[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§ 12. Amendment Extending Coverage of Bill to Other Subjects of Same Class]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 8128-8145]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 12. Amendment Extending Coverage of Bill to Other Subjects of Same 
    Class

    Frequently, it is sought by amendment to extend the coverage of the 
bill to other subjects of the same class as that discussed in the bill. 
Depending on the circumstances, one or more of the principles discussed 
in this chapter may be applicable in determining the germaneness of 
such amendments. Thus, if the bill comprises two or more propositions 
of the same class, an amendment that merely adds a related proposition 
may be germane.(3) It may be necessary to discern whether 
the amendment would enlarge the scope of the bill to cover a distinct 
new ``class,'' or would merely include a new ``category'' within a 
``class'' already covered by the bill.(4) If, on the other 
hand, the bill comprises an individual proposition or one of a limited 
nature, an amendment, even though related in subject, may be ruled out 
as not germane.(5) As a further example, a

[[Page 8129]]

general subject may ordinarily be amended by specific propositions of 
the same class.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 11, supra.
 4. See Sec. 12.1, infra.
 5. See Sec. 8, Individual Proposition Offered as Amendment to Another 
        Individual Proposition, and Sec. 9, General Amendments to 
        Specific or Limited Propositions, supra.
 6. See Sec. 10, supra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adding Category Within Same Class

Sec. 12.1 To an amendment covering a certain class, an amendment 
    extending coverage to an additional category within that class is 
    germane; thus, to a Senate amendment providing for prepayment of 
    certain loans by Rural Electrification Administration borrowers 
    serving a specified density of population, a proposed House 
    amendment eliminating the population density criterion to broaden 
    the applicability of the Senate amendment to additional borrowers 
    within the same class was held germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 1827 (supplemental appropriations, 
fiscal 1987) in the House on June 30, 1987,(7) the Chair 
overruled points of order in the circumstances described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 133 Cong. Rec. 18307, 18308, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Dan Glickman (Kan.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 223: Page 49, after line 17, insert:

                      Rural Electrification Administration

            Notwithstanding the amount authorized to be prepaid under 
        section 306A(d)(1) of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 
        U.S.C. 936a(d)(1)), a borrower of a loan made by the Federal 
        Financing Bank and guaranteed under section 306 of such Act (7 
        U.S.C. 936) that serves 6 or fewer customers per mile may, at 
        the option of the borrower, prepay such loan (or any loan 
        advance thereunder) during fiscal year 1987 or 1988, in 
        accordance with section 306A of such Act.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will designate the motion.
        The text of the motion is as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 223 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter inserted by said amendment, insert the following:

                      Rural Electrification Administration

            Hereafter, notwithstanding section 306A(d) of the Rural 
        Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 936(d)), a borrower of a 
        loan made by the Federal Financing Bank and guaranteed under 
        section 306 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 936) may, at the option of 
        the

[[Page 8130]]

        borrower, prepay such loan (or any loan advance thereunder) in 
        accordance with section 306A of such Act. . . .

        Mr. [Ron] Packard [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order, the following points of order, actually:
        No. 1, that subject to rule 21, clause 2, this amendment is 
    legislating on appropriation bills.
        No. 2, that this amendment is not germane to the supplemental 
    appropriations bill. . . .
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of 
    order. This amendment is germane to the amendment of the Senate.
        What the amendment does is quite straightforward. It removes 
    the phrase ``that serves 6 or fewer customers per mile'' from the 
    Senate amendment. This has the direct result of allowing REA's that 
    have population density of up to 12.4 customers per mile to 
    qualify, rather than just 6 customers per mile.
        The amendment does not change the class of borrowers that can 
    prepay; it simply enlarges the same class. It does not add some 
    other type of borrower.
        The Senate amendment allows Rural Electrification 
    Administration borrowers who serve 6 or fewer customers per mile of 
    line to refinance their REA guaranteed debt with the Federal 
    Financing Bank without being assessed a prepayment penalty.
        There are 51 borrowers whose loans bear an interest rate such 
    that they would be worthwhile to refinance at present interest 
    rates.
        At present there are 31 borrowers with loans whose density is 6 
    or fewer per mile.
        There are 20 borrowers with loans whose density is greater than 
    6 customers per mile of line.
        The conference agreement would allow all 51 borrowers to 
    refinance their loans rather than only 31 borrowers.
        This type of amendment is clearly in order and is germane.
        Cannon's procedures states, ``A general subject may be amended 
    by specific proposition of the same class.'' Mr. Speaker, this is 
    exactly what is being done.
        In fact, the amendment is even stricter. In effect, what is 
    involved is a proposition being amended by the same proposition in 
    the same class. Clearly, such an amendment expands the scope, but 
    is germane. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        With respect to the issue of whether this motion constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriations bill, the Chair rules that it is 
    not in violation of clause 2 [of Rule XX], since the amendment was 
    brought back in disagreement for a separate vote, not as part of 
    the conference report. . . .
        With respect to the germaneness issue that the gentleman 
    raises, the motion is germane to the Senate amendment since 
    relating to the same class of borrowers covered by the Senate 
    amendment and the Senate amendment itself is being brought back in 
    disagreement for a separate vote. Therefore, there is no valid 
    germaneness point of order with respect to the motion disposing of 
    the Senate amendment. . . .
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the various points of order.

[[Page 8131]]

Bill To Set Price Supports for Commodities--Amendment Adding Commodity

Sec. 12.2 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 the same class is germane; thus, to a bill 
    temporarily amending for one year an existing law establishing 
    price support levels for several agricultural commodities, an 
    amendment adding another agricultural commodity to be covered by 
    the same provisions of law for that year was held germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 4296 (a bill concerning emergency 
price supports for 1975 crops) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair 
overruled a point of order in the circumstances described above. The 
language of the bill to which the amendment was offered read as 
follows: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See 121 Cong. Rec. 7388, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 20, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That title I of the 
    Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, is amended by adding at the 
    end thereof the following new section 108:
        ``Sec. 108. (a) Notwithstanding sections 103, 105, and 107 of 
    this Act, the established price for the 1975 crops of upland 
    cotton, corn, and wheat shall be 48 cents per pound, $2.25 per 
    bushel, and $3.10 per bushel, respectively, and the Secretary shall 
    make available to producers loans and purchases on the 1975 crops 
    of upland cotton, corn, and wheat at 40 cents per pound, $1.87 per 
    bushel, and $2.50 per bushel, respectively; Provided, That the 
    rates of interest on commodity loans made by the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation to all eligible producers shall be established 
    quarterly on the basis of the lowest current interest rate on 
    ordinary obligations of the United States: Provided further, That 
    the nonrecourse loan for 1975 crop upland cotton as set forth in 
    section 103(e)(1) of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, 
    shall be made available for an additional term of eight months at 
    the option of the cooperator.
        ``(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 301 of this 
    Act, the Secretary shall make available to producers loans and 
    purchases on the 1975 crop of soybeans at such levels as reflect 
    the historical average relationship of soybean support levels to 
    corn support levels during the immediately preceding three years.''
        The Chairman: (10) The Clerk will report the first 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 2, line 15, after the word 
        ``cooperator'' strike the period and insert ``, except that for 
        the 1975 crops of upland cotton, feed grains and wheat, the 
        Secretary shall establish, insofar as is

[[Page 8132]]

        practicable, the same terms and conditions relative to storage 
        costs and interest rates on all nonrecourse loans extended on 
        such crops.''.

        The Chairman: The question is on the committee amendment.
        The committee amendment was agreed to.

    During the proceedings of Mar. 20, 1975,(11) the 
following amendment was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 7652, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conte: Page 2, after line 25, add 
        this new section:
            ``(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 301 of this 
        Act or common sense, the Secretary shall make available to 
        producers loans and purchases on the 1975 crop of fruit nuts at 
        such levels as reflect the historical average relationship of 
        fruit nut support levels to dingleberry support levels during 
        the immediately preceding one hundred and ninety-nine years''. 
        . . .

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    chairman of the committee finds it necessary to insist on his point 
    of order.
        I know the gentleman who has offered the amendment is a strong 
    supporter of fruit nuts and is in great seriousness in an effort to 
    improve the bill, but the reference in the amendment is to a 
    standard which cannot be administered because the country was not 
    organized, the Congress was not organized at the time he alleges in 
    the amendment the dingleberry support price was created. But 
    principally because under rule XVI, clause 7, the fundamental 
    purpose of this amendment does not relate to the fundamental 
    purpose of the bill, which is to effect changes in the target 
    prices of loan rates on wheat, feed grain, and cotton.
        The nuttiness of an amendment has never been found in the 
    precedents of the House as an argument against germaneness. . . .
        Mr. Conte: . . . I feel that this amendment is germane in the 
    context of this bill. The whole bill is nutty, and I am merely 
    institutionalizing what the American people have known all along, 
    that farm subsidies do not grow on trees.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair would observe that the purpose of this bill as set 
    forth in the report is to establish an emergency price support 
    program in the 1975 crop commodity year for upland cotton, wheat, 
    feed grains, soybeans, and milk.
        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 to be supported under the bill during the 
    same period of time.
        The Chair rules, therefore, that the gentleman's amendment is 
    germane and overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair looked beyond the obvious 
facetious intent of the offeror of

[[Page 8133]]

the amendment, and upon discovering that the ``dingleberry'' was indeed 
a fruit nut and therefore an existing agricultural commodity, 
determined that the amendment came within the class potentially covered 
by the bill.

Adjustment of Existing Postal Rates--Amendment To Abolish Franking 
    Privilege

Sec. 12.3 To a bill to readjust postal rates, an amendment proposing to 
    abolish franking privileges was held to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a bill (12) was under consideration 
which sought to readjust postal rates. The following amendment was 
offered to the bill: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 2981 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
13. 97 Cong. Rec. 11685, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 19, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Carl T.] Curtis of Nebraska: On page 
    26, line 9, insert a new section as follows:
        No mail matter of any kind shall be sent through the mails by 
    any department or agency of the United States Government, including 
    the legislative branch, without full payment of the postal rates 
    provided by law for similar mail matter sent by other users.

    Responding to a point of order raised by Mr. Thomas J. Murray, of 
Tennessee, that the amendment was not germane to the bill, Mr. Curtis 
stated:

        This bill is to adjust postal rates. It deals with various 
    classes and kinds of mail and services rendered by the Post Office 
    Department. . . . If you can raise rates under this bill from a 
    given rate to a higher rate, certainly you can raise free mail to 
    some sort of rate.
        The Chairman,(14) in ruling on the point of order, 
    stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill before us is for the purpose of adjusting postal 
    rates. The gentleman from Nebraska offers an amendment which would 
    not adjust existing postal rates but would define classes of mail 
    which should be subject to payment of postage. Neither of the 
    classes included within the amendment proposed is included within 
    the bill. The amendment is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, 
    the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Relating to Compensation for Mail Carriers Under Star-Route 
    Contracts--Amendment Requiring Cost Estimates in Advertisements for 
    Bids for Star Routes

Sec. 12.4 To a bill providing additional compensation for star-route 
    carriers for increased mileage above the contract terms, an 
    amendment providing that the Postmaster General in advertising for 
    bids for any star route shall publish the estimated actual

[[Page 8134]]

    cost for carrying the route including a reasonable wage for the 
    carrier was held to be germane.

    In the 75th Congress, a bill (15) was under 
consideration which related to additional compensation for star-route 
carriers and which stated in part: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 7879 (Committee on Post Office and Post Roads).
16. 81 Cong. Rec. 8017, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 2, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That section 3951 of the Revised Statutes 
    . . . is hereby amended by adding at the end thereof the following 
    new paragraphs:
        The Postmaster General may . . . allow extra pay to a 
    contractor for necessary increased travel caused by obstruction of 
    roads, destruction of bridges, or discontinuance of ferries 
    occurring during the contract term, but no extra pay allowed shall 
    be proportionately greater than the rate established by the 
    contract involved. . . .
        Sec. 2. Proposals for carrying the mail on star routes shall 
    not be considered unless the bidder is a legal resident of the 
    county or counties traversed by the roads over which the mails are 
    to be carried. . . .

    To such bill, the following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Frederick E.] Biermann [of Iowa]: 
    Page 2, after line 26, insert:
        Sec. 3. The Postmaster General in advertising for bids for any 
    star route shall publish the estimated actual cost of carrying the 
    route, which estimate shall include a reasonable wage for the 
    carrier. No bid shall be accepted which is more than 10 percent 
    below the estimated actual cost.

    The following exchange concerned a point of order raised against 
the amendment:

        Mr. [James M.] Mead [of New York]: . . . I make the point of 
    order against the amendment that it is not germane. It is writing 
    into the bill a new principle of law. . . .
        Mr. Biermann: Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with a method of 
    compensating star-route carriers. At the time when a star route is 
    let the Postmaster General publishes the price that the present 
    carrier is getting for transporting the route. My amendment simply 
    provides for the publication of another figure in place of that. . 
    . .
        The Speaker: (17) . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . As the Chair understands the major purpose of the bill 
    now under consideration, it deals with the subject of providing 
    additional compensation for star-route carriers for necessary 
    increased mileage, and for other purposes, and although the bill 
    itself purports only to amend an existing statute, it undertakes in 
    terms to set out certain provisions under which the Postmaster 
    General may let these bids for the carrying of star-route 
    contracts. Although the word ``wage'' does seem to be mentioned in 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa, the Chair is 
    clearly of the opinion that as the bill has been proposed, it is 
    merely an addition to the terms under which the contract shall be 
    let.

[[Page 8135]]

        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Bill Promoting Development of Synthetic Fuels--Amendment To Include 
    Methane Within Definition

Sec. 12.5 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.

    On June 26, 1979,(18) during consideration of the 
Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979 (19) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order against 
the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 125 Cong. Rec. 16687, 16688, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. H.R. 3930.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the 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

[[Page 8136]]

    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: (20) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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.

Bill Providing for Limited Transfer of Functions to New Consumer 
    Protection Agency--Amendment Authorizing Director of Office of 
    Management and Budget To Transfer Designated Types of Function to 
    Agency

Sec. 12.6 To a bill creating a non-regulatory Consumer Protection 
    Agency, providing for a limited transfer of functions to the agency 
    but authorizing the Administrator to utilize the services of 
    offices of other agencies performing similar activities, an 
    amendment authorizing the Director of the Office of Management and 
    Budget to transfer to the agency such programs or activities of 
    various agencies as were duplicative of or could be performed more 
    appropriately by the new agency and which could be transferred 
    without further Congressional action, was held to be germane to the 
    bill as a whole since provisions in the bill brought the activities 
    of those offices within the scope of the bill, and all offices 
    transferred were within the same generic class of nonregulatory 
    intra-agency entities whose transfer would not enlarge the 
    authority of the new agency beyond that contemplated by the bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 7575 (1) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Nov. 6, 1975,(2) the Chair overruled a point 
of order against the amendment described above, stating, in part, that 
the

[[Page 8137]]

test of germaneness of adding a new section at the end of a bill is the 
relationship between the amendment and the bill as a whole. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. The Consumer Protection Act of 1975.
 2. 121 Cong. Rec. 35374, 35375, 35376, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                               saving provisions

            Sec. 14. (a) Nothing contained in this Act shall be 
        construed to alter, modify, or impair the statutory 
        responsibility and authority contained in section 201(a)(4) of 
        the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 
        as amended (40 U.S.C. 481(a)(4)), or of any provision of the 
        antitrust laws, or of any Act providing for the regulation of 
        the trade or commerce of the United States, or to prevent or 
        impair the administration or enforcement of any such provision 
        of law.
            (b) Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as 
        relieving any Federal agency of any authority or responsibility 
        to protect and promote the interests of the consumer. . . .

        Mr. [Paul N.] McCloskey [Jr., of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McCloskey: Page 26, immediately 
        after line 5, insert the following new Section 15 and renumber 
        succeeding sections accordingly:

                transfer of programs, operations and activities

            Sec. 15. (a)(1) Except to the extent prohibited by law, the 
        Director of the Office of Management and Budget is authorized 
        and directed to transfer to the Agency such programs, 
        operations, and activities of each Federal agency as (A) are 
        duplicative of or can be performed more appropriately by the 
        Administrator under the authority contained in this Act, and 
        (B) may be transferred without the need for Congressional 
        action.
            (2) Transfers authorized and directed under paragraph (1) 
        shall include but not be limited to those programs, operations, 
        and activities defined in paragraph (1) which are, on the date 
        of enactment of this Act, performed by the following Federal 
        departments and agencies: The Office of Consumer Affairs of the 
        Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; the Office of 
        Ombudsman for Business of the Department of Commerce . . . the 
        Advisory Committee on Water Data for Public Use of the 
        Department of the Interior; the Science Advisory Board's 
        Executive Committee of the Environmental Protection Agency; and 
        the Citizen's Advisory Committee on Transportation Quality of 
        the Department of Transportation. . . .
            (c) The Administrator, pursuant to section 4 of this Act, 
        shall be responsible for incorporating such programs, 
        operations, and activities as are transferred pursuant to 
        subsection (a) in such manner and to the extent he deems 
        consistent with the Agency's responsibilities under section 5 
        of this Act, and issuing such organizational directives as he 
        deems appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section. . 
        . .

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. McCloskey) on the grounds that it is in violation 
    of clause 7 of rule XVI of the House of Representatives.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from California proposes 
    a new section to the bill which involves a substantial transfer of 
    functions from ex

[[Page 8138]]

    isting Federal agencies and departments.
        The Director of OMB is directed to transfer consumer-related 
    programs, operations, and activities from existing agencies and 
    departments to the Agency for Consumer Protection. H.R. 7575 has 
    several provisions directing Federal agencies to cooperate in 
    providing information, documents, and other materials to the Agency 
    for Consumer Protection. In addition, section 15 provides for a 
    very narrow and specific transfer of the Consumer Product 
    Information Coordinating Center in the General Services 
    Administration to the new Consumer Agency. The amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from California would involve the wholesale transfer 
    of nearly 20 functions from various Federal departments and 
    agencies. Such a massive shift of responsibility by the Federal 
    agencies is neither the intent nor purpose of H.R. 7575.
        In addition, the transfer in section 15 is limited to a 
    Consumer Product Information Coordinating Center, and does not 
    involve the transfer of substantive responsibilities for consumer 
    representation, intervention in agency proceedings, or other such 
    administrative and policy responsibilities. In this regard, I think 
    a distinction can be drawn between the limited type of transfer 
    contemplated in section 15 and the massive transfer proposed in the 
    amendment.
        In addition, the amendment alters existing statutory and 
    administrative mandates placed upon Federal agencies and 
    departments. The administration, over and above statutory mandates, 
    has made significant steps in increasing consumer representation 
    within Federal agencies. The proposed amendment would wipe out all 
    those positive gains, and have OMB decide which functions to 
    transfer rather than for Congress to exercise its oversight 
    responsibility. . . .
        Mr. McCloskey: First of all, Mr. Chairman, the Chair will note 
    that points of order were waived as to section 15 of the act, which 
    accomplishes the transfer of the Consumer Protection Information 
    Coordinating Center. This, in effect, is a new section 15.
        Second, unlike the suggestion of the gentleman from Illinois, 
    this amendment specifically does not attack anything created by an 
    act of Congress. It refers only to administratively created 
    organizations. I refer the Chair to the first paragraph, section 
    15(a)(1), which says:

            Sec. 15. (a)(1) Except to the extent prohibited by law, the 
        Director of the Office of Management and Budget is authorized 
        and directed to transfer to the Agency such programs, 
        operations, and activities of each Federal agency as (A) are 
        duplicative of or can be performed more appropriately by the 
        Administrator under the authority contained in this Act, and 
        (B) may be transferred without the need for Congressional 
        action.

        Clearly, the amendment does not purport to change any 
    congressionally mandated consumer office, but only those created by 
    executive order.
        Paragraph C of the amendment asks the Director of Office of 
    Management and Budget to identify and report to the committees of 
    the House and send the reorganizations for such additional 
    transfers as may be necessary to avoid duplication with programs, 
    operations, and activities, but which require congressional action.

[[Page 8139]]

        Mr. Chairman, I would like, finally, to cite a prior act of the 
    Congress for the authority to accomplish this. Section 210 of the 
    Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 provides, 
    in part:

            Whenever the Director of the Office of Management and 
        Budget shall determine such action to be in the interest of 
        economy or efficiency, he shall transfer to the Administrator 
        [of GSA] all functions then vested in any other Federal agency 
        with respect to the operation, maintenance, and custody of any 
        office building owned by the United States . . . [etc.]

        This amendment clearly does nothing more than authorize and 
    direct the Director of Office of Management and Budget to 
    accomplish those transfers which in his judgment are duplicated by 
    the creation of this new agency and may more appropriately be 
    formed by the Administrator under the authority that this law will 
    give him. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is a 
    reorganization of the executive branch, clearly, the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on Government Operations, under rule 10, page 3, 
    which includes the Government Operations responsibilities and 
    authorities, the reorganization in the executive branch of 
    Government.
        The amendment transfers programs in existence which do not 
    require the change of any statutes. . . .
        Mr. [Benjamin S.] Rosenthal [of New York]: . . . Mr. Chairman, 
    I rise in opposition to the point of order.
        Those activities and functions authorized to be transferred to 
    the agency include only those which may already be performed under 
    the authority provided in the remainder of the bill. The functions 
    of the administrator are not expanded, nor is his authority or 
    power increased by the amendment.
        Additionally, the functions proposed to be transferred, as both 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) and the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Horton) have already suggested, were created by 
    administrative action and were not created by statute. The proposed 
    transfer does not impair or amend statutes governing the operations 
    of the agency from which transfers would be made. . . .
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Erlenborn) has made a point of 
    order to the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. McCloskey) on the grounds that the amendment is not germane.
        The Chair will state initially that since the amendment 
    proposes to add a new section to the bill, the rule on germaneness 
    does not require that the amendment be germane to one particular 
    section, it being sufficient if it is germane to the subject matter 
    of the bill as a whole--Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 
    14.4.
        The subject of the amendment, the transfer of various executive 
    agency functions, is clearly within the jurisdiction of the 
    committee reporting the bill. While the transfer envisioned by the 
    amendment is more comprehensive than the transfers contained in 
    section 15 of the bill, as noted, the test of germaneness is the 
    relationship between the amendment and the bill as a whole. Thus, 
    despite the limited trans

[[Page 8140]]

    fer provisions in the bill, the Chair notes that on page 4, lines 
    13 to 15, the new agency is authorized to utilize the services and 
    personnel of other Federal agencies and of State and private 
    agencies and instrumentalities.
        On page 5, lines 7 to 11, if the Administrator of the new 
    agency so requests, each Federal agency is authorized and directed 
    to make its services, personnel, and facilities available to the 
    new agency. Finally, on page 26, lines 3 to 5, the bill provides 
    that nothing contained in the act shall be construed as relieving 
    any Federal agency of any authority or responsibility to protect 
    and promote the interests of the consumer.
        The Chair believes that activities of the offices transferred 
    to the agency by this amendment are already brought into the 
    operation of this act by the sections of the bill just cited.
        In addition, it is the opinion of the Chair that the express 
    language of the amendment itself refutes the argument that it 
    broadens the scope of the powers of the agency beyond those 
    contemplated in the bill. The amendment would transfer only such 
    functions as duplicate or can be performed under the express 
    authority contained in the bill. Therefore, no functions, 
    activities or powers may be transferred under the amendment which 
    are not already within the powers granted to the new agency in the 
    bill.
        It has been argued that the amendment would change statutory 
    and administrative duties. However, the Chair is unaware of any 
    legislation creating the offices referred to in the amendment and 
    is unaware of any regulatory power conferred on them by statute. It 
    would appear that the offices mentioned have been created solely by 
    departments and agencies of the executive branch.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill Authorizing Commission To Investigate Abridgment of Certain Civil 
    Rights--Amendment Enlarging Scope To Include Study of Rights 
    Reserved to States and to People

Sec. 12.7 To a bill authorizing a commission to investigate abridgment 
    of certain civil rights, an amendment to enlarge the scope of the 
    investigation to authorize the commission to study and collect 
    information concerning the rights reserved to the states and to the 
    people, was held to be germane.

    In the 84th Congress, a bill (4) 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, or religion; and that such commission should further 
study and collect information concerning economic, social, and

[[Page 8141]]

legal developments constituting a denial of equal protection of the 
laws. An amendment was offered (5) authorizing the 
commission, in addition, to study and collect information concerning 
rights reserved to the states and to the people under the Constitution. 
Speaking in response to a point of order made by Mr. Kenneth B. 
Keating, of New York, Mr. James P. Richards, of South Carolina, who had 
offered the amendment, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 627 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 5. 102 Cong. Rec. 13728, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 20, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I think [the amendment] is patently germane, 
    because in the subsection it seeks to amend, you provide for the 
    collection of information and you provide for studies in regard to 
    equal protection of the laws under the Constitution. And if that 
    section itself means what it says, then I am sure the provisions of 
    the 10th amendment of the Constitution itself would warrant a study 
    and investigation to see how those provisions are applied under the 
    Constitution that is mentioned.

    The following statement was made by Mr. William M. Colmer, of 
Mississippi, in opposition to the point of order.

        Mr. Chairman, I contend that this amendment is germane, not 
    only for the reasons stated by the gentleman from South Carolina 
    but in line with the ruling of the Chair on yesterday on another 
    amendment, where the Chair differentiated between the labor 
    amendment and the age amendment, in that the Chair ruled that the 
    matter was within the province and jurisdiction of that particular 
    committee. . . .

    Mr. Keating stated: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 13729.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, the part of this section which is sought to be 
    amended here has to do with the equal protection of the laws 
    provision of the Constitution, no other part of the Constitution.
        It is true that amendments to the Constitution come under the 
    jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, but the parallel between 
    the ruling of yesterday and this amendment does not follow. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina would bring 
    in a part of the Constitution which is not in any way under the 
    purview of this section. It would be like trying to change the 
    prohibition amendment under the Constitution in this bill. It has 
    to do with an entirely different part of the Constitution, and it 
    is not germane to the consideration of this bill.

    The Chairman,(7) without elaboration, held that the 
amendment was germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Army Officers' Retirement--Amendment Affecting Other Branches of 
    Service

Sec. 12.8 To a bill extending certain retirement privileges to officers 
    of the Army who

[[Page 8142]]

    served in the Spanish-American War, a committee amendment proposing 
    to extend such privileges to officers of the Navy, Marine Corps, 
    and Coast Guard was held to be not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (8) was under consideration 
which stated in part: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. S. 839 (Committee on Military Affairs).
 9. See 84 Cong. Rec. 8957, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., July 12, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That the act of Congress approved April 
    23, 1904, authorizing the retirement to the next higher grade of 
    officers of the United States Army who served in the Civil War is 
    hereby extended to include those officers not above the grade of 
    colonel who served in the War with Spain between April 21, 1898, 
    and April 11, 1899.

    The following committee amendment was offered:

        Page 1, line 8, after the figures, insert a colon and the 
    following proviso: ``Provided, That the advanced rank on the 
    retired list shall be extended in like manner to those officers of 
    the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, who have been retired, or 
    may be retired, in accordance with existing law for retirements in 
    these respective services.''

    Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia, made the point of order that the 
committee amendment was not germane to the bill. The Speaker 
(10) sustained the point of order.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
11. 84 Cong. Rec. 8958, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., July 12, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adding To Class in Original Amendment

Sec. 12.9 To an amendment prohibiting indirect foreign assistance to 
    four designated countries, offered to a paragraph of a bill denying 
    only direct assistance to those countries, an amendment adding 
    other countries to the indirect prohibition contained in the 
    original amendment was held germane thereto.

    On Aug. 3, 1978,(12) during consideration of the foreign 
assistance appropriations for fiscal 1979 (13) in the 
Committee of the Whole, Chairman Abraham Kazen, Jr., of Texas, 
overruled a point of order against an amendment to an amendment, 
holding that to a proposition prohibiting indirect foreign assistance 
to several foreign countries, an amendment including additional 
countries within that prohibition is

[[Page 8143]]

germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 24232, 24244, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. H.R. 12931.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 107. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
        available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended 
        to finance directly any assistance or reparations to Uganda, 
        Cambodia, Laos, or the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

                 amendment offered by mr. young of florida

        Mr. [C. W. Bill] Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment. The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Florida: On page 11, line 
        15, after the word ``directly'' add ``or indirectly''.

        Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment 
    to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Harkin to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Young of Florida: Page 11, line 17, strike the period and 
        insert the following: ``Provided, That none of the funds 
        appropriated pursuant to this act shall be obligated or 
        expended to finance indirectly Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, 
        Korea, Nicaragua, Indonesia, and the Philippines''. . . .

        Mr. Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order 
    that the gentleman's amendment to my amendment goes far beyond the 
    scope of the original amendment and is, therefore, out of order. . 
    . .
        Mr. Harkin: . . . This amendment does not go beyond the scope 
    of the gentleman's amendment because I have limited the amendment 
    only to indirect aid and not to direct aid.
        Therefore, it is in order. It would not be in order if I had 
    covered both direct and indirect aid. The gentleman would be right 
    in that case, but I have limited it only to indirect aid. . . .
        Mr. Young of Florida: . . . In rebuttal to the gentleman's 
    point, the amendment does not name countries. The amendment adds 
    only the words ``or indirectly.''
        The gentleman's amendment proceeds to add countries to that 
    amendment. The original amendment does not add any countries.
        Mr. Harkin: Mr. Chairman, that is why my amendment amends the 
    gentleman's amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The section of the original bill to which the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) refers does contain the names of 
    four countries. The gentleman is amending a section with countries 
    named in it and is in effect offering a further prohibition with 
    respect to those four countries.
        The amendment of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) refers to 
    indirect aid, and all it does is to add additional countries.
        Mr. Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, may I make a parliamentary 
    inquiry prior to the ruling?
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Young of Florida: It is my understanding under the rules 
    that the amendment must be germane to the amendment as opposed to 
    the bill.
        The Chairman: The amendment is germane to the amendment because 
    it refers only to indirect aid and adds ad

[[Page 8144]]

    ditional countries to those affected by the gentleman's original 
    amendment. But the main thrust of the amendment is to indirect aid, 
    which is not changed by the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Iowa (Mr. Harkin). The Chair respectfully overrules the point of 
    order.

Penalty for Commission of Felony by Use of Firearm--Amendment Providing 
    for Trial of Offense in Federal or State Court

Sec. 12.10 To a proposition making it a federal crime to use, during 
    the commission of a felony that may be prosecuted in a federal 
    court, a firearm, an amendment making it a crime, in a state where 
    such activity is not already felonious, to carry a firearm during 
    the commission of a felony and providing for the trial of such 
    offense in either a state or federal court was held to be germane.

    In the 90th Congress, a bill (14) was under 
consideration relating to the control of firearms. The following 
amendment to the bill was agreed to on July 19, 1968: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 17735 (Committee on the Judiciary).
15. 114 Cong. Rec. 22231, 22248, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (c) Whoever--
        (1) uses a firearm to commit any felony which may be prosecuted 
    in a court of the United States, or
        (2) carries a firearm unlawfully during the commission of any 
    felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, 
    shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment. . . .

    Subsequently, an amendment to the bill was offered which provided 
that: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 114 Cong. Rec. 22789, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 23, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whoever on or after January 1, 1971 in a State in which it is 
    not a felony to use or unlawfully to carry a firearm in the 
    commission of any felony in such State, uses a firearm to commit 
    any felony or carries a firearm unlawfully during the commission of 
    any felony in such State shall upon conviction be sentenced to a 
    term of imprisonment. . . .
        Concurrent jurisdiction for the enforcement of the provisions 
    of this Act is hereby conferred upon the appropriate District Court 
    of the United States and upon the State Court which shall try the 
    person charged with the commission of the felony in which a firearm 
    shall be used or unlawfully carried.

    In disposing of a point of order raised against the 
amendment,(17) the Chairman (18) 
stated:(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, objected on the ground that the 
        amendment was not germane to the bill. Id. at p. 22789.
18. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 22789, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 23, 1968.

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

[[Page 8145]]

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
    Pepper] would impose a Federal penalty when a firearm is used or 
    carried by a person in the commission of a felony in a State in 
    which there is no State law making the carrying or use of a firearm 
    a felony. The amendment confers jurisdiction on the State courts to 
    try persons charged with violating the provisions of the amendment.
        The bill, as amended by the Committee of the Whole, presently 
    contains a provision for similar penalties when a firearm is 
    unlawfully carried during the commission of a felony which is 
    prosecuted in a Federal court.
        The amendment does not create a new State crime. It describes 
    an act which is to be unlawful under Federal law and provides for 
    the prosecution of that act in either a Federal or State court.
        The Chair believes that the amendment, which extends the 
    provisions of the so-called Poff amendment--adopted by this 
    Committee on last Friday--to felony prosecutions in State courts, 
    is a modification of a matter already introduced into this bill by 
    amendment, and is therefore germane.