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill Amending Two Provisions of Gold Reserve Act--Amendment Related To 
    Different Subject in Act

Sec. 11.14 To a bill seeking to amend the Gold Reserve Act in two 
    particulars, an amendment seeking to amend the act in a third 
    particular but not related to the purpose of the amendments under 
    consideration was held not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (19) was under 
consideration amending the Gold Reserve Act relative to the goal of 
achieving stabilization of domestic prices and the exchange value of 
the dollar. A proposed amendment sought to amend the act with regard to 
a matter not covered in the bill, the purchase of gold abroad by the 
Secretary of the Treasury and a requirement that the proceeds of such 
purchase be used only to ``Buy American'' products. A point of order 
was raised against the amendment on the grounds that it was not germane 
to the bill.(20) The point of order was raised by Mr. Howard 
W. Smith, of Virginia. In response to the point of order, the Chairman 
(1) summarized the issues and ruled as follows: 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 3325 (Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures).
20. 84 Cong. Rec. 4628, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 21, 1939.
 1. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 2. 84 Cong. Rec. 4629, 4630, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 21, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The pending bill has two objectives in view, as far as the bill 
    itself is concerned, in the present parliamentary situation. One, 
    the use of the stabilization fund, to extend the powers in the 
    President of the use of the stabilization fund for the purpose of 
    stabilizing the exchange value of the dollar. Two, to continue 
    power in the President by proclamation, to fix the weight of the 
    gold dollar, for the purpose of stabilizing domestic prices or to 
    protect commerce against the adverse effects of depreciated foreign 
    currency.
        The bill picks out two powers granted in the Gold Reserve Act 
    of 1934, from a number of other powers in that act, and it extends 
    the date of expiration of those powers vested in the President and 
    also in the Secretary of the Treasury, and continues those powers 
    for an additional period. . . .
        The Chair . . . finds in section 2947 of [vol. 8] of Cannon's 
    Precedents a ruling by . . . the late Speaker Frederick H. Gillett.

[[Page 8091]]

        The syllabus to that decision reads as follows:

            To a bill amendatory of an act in several particulars an 
        amendment proposing to modify the act but not related to the 
        bill was held not to be germane. . . .

        The present occupant of the Chair feels that (the precedents 
    cited) are very convincing, and . . . feels strongly inclined to 
    follow the precedent established by the rulings to which the Chair 
    has referred. For the reasons stated, recognizing that it is a 
    close question, the Chair feels constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

Bill Prohibiting Various Activities Related to Consumer Credit--
    Amendment To Prohibit ``Loansharking''

Sec. 11.15 To a bill making unlawful a number of activities in the 
    field of interstate consumer credit transactions, an amendment 
    adding another activity, ``loansharking,'' to those prohibited in 
    the bill was held germane.

    In the 90th Congress, a bill (3) was under consideration 
requiring disclosure of finance charges and interest rates on credit 
sales, restricting the garnishment of wages, establishing a Commission 
on Consumer Finance and dealing generally with the subject of credit 
transactions. An amendment prohibiting ``loansharking''--the loaning of 
money at rates of interest above those permitted by state law--was held 
germane to such bill. The amendment, offered by Mr. Richard H. Poff, of 
Virginia, stated in part: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 11601 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 4. 114 Cong. Rec. 1605, 1606, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 31, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        b(1) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects 
    commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce by 
    loan sharking or attempts so to do shall be fined not more than 
    $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. . . .
        (4) Whoever knowingly participates in any way in a wrongful use 
    of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear in connection with 
    a loan or forbearance in violation of subsections (1) and (2) of 
    this section, or attempted violation thereof, shall be fined not 
    more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than twenty-five years, or 
    both.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 1606.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against this amendment. . . .
        . . . It involves the Federal enforcement of State usury 
    statutes and involves a lot of things like that which Members of 
    this House are entitled to know something about. There really 
    should be committee consideration of it. . . .

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id.

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

[[Page 8092]]

        I wish to call to the attention of the Chair reference to the 
    title of the bill, and particularly to the first two clauses 
    thereof which read as follows:

            To safeguard the consumer in connection with the 
        utilization of credit by requiring full disclosure of the terms 
        and conditions of finance charges in credit transactions or in 
        offers to extend credit; by establishing maximum rates of 
        finance charges in credit transactions . . .

        Mr. Chairman, the thrust of this amendment is to fix a Federal 
    definition of the crime of usury as it is related to the State 
    statutes which deal with the subject of usury.
        Mr. Chairman, it is my feeling that the amendment is altogether 
    addressed to the subject matter of the bill and is properly 
    identified with its provisions.

    The Chairman,(7) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
 8. 114 Cong. Rec. 1607, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 31, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill under consideration deals with credit, interest and 
    garnishment, and several other classifications of these fields.
        The Chair, in perusing the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Virginia, finds that it deals with interest, interest rates, 
    and refers to the matter of ``loan sharks''; this has to do with 
    the matter of interest - the excessive charge of interest. And it 
    appears to the Chair that this is another classification to add to 
    those under consideration in the original bill.
        The Chair, therefore, holds that the amendment is germane and 
    overrules the point of order.

Amendment Adding to Items Covered by Flammable Fabrics Act

Sec. 11.16 To a bill extending the coverage of the Flammable Fabrics 
    Act to include wearing apparel and household furnishings, an 
    amendment to bring children's toys within the mandate of the act 
    was held to be germane.

    In the 90th Congress, a bill (9) was under consideration 
relating to fire hazards arising out of the condition of wearing 
apparel and household furnishings. The following exchange 
(10) concerned an amendment offered by Mr. James G. O'Hara, 
of Michigan:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. S. 1003 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 33769, 33770, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 27, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hastings] Keith [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the consideration of this matter at this 
    point. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, my objection is to the consideration of the 
    subject matter of the proposed amendments as not being pertinent 
    and as not being germane to this legislation, and I make a point of 
    order against the amendments on that ground.

    Mr. O'Hara responded to the point of order in the following 
language:

        Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment to the Flammable Fabrics 
    Act.

[[Page 8093]]

    The Flammable Fabrics Act is rather extensively amended by the bill 
    before us. The Flammable Fabrics Act is amended to include interior 
    furnishings ``made in whole or in part of fabric or related 
    material'' and so on.
        Then, ``fabric'' is defined to mean ``any material--except 
    fiber, filament, or yarn for other than retail sale--woven, 
    knitted, felted, or otherwise produced from or in combination with 
    any natural or synthetic fiber, film, or substitute therefore,'' 
    and so on.
        Then we get to ``related material'' which is defined to mean 
    ``paper, plastic, rubber, synthetic film, or synthetic foam'' and 
    so on.

        Then the term ``product'' means ``any article of wearing 
    apparel or interior furnishing.''
        Mr. Chairman, I would submit that under the provisions of this 
    particular legislation we are simply adding a new category, made of 
    fabric and related material, a new category of items. Therefore, it 
    would be germane to this legislation. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) . . . The bill which the 
    Committee has under consideration is designed to protect the public 
    against undue risk of fire leading to death, injury of property, 
    and damage, arising out of the condition of articles of wearing 
    apparel and interior or household furnishings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Donald M. Fraser (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This is the language of the bill which the Committee of the 
    Whole has under consideration, which deals with two classes of 
    subjects. The amendment which is proposed by the gentleman from 
    Michigan would seek to add a third class. It would appear that the 
    addition of a third class is a proper amendment and, therefore, 
    would be germane.
        There is the general proposition that a proposition dealing 
    with a number of subjects may be amended by the addition of another 
    subject of the same class.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Bill Containing Diverse Provisions Relating to Authorities of 
    Department of Defense--Amendment Prohibiting Use of Certain Real 
    Property for Deployment of Weapons System

Sec. 11.17 To a bill containing diverse provisions relating to 
    authorities of the Department of Defense, an amendment adding a new 
    title precluding that department from utilizing certain real 
    property for deployment of a weapons system pending a study was 
    held germane as confined solely to activities of the Defense 
    Department and not extending to issues of the release of public 
    lands through another department.

    On May 21, 1980,(12) during consideration of H.R. 6974 
(13) in the

[[Page 8094]]

Committee of the Whole, Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, of Illinois, 
overruled a point of order in the circumstances described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 126 Cong. Rec. 11972, 11973, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. The Department of Defense Authorization for fiscal 1981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [David D.] Marriott [of Utah]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Marriott:

         TITLE X--RESPONSE TO MX/MPS SYSTEM IMPACT BY THE SECRETARY OF 
                                    DEFENSE

            Sec. 1000. The Secretary of Defense may not use any land 
        made available for the deployment of any part of the MX/MPS 
        system until the Secretary of Defense has provided Congress and 
        the States affected by the system with the following--
            (1) A report setting forth specific social, economic and 
        environmental impacts of the MX/MPS system on the people, 
        lands, and resources affected, and detailing the amount of 
        public land to be partially or completely closed to any or all 
        public use, and setting forth any circumstances which would 
        require the use of area security, rather than point security, 
        for the system;
            (2) A proposal outlining the methods of addressing the 
        social, economic, and environmental impacts of the MX/MPS 
        system so as to minimize the negative effects of such impacts, 
        including specific steps that can be taken to eliminate delays 
        in delivery of necessary impact aid funds to affected states, 
        counties, and communities;
            (3) A study of the feasibility of basing parts of the MX/
        MPS system in more than two States, so as to minimize the 
        social, economic, and environmental impacts on any single 
        State. . . .

        Mr. [Richard H.] Ichord [of Missouri]: . . . I observe that the 
    amendment applies to the MX-MPS system which is contained in title 
    II and was fully debated by the committee.
        The gentleman sets up a new title X applying solely to MX 
    lands.
        Mr. Chairman, I would raise a point of order against the 
    amendment on two grounds. First, the amendment is not now in order 
    as a separate title X. It should have been offered to title II.
        The gentleman would have to ask unanimous consent to open up 
    the MX issue.
        Mr. Chairman, as a second ground, fully appreciating the good 
    and honorable intentions of the highly esteemed gentleman from Utah 
    in offering this amendment, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment is not germane to the legislation under consideration 
    today since this bill in even a remote respect, Mr. Chairman, does 
    not authorize the acquisition of public lands in any fashion, nor 
    are the agencies of Government concerned nor the public lands 
    within the jurisdiction of this bill.
        If we examine the amendment, the gentleman deals strictly with 
    three conditions for the withdrawal of land. Therefore, such an 
    amendment would not properly find its place in H.R. 6974. In fact, 
    Mr. Chairman, the law is such that if we make a withdrawal of land 
    over 5,000 acres it has to be done by other legislation. I am 
    constrained, even though appreciating the good intentions of the 
    gentleman from Utah, to make the point of order that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Marriott) is not germane to 
    the bill under the provisions of House rule XVI, clause 7. . . .

[[Page 8095]]

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair observes that the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Marriott) 
    has offered his amendment as a new title X, which is an amendment 
    which must be germane to the bill as a whole and, the Chair feels 
    that the amendment certainly relates to the bill, and that under 
    the precedents a subject may be germane at more than one place in 
    the bill.
        The Chair also makes the observation that the amendment only 
    addresses the authority of the Secretary of Defense to use any 
    available lands for research on and deployment of the MX. Such an 
    amendment is germane since it is not addressed to the question of 
    the acquisition of public lands or the release of public lands by 
    the Department of the Interior and since other authorities of the 
    Defense Department are contained in the bill. Therefore, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order raised by the gentleman from Missouri.

Bill Embracing Different Subjects Relating to Prosecution of War--
    Amendment Adding Further Subject Affecting War Effort

Sec. 11.18 To a bill to expedite the prosecution of war, embracing 16 
    different titles upon unrelated subjects, an amendment proposing to 
    insert a new title on another subject but having for its purpose 
    the same general object was held germane.

    In the 77th Congress, during consideration of the second war powers 
bill (14) the following amendment was offered as a new 
title: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. S. 2208 (Committee on the Judiciary).
15. 88 Cong. Rec. 1708, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 26, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Title IV-A

        That during the national emergency declared to exist by the 
    President on May 27, 1941, the following provisions of law, as 
    amended, are suspended, insofar as they--
        (a) Prescribe the maximum hours, days, or weeks of labor in any 
    specified period of time;
        (b) Require compensation at a rate higher than the usual rate 
    at which an employee is employed (1) for labor in excess of a 
    specified number of hours, days, or weeks in any specified period 
    of time, or (2) for labor on Sundays, holidays, or during the 
    night. . . .

    A point of order was made against the amendment as follows: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 1709.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Virginia [Mr. Smith] on the ground that it is not germane to the 
    bill. . . .
        The Smith amendment provides for maximum hours of employment 
    and rates of pay. It suspends the operation of some 17 different 
    public acts. The bill before you has nothing to do with

[[Page 8096]]

    any or all of the acts thus sought to be suspended. It has naught 
    to do with hours of employment or rates of pay. It is not a labor 
    bill.

    The following additional remarks were made in support of the point 
of order: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 1710.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Arthur D.] Healey [of Massachusetts]: . . . I submit, Mr. 
    Chairman, that the amendment deals with suspension of sections of 
    laws relating to hours and wages, and that there is no section of 
    the bill now under consideration, as reported by the committee, 
    that deals with that subject or any subject related to it.

    The proponent of the amendment defended it as follows: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at pp. 1710, 1711.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, the Chair, and 
    everyone else, of course, recognize that this is an unusual 
    situation, because we are considering what is known as a war-powers 
    bill, a bill which has 16 separate titles, no two of which are 
    germane to each other. . . . [All that is] necessary in a situation 
    of this kind is that the fundamental purpose of [the amendment] 
    which is, namely, to expedite the war effort, shall be germane to 
    the fundamental purpose of the bill to which it is offered.

    The Chairman,(19) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
20. 88 Cong. Rec. 1712, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 26, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]he Chair [endeavors] to point out that there is an 
    unusual situation presented in that the pending bill embraces 16 
    different titles, all titles on different and unrelated subjects. 
    Therefore the Chair is of the opinion that the only proper and 
    reasonable test that can be applied in a situation of this kind is 
    the subject matter and the purpose covered by the pending bill and 
    the pending amendment. The purpose of the pending bill is to 
    further expedite the prosecution of the war effort.
        Therefore the Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is 
    germane to the purposes of the bill, and the Chair therefore 
    overrules the point of order.

Provisions Requiring Nondiscrimination in Army Nurse Corps--Amendment 
    Proscribing Additional Form of Discrimination

Sec. 11.19 To a proposed requirement that officers in the Army Nurse 
    Corps be appointed irrespective of race, color, creed, national 
    origin, or ancestry, an amendment adding to such categories that of 
    ``membership or nonmembership in any labor organization'' was held 
    germane.

    In the 80th Congress, a bill (1) was under consideration 
to establish a permanent nurse corps of the Army and Navy and to estab

[[Page 8097]]

lish a Women's Medical Specialist Corps in the Army. Mr. Adam C. 
Powell, Jr., of New York, had offered an amendment which provided that 
commissioned officers of the Army Nurse Corps, Regular Army, be 
appointed from female citizens ``irrespective of race, color, creed, 
national origin, or ancestry.'' (2) During consideration of 
the Powell amendment, Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, offered an 
amendment to the amendment for purposes of adding a requirement that 
the officers referred to be appointed irrespective of ``membership or 
nonmembership in any labor organization.'' (3) The following 
point of order was then raised against the Hoffman amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 1943 (Committee on Armed Services).
 2. 93 Cong. Rec. 2011, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 13, 1947.
 3. Id. at p. 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment to the amendment is not germane. 
    The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York merely deals 
    with the question of race, creed, or color, and national origin. 
    The amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Michigan deals with an entirely different subject. . . .

    Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled as follows 
on the point of order:

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Powell] provides generally that appointment in the Nurse Corps 
    shall be made irrespective of race, creed, color, or national 
    origin.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Hoffman) simply adds an additional category.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment is germane, and the 
    Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Bill Waiving State Laws Affecting Voting Rights of Armed Forces--
    Amendment Waiving Payment of Poll Tax as Requirement

Sec. 11.20 To that section of a bill concerning the right of members of 
    the armed forces to vote notwithstanding any state law relating to 
    elections, including requirements as to registration, an amendment 
    waiving the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite to registration 
    was held merely to add another provision relating to the voting 
    rights in question and was held germane.

    On July 23, 1942, a bill (4) was under consideration 
which related to absentee voting in time of war by members of the armed 
forces. The bill stated in part: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 7416 (Committee on Election of President, Vice 
        President, and Representatives in Congress).
 5. 88 Cong. Rec. 6561, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., July 23, 1942.

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

[[Page 8098]]

                  Special Method of Voting in Time of War

        Section 1. In time of war, notwithstanding any provision of 
    State law relating to elections (including requirements as to 
    registration), every individual absent from the State of his 
    residence and serving in the land or naval forces of the United 
    States in the continental United States (exclusive of Alaska), who 
    is otherwise qualified to vote under the law of the State of his 
    residence, shall be entitled, as provided in this act, to vote for 
    electors of President and Vice President of the United States, 
    United States Senators and Representatives in Congress.

    An amendment offered by Mr. Estes Kefauver, of Tennessee, sought 
specifically to include payment of a poll tax among the state 
requirements relating to elections which were to be deemed inapplicable 
to members of the armed forces as described. Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, made the point of order that the amendment was not 
germane; the point of order, however, was overruled. The Chairman 
(6) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair invites attention to the provision of the bill where 
    the amendment is offered, including requirement as to registration. 
    The amendment seeks to add another provision relating to the right 
    of the men to vote.
        Therefore, the Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is 
    germane and overrules the point of order.

Bill Prohibiting Interference With Officials Attempting To Enforce 
    Civil Rights--Amendment Proscribing Interference Under Additional 
    Circumstances

Sec. 11.21 To a bill making it a criminal offense to interfere with 
    enjoyment of certain enumerated civil rights and prohibiting 
    interference with public officials attempting to enforce these 
    rights without discrimination, an amendment proscribing 
    interference with a public official, law enforcement officer, or 
    fireman who is attempting to carry out the purposes of the bill or 
    prevent civil disturbances, riots, or the destruction of property 
    was held germane.

    The following exchange (7) in the 90th Congress 
concerned an amendment to a bill (8) prescribing penalties 
for interference with civil rights:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 22757, 22758, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 16, 1967.
 8. H.R. 2516 (Committee on the Judiciary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            . . . [It shall be a criminal offense to injure, interfere 
        with, or the like]

[[Page 8099]]

        any law enforcement officer making or attempting to make a 
        lawful arrest to carry out the purposes of this act or to 
        prevent or abate a riot or violent civil disturbance . . . or . 
        . . any fireman attempting to extinguish a fire created by any 
        disturbance resulting from a civil rights protest. . . .

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. . . .
        The fundamental purpose of this bill is to prescribe penalties 
    for the forcible interference because of race, color, or creed or 
    national origin with the enjoyment of civil rights.
        Those rights are Federal rights. They stem from the 14th 
    amendment, and from the laws passed by the Congress. . . .
        The question of protection of policemen and firemen is a matter 
    I doubt very much whether we would have the constitutional right to 
    adopt, or pass.
        The congressional power in this respect could not stem from the 
    14th amendment. It could not stem from the commerce clause.
        That is not the case with policemen and firemen. In my 
    estimation this is purely a State or local matter and not for the 
    Congress. . . .
        Mr. Wright: Mr. Chairman, it is a well-established principle 
    fully recognized in the rules of this House and in its precedents 
    and rulings of the Chair that an amendment is germane when it does 
    no more than to add an additional category to the list of 
    punishable offenses prescribed in the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (9) . . . The bill before the 
    Committee of the Whole enumerates eight areas of civil rights 
    activity and is designed to prevent or punish interference with 
    these activities. It does this by defining three new crimes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill makes it a crime:
        First, to interfere with any person, because of his race, 
    color, religion, or national origin, while he is lawfully engaging 
    or seeking to engage in these activities;
        Second, to interfere with any person to discourage lawful 
    participation by such person in any of the eight activities, and, 
    more particularly, to interfere with related free speech and 
    assembly;
        Third, for any person to interfere with any public official to 
    discourage such official from affording equal treatment to those 
    participating in the eight activities.
        The amendment adds a fourth category of criminal activity 
    closely related to the last of these three crimes. It also relates 
    to interference with public officials in the performance of their 
    duties and proscribes any attempt to injure, intimidate or 
    interfere with a public official attempting to carry out the 
    purpose of this act or attempting to prevent certain civil 
    disturbances.
        The Chair feels that this amendment falls within the general 
    proposition that where a section of a bill defines several unlawful 
    acts an amendment proposing to include an additional unlawful act 
    of the same class is germane.

Bill Authorizing Investigation of Civil Rights Violations--Amendment 
    Adding Further Discriminatory Practice To Be Investigated

Sec. 11.22 To a bill authorizing a commission to investigate

[[Page 8100]]

    abridgment of civil rights, an amendment making discrimination on 
    the basis of political affiliation a subject of such investigation 
    was held to be germane.

    In the 84th Congress, a bill (10) was under 
consideration which provided in part that a commission should 
investigate allegations that certain citizens were being deprived of 
their right to vote or being subjected to unwarranted economic 
pressures by reason of their color, race, religion, or national 
origins. The following amendment was offered: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 627 (Committee on the Judiciary).
11. 102 Cong. Rec. 13730, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 20, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Paul C. Jones, of Missouri: On page 
    21, line 12, after the word ``religion'', insert ``political 
    affiliation.''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at pp. 13730, 13731.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that this amendment is not germane to this bill. 
    The prohibition against discrimination on the grounds of color, 
    race, religion, and [national] origin is envisioned within the 
    terms of the bill now and it says nothing about political 
    affiliations. We do not want to change the entire character of this 
    commission, as it is set up here, by providing that they are to get 
    into an investigation of how people vote and why. It would involve, 
    or at least could involve, investigation of the so-called Communist 
    Party and other subversive groups. It completely changes the 
    character of the bill. It is not within the purview of either this 
    section or the title of the bill in any way, it seems to me.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows: 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 13731.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I think it is apparent to 
    anyone if they read the bill, that it says it is to investigate the 
    allegation that certain citizens of the United States are being 
    deprived of their right to vote. . . .
        I think [it] is well recognized, that political affiliation is 
    something that excludes some people from the right of franchise in 
    this country.

    The Chairman,(14) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
15. 102 Cong. Rec. 13731, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 20, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined both the language of the amendment and 
    the language of the bill and finds, for the reason that the word 
    ``sex'' was germane yesterday, ``political affiliation'' is germane 
    to the section that the gentleman has offered his amendment, and 
    the Chair overrules the point of order.

[[Page 8101]]

Bill Establishing Department of Education and Containing Findings--
    Amendment Adding Finding With Regard to Use of Quotas Based on Race 
    or Other Factors

Sec. 11.23 To that portion of a bill containing diverse findings and 
    purposes related to a general subject, an amendment adding another 
    finding or purpose related to that subject is germane; thus, to a 
    title of a bill establishing a new Department of Education, stating 
    a wide range of findings and educational purposes for the creation 
    of the Department, including a finding that there is a need to 
    insure equal access to educational opportunities, an amendment 
    adding the finding that no individual should be denied such 
    opportunities by regulations which utilize ratios, quotas, or other 
    numerical requirements based on race, creed, color, national origin 
    or sex, was held germane as adding a related finding to the diverse 
    class of educational policies stated in the title.

    On June 12, 1979,(16) during consideration of H.R. 2444 
(17) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Lucien N. 
Nedzi, of Michigan, overruled a point of order against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 14460, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. Department of Education Organization Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: On page 54, in line 21, 
        strike out the ``;'', and insert the following: ``and that no 
        individual should be denied such education opportunities by 
        rules, regulations, standards, guidelines, and orders which 
        utilize any ratio, quota, or other numerical requirement 
        related to race, creed, color, national origin or sex.''. . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point 
    of order against this amendment, since it is on a subject that is 
    different from that which is under consideration and, thus, it 
    fails to meet the test that is imposed by rule XVI, clause 7.
        We are considering a reorganization statute, that is H.R. 2444, 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations. 
    That committee has reported this bill.
        The gentleman is introducing a new subject by way of his 
    amendment which affects education programs. If such an amendment 
    were introduced

[[Page 8102]]

    as a bill, it would not even be referred to the Committee on 
    Government Operations.
        In order to be germane, an amendment must have the same 
    fundamental purpose as the bill under consideration. The purpose of 
    H.R. 2444 deals only with the organizational structure of a new 
    Department of Education.
        The amendment raises a controversial subject of public policy 
    and gets into substantive issues. Thus, the fundamental purpose of 
    the amendment is not germane to the fundamental purpose of the 
    bill.
        I know yesterday there was a ruling of the chair with regard to 
    one of the other amendments that were offered that made reference 
    to the inclusion in this bill of section 103, namely prohibition 
    against Federal control of education. That provision is the 
    restatement of the present law which prohibits the Federal 
    Government from controlling or getting into the control of local 
    education. In other words, that is a restatement of what the 
    present law is. It was put in this bill so it would make certain to 
    those who were involved with the Department of Education in the 
    bill that they would know that it is not the intention of the 
    Federal Government to direct or control education at the local 
    level.
        This amendment goes into substantive issues which are not 
    involved in this committee. We have had no hearings on this 
    subject; we have had no opportunity to discuss it; we have had no 
    testimony on it. . . .
        Mr. Walker: . . . What I am simply doing in this particular 
    amendment is further defining findings which are already stated 
    under the findings and purposes section of this bill.
        The present findings says:

            There is a continuous need to insure equal access for all 
        Americans to educational opportunities of high quality.

        All this language does is expand upon that particular 
    phraseology by saying that no individual should be denied such 
    educational opportunities by rules, regulations, standards, 
    guidelines, or orders which utilize any ratio, quota, or other 
    numerical requirement related to race, creed, color, national 
    origin or sex.
        It simply defines material which is already stated in the bill. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair would like to remind the Member that title I of H.R. 
    2444 in section 102 contains a diverse statement of purposes and 
    findings applicable to the newly created Department of Education. 
    These findings, while not affecting or creating new authorities 
    which are to be transferred to the Department, are extremely 
    diverse in character and emphasize several aspects of the question 
    of the extent of Federal Government involvement in educational 
    programs. Since it is difficult to group into one class all of the 
    stated purposes and findings for the new Department, and since the 
    pending amendment does not directly address new substantive 
    authorities to be conferred upon or withheld from the Department, 
    the Chair will rule that the amendment stating an additional 
    finding relative to Federal educational policy is germane to title 
    I of the bill.
        The Chair would cite a relevant precedent contained in Cannon's 
    precedents, volume VIII, section 3011,

[[Page 8103]]

    where, to a section embodying a declaration of policy and including 
    a number of purposes, an amendment proposing to incorporate an 
    additional purpose was held germane. There, the Chair emphasizes 
    that the declaration of policy section did not have any particular 
    effect upon the bill, and that the section contained several 
    diverse proposals.
        Accordingly, the Chair overrules the point of order, and the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes in support 
    of his amendment.

Bill Prohibiting Certain Activities in Political Campaigns--Amendment 
    To Prohibit Certain Political Activities on Part of Employees of 
    Public Utility Holding Companies

Sec. 11.24 To a bill making it unlawful for persons, corporations, and 
    the like to engage in certain ``pernicious political activities,'' 
    an amendment making unlawful certain ``pernicious political 
    activities'' on the part of employees of public utility holding 
    companies was held to be germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (18) was under 
consideration that sought to prevent pernicious political activities by 
making it unlawful for any person to make contributions in excess of 
$5,000 to political campaigns. The bill also declared it to be unlawful 
for any person, partnership, corporation, or the like, to purchase any 
goods, commodities, or advertising, where the proceeds of such purchase 
would inure to the benefit of any political campaign. The following 
amendment was offered: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. S. 3046 (Committee on the Judiciary).
19. 86 Cong. Rec. 9453, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., July 10, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: 
    Page 21, after line 7, insert: ``it is further declared to be a 
    pernicious political activity, and it shall hereafter be unlawful, 
    for any officer or employee of a public utility holding company 
    registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the 
    Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, or of any subsidiary 
    company thereof, (1) to take any active part in political 
    management or in political campaigns, or (2) to use his authority 
    or influence as such officer or employee for the purpose of 
    interfering with an election or a nomination for office, or 
    affecting the results thereof, or (3) directly or indirectly to 
    coerce, attempt to coerce, command, or advise any other such 
    officer or employee to pay, lend, or contribute any part of his 
    salary or compensation or anything else of value to any party, 
    committee, organization, agency, or person for political 
    purposes.''

    A point of order was made against the amendment by Mr. John J. 
Dempsey, of New Mexico,

[[Page 8104]]

on the ground that the amendment was not germane to the 
bill.(20) Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, speaking in 
support of the point of order,(1) argued that the bill dealt 
basically with groups or classes who received compensation or 
contributions directly or indirectly from the federal government, and 
that the class of persons included within the terms of the Rankin 
amendment were not such a class as the bill intended to regulate. A 
further argument was made by Mr. Francis H. Case, of South 
Dakota,(2) that the section of the bill to which the 
amendment was offered dealt primarily with the subject of contributions 
rather than with that of participation in campaigns; observing that 
much of the proposed amendment was devoted to the subject of 
participation in campaigns, Mr. Case cited another section of the bill 
to which he felt the amendment would more appropriately be offered. The 
Chairman, John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, in ruling on the point 
of order, stated: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 9453.
 1. Id.
 2. Id. at p. 9454.
 3. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is in complete agreement with so much of the 
    observations of the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
        Michener] as relates to the amendment's not being germane if 
    the bill were confined to one group. The Chair would have no 
    hesitancy in ruling if the bill confined itself . . . to employees 
    of a state or of any political subdivision.
        However, the Chair is very much concerned by the provision of 
    section 13, which brings in another class, declaring it to be [a 
    pernicious political activity for any person to make political 
    contributions as specified].
        Then in the third paragraph of section 13 there is brought in 
    another class: . . . ``any person, individual, partnership, 
    committee, association, corporation, and any other organization or 
    group of persons. . . .''
        There is a well-recognized rule of the House, which has been 
    passed upon on many occasions, that where a bill confines itself to 
    one subject, another subject, even if related, would not be 
    germane, but where a bill covers two or more subjects a related 
    subject would then be in order. . . .
        This being a related matter, and the bill covering two or more 
    groups, it seems to the Chair that another group could be included 
    therein, which the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Mississippi undertakes to do. For the reasons stated, therefore, 
    the Chair overrules the point of order.

Provisions Relating to Government and Political Rights in District of 
    Columbia--Amendment Providing for Non-voting Delegate to Senate

Sec. 11.25 To a proposition relating in many diverse respects

[[Page 8105]]

    to the political rights of the people of the District of Columbia, 
    an amendment conferring upon that electorate the additional right 
    of electing a non-voting Delegate to the Senate was held germane.

    On Oct. 10, 1973,(4) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 9682, a bill to reorganize the government of 
the District of Columbia. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
provided for a comprehensive reorganization of the government of the 
District of Columbia, including sections permitting the popular 
election of a mayor and city council. It also contained amendments to 
the District of Columbia Election Act relating to procedures for 
election of a delegate to the House of Representatives. An amendment 
was offered providing for the election of a non-voting delegate to the 
Senate. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 119 Cong. Rec. 33656, 33657, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment 
    to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gross to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Diggs: Page 118, 
        immediately after line 2, insert the following:

                  district of columbia delegate to the senate

            Sec. 741. (a) The people of the District of Columbia shall 
        be represented in the Senate of the United States by a 
        Delegate, to be known as the ``Delegate to the Senate from the 
        District of Columbia'', who shall be elected by the voters of 
        the District of Columbia in accordance with the District of 
        Columbia Election Act, in the same manner as such Act relates 
        to the election of the Delegate to the House of Representatives 
        from the District of Columbia. . . .

        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to 
    make a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        [T]he point of order is based on the fact that the amendment is 
    not germane. The bill deals with self-government for the District 
    of Columbia and allocating certain powers to the District and 
    certain restrictions on the exercise of that authority. The 
    amendment, as I understand it, purports to give representation in 
    the Congress, which is a wholly different subject not embraced in 
    the bill before the Committee. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    Chair believes that the matter before the committee covers so many 
    different subjects that have to do with the rights of people of the 
    District of Columbia that the amendment is, in fact, germane and 
    overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Richard Bolling (Mo.).

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

[[Page 8106]]

Resolution Authorizing Investigation of Sources and Purity of Milk 
    Supply in District of Columbia--Amendment Expanding Investigation 
    To Include Ways To Ensure Adequate Supply of Dairy Products

Sec. 11.26 To a resolution authorizing a committee to investigate 
    several matters relating to the sources and purity of the milk 
    supply in the District of Columbia, an amendment was held to be 
    germane which proposed that such investigation encompass additional 
    aspects of the problem of ensuring an adequate supply of dairy 
    products in the District of Columbia.

    The following resolution was offered on Mar. 13, 1939: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 84 Cong. Rec. 2663, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. (Committee on Rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            House Resolution 113

        Resolved, That the House Committee on the District of Columbia, 
    or a duly authorized subcommittee thereof, be, and is hereby, 
    authorized and directed to make a full and complete investigation 
    of (1) the sources and purity of the milk and cream supply of the 
    District of Columbia; (2) of any violation of the law of the 
    District of Columbia or regulations of the District Commissioners 
    made pursuant thereto with respect to the importation of milk or 
    cream into the District of Columbia or importation of unlicensed 
    milk or cream into the District of Columbia and the method by which 
    such violations are perpetrated; (3) the possible effect upon the 
    health of the community by reason of the unlawful importation of 
    unlicensed milk or cream into the District of Columbia; (4) whether 
    and to what extent cream for ice-cream purposes, under section 4 of 
    the 1925 Milk Act of the District of Columbia, is being diverted 
    unlawfully to milk or cream for fluid consumption; (5) whether any 
    conspiracy exists on the part of any distributor of any dairy 
    products to violate the provisions of the 1925 District Milk Act or 
    the regulations made pursuant thereto. . . .

    To such resolution, the following amendment was offered: 
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 2671.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: 
    Page 2, line 7, after ``thereto,'' strike out the period and 
    insert:
        (6) the propriety and feasibility of licensing or otherwise 
    permitting under proper regulation in such manner as to fairly 
    protect the safety and health of consumers in the District of 
    Columbia the entry into the District of Columbia of so-called 
    western cream and milk, and cream and milk from any available 
    sources in the United States for fluid, manufacturing, or other use 
    in the District of Columbia and on the Washington market;
        (7) and whether the 1925 Milk Act, and all other acts relating 
    to the importation, distribution, and inspection of milk and dairy 
    products require modification, alteration, or improve

[[Page 8107]]

    ment in order to insure an adequate supply of milk and dairy 
    products for the residents of the District of Columbia at 
    reasonable and fair prices.

    A point of order was made against the proposed amendment, as 
follows:

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane to the 
    resolution before the House. . . . As the Chair will notice, the 
    resolution of investigation is confined to a narrow scope, namely, 
    its sole purpose is investigation of law violations. The gentleman 
    from Indiana desires to enter upon an investigation of whether the 
    law as now existing is a good law or a bad law, or whether Congress 
    ought to do something about it.

    In ruling on the point of order, Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, stated: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 2672.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There is a very well considered line of opinions and precedents 
    holding that where a number of subjects are embraced in a bill, it 
    is germane to add another subject of the same class thereto, and 
    inasmuch as the committee is authorized to make recommendations 
    affecting legislation to cure or change the situation with 
    reference to the supply of milk or cream, the Chair is of the 
    opinion that the amendment is in order and is germane to the 
    resolution and overrules the point of order.

Bill Amending Laws Affecting Authority of Secretary of Agriculture--
    Amendment Addressed to Different Law Affecting Such Authority

Sec. 11.27 Although an amendment which changes a law not cited in a 
    pending bill is ordinarily not germane, a title of a bill which 
    amends several laws to address a variety of authorities of an 
    executive department may be broad enough to admit as germane an 
    amendment changing another existing law to add another authority of 
    that department within the same general class; thus, to a title of 
    an omnibus agricultural bill respecting a number of unrelated 
    authorities of the Secretary of Agriculture as to crop set-asides, 
    loans and sales, export sales, price supports, importation and 
    allotment studies, an amendment amending the Agricultural Marketing 
    Act of 1946 (not amended by the title) to require the Secretary to 
    adopt a minimum standard for the contents of ice cream, and 
    allowing only such ice cream as meets those standards to bear a 
    USDA stamp of approval,

[[Page 8108]]

    was held germane since restricted to authority of the Department of 
    Agriculture.

    On July 22, 1977,(9) during consideration of H.R. 7171 
(the Agricultural Act of 1977) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair 
overruled a point of order against the amendment described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 123 Cong. Rec. 24558, 24559, 24569-71, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                  TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS COMMODITY PROVISIONS

                        set-aside on summer fallow farms

            Sec. 901. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
        the 1971 through 1981 crops of wheat, feed grains, and cotton 
        if in any year at least 55 per centum of cropland acreage in an 
        established summer fallow farm is diverted to a summer fallow 
        use no further acreage shall be required to be set aside under 
        the wheat, feed grains, and cotton programs for such year.

         loan extension and sales provisions for wheat and feed grains

            Sec. 902. The Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, is 
        amended by adding the following new section: . . .

                          farm storage facility loans

            Sec. 905. Section 4(h) of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
        Charter Act (62 Stat. 1070, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 714b(h)) is 
        amended by inserting immediately before the period at the end 
        of the second sentence the following: ``: . . .

                             soybean price support

            Sec. 906. The Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, is 
        further amended by adding a new section 304, as follows:
            ``Sec. 304. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this 
        Act, the Secretary shall make available to producers loans and 
        purchases on each crop of soybeans at such level as he 
        determines appropriate in relation to competing commodities and 
        taking into consideration domestic and foreign supply and 
        demand factors.''. . . .

             report on recommendations for revised allotment system

            Sec. 909. The Secretary shall collect and analyze currently 
        available information pertaining to the use of bushels of wheat 
        and feed grains and pounds of rice as the basis for assigning 
        allotments to producers of such commodities. . . .

        Mr. [Charles] Rose [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rose: On page 52, line 5, insert 
        the following:

                              standard of quality

            Sec. 910. Sec. 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 
        1946 is amended by inserting immediately before the period at 
        the end thereof the following semicolon: ``; Provided, That 
        within 30 days of enactment of the Agricultural Act of 1977, 
        the Secretary of Agriculture shall by regulation adopt a 
        Standard of Quality for ice cream which shall provide that ice 
        cream shall contain at least 1.6 pounds of total solids to the 
        gallon,

[[Page 8109]]

        and weighs not less than 4.5 pounds to the gallon . . . In no 
        case shall the content of milk solids not fat be less than 6%. 
        . . . Only those products which meet the standard issued by the 
        Secretary shall be able to bear a symbol thereon indicating 
        that they meet the USDA standard for ``ice cream.' ''. . .

        Mr. Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: . . . I make the point of 
    order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
    Carolina (Mr. Rose) on the ground that it is not germane to the 
    bill under consideration and thus is in violation of rule XVI, 
    clause 7.
        The gentleman's amendment is aimed at the Food and Drug 
    Administration's proposed regulations which would change that 
    agency's standard of identity for ``ice cream'' under the authority 
    of section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. . . .
        Knowing full well that any direct attempts to amend the 
    proposed standard of identity would be nongermane, the gentleman 
    now seeks instead to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act to 
    provide that only products that meet statutory standards, as set 
    forth in his amendment, could bear a symbol indicating that they 
    meet a USDA standard for ice cream.
        Now, I would base the point of order on three grounds.
        First, it amends an act--the Agricultural Marketing Act of 
    1946--not otherwise amended by the bill, and thus is in violation 
    of rule 16, clause 7. Three precedents support this ground. I cite 
    the Chair's ruling on June 23, 1960, in which, to a bill amending 
    the Agriculture Adjustment Acts of 1938 and 1949 to provide, in 
    part, for market adjustment and price support programs for wheat 
    and feed grains, an amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 
    1933 concerning the importation of agricultural products was ruled 
    out as not germane.
        On the same day, an amendment to the 1933 act to direct the 
    President under certain conditions to consider an investigation 
    into imports of specified agricultural products was likewise ruled 
    not germane. These rulings are noted in Deschler's Procedure, 
    chapter 28, section 33.5 and 33.7.
        In addition, the point that I think is most important, on July 
    12, 1962, a point of order was raised to an amendment to an omnibus 
    agricultural bill, just as this bill, a specific precedent from the 
    same committee on the same type of legislation, seven particular 
    laws amended in the particular section to which the amendment was 
    offered--seven changes, there are only about three or four here--
    seven changes in those laws. The amendment which had been offered 
    proposed changes in the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 
    1937, which was not otherwise amended in the bill, just as this 
    would be, exactly on point. The amendment was ruled not to be 
    germane. (Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 33.6.) I do not 
    know of any point of order so much on point that I have ever read, 
    even from the committee, even of the type in the bill.
        Second, I would like to say, the proposed amendment does not 
    relate to the title of the bill to which it is offered, nor to the 
    bill as a whole. . . .
        The provisions of title IX of H.R. 7171 pertain to set-asides 
    under the wheat, feed grains, and cotton programs; loan extensions 
    and sales provi

[[Page 8110]]

    sions for wheat and feed grains; a special grazing and hay program 
    for wheat acreage; export sales of wheat, corn, grain sorghum, 
    soybeans, oats, rye, barley, rice, flaxseed and cotton, farm 
    storage facility loans, soybean price supports; reporting of export 
    sales; restrictions on the importation of filberts, and a report by 
    the Secretary of Agriculture on the use of bushels of wheat and 
    feed grains and pounds of rice as the basis for assigning 
    allotments to producers of such commodities. In no such instance, 
    either directly or by inference, is the Secretary of Agriculture's 
    authority to adopt standards of quality for agricultural products 
    under 7 U.S.C. 1621 addressed by title IX or by the bill as a 
    whole. . . .
        Mr. Rose: . . . What this amendment attempts to do is direct, 
    under its existing authority, the Secretary of Agriculture to 
    develop, not a standard of identity, but a standard of quality for 
    ice cream; a standard of quality that shall contain a certain 
    percentage of nonfat milk solids. . . .
        My distinguished friend, the chairman of the subcommittee that 
    has direct jurisdiction over the Food and Drug Administration, has 
    cited Deschler's Procedure, 33.5. I believe that this headnote is 
    misleading, because I believe that if one were to carefully read 
    that entire procedure, one would discover that this is not the 
    actual, in fact, ruling in that case. But, I would base my main 
    argument on section 28.51 of Deschler's Procedure, which states:

            To a portion of a bill amending several miscellaneous laws 
        on a general subject--
            And this is such a section--
            an amendment to another law relating to that subject is 
        germane. (120 Congressional Record 8508, 8509, 93rd Congress, 
        2nd Session, March 27, 1974.) . . .

        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Frank E. Evans (Col.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Florida makes a point of order against the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina on the 
    grounds that it is not germane to the bill or to the pending 
    portion thereof.
        The amendment would add to title IX of the bill, which contains 
    miscellaneous commodity provisions, a new section requiring the 
    Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate a Department of Agriculture 
    standard for ice cream based on its contents, and to allow ice 
    cream meeting that standard to bear a USDA symbol. The amendment 
    would accomplish that purpose by amending the Agricultural 
    Marketing Act of 1946, which is not amended by the bill but which 
    authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate food 
    standards.
        The gentleman from Florida has first argued that the amendment 
    is not germane under the precedents because it amends a law not 
    amended by the bill under consideration. The precedents do not bear 
    out the assertion that an amendment is necessarily out of order if 
    amending a law not mentioned in the bill. As indicated by 
    ``Deschler's Procedure,'' chapter 28, section 28.51, a title of a 
    bill amending miscellaneous laws on a general subject may be broad 
    enough to admit the offering of an amendment changing another law 
    on

[[Page 8111]]

    that subject. The first two precedents cited by the gentleman dealt 
    with amendments, offered to agricultural price support bills, 
    dealing with the importation of agricultural products, a subject 
    not relevant to the bill under consideration and not entirely 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture. The third 
    precedent cited by the gentleman involved an amendment to the 
    Agricultural Marketing Act of 1937, not amended by the omnibus 
    agriculture bill under consideration, requiring certain 
    compensatory payments by food handlers to producers.
        The basis of the Chair's ruling on that occasion, which is not 
    reflected in the headnote in ``Deschler's Procedure,'' chapter 28 . 
    . . section 33.6, was that the amendment was not germane to the 
    title of the bill to which it was offered; and the Chair was not 
    called upon to rule that the amendment was not relevant to the bill 
    as a whole. On that occasion, the title of the bill under 
    consideration contained commodity programs dealing with 
    conventional authorities of the Secretary as to price supports and 
    payments through the Commodity Credit Corporation, diverted 
    acreage, acreage allotments, and marketing quotas and levels. The 
    amendment, however, was intended to restore competition to the 
    dairy market by requiring not the Secretary but handlers of dairy 
    products to make compensatory payments to producers of milk, a 
    regulatory authority not related to the provisions of the title 
    under discussion.
        The gentleman from Florida also argues that the amendment is 
    germane neither to the subject matter nor to the fundamental 
    purpose of title IX to which it is offered. The title does not 
    appear to the Chair to have any single purpose or subject matter, 
    dealing as it does with the authorities of the Secretary of 
    Agriculture as to set-asides, loans and sales, grazing, export 
    sales, price supports, importation, and an allotment study for 
    various food commodities. Therefore, the addition of a new 
    authority of the Secretary relative to the production or quality of 
    food or the protection of agricultural producers is relevant to the 
    broad question of the Secretary's authority contained in the title. 
    . . .
        The Chair would note that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from North Carolina does not regulate the labeling or 
    marketing of ice cream but only adds a specific emphasis to be 
    followed by the Secretary in carrying out the discretionary 
    authority he already has under law to promulgate quality standards 
    for food products. The subject matter of the amendment being 
    germane to the title under consideration, the Chair finds that 
    couching the authority contained therein as an amendment to another 
    law dealing with general authorities of the Secretary of 
    Agriculture does not on that basis render it subject to a point of 
    order. ]

        For the reasons stated, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill Relating to Marketing of Various Agricultural Products--Amendment 
    Extending Coverage of Bill to Poultry and Eggs

Sec. 11.28 To an omnibus agricultural bill, containing farm

[[Page 8112]]

    programs in respect of dairy products, wool, feed grains, cotton 
    and wheat, an amendment to add a new title to the bill relating to 
    poultry and eggs was held to be germane.

    In the 89th Congress, a bill (11) was under 
consideration which proposed to maintain farm income, stabilize prices, 
and afford greater economic opportunity in rural areas. The bill 
contained provisions relating to the marketing of dairy products and 
other agricultural products. An amendment was offered which proposed to 
regulate poultry and eggs, in addition to the products already included 
within the provisions of the bill.(12) The following 
objection was made to the amendment: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 9811 (Committee on Agriculture).
12. See 111 Cong. Rec. 21053, 21054, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 19, 
        1965.
13. Id. at p. 21054.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    York is not germane, and I should like to speak on the point of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposed by the gentleman from New 
    York is . . . in substance the contents of his bill, H.R. 7481, 
    which is presently pending in the Committee on Agriculture. This 
    amendment provides for production limitations and marketing orders 
    for eggs and is proposed as amendatory langauge to the Agricultural 
    Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, which amended, 
    supplemented, and re-enacted the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 
    1933, as amended.
        There is only one place in H.R. 9811 where this statute is 
    amended and that is in title I which contains proposed amendments 
    to the Federal milk marketing order program established under that 
    act.
        The precedents are ample, Mr. Chairman, on the principle that 
    one individual proposition may not be amended by another individual 
    proposition even though the two belong to the same class. . . .

    The proponent of the amendment defended it as follows:

        Mr. [Joseph Y.] Resnick [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I believe 
    that the purposes of my amendment are identical with the purposes 
    of this bill, namely, to maintain farm income and stabilize prices. 
    . . . Dairy and poultry are frequently considered as the same class 
    commodity and by reason of that fact they are set apart in a 
    separate subcommittee of the Committee on Agriculture. I believe . 
    . . this bill deals with everything eatable and wearable and 
    smokable and certainly this falls within the purview of this bill.

    In overruling the point of order, the Chairman (14) 
stated: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Oren Harris (Ark.).
15. 111 Cong. Rec. 21054, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 19, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Resnick] offers an amendment 
    which

[[Page 8113]]

    is, in effect, a new additional title to the bill, H.R. 9811. The 
    gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Quie] makes a point of order against 
    the amendment on the basis that it is not germane to the bill H.R. 
    9811. The new title which is offered in the amendment of the 
    gentleman from New York has to do with laying chickens and chicken 
    table eggs. The Chair would like to observe that there are seven 
    titles in this bill dealing with various agricultural commodities. 
    It would also like to observe that the new proposed title has to do 
    with amending the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 together with 
    the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. The first title 
    of the bill, H.R. 9811, starts off with an amendment to the 
    Agricultural Adjustment Act and the Agricultural Marketing 
    Agreement Act of 1937. Furthermore, as has been stated, the bill 
    proposes to maintain farm income, stabilize prices, and to afford, 
    among other things, greater economic opportunity in rural areas. 
    Obviously, the provision of the proposed new title would come 
    within the purview of the titles of the bill and the point of order 
    is overruled.

Bill Relating to Cigarette Labeling and Advertising, and Requiring 
    Related Reports--Amendment To Require Reports on Tobacco Subsidies

Sec. 11.29 To a bill relating to the labeling and advertising of 
    cigarettes and requiring certain reports concerning health 
    consequences of smoking and the effectiveness of labeling, an 
    amendment requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to report 
    periodically on government subsidies to growers and processors of 
    tobacco was held germane.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of the Public Health 
Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969,(16) an amendment was offered 
as follows: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 6543 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
17. 115 Cong. Rec. 16291, 16292, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., June 18, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New 
    Hampshire]: . . .
        (3) The Secretary of Agriculture shall transmit a report to 
    Congress not later than six months after the effective date of this 
    Act, and annually thereafter, concerning the dollar amounts of 
    administrative costs, export payments, market promotion activities, 
    price supports, or subsidies, direct or indirect, of any kind 
    whatsoever, that inures to growers, processors, or exporters of 
    tobacco produced in the United States.

    A point of order was made against the amendment, as follows: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 16292.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [David E.] Satterfield [3d, of Virginia]: I make a point of 
    order against the amendment as not being germane. It pertains to 
    the Department of Agriculture and the economics

[[Page 8114]]

    applicable to export promotion, market promotion, and other matters 
    pertaining to tobacco. The amendment is not germane to the current 
    action. It is also beyond the scope of the bill.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows:

        Mr. Cleveland: . . . Now, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this 
    legislation we are debating is to warn the American public about 
    the dangers of smoking cigarettes. This is certainly a proper 
    health function of the Government. But is it not hypocritical, even 
    two-faced, to be providing this warning while another arm of the 
    Government is actively and perhaps expensively engaged in the 
    business of supporting, subsidizing and even promoting the use of 
    tobacco? . . .
        On the same page, the committee . . . has asked the Federal 
    Trade Commission to transmit a report to the Congress . . . 
    concerning the effectiveness of cigarette labeling and the current 
    practices and method of cigarette advertising.
        It seems to me it would be quite germane for us to take the 
    next step and ask the Secretary of Agriculture just how much he is 
    putting into the promoting of tobacco and tobacco products, how 
    much of it is being exported abroad, and under what conditions. . . 
    .

    The Chairman,(19) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Jack B. Brooks (Tex.).
20. 115 Cong. Rec. 16292, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., June 18, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from New Hampshire (Mr. Cleveland) and the bill before the 
    Committee. The Chair observes that there are two reports required 
    in the bill, as shown on page 5, and the gentleman's amendment adds 
    a third report that would be required, and this third report would 
    be germane to the subject matter of the bill. It seems clearly 
    germane, and the Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill Continuing Import Controls on Specified Products--Amendment Adding 
    Products

Sec. 11.30 To a bill to continue for a temporary period certain powers 
    for the purpose of administering import controls with respect to 
    fats, oils, and rice products, an amendment making the bill 
    applicable, in addition, to potatoes, cheese, and hams, was held to 
    be germane.

    In the 81st Congress, a bill (1) was under consideration 
which read in part as follows: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. S. 3550 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 2. 96 Cong. Rec. 9492, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., June 29, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That, notwithstanding any other provision 
    of law, title III of the Second War Powers Act, 1942 . . . shall 
    continue in effect until July 1, 1951, for the purpose of 
    authorizing and exercising, administering, and enforcing of import 
    controls with respect to fats and oils . . . and rice and rice 
    products, upon a determina

[[Page 8115]]

    tion by the President that such controls are (a) essential to the 
    acquisition or distribution of products in world short supply. . . 
    .

    The following amendment was offered to such proposition: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 9495.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. August H. Andresen [of Minnesota]: 
    Page 2, line 1, after ``rice products'', insert ``potatoes, cheese, 
    hams.''

    The following exchange (4) concerned a point of order 
made against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Donald W.] Nicholson [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order that the amendment is not germane to the 
    bill. . . .
        Mr. August H. Andresen: . . . I call the Chair's particular 
    attention to the fact that on page 2, line 1, rice and rice 
    products are included. All that I am doing is to add additional 
    products. Certain rice and rice products are food; and the 
    commodities I mentioned, potatoes, cheese, Polish hams, eggs from 
    Communist China, are all food products and are in line with rice 
    and rice products. . . .
        The Chairman [Walter K. Granger, of Utah]: The Chair is 
    prepared to rule.
        The body of the bill as well as the title enumerates 
    commodities in addition to fats and oils. Rice is mentioned. It 
    would be in order to add other commodities.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill Providing Two Categories of Foreign Assistance--Amendment 
    Providing Additional Category

Sec. 11.31 To a portion of a bill providing two categories of economic 
    assistance to specified foreign nations, an amendment adding a 
    further specific category of economic assistance for those 
    countries may be germane; thus, to a title of a foreign aid bill 
    providing general economic assistance to southern African countries 
    and refugee training and assistance to address economic dislocation 
    from conflict in that region, broadened by amendment to require 
    presidential determinations whether aid to certain southern African 
    countries would further the foreign policy interests of the United 
    States, an amendment adding a further related category of aid to 
    such countries for a fair and open election program, and 
    authorizing the president to appoint a team of observers to observe 
    elections in such countries and to report thereon to Congress, was 
    held germane.

[[Page 8116]]

    On Apr. 5 and 9, 1979,(5) H.R. 3324 (6) was 
under consideration in the Committee of the Whole. The amendment 
described above was held germane, thus demonstrating that an amendment 
adding an additional category to a proposition containing two or more 
categories within the same general class is germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 125 Cong. Rec. 7374, 7750, 7752, 7755-57, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. International Development Cooperation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                        TITLE III--ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND

                        authorization of appropriations

            Sec. 301. Section 531(b)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act 
        of 1961 is amended by striking out ``for the fiscal year 1979, 
        $1,902,000,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``for the fiscal 
        year 1980, $1,895,000,000 and for the fiscal year 1981, 
        $1,950,000,000''. . . .
            ``Sec. 533. Southern Africa Programs.--Of the amounts 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out this chapter for the 
        fiscal year 1980 and for the fiscal year 1981, $68,000,000 for 
        the fiscal year 1980 and $85,000,000 for the fiscal year 1981 
        shall be available for the countries of southern Africa and for 
        a southern Africa regional refugee support, training, and 
        economic planning program to address the problems caused by the 
        economic dislocation resulting from the conflict in that region 
        and for education and job training assistance. Such funds may 
        be used to provide humanitarian assistance to African refugees 
        and persons displaced by war and internal strife in southern 
        Africa, to improve transportation links interrupted or 
        jeopardized by regional political conflicts, and to provide 
        support to countries in that region.''. . . .

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: On page 24, after line 2, 
        add the following new paragraph:
            ``(b) No assistance may be furnished under this section to 
        Mozambique, Angola, Tanzania, or Zambia, except that the 
        President may waive this prohibition with respect to any such 
        country if he determines, and so reports to the Congress, that 
        furnishing such assistance to such country would further the 
        foreign policy interests of the United States.''. . .

        The Chairman: (7) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See 125 Cong. Rec. 7755, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 9, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: On page 23, line 10, 
        strike all of Section 303(a) and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following new Section 303:
            ``Sec. 303. (a) Section 533 of the Foreign Assistance Act 
        of 1961 is amended to read as follows:
            `` `Sec. 533--Southern Africa Program
            `` `(a) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated to 
        carry out this

[[Page 8117]]

        chapter for the fiscal year 1980, $68,000,000 shall be 
        available (only) for the countries of southern Africa and for--
            `` `(1) a southern Africa regional refugee support, 
        training, and economic planning program to address the problems 
        caused by the economic dislocation resulting from the conflict 
        in that region;
            `` `(2) education and job training assistance;
            `` `(3) a southern Africa fair and open election program to 
        address the problem resulting from the conflict and internal 
        strife in that region.
            `` `Such funds may be used to provide humanitarian 
        assistance to African refugees and persons displaced by war and 
        internal strife in southern Africa, to improve transportation 
        links interrupted or jeopardized by regional political 
        conflicts and to provide support to countries in that region.
            `` `(b) In furtherance of the purposes of this section and 
        the foreign policy objectives of the United States the 
        President may appoint a team of impartial observers to observe 
        elections in southern Africa and report to Congress:
            `` `(1) as to whether all of the people of southern Africa 
        and all organized political groups were given a fair 
        opportunity to participate fully in the election without regard 
        to ethnic identity or political affiliation. . . .
            `` `(c) Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated to 
        carry out the purposes of this section, $20,000,000 shall be 
        made available to the government of Zimbabwe/Rhodesia which is 
        installed in that nation as a result of the election held in 
        April 1979, which election may be evaluated and reported upon 
        by observers as provided for in this section.' ''

        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: I make a point of order 
    that this amendment is not in order. It provides or appears to call 
    upon the President to send observers to monitor the elections in 
    southern Africa by which presumably is meant Rhodesia since there 
    are no elections anywhere else in southern Africa which are 
    currently being held.
        There is nothing in this bill which deals with elections either 
    in southern Africa or in Rhodesia itself. For this reason it seems 
    to me this amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill and is not 
    germane. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: . . . Mr. Chairman, first of all the section to 
    which this amendment is addressed is section 303 of the bill. This 
    section was just recently amended by a previous amendment which I 
    offered and which considerably expanded the scope of that section, 
    including a Presidential waiver and determination regarding aid for 
    four different countries in the southern African area. The general 
    proposition is that the entire section and indeed the entire 
    purpose of the bill should be looked to as to whether or not 
    germaneness is applicable to an amendment which is offered.
        The gentleman objects that this particular section imposes some 
    duty upon the President. I would call the attention of the Chair to 
    section (b) the amendment which simply allows the President in his 
    discretion to use the mechanism the amendment provides to evaluate 
    any election held in the southern African area including ones in 
    the Republic of South Africa or in any of the other nations which 
    may hold elections at any time. This amendment offers a device to 
    determine whether or not the funds under this section shall be made 
    available.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to call the attention of the Chair 
    to the prece

[[Page 8118]]

    dents which I believe do have application in this case.
        The general proposition is that to a bill amending a law 
    dealing with several subjects within a definable class, an 
    amendment further amending that law to add another subject within 
    that same class is germane.
        This was a decision on March 26, 1975, made by the Chairman of 
    the Committee of the Whole in the case of an amendment that was 
    offered and a point of order made against additional language 
    offered by the other body to a tax bill. The amendment was ruled to 
    be germane, and the Chair said:

            The Chair would call the attention of the House to the 
        precedent contained in Cannon's VIII, section 3042, wherein the 
        Committee of the Whole ruled that to a bill raising revenue by 
        several diverse methods of taxation, including an excise tax, 
        an amendment in the form of a new section proposing an 
        additional method of taxation--a tax on the undistributed 
        profits of corporations--was held germane . . . the test of 
        germaneness in such a situation is the relationship between the 
        new section or title and the subject matter of the bill as a 
        whole.

        I would also call the attention of the Chair to the ruling of 
    the Chair on March 20, 1975, in which a bill was brought before the 
    House that contained price supports for a number of different 
    agricultural commodities. An amendment was offered by the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) that added another defined class to 
    agricultural commodities, and the Chair ruled ``that the purpose of 
    this bill as set forth in the report is to establish an emergency 
    price support program'' for ``cotton, wheat, feed grains, soybeans, 
    and milk.''
        Then he went on to say:

            Under the general proposition that it is in order to add 
        another subject to a proposition containing subjects of the 
        same class, the Chair would point out that the amendment of the 
        gentleman from Massachusetts adds another agricultural 
        commodity to the commodities proposed . . .

        Mr. Chairman, the reason that this precedent is applicable in 
    the case of this amendment is that we have before us in this bill 
    section 303 which amends the southern Africa programs section of 
    the Foreign Assistance Act. That act sets up funding for various 
    programs in southern Africa, including regional refugee support, 
    training, economic planning, and economic dislocation, and also 
    including improving transportation links interrupted or jeopardized 
    by regional political conflicts, and it provides support to 
    ``countries'' within that region, meaning governments.
        All the gentleman's amendment proposes is that in addition to 
    these various objectives in southern Africa, an additional use of 
    the money can be found, and that is discretionary with the 
    President to judge whether or not elections in the area are held 
    fairly and openly and whether or not the countries then would be 
    eligible for receipt of money under the funding.
        So I suggest, Mr. Chairman, it is a valid amendment, simply 
    adding to the class of already described activities that the bill 
    contemplates, and it does not impose any new duties, simply leaving 
    discretionary with the President what he would do with the 
    authority granted. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order

[[Page 8119]]

    made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solarz) against the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
        The essential nature of the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Solarz) is that the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) is not germane to title 
    III. The key, it seems to the Chair in resolving that question, 
    turns on the point made by the gentleman from Maryland in referring 
    to the precedents cited by the gentleman from Maryland; namely, 
    whether the new category of authorized funds for a southern Africa 
    fair and open election program to address the problem resulting 
    from the conflict and strife in the region is the same class of 
    assistance authorized in section 303. Or is it a new and different 
    class of assistance?
        In making a determination with respect to that question, the 
    Chair has read carefully the language in section 303. The purposes 
    of assistance cataloged in section 303 are basically two in nature. 
    One is general economic assistance for the countries of southern 
    Africa, and, secondly, a southern Africa regional refugee support, 
    training, and economic support program to address the problems 
    caused by the economic dislocation resulting from the conflict in 
    the region.
        The language in section 303 goes on to point out:

            Such funds may be used to provide humanitarian assistance 
        to African refugees and persons displaced by war and internal 
        strife in southern Africa, to improve transportation links 
        interrupted or jeopardized by regional political conflicts . . 
        .

        In addition to that, the gentleman from Maryland has pointed 
    out that the language of section 303 in its scope has just recently 
    been expanded considerably by an amendment offered and adopted in 
    the Committee of the Whole to permit the President to make 
    determinations on other issues of U.S. national interest regarding 
    certain countries in southern Africa.
        It is the opinion of the Chair that, since the general thrust 
    of the purposes or classes of assistance in section 303 is to 
    provide funds to alleviate the effects of political turmoil and 
    strife in the region, and that this is specifically noted in the 
    language presently in the bill, and that the team of observers 
    provision as merely an oversight mechanism relating to proper 
    utilization of those funds. It would seem the funding of fair 
    elections in the region would be another class of assistance of the 
    same general type, and, therefore, the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Maryland, in the opinion of the Chair, is germane.
        The point of order is overruled.

Prohibition Against Using Certain Foreign Aid Funds for Retirement of 
    Recipient Nation's Debt--Amendment To Prohibit Other Uses by 
    Recipient

Sec. 11.32 To a bill amending the Mutual Security Act of 1954 to 
    prohibit use of designated funds by recipient nations for 
    retirement of their national debts, an amendment to prohibit 
    financial assistance to any country that has

[[Page 8120]]

    reduced its own budget or made any tax reductions to its citizens 
    was held to be germane.

    In the 85th Congress, a bill (9) was under consideration 
to amend the Mutual Security Act of 1954. The bill contained the 
following provisions: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 12181 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
10. See 104 Cong. Rec. 8736, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., May 14, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 516. Prohibition against debt retirement: None of the 
    funds made available under this act nor any of the counterpart 
    funds generated as a result of assistance under this act or any 
    other act shall be used to make payments on account of the 
    principal or interest on any debt of any foreign government or on 
    any loan made to such government by any other foreign government; 
    nor shall any of these funds be expended for any purpose for which 
    funds have been withdrawn by any recipient country to make payment 
    on such debts. . . .

    The following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John V.] Beamer of Indiana: On page 
    19, section 516, following line 13, add the following: Provided 
    further, That none of the funds made available under this act nor 
    any of the counterpart funds generated as a result of assistance 
    under this act or other act shall be given to any country that has 
    reduced its own budget or made any tax reductions to its citizens.

    The following exchange (11) concerned a point of order 
raised against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 8737.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I renew 
    the point of order. This amendment is not germane, and goes far 
    beyond the scope of the section that the amendment applies to.
        The Chairman: (12) . . . Upon examining this 
    section, it is obvious that the section contains several 
    prohibitions against debt retirement, and the other section 
    contains many other prohibitions relative to the use of these 
    funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana simply adds 
    an additional prohibition.
        In the opinion of the Chair it is germane and is in order.

Concurrent Resolution Concerning Steps To Effect Release of American 
    Arrested in Czechoslovakia--Amendment To Sever Diplomatic Relations 
    With Czechoslovakia

Sec. 11.33 To a concurrent resolution expressing the profound 
    indignation of the Congress at the arrest and conviction of an 
    American correspondent in Czechoslovakia and providing that 
    agencies of our government take all possible action to bring about 
    his release, an

[[Page 8121]]

    amendment proposing termination of all commercial and diplomatic 
    relations with Czechoslovakia was held to be germane.

    On Aug. 2, 1951,(13) the Clerk read the following 
resolution: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 97 Cong. Rec. 9446, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
14. H. Con. Res. 140 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas the arrest and conviction of William N. Oatis, 
    correspondent for the Associated Press in Prague, Czechoslovakia, 
    is a shocking violation of fundamental human freedoms . . .
        . . . Now, therefore, be it
        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That the Congress of the United States expresses its 
    profound indignation at the farcical arrest, and conviction of 
    William N. Oatis; and that the sense of this resolution be conveyed 
    . . . to the officials of the Czechoslovakian Government.

    The following proceedings then occurred: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 97 Cong. Rec. 9447, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 2, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: The Clerk will report the 
    remaining committee amendments:
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendments: . . .
            Page 2, line 4, after ``Oatis'', insert ``that the 
        executive agencies of the Government be requested to take all 
        possible action to bring about his release.''

        The committee amendments were agreed to.

    Subsequently, the following amendment was offered: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 9454.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Orland K.] Armstrong [of Missouri]: 
    On page 2, after line 9, add the following:
        ``Be it further resolved, That it is the sense of the House 
    that all commercial relations with Czechoslovakia should be 
    terminated immediately . . . and be it further
        ``Resolved, That if William N. Oatis is not restored to his 
    freedom within 90 days that the Department of State take steps to 
    evacuate all nationals of the United States in Czechoslovakia with 
    the end in view of severing diplomatic relations with that 
    Government.''

    Mr. James P. Richards, of South Carolina, raised a point of order 
against the amendment, contending that the amendment was not germane to 
the resolution. Speaker Rayburn, however, overruled the point of order, 
stating: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 9455.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The resolution provides among other things that the executive 
    agencies of the Government are requested to take all possible 
    action to bring about the release of Mr. Oatis. The gentleman from 
    Missouri is simply adding other conditions. Thus, the amendment is 
    in order, and the Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Amendment Adding Tax Credit to Those Already Contained in Bill

Sec. 11.34 To a proposition seeking to reduce tax liabilities

[[Page 8122]]

    of individuals and business in several diverse ways, including tax 
    credits, an amendment adding a further tax credit to those already 
    contained in the bill is germane.

    On Mar. 26, 1975,(18) it was demonstrated that the test 
of the germaneness of a portion of a Senate amendment in the nature of 
a substitute adding a new section to a House bill is the relationship 
of that section to the subject of the House bill as a whole. The 
proceedings during consideration of the conference report on H.R. 2166, 
the Tax Reduction Act of 1975, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 8900, 8902, 8930, 8931, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Conference Report (H. Rept. 94-120)

        The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
    Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2166) to 
    amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide for a refund of 
    1974 individual income taxes, to increase the low income allowance 
    and the percentage standard deduction, to provide a credit for 
    certain earned income, to increase the investment credit and the 
    surtax exemption, and for other purposes, having met, after full 
    and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to 
    their respective Houses as follows:
        That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of 
    the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In 
    lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment 
    insert the following: . . .

    The conference substitute included the following provision:

         Sec. 208. Credit for Purchase of New Principal Residence.

        (a) Allowance of Credit.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A 
    of chapter 1 (relating to credits allowed) is amended by 
    redesignating section 44 as section 45 and by inserting after 
    section 43 the following new section:

              ``Sec. 44. Purchase of New Principal Residence.

        ``(a) General Rule.--In the case of an individual there is 
    allowed, as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for 
    the taxable year, an amount equal to 5 percent of the pur chase 
    price of a new principal residence purchased or constructed by the 
    taxpayer. . . .
        Mr. [Barber B.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    a point of order against the conference report on the ground it 
    contains matter which is in violation of provision 1, clause 7, of 
    rule XVI. The nongermane matter I am specifically referring to is 
    that section of the report dealing with the tax credit on sales of 
    new homes. It appears in section 208 of the conference report, on 
    page 14, as reported by the Committee on Conference. . . .
        [A] careful scrutiny of the titles of the House bill, as it was 
    sent to the Senate, shows many types of tax meas

[[Page 8123]]

    ures, but nothing relating to the sale of homes. This clearly is an 
    addition of a very divergent nature to the bill and deals with the 
    nonbusiness and nonpersonal type of credit. . . .
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak 
    against the point of order.
        Mr. Speaker, this is a very broad bill. It was a broadly based 
    bill when it left this House to go to the other body. It has many 
    diverse sections and many different kinds of tax treatments. It 
    does deal with tax credits. It did deal with tax credits when it 
    left the House, both for individuals and for corporations.
        Mr. Speaker, it seems to me this falls totally within the 
    purview of the bill as we passed it in the House and should be 
    considered germane to the bill.
        The Speaker: (19) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable) makes the point of 
    order against section 208 of the conference report on the bill H.R. 
    2166 on the ground that it would not have been germane to H.R. 2166 
    as passed by the House and is thus subject to the provisions of 
    clause 4, rule XXVIII.
        In passing upon any point of order against a portion of the 
    Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute which the conferees 
    have incorporated in their report, the Chair feels it is important 
    to initially characterize the bill H.R. 2166 in the form as passed 
    by the House. The House-passed bill contained four diverse titles, 
    and contained amendments to diverse portions of the Internal 
    Revenue Code of 1954. Title I of the House bill provided a refund 
    of 1974 individual income taxes. Title II provided for reductions, 
    including credits, in individual income taxes. Title III made 
    several changes in business taxes, and title IV further affected 
    business taxes by providing for the repeal of the percentage 
    depletion for oil and gas.
        The Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute contained 
    provisions comparable to all four titles in the House-passed bill, 
    and also contained a new title IV amending other portions of the 
    Internal Revenue Code, making further amendments to the code with 
    respect to tax changes affecting individuals and businesses, and a 
    new title VI and title VII, relating to taxation of foreign and 
    domestic oil and gas income and related income, and to the tax 
    deferment and reinvestment period extension, respectively. The 
    provision against which the gentleman makes the point of order was 
    contained in section 205 of title II of the Senate amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Chair would call the attention of the House to the 
    precedent contained in Cannon's VIII, section 3042, wherein the 
    Committee of the Whole ruled that to a bill raising revenue by 
    several diverse methods of taxation . . . an amendment in the form 
    of a new section proposing an additional method of taxation--a tax 
    on the undistributed profits of corporations--was held germane. The 
    Chair would emphasize that the portion of the Senate amendment 
    included in the conference report against which the point of order 
    has been made was in the form of a new section to the House bill, 
    and was not

[[Page 8124]]

    an amendment to a specific section of the House bill. As indicated 
    in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 14.4, the test of 
    germaneness in such a situation is the relationship between the new 
    section or title and the subject matter of the bill as a whole.
        The Chair would also point out that section 203 of the House 
    bill, on page 10, amends the same portion of the code which this 
    part of the conference report would amend.
        For these reasons, the Chair holds that section 208 of the 
    conference report is germane to the House-passed bill and overrules 
    the point of order.

Diverse Programs To Support Arts and Humanities--Amendment Adding 
    Program of Employment for Artists

Sec. 11.35 Where a bill seeks to accomplish a general purpose by 
    diverse methods, an amendment which adds a specific method to 
    accomplish that result may be germane; thus, to a bill containing 
    three diverse titles authorizing grant programs for support of the 
    arts and humanities, including subsidies through the National 
    Endowment for the Arts to encourage and assist artists, an 
    amendment in the form of a new title authorizing the employment of 
    unemployed artists through the National Endowment for the Arts was 
    held germane as a specific additional program related to the 
    general programs already in the bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 12838 (to amend the National 
Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965) on Apr. 26, 
1976,(20) Chairman Pro Tempore Edward I. Koch, of New York, 
overruled a point of order against the amendment described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 122 Cong. Rec. 11098-101, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        TITLE I--ARTS AND HUMANITIES

                         state humanities councils

        Sec. 101. (a) Section 7 of the National Foundation on the Arts 
    and the Humanities Act of 1965 is amended by adding at the end 
    thereof the following new subsection: . . .
        ``(f)(1) The Chairman, with the advice of the National Council 
    on the Humanities is authorized to establish and carry out programs 
    of grants-in-aid in each of the several States in order to support 
    not more than 50 per centum of the cost of existing activities 
    which meet the standards enumerated in subsection (c), and in order 
    to develop programs in the humanities in such a manner as will 
    furnish adequate programs in the humanities in each of the several 
    States.
        ``Sec. 11. (a)(1)(A) For the purpose of carrying out section 5, 
    there are authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 for fiscal 
    year 1977, and $113,500,000 for fiscal year 1978. . . .

[[Page 8125]]

                       TITLE II--MUSEUM SERVICES. . .

        Sec. 202. It is the purpose of this title to encourage and 
    assist museums in their educational role, in conjunction with 
    formal systems of elementary, secondary, and post-secondary 
    education and with programs of nonformal education for all age 
    groups; to assist museums in modernizing their methods and 
    facilities so that they may better be able to conserve our 
    cultural, historic, and scientific heritage; and to ease the 
    financial burden borne by museums as a result of their increasing 
    use by the public.
        Sec. 203. There is hereby established, within the Department of 
    Health, Education, and Welfare, an Institute of Museum Services 
    (hereinafter in this title referred to as the ``Institute''). . . .
        Sec. 205. (a) The Director of the Institute shall be appointed 
    by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. 
    . . .
        Sec. 206. (a) The Director, subject to the advice of the Board, 
    is authorized to make grants to museums to increase and improve 
    museum services, through such activities as--
        (1) programs to enable museums to contract or install displays, 
    interpretations, and exhibitions in order to improve their services 
    to the public;

        (2) assisting them in developing and maintaining professionally 
    trained or otherwise experienced staff to meet their needs;
        (3) assisting them to meet their administrative costs in 
    preserving and maintaining their collections, exhibiting them to 
    the public, and providing educational programs to the public 
    through the use of their collections;
        (4) assisting museums in cooperation with each other in the 
    development of traveling exhibitions, meeting transportation costs, 
    and identifying and locating collections available for loan. . . .

                     TITLE III--CHALLENGE GRANT PROGRAM

                          establishment of program

        Sec. 301. The National Foundation on the Arts and the 
    Humanities Act of 1965 is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
    following new section:

                         ``challenge grant program

        ``Sec. 12. (a) The Chairman of the National Endowment for the 
    Arts and the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, 
    with the advice of the National Council on the Arts and the 
    National Council on the Humanities, are authorized, in accordance 
    with the provisions of this section, to establish and carry out a 
    program of contracts with, or grants-in-aid to, public agencies and 
    private nonprofit organizations for the purpose of--
        ``(1) enabling cultural organizations and institutions to 
    increase the levels of continuing support and to increase the range 
    of contributors to the program of such organizations or 
    institutions;
        ``(2) providing administrative and management improvements for 
    cultural organizations and institutions, particularly in the field 
    of long-range financial planning;
        ``(3) enabling cultural organizations and institutions to 
    increase audience participation in, and appreciation of, programs 
    sponsored by such organizations and institutions. . . .

[[Page 8126]]

        Ms. [Bella S.] Abzug [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Ms. Abzug: Page 34, after line 11, 
        insert the following new title:

           TITLE IV--EMERGENCY PROGRAM FOR THE EMPLOYMENT OF ARTISTS

                            establishment of program

            Sec. 401. (a) The Congress of the United States recognizes 
        the contributions which artists make to the cultural life of 
        each community throughout the Nation as well as to the Nation 
        as a whole. . . .
            (b) The National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act 
        of 1965, as amended by section 301, is further amended by 
        adding at the end thereof the following new section:

                 ``emergency program for employment of artists

            ``Sec. 13. (a) The Chairman of the National Endowment for 
        the Arts with the advice of the National Council on the Arts, 
        shall carry out a program, directly and through grants-in-aid 
        to States, during any fiscal year in which the seasonally 
        adjusted national rate of unemployment published by the Bureau 
        of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor exceeds 6.5 per 
        centum as determined by the Chairman, of employment of 
        unemployed artists in projects or products. . . .
            ``(b) In carrying out the program under subsection (a), the 
        Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts shall 
        coordinate such program with programs for public service 
        employment under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act 
        of 1973 and with other appropriate public programs providing 
        employment for unemployed individuals. . . .

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, reading the 
    amendment, I question the germaneness of this amendment. The jobs 
    provision added into the Arts, Humanities, and Cultural Affairs 
    Act, it seems to me fits better in the next bill coming up, the 
    emergency job programs bill, and I raise a point of order on 
    germaneness. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not germane to the bill before 
    us. It has to do with providing additional jobs of a public service 
    nature. It fits more in the legislation next on the agenda. I do 
    not see that it fits within the purview of the legislation we have 
    before us. . . .
        Ms. Abzug: Mr. Chairman, I disagree. I think it is germane to 
    the purposes of this act. This act recognizes the contributions 
    which artists make to the cultural life of the communities 
    throughout the Nation.
        Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is to provide for the 
    employment of artists in the program which is to be conducted and 
    determined, the eligibility for which programs as well as the 
    employment in the programs is determined by the Chairman of the 
    National Endowment for the Arts. I think it is germane. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    Chair has examined the ``Ramseyer'' in the committee report on page 
    23. Title I of the committee amendment extends the law which 
    provides subsidies for projects and productions which would 
    otherwise be unavailable for economic reasons and which will 
    encourage and assist artists and enable them to achieve wider 
    distribution of their

[[Page 8127]]

    works, to work in residence at an educational or cultural 
    institution, or to achieve standards of professional excellence. 
    That is a general purpose of the bill and the amendment provides a 
    specific program of grants through the Chairman of the National 
    Endowment for the Arts to accomplish that.
        The amendment is germane as a new title to the bill which 
    presently contains three diverse titles and the gentlewoman from 
    New York is recognized for 5 minutes.

Gun Control Bill--Amendment Adding Provisions as to Registration of 
    Guns

Sec. 11.36 To a bill amending existing law concerning gun controls by 
    extending coverage of the law to rifles, shotguns, and ammunition, 
    and modifying the law with respect to destruction devices, an 
    amendment adding further provisions relating to registration of 
    firearms by the purchasers thereof was held to be an extension of a 
    matter already carried in the bill and therefore germane.

    In the 90th Congress, a bill (1) was under consideration 
which related to the control of firearms. The following exchange 
(2) concerned a point of order raised by Mr. John D. 
Dingell, Jr., of Michigan, against an amendment that had been offered 
by Mr. Robert McClory, of Illinois:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 17735 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 2. 114 Cong. Rec. 22249, 22250, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 19, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that it is not germane. . . . Mr. Chairman, 
    the fundamental purpose of the amendment must be germane to the 
    bill. Here the amendment goes far beyond the purposes of the bill 
    and imposes a whole new series of responsibilities on the 
    Secretary, including registration of firearms, regulation of 
    estates of decedents, and provides a means whereby firearms may be 
    turned in . . . and sets forth the provisions whereby registration 
    will be regulated by the Secretary. . . .
        Mr. McClory: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard briefly.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out this bill we are 
    considering today is the State Firearms Control Assistance Act of 
    1968, and the purpose of my amendment is to assist the states and 
    to assist the Federal Government in carrying out and in enforcing 
    the provisions of the main bill. . . .
        This amendment will facilitate enforcement and the carrying out 
    of the congressional objectives and purposes from this 
    registration, and also will fulfill the needs with regard to 
    attending to the movement of this type of firearm in interstate 
    commerce. . . .
        The Chairman (John J. Rooney, of New York): The Chair is 
    prepared to rule. . . .
        Now, with regard to this point of order, the bill which the 
    Committee of

[[Page 8128]]

    the Whole is now considering seeks to regulate the various 
    transactions involving rifles, shotguns, and handguns. It provides 
    for the identification of such firearms by manufacturers and 
    importers and, as amended by the Committee on the Judiciary and by 
    this committee earlier this afternoon, specifies that this 
    identification shall include serial numbers. Licensed importers, 
    dealers, and manufacturers are required to retain descriptions of 
    the firearms with which they deal.
        The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    McClory] is drafted as a further amendment to title 18, United 
    States Code, the same portion of the Code amended by the pending 
    bill. It carries the concept of registration or identification to 
    the persons having handguns in their possession. The system of 
    registration established by the amendment would be under the 
    jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Treasury, the same officer 
    designated for this purpose by the bill.
        The Chair notes that the bill makes at least three major 
    innovations in the existing law concerning gun control: it extends 
    that law with respect to transactions in rifles and shotguns; it 
    brings ammunition within the scheme of the law; and it modifies the 
    law regarding shipment and sale of destructive devices. Since 
    present law is modified in the foregoing ways, an additional change 
    in the law and the bill--a change that is an extension of a subject 
    already carried in the bill--is germane.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.