[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§ 13. Proposition and Amendment as Affecting Different Classes of Persons or Entities]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 8145-8176]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 13. Proposition and Amendment as Affecting Different Classes of 
    Persons or Entities

    Where a proposition and an amendment offered thereto affect 
different classes of persons, the amendment is frequently ruled out as 
not germane. Thus, to a bill to provide for the common defense by 
increasing the strength of the armed forces, an amendment seeking to 
impose certain sanctions on persons outside the armed forces was held 
not to be germane.(20) Generally, to a bill relating to 
relief for one class, an amendment seeking to include another class is 
not germane.(1) Accordingly, to a bill extending the 
benefits of a federal program to one class, an amendment to include 
other classes as recipients of such benefits is not 
germane.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. Sec. 13.11, 13.12, infra.
 1. See Sec. Sec. 8.19, 8.24, supra.
 2. See Sec. 39.18, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Mandating Study of Pay Practices Within Civil Service--Amendment 
    Extending Coverage to Impact on Wages in Other Jobs

Sec. 13.1 To a bill relating to a certain class of federal employees, 
    an amendment to bring other classes of employees within the scope 
    of the bill is not germane; thus, to a bill mandating a study of 
    equitable pay practices within the federal civil service (defined 
    as only those employees of executive agen

[[Page 8146]]

    cies), an amendment expanding the study to include the impact on 
    wages in similar jobs negotiated under collective bargaining 
    agreements was held to be nongermane, since it was capable of being 
    construed as adding different categories of employees to the single 
    class covered by the bill.

    On Oct. 9, 1985,(3) during consideration of H.R. 3008 
(4) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a 
point of order to the amendment described above. The amendment and the 
section to which it was offered were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 131 Cong. Rec. 26951-54, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. The Federal Pay Equity Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of section 7 is as follows:

                        sec. 7. reporting requirements.

            (a) Deadline.--The Commission shall, not later than 18 
        months after the date of its establishment, submit to the 
        President and each House of Congress--
            (1) a copy of a report which shall be prepared by the 
        consultant selected to perform the study under this Act; and
            (2) comments of the Commission relating to such report.
            (b) Information To Be Provided in Consultant's Report.--
        Included in the report referred to in subsection (a)(1) shall 
        be a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the 
        consultant, pursuant to its study, with respect to 
        differentials in rates of basic pay between or among 
        occupations compared on the basis of sex, race, and ethnicity, 
        including. . . .

    A later section of the bill contained the following definitions:

                             sec. 10. definitions.

            For the purpose of this Act--
            (1) ``job-content analysis'', as applied with respect to 
        occupations, means an objective, quantitative method of rating 
        representative entry-level positions within such occupations in 
        order that . . .
            (3) ``occupation'' means any grouping of positions within 
        an agency, as identified or defined under chapter 51 of title 
        5, United States Code, or subchapter IV of chapter 53 of such 
        title.

    To section 7, the following amendment was offered:

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: In section 7, page 12, 
        after line 6, insert the following new subsection and renumber 
        succeeding sections accordingly:
            ``(b)(2) Such study shall include and measure the impact on 
        wages in similar jobs negotiated under collective bargaining 
        agreements.''. . .

        Ms. [Mary Rose] Oakar [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) proposes to 
    expand greatly the scope of the bill under consideration. As such, 
    the amendment violates clause 7 of House Rule XVI and is 
    nongermane.
        Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is very limited in scope. It 
    relates only to

[[Page 8147]]

    employees of executive agencies, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105. The 
    bill is further limited in scope in that the study it mandates is 
    limited to salaries and wages of executive agency employees in 
    positions under the Government's position classification system 
    under chapter 51 of title 5, and the prevailing rate system under 
    subchapter IV of chapter 53 of title 5. Clearly the bill relates 
    only to certain employees in the executive branch and their 
    salaries and wages. It in no way concerns salaries or wages of 
    private-sector employees. . . .
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Walker) on the other hand would expand the scope of the study 
    mandated by the bill to ``include and measure the impact on wages 
    in similar jobs negotiated under collective bargaining 
    agreements.'' This obviously would expand the study to cover 
    Government agencies not presently covered, such as the Postal 
    Service and the Tennessee Valley Authority. It also apparently 
    expands the study to cover private-sector wages, which unlike most 
    wages in the executive branch are negotiated under collective 
    bargaining agreements. Thus, the amendment greatly expands the 
    scope of the study and the bill. As such, it is nongermane. . . .
        Mr. Walker: . . . Mr. Chairman, I am a little at a loss to 
    understand to what part of the bill the gentlewoman from Ohio 
    thinks I am amending, because the part of the bill that I am 
    amending refers directly to the consultant's report. In that 
    particular language, it is very, very broad in its coverage as to 
    what the consultant should report about. He is to report on basic 
    pays between or among occupations compared on the basis of sex, 
    race, ethnicity. That is a fairly broad definition.
        Then we go over to the section that I am directly amending and 
    we find out that it is going to have a list of groups of 
    occupations, occupations comprising any such group involved in 
    skills, efforts, responsibilities, qualification requirements, 
    working conditions, all kinds of broad categories.
        The only thing that my amendment does suggest is that another 
    one of the determinants within that ought to be the existence of a 
    collective bargaining agreement. It has absolutely nothing to do 
    with the private sector, unless this bill involves the private 
    sector, because it refers back to the study that the bill requires 
    be done; so therefore if we are going to have something in this 
    amendment that refers to the private sector, then we have suddenly 
    learned something new about this bill that it includes the private 
    sector, because my amendment speaks directly to information to be 
    provided in the consultant's report, and so therefore the only way 
    that the private sector could get involved in this would be if that 
    is the intent of the committee to have that consultant's report 
    refer to private sector activities. This language goes directly to 
    that particular aspect of the bill. That particular aspect of the 
    bill is very broad and this would simply be additional language 
    that relates to collective bargaining agreements. . . .
        Ms. Oakar: . . . Mr. Chairman . . . so that there is no 
    confusion about the purpose of the bill, even though there has been 
    a deliberate attempt to distort it, it says in section (3), 
    ``occupation'' means any grouping of positions within an agency, as 
    identified or defined under chapter 51 of title 5,

[[Page 8148]]

    United States Code, or subchapter IV of chapter 53 of such title.
        It is very clear which employees we are referring to. It is a 
    very, very specific group. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Esteban E. Torres (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair believes that the amendment as drafted may be 
    interpreted to apply to a different category of employees from 
    those covered by the bill. If the Chair may cite from the 
    precedents of the House on the germaneness rule, the Chair cites as 
    such:

            To a bill dealing with a certain class of Federal employees 
        (the U.S. civil service in this case), an amendment to bring 
        other classes of employees within the scope of the bill is not 
        germane.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. The Chair was referring to the precedent at Deschler's Procedure 
        Ch. 28, Sec. 10.8, discussed in more detail at Sec. 13.3, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order in this case.

Bill Providing Cost-of-Living Adjustment for Foreign Service Retirees--
    Amendment To Adjust Civil Service Annuities

Sec. 13.2 To a bill reported from the Committee on International 
    Relations containing a cost-of-living adjustment for foreign 
    service retirees, an amendment containing a comparable adjustment 
    in annuities for federal civil service employees was held not to be 
    germane as beyond the scope of the bill and within the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

    During consideration of H.R. 13179 (the State Department 
authorization bill for fiscal 1977), it was demonstrated that an 
individual proposition may not be germane to another individual 
proposition even though they may belong to the same generic class. The 
proceedings of June 18, 1976,(7) wherein the Chair sustained 
a point of order against the amendment described above, were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 122 Cong. Rec. 19224, 19226, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     cost-of-living adjustments of foreign service retirement annuities

        Sec. 13. (a) Section 882(b) of the Foreign Service Act of 1946 
    is amended by striking out ``1 per centum plus''.
        (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply with 
    respect to annuity increases which become effective after the end 
    of the forty-five-day period beginning on the date of enactment of 
    this Act. . . .
        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Derwinski: Page 10, strike out 
        lines 3 through 9 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

[[Page 8149]]

            Sec. 13. (a) Section 882(b) of the Foreign Service Act of 
        1946 (22 U.S.C. 1121(b)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(b) Effective the first day of the second month which 
        begins after the price index change equals a rise of at least 3 
        percent for a month over the price index for the month last 
        used to establish an increase, each annuity payable from the 
        Fund having a commencing date not later than that effective 
        date shall be increased by such percentage rise in the price 
        index, adjusted to the nearest 1/10th of 1 percent.''. . .

             cost-of-living adjustments of civil service annuities

            Sec. 14. (a) Section 8340(b) of title 5, United States 
        Code, is amended to read as follows:
            ``(b) Each month the Commission shall determine the percent 
        change in the price index. Effective the first day of the 
        second month which begins after the price index change equals a 
        rise of at least 3 percent for a month over the price index for 
        the base month, each annuity payable from the Fund having a 
        commencing date not later than that effective date shall be 
        increased by such percentage rise in the price index, adjusted 
        to the nearest one-tenth of 1 percent.''. . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Mr. Chairman, 
    this amendment is not germane to this bill because it affects the 
    U.S. Civil Service and it is not within the scope of the bill. . . 
    .
        Mr. Derwinski: I rise in opposition to the point of order.
        Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, paragraph 1.4, under general 
    principles of germaneness, states that the rule of germaneness 
    applies to the relationship between a proposed amendment and the 
    pending bill to which it is offered.
        There is an obvious relationship. Section 12 of the bill 
    provides for annuity adjustments for alien employees who are under 
    the Civil Service Retirement Act. Section 13 of the bill amends the 
    annuity provisions of the Foreign Service Act.
        The amendment I have offered relates to both these retirement 
    systems. My amendment to section 13 of the bill amends the annuity 
    provisions of the Foreign Service Act by changing the formula for 
    cost-of-living adjustments, and is germane to that section. My 
    amendment adding a new section 14 to the bill amends the Civil 
    Service Retirement Act in the same manner, and is germane to the 
    bill.
        Mr. Chairman, because both of these retirement systems are 
    affected by the pending bill, the amendment I have offered is, I 
    believe, in compliance with the rule of germaneness.
        Mr. Chairman, I urge the point of order be overruled.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the reasons stated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Morgan) that the amendment covers a class of employees who are not 
    contained in the bill, the Chair rules that the amendment is not 
    germane and sustains the point of order.

Civil Service Employees--Postal and District of Columbia Employees

Sec. 13.3 To a bill relating to a certain class of federal em

[[Page 8150]]

    ployees (the civil service), an amendment to bring another class of 
    employees (postal and District of Columbia employees) within the 
    scope of the bill is not germane.

    On Sept. 7, 1978,(9) during consideration of a bill 
(10) containing proposals to reform the federal civil 
service through merit system principles and personnel management, a 
point of order was made against two titles of a committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, one dealing with the work week of federal 
firefighters and one amending a law (the ``Hatch Act'') regulating 
political activities of postal and District of Columbia employees as 
well as the civil service. The point of order was made pursuant to a 
special order allowing a point of order based on the contention that 
both titles taken together would not have been germane if offered as a 
separate amendment to the bill as introduced, and providing that if the 
point of order were sustained, the committee amendment after deletion 
of those titles, would be read as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment. The Chair ruled that the amendment was not germane, basing 
such ruling on the inclusion of postal and District employees within 
the coverage of the bill, without deciding the issue relating to 
inclusion of provisions as to the work week of federal firefighters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 124 Cong. Rec. 28437-39, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
10. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (H.R. 11280).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) . . . Pursuant to the rule, the 
    Clerk will now read by titles the committee amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Post Office and 
    Civil Service now printed in the reported bill as an original bill 
    for the purpose of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. George E. Danielson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk proceeded to read the bill.
        Mr. [Lloyd] Meeds [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against titles IX and X, based on their violation of 
    clause 7, rule XVI, in that they are nongermane to the bill before 
    us.
        Title IX deals with two groups of employees not covered in the 
    original bill. It includes postal workers and District of Columbia 
    employees. There is much precedent which indicates that we have 
    classes of subjects not covered by the basic proposition before us, 
    which renders the new material nongermane. That is precisely what 
    title IX does by adding two new subjects.
        Title X, on the other hand, introduces new subject matter, the 
    pay of firefighters that is not covered in the original bill. Title 
    X deals exclusively with hours of work and wages of firefighters, 
    while the original bill deals with the institution of the merit 
    system within the system. Where hours or

[[Page 8151]]

    wages are included, it is only incidental to the basic proposition 
    of the merit system, so both of these titles should be stricken for 
    the above reason, and for the added reason that neither proposition 
    amends the original bill. Rather, both seek to amend existing and 
    basic law. . . .
        Mr. [William] Clay [of Missouri]: . . . The facts are fairly 
    obvious--and the connections between Hatch Act reform and the rest 
    of H.R. 11280 are quite strong--
        First, the bill, in section 2302 (on page 138, beginning on 
    line 24) defines improper political activities as a prohibited 
    personnel practice. Title IX of the bill states exactly what these 
    improper political activities are.
        Second, the bill charges the special counsel of the Merit 
    System Protection Board (MSPB) with responsibility for not only 
    investigating prohibited personnel activities in general but 
    improper political activities in particular. (See page 160, 
    beginning on line 24.) Title IX of the bill defines more fully 
    these activities which apply to Federal civilian as well as postal 
    employees.
        Mr. Chairman, it is inconceivable to me that this bill--which 
    touches on virtually every aspect of civil service--should have 
    political activities and firefighters singled out for this kind of 
    shabby treatment. . . .
        Mr. [Herbert E.] Harris [II, of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    point of order under the rule applies to titles IX and X, and comes 
    before this House in a most unusual, and indeed a peculiar, way 
    that the Chair perhaps would have to rule against the germaneness 
    of one title that will be germane, because it is connected in the 
    rule to another title that the Chair may consider nongermane.
        I think it is unfortunate that the House must consider the 
    matter in that fashion. I would point out to the Chair with regard 
    to this point of order that title X, in fact, does pass the 
    jurisdictional test. It was in fact with the same jurisdiction 
    committee, the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, as this 
    bill is brought; therefore, it passes that jurisdictional test as 
    far as the case is concerned.
        I would point out further that the firefighter bill was 
    actually reported out of this committee and came before this House; 
    it passed by almost a 2-to-1 margin. Again, it reaches the 
    fundamental purpose test.
        The bill itself is for the reform of the civil service system 
    by title. This bill is for the reform of the working conditions of 
    the firefighters, a part of the civil service system by title. The 
    fundamental purpose of both bills are exactly the same, that is, 
    reform of the system. . . .
        I can cite precedents to indicate that when a bill deals with 
    several particulars, one particular may be held to be germane.
        In fact, this class is the same as the other titles of the 
    bill. A bill may be amended by a specific proposition of the same 
    class.
        I would be happy to quote to the Chair about a dozen precedents 
    that make this point.
        If in fact we were to deal with the whole civil service system, 
    dealing with a particular part of that system, that is the 
    firefighters and their work rules is a particular matter within 
    that system. Therefore, I would urge the Chair to

[[Page 8152]]

    overrule the point of order and hold title X as germane.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Washington makes a point of 
    order against titles IX and X of the committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Post Office 
    and Civil Service, on the grounds that those titles would not have 
    been germane if offered as an amendment to the bill H.R. 11280, as 
    introduced.
        As indicated by the gentleman from Washington, the special 
    order providing for consideration of this measure, House Resolution 
    1307, allows the Chair to entertain a point of order on the basis 
    stated by the gentleman, that titles IX and X would not have been 
    germane as a separate amendment to H.R. 11280 in its introduced 
    form.
        The bill as introduced and referred to the Committee on Post 
    Office and Civil Service, although broad in its coverage of reform 
    proposals within the competitive service and in the executive 
    branch of the Government, is limited to merit system principles and 
    personnel management within the civil service of the U.S. 
    Government. Title IX of the committee amendment is designed to 
    characterize and to protect appropriate political activities of 
    employees of the District of Columbia and Postal Service as well as 
    civil service employees, by amending the Hatch Act. The Chair 
    agrees with the argument of the gentleman from Washington that the 
    amendment would add an entirely new class of employees to that 
    covered by the bill, and for that reason is not germane.
        Accordingly the Chair sustains the point of order.

Post Office Employees--Treasury Department Employees

Sec. 13.4 To a bill relating to annual salary increases for custodial-
    service employees of the Post Office Department, an amendment 
    seeking to make the bill's provisions applicable to employees of 
    the Treasury Department was held not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (12) was under 
consideration which stated in part: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 892 (Committee on Post Office and Post Roads).
13. 84 Cong. Rec. 4946, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., May 1, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That every custodial-service employee . . 
    . employed by the Post Office Department shall, at the end of each 
    year's satisfactory service, be promoted to the compensation rate 
    next higher than that of which he is then in receipt. . . .

    An amendment was offered as described above.
    Mr. John Taber, of New York, raised the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill. The Speaker,(14) in 
sustaining the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair is clearly of the opinion that the point of 
    order is well taken, for the reason that the pending bill deals 
    with only one class of employees in one particular department.

[[Page 8153]]

    The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler] 
    undertakes to include the employees of another department.

Bill Affecting Civilian Federal Employees and Excluding Military 
    Personnel From Coverage--Amendment To Strike Provision Excluding 
    Military Personnel

Sec. 13.5 To a bill governing the political activities of a certain 
    class of federal employees, an amendment broadening the scope of 
    the bill to cover another class of federal employees is not 
    germane; thus, where a bill contained a provision excluding from 
    its coverage a particular class (members of the uniformed 
    services), the effect of which was to narrow the scope of the bill 
    to another single class (federal civilian employees), an amendment 
    proposing to strike out that exclusion from coverage, thereby 
    broadening the scope of the bill to include the separate class, was 
    held not germane.

    On June 7, 1977,(15) during consideration of the Federal 
Employees' Political Activities Act of 1977,(16) the Chair 
held that an amendment which by deleting an exception to the definition 
of the class covered by the bill and by inserting new provisions has 
the effect of including another class, is not germane. The amendment 
and proceedings related thereto were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 17713, 17714, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. H.R. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Kindness: Page 28, line 12, 
        strike out ``but does not include a member of the uniformed 
        services'' and insert ``including any member of the uniformed 
        services''. . . .
            Page 38, line 14, immediately before the period insert ``or 
        by reason of being a member of the uniformed services''.
            Page 45, before line 8, insert the following:
            ``(j) The preceding provisions of this section shall not 
        apply in the case of a violation by a member of a uniformed 
        service. Procedures with respect to any such violation shall, 
        under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, be the 
        same as those applicable with respect to violations of section 
        892 of title 10.
            Page 46, after line 12, insert the following:

            ``(c) The preceding provisions of this section shall not 
        apply in the case of a violation by a member of the uniformed 
        services. Any such violation shall, under regulations 
        prescribed by the Secretary concerned, be subject to the same 
        penalties as apply in the case of a violation of section 892 of 
        title 10.''.
            Page 47, after line 21, insert the following:
            ``(d) In the case of members of the uniformed services, the 
        Secretary

[[Page 8154]]

        concerned shall carry out the responsibilities imposed on the 
        Commission under the preceding provisions of this section.''. . 
        . .
            Page 48, after line 17, insert:
            ``(c) In the case of members of the uniformed services, the 
        Secretary concerned shall prescribe the regulations the 
        Commission is required to prescribe under this section, section 
        7322(9), and section 7324(c)(2) and (3) of this title.''. . . .

        Mr. [William] Clay [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I raise the 
    point of order on the grounds that the matter contained in the 
    amendment is in violation of the germaneness rule stated in clause 
    7 of House rule XVI.
        The instant amendment proposes to make the bill applicable to 
    an entirely new class of individuals other than what is covered 
    under the bill.
        The reported bill applies only to civilian employees in 
    executive branch agencies, including the Postal Service and the 
    District of Columbia government, who are presently under the Hatch 
    Act.
        The amendment seeks to add a totally different class of 
    individuals to the bill; namely, military personnel who are not now 
    covered by the Hatch Act. Accordingly the amendment is not germane 
    to the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas N.] Kindness [of Ohio]: Responding [to] the point 
    of order, Mr. Chairman, the bill, as before us at this time, has 
    been expanded in considerable degree by the Clay amendment and by 
    other amendments that have been adopted during the course of the 
    consideration of the bill in the Committee of the Whole.
        However, I would point out that the amendment is germane, and I 
    particularly direct the attention of the chairman and the Members 
    to line 12 of page 28 where, in the definition of the word 
    ``employee'' the words appear, on line 12, ``but does not include a 
    member of the uniformed services.''
        Mr. Chairman, that is the very crux of this whole point. The 
    committee has given consideration, apparently, to the inclusion or 
    exclusion of members of uniformed services under the provisions of 
    this bill. A conscious decision was apparently made; and as 
    reported to the House, this bill has that conscious decision 
    reflected in it not to include members of the uniformed services.
        Mr. Chairman, the issue is directly before the House in that 
    form, so that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio is 
    in order, is pertinent, and is germane. It could not be nongermane.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. James R. Mann (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) makes a point of order 
    that the striking of the language, ``but does not include a member 
    of the uniformed services,'' and the remainder of the amendment 
    broadens the scope of the bill in violation of rule XVI, clause 7.
        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kindness) argues that because the 
    exclusion from coverage for the military is in the bill and has 
    received consideration, that the germaneness rule should be more 
    liberally interpreted.
        An annotation to clause 7, rule XVI, says that, in general, an 
    amendment simply striking out words already in a bill may not be 
    attacked as not germane unless such action would change

[[Page 8155]]

    the scope and meaning of the text. Cannon's VIII, section 2921; 
    Deschler's chapter 28, sec. 15.3.
        On October 28, 1975, Chairman Jordan of Texas ruled, during the 
    consideration of a bill H.R. 2667, giving the right of 
    representation to Federal employees during questioning as follows:

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

        The class of employees included in this legislation is confined 
    to civilian employees of the Government, and those specifically so 
    stated and described as being civilian employees of the executive 
    agencies, of the Postal Service and of the District of Columbia 
    government, and a reference to the Hatch Act as currently in force 
    indicates that military personnel are not included in that act.
        It is obvious that the purpose and the scope of the act before 
    us as referred to in its entirety as amended by this bill, is, ``to 
    restore to Federal civilian and Postal Service employees their 
    rights to participate voluntarily, as private citizens, in the 
    political processes of the Nation, to protect such employees from 
    improper political solicitations, and for other purposes.''
        The Chair finds that the striking of the language excluding 
    military employees and inserting language covering the military 
    broadens the class of the persons covered by this bill to an extent 
    that it substantially changes the text and substantially changes 
    the purpose of the bill. The fact that the exclusion of military 
    personnel was stated in the bill does not necessarily bring into 
    question the converse of that proposition. The Chair therefore 
    finds that the amendment is not germane and sustains the point of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, I have [a] parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is this: 
    Is there a way to appeal the ruling of the Chair within the rules 
    of the House?
        The Chairman: Yes, there is.
        Mr. Kindness: So that I may respectfully appeal the ruling of 
    the Chair at this point?
        The Chairman: If the gentleman from Ohio desires to do so.
        Does the gentleman desire to appeal the ruling of the Chair?
        Mr. Kindness: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not so desire at this 
    point.

Federal Employees--Members of Press

Sec. 13.6 To a bill providing salary increases for federal officers and 
    employees, an amendment promoting salary increases for members of 
    the ``working press'' and prohibiting the privilege of the press 
    gallery to news media who do not provide such increases for their 
    employees was held to be not germane.

[[Page 8156]]

    The following exchange (18) concerned a point of order 
raised against a proposed amendment to a bill (19) relating 
to salary increases for federal employees:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 110 Cong. Rec. 5137, 5138, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 2, 1964.
19. H.R. 8986 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: I make the point of order 
    against the amendment that it is not germane to the provisions of 
    this bill. . . .
        Mr. [Paul C.] Jones, of Missouri: (20) Mr. Chairman, 
    we have now done something for all the employees of the Government. 
    The working press is a quasi-public body. . . . I think they should 
    have consideration in this bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Mr. Jones was the proponent of the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman [Chet Holifield, of California]: The Chair is 
    prepared to rule.
        The gentleman's amendment is clearly not germane to the bill. 
    It applies to a group of people who do not come within the 
    jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Therefore the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: . . . I feel that if we are going to 
    take care of the people who are employed in the House and in the 
    Federal Government and over in the Supreme Court and everywhere 
    else and give them a raise, I believe these people in the Press 
    Gallery ought to have a raise.

Travel Expenses for Senate Employees--Travel Expenses of House Members

Sec. 13.7 To a Senate amendment providing for payment from the Senate 
    contingent fund of certain travel expenses incurred by Senate 
    employees, an amendment providing additional travel allowances, 
    payable from the House contingent fund, to Members of the House was 
    held not germane.

    The following proposition relating to employees of the Senate was 
one of several amendments reported in disagreement on Mar. 29, 1961:

        Senate Amendment No. 66: Page 24, line 12, insert:

                          Administrative Provision

        The ninth paragraph under the heading ``Administrative 
    Provisions'' in the appropriations for the Senate in the 
    Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1957 (2 U.S.C. 127), is 
    amended to read as follows:
        The contingent fund of the Senate is hereafter made available 
    for the payment of mileage . . . between Washington . . . and the 
    residence city of the Senator involved, for not to exceed four 
    round trips . . . made by employees in each Senator's office. . . . 
    (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 107 Cong. Rec. 5277, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A motion was made by Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, to recede and 
concur in such amendment, with an amendment (2) as described 
above. Mr. Harold R.

[[Page 8157]]

Gross, of Iowa, then made a point of order, stating that the amendment 
``is not germane because it deals with an entirely different class of 
people,'' and citing the principle that one individual proposition may 
not be amended by another individual proposition. The 
Speaker,(3) in sustaining the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 5278.
 3. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Senate amendment No. 66 deals entirely with employees of the 
    Senate. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas brings in 
    Members of the House. Therefore the Chair must hold that the point 
    of order is well taken.

Bill Requiring Study of Pay Practices in Executive Branch--Amendment To 
    Include Practices in Legislative Branch

Sec. 13.8 To a bill requiring a study to determine the equitability of 
    federal pay practices under statutory systems applicable to 
    agencies of the executive branch, an amendment to extend the scope 
    of the study to pay practices in the legislative branch was held 
    not germane by the Committee of the Whole, sustaining the ruling of 
    the Chair on appeal.

    On Sept. 28, 1988,(4) during consideration of H.R. 
387,(5) the Committee of the Whole held that to a bill 
dealing with a certain class of federal employees, an amendment 
bringing another class of federal employees within the scope of the 
bill is not germane. The amendment and proceedings relevant thereto 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 134 Cong. Rec. 26420-22, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. The Federal Equitable Pay Practices Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Steve] Bartlett [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer several 
    amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Bartlett: Page 2, line 11, insert 
        ``and pay structures for congressional employees,'' after 
        ``title,''.
            Page 9, line 9, insert ``and any congressional office'' 
        after ``agency''. . . .
            (b) Comparisons.--(1) In performing the study, comparisons 
        shall be made--
            (A) both within the same system and among the respective 
        systems under this Act; and
            (B) both on an intra-agency and on an inter-agency basis.
            (2) For the purpose of this subsection--

            (A) ``system'' means any system or structure referred to in 
        section 2(a); and
            (B) ``agency'' means any agency within the meaning of 
        section 10(12) and any congressional office.
            Page 16, line 15, strike ``title'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``title, and any similar grouping of positions used by 
        a congressional office;''. . . .

[[Page 8158]]

        Mr. [Gary L.] Ackerman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendments. . . .
        [T]he amendment offered by the Member from Texas, Mr. Bartlett, 
    proposes to expand the class of individuals covered by the bill. As 
    such the amendment violates clause 7 of rule XVI and is nongermane.
        Mr. Chairman, the bill before us applies to a very specific 
    class; that is, employees of executive agencies (as defined in 5 
    U.S.C. 105, but not including the General Accounting Office). The 
    bill is further limited in scope in that the study it mandates is 
    limited to executive agency employees in positions under the 
    Government's position classification system under chapter 51 of 
    title 5, and the prevailing rate system under subchapter IV of 
    chapter 53 of title 5. Clearly the bill relates only to certain 
    employees in the executive branch. That is the class concerned. The 
    amendment, on the other hand, applies to an entirely different 
    class, that is, legislative branch employees.
        There are a number of precedents on this point. Sections 10.3, 
    10.7, 10.8, and 10.9 of chapter 28 of Deschler's Procedure each 
    cite instances in which, to legislation affecting one class or 
    group of Federal employees, amendments expanding the scope to other 
    classes of individuals (including other classes of Federal 
    employees) were ruled nongermane. A particularly helpful precedent 
    occurred on October 28, 1975, when the House was considering 
    legislation to provide certain procedural rights to employees or 
    executive agencies. An amendment was offered which would have 
    included ``congressional employees'' within the bill's provisions. 
    In that instance, Chairman Jordan ruled that by adding a totally 
    different individual class of employees to the bill, the amendment 
    went beyond the scope of the bill and was nongermane.
        Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order. . . .
        Mr. Bartlett: Mr. Chairman, I do seek to speak on the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the point of order and to 
    state that this amendment is not out of order but, in doing so, I 
    would inquire of the subcommittee chairman and the sponsor of the 
    bill what I inquired earlier, if he would choose to enlighten us, 
    is it the sponsor's intent to specifically exclude Congress as an 
    employer from coverage under this study and this bill?
        I heard, from listening to the point of order, that it was at 
    least his intent to exclude Congress from this study. . . . Mr. 
    Chairman, in addressing to the point of order, this legislation was 
    drafted for the purpose of proposing a new study of Federal 
    employees, as contained in the definition section of the bill on 
    page 17, line 14; it includes definition of Government means the 
    Government of the United States which that Government of the United 
    States includes employees of that Government which includes 
    employees who are employed by the legislative branch.
        It seems to me that the committee and the bill's sponsors have 
    had ample opportunity to draft the bill in a way that would include 
    Congress in the coverage.
        Now they earlier said that they chose not to do it because 
    their committee did not have jurisdiction. I would contend to the 
    Chair that this

[[Page 8159]]

    body, the floor, does have jurisdiction if it chooses to include 
    Congress as part of this study. If indeed the committee did not 
    have jurisdiction as the gentleman had said, well then this body 
    does have jurisdiction but the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Ackerman], the chairman of the subcommittee, is objecting then on 
    another ground outside of jurisdiction.
        So, Mr. Chairman, it becomes a catch-22. The committee does not 
    have jurisdiction to include Congress so they bring it to the floor 
    where we have jurisdiction, but because the committee did not 
    address it in the drafting well, the sponsor objects because the 
    committee did not do it. It is a circular argument we have seen 
    before.
        Let me continue on objections on the point of order. Number one 
    was the fact that the bill does include in the definition of 
    government the entirety of the Federal Government, page 17, line 14 
    ``government means the government of the United States.''
        Number two, the rules of the House, rule XVI provide that ``to 
    a proposition to accomplish a result through regulation by a 
    governmental agency, an amendment to accomplish the same 
    fundamental purpose through regulation by another governmental 
    agency is germane.''
        This amendment accomplishes the same fundamental purpose if we 
    accept the sponsors at their word, and that is their purpose to 
    apply a pay equity standard to the Government, meaning the 
    Government of the United States.
        No. 2, Mr. Chairman, on December 19, 1973, the House was 
    considering an Energy Research and Development Administration bill, 
    an amendment was offered to apply the same requirements to the 
    Council on Environmental Quality. A point of order was raised and 
    the point of order against the bill was overruled, Mr. Chairman, 
    because the bill authorizing the Administrator of ERDA to engage in 
    certain activities was the same as the amendment which authorized 
    the Council on Environmental Quality to engage in the same 
    activity. The amendment authorizes the same activity as does the 
    bill.
        No. 3, going back to December 15, 1937, in the debate over the 
    original Fair Labor Standards Act, several questions of germaneness 
    arose over amendments. Once again the Chair cited Cannon's 
    Precedents, volume 8 at section 3056, to wit, ``To a proposition to 
    accomplish a certain purpose by one method a proposition to achieve 
    the same purpose by another closely related method is germane.''
        This amendment accomplishes the same purpose as the main bill. 
    It accomplishes it to a group of employees that have been, for 
    reasons which I cannot understand, have been excluded from coverage 
    from this by the sponsors of this bill for reasons I cannot 
    understand. . . .
        Mrs. [Lynn] Martin of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, another argument 
    to that, it is inconsistent within our rules or with any precedent 
    to define Federal employee in one way which is an employee of the 
    Government, but to then in effect say that the Federal employees of 
    the Congress of the United States are not Federal employees.
        You cannot argue it both ways. They are either Federal 
    employees or they are not Federal employees and should not be 
    excluded under the ruling. . . .

[[Page 8160]]

        Mr. Ackerman: Mr. Chairman, could the gentleman from Texas 
    please tell us what an executive agency means, again? Tell us what 
    that means again, what agency means, that the gentleman just spoke 
    of.
        Mr. Bartlett: Mr. Chairman, in the definition of the bill, the 
    bill's sponsors have drafted the bill explicitly to say that an 
    agency means an executive agency within the meaning of section 105. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the reasons stated by the gentleman from New York and the 
    gentlewoman from Colorado, and under the precedents of the House, 
    cited by the gentleman from New York, the point of order must be 
    sustained. The Chair so rules.
        Mr. Bartlett: Mr. Chairman, I would appeal the decision of the 
    Chair.
        The Chairman: The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair 
    stand as the judgment of the committee?
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Bartlett: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    251, noes 150, not voting 30.

Bill Concerning Termination of Federal Assistance to Institutions 
    Practicing Discrimination--Amendment To Include Members of Congress 
    as Recipients of Federal Assistance for Purposes of Bill

Sec. 13.9 To a bill narrowly amending several civil rights statutes 
    only to clarify the circumstances under which any institution 
    receiving federal financial assistance may have such assistance 
    terminated because of discrimination by such institution, an 
    amendment to deem Members of Congress as recipients of federal 
    financial assistance for the purpose of those statutes was held not 
    germane, since the amendment required no showing that Members of 
    Congress do in fact receive federal financial assistance as defined 
    in those statutes, and thus expanded the scope of coverage of the 
    laws amended to a class unrelated to the group of institutions 
    addressed in the bill and the laws amended.

        On June 26, 1984, (7) the Chairman of the Committee 
    of the Whole, in

[[Page 8161]]

    holding the amendment described above as not being germane 
    demonstrated that, to a bill having as its fundamental purpose the 
    clarification of eligibility of existing recipients for federal 
    financial assistance under several statutes, an amendment deeming a 
    specified entity to be a recipient of federal financial assistance 
    for the purposes of those laws was not germane since it expanded 
    the scope of the coverage of the laws being amended to a class not 
    necessarily covered by the class of recipients in the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 130 Cong. Rec. 18857-62, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 5. (a) Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
        (hereafter in this section referred to as the ``Act'') is 
        amended--. . .
            (3) by striking out ``under any program or activity 
        receiving'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``by any recipient 
        of''. . . .
            (c) Title VI of the Act is amended by adding at the end 
        thereof the following new section:
            ``Sec. 606. For the purpose of this title, the term 
        `recipient' means--
            ``(1) any State or political subdivision thereof, or any 
        instrumentality of a State or political subdivision thereof, or 
        any public or private agency, institution, or organization, or 
        other entity (including any subunit of any such State, 
        subdivision, instrumentality, agency, institution, 
        organization, or entity), and
            ``(2) any successor, assignee, or transferee of any such 
        State, subdivision, instrumentality, agency, institution, 
        organization, or entity or of any such subunit, to which 
        Federal financial assistance is extended (directly or through 
        another entity or a person), or which receives support from the 
        extension of Federal financial assistance to any of its 
        subunits.''. . . .

        Mr. [Steve] Bartlett [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk labeled amendment No. 1 which I offer at this 
    time.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bartlett: Page 10, after line 22, 
        insert the following:
            Sec. 6. With respect to matters relating to the performance 
        of their official duties, Members of Congress shall be deemed 
        to be recipients of Federal financial assistance for purposes 
        of section 901 of the Education Amendments of 1972, section 504 
        of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, section 303 of the Age 
        Discrimination Act of 1975, and section 601 of the Civil Rights 
        Act of 1964. . . .

        Mr. [Paul] Simon [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I renew my point 
    of order, and let me say in renewing it that in theory I am in 
    agreement with the gentleman from Texas. I am a cosponsor of a bill 
    to cover Members of Congress under separate legislation.
        This, however, this legislation covers Federal executive 
    agencies. It does not cover the U.S. Congress. . . .
        What the gentleman is attempting to do is to go beyond the 
    scope, beyond the germaneness of this particular legislation, and I 
    believe the amendment is not in order. . . .
        Mr. Bartlett: . . . Several points. No. 1, section 504 does 
    apply to executive agencies, and that is the General Accounting 
    Office.
        Congress may already--and let us take it point by point--the 
    Congress may already be covered in the bill's definition of 
    recipient, which is, in part, ``any public or private agency, 
    institution, or organization to which Federal financial assistance 
    is extended.''. . .
        Congress is also, obviously a recipient and, therefore, if 
    Congress receives

[[Page 8162]]

    ``Federal financial assistance'' it would be covered under H.R. 
    5490. Nowhere in any of the covered acts is there a specific 
    definition of ``Federal financial assistance,'' but Mr. Chairman, 
    Congress obviously must pay its bills from somewhere and that 
    somewhere is the Federal Government, so that means that there is 
    assistance, Federal financial assistance. . . .
        Mr. Simon: . . . The question is whether the law up to this 
    point has covered the legislative branch. The answer is clearly 
    that it has not.
        So what the gentleman from Texas is doing is going appreciably 
    beyond the present law and the law has not covered Congress for a 
    perfectly sound reason, and that is the separation of powers. . . .
        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: It seems to me that the 
    point of order rests upon the well-established rule that an 
    amendment is not germane if it extends the law to cover an entirely 
    separate and distinctly different class of people than those whom 
    the law in its initial presentation in the bill would be made 
    applicable.
        It seems clear to me that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman would indeed extend the application of that statute to an 
    entirely separate and different class of people. . . .
        Mr. [John] Conyers [Jr., of Michigan]: . . . The amendment is 
    not germane. The separation of powers doctrine, if we do not 
    recognize it even here in this sensitive area, we would be inviting 
    the Department of Justice to come in to enforce the civil rights 
    laws. We tried many times to deal with this problem in other ways. 
    For example, the House fair employment practices agreement is one 
    way of creating the mechanism. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Al Swift (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the bill the term ``recipient'' means those entities to 
    which Federal assistance is extended.
        The gentleman's amendment deems Congress to be a recipient of 
    Federal financial assistance. That does not mean that there may not 
    be some instances in which Congress may in fact receive Federal 
    financial assistance, but it deems Congress to receive Federal 
    financial assistance even without any showing whatever that in fact 
    it has that financial assistance extended to it.
        Doing that expands the bill from defined group in the 
    legislation and in the law today to a much different group and in 
    that sense goes beyond the scope of the legislation, and the 
    gentleman's amendment is not in order.

    On a roll call vote, the Committee of the Whole sustained on appeal 
the ruling of the Chair on the question of germaneness of the 
amendment: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 130 Cong. Rec. 18861, 18862, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    appeal the ruling of the Chair.

        The Chairman: The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair 
    be sustained as the judgment of the Committee? . . .
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page 8163]]

        Mr. Dannemeyer: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. . . .
        The Chairman: The pending business is the demand of the 
    gentleman from California [Mr. Dannemeyer] for a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    277, noes 125, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 30, as follows: . 
    . .
        So the decision of the Chair was sustained.

Bill Prohibiting Uses of Polygraphy in Private Sector--Amendment To 
    Extend Coverage of Bill to Congress

Sec. 13.10 To a bill according protection to a certain class, an 
    amendment extending the protection to another class is not germane; 
    thus, to a bill prohibiting certain uses of polygraphy in the 
    private sector, an amendment applying the terms of the bill to the 
    Congress was held not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 1212 (10) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Nov. 4, 1987, (11) the Chair sustained a 
point of order in the circumstances described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act.
11. 133 Cong. Rec. 9582-84, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (12) Are there any amendments to 
    section 5?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Henry B. Gonzalez (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If not, the Clerk will designate section 6.
        The text of section 6 is as follows:
        sec. 6. exemptions.

            (a) No Application to Governmental Employers.--The 
        provisions of this Act shall not apply with respect to the 
        United States Government, a State or local government, or any 
        political subdivision of a State or local government.
            (b) National Defense and Security Exemption.--(1) Nothing 
        in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the administration, 
        in the performance of any counterintelligence function, of any 
        lie detector test to--

        (A) any expert or consultant under contract to the Department 
    of Defense or any employee of any contractor of such department. . 
    . .
        (2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the 
    administration, in the performance of any Intelligence or 
    counterintelligence function, of any lie detector test to--
        (A)(i) any individual employed by, or assigned or detailed to, 
    the National Security Agency or the Central Intelligence Agency, 
    (ii) any expert or consultant under contract to the National 
    Security Agency or the Central Intelligence Agency, (iii) any 
    employee of a contractor of the National Security Agency or the 
    Central Intelligence Agency, or (iv) any individual applying for a 
    position in the National Security Agency or the Central 
    Intelligence Agency. . . .

[[Page 8164]]

        Mr. [Steve] Bartlett [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bartlett: On page 7, line 1, 
        strike ``United States Government,'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        the following: ``United States Government, except for the 
        Congress of the United States insofar as it is engaged in 
        functions not directly related to national security as 
        determined by such Congress,''. . . .

        Mr. [Gary L.] Ackerman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to 
    pursue my point of order.
        It appears to me that the amendment is not germane, because it 
    broadens the scope of the coverage to Government employees; and at 
    the present time, the bill only covers the private sector. . . .
        Mr. Bartlett: . . . Mr. Chairman, I would cite in the rules of 
    the House in section 10.10 on page 579 the rule of the House that 
    states the following:
        ``To a bill extending benefits to a certain class of employees, 
    an amendment to extend those benefits to an additional category of 
    employees within that class is germane''--is germane. . . .
        The bill has established a class of employees, of all 
    employees, and then exempted all Government employees from that 
    class.
        I would then very narrowly remove a portion of the exemption as 
    the category within the class that is being exempted, so if the 
    bill exempts all Government employees, then the Congress can remove 
    part of that exemption.
        Either the exemption section is out of order, or my amendment 
    is out of order. . . .
        Mr. Ackerman: Mr. Chairman, the operative words that we just 
    heard here were not employees but rather ``class of employees.''
        As described in the proposed legislation, the class pertains to 
    private-sector employees, thereby exempting the entire class of 
    public-sector employees. . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    hope the point of order would not be sustained.
        If the Chair will examine the bill, the Chair will find in 
    section 6 of the bill that there is indeed an exemption for all 
    Government employees, and this was done to make certain the bill 
    was sent only to the Committee on Education and Labor.
        On page 7 of the bill, the Chair would find under part (2), 
    (A)(i) any individual employed by, or assigned or detailed to, the 
    National Security Agency or the Central Intelligence Agency; and in 
    the bill itself they begin the process of defining certain 
    Government employees. . . .
        All the gentleman from Texas is doing is singling out another 
    group of people who the gentleman is saying should not be exempted, 
    so therefore, because the bill was broadened by the language on 
    page 7, it is this gentleman's interpretation that the Chair should 
    rule against the point of order raised by the gentleman from New 
    York, because the bill already classifies Government employees in 
    the same way that the gentleman from Texas seeks to classify 
    Government employees.
        Mr. Bartlett: . . . What constitutes a class, I call to the 
    Chair's at

[[Page 8165]]

    tention page 3, section 3, lines 2 and 3 of the bill, in which the 
    bill clearly establishes the class of employers that are covered.
        The class of employers that are covered is established by the 
    following one sentence:
        ``It shall be unlawful for any employer engaged in commerce or 
    in the production of goods for commerce . . .''
        The bill then later narrows, or takes that class and removes 
    one category of that class. Therefore, my amendment is in order, 
    because it applies to the same class that the bill covers; that is, 
    any employer engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for 
    commerce. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair has carefully evaluated the arguments, 
    having anticipated the same, and wishes to state that with 
    reference to the citation that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Bartlett] referred to, section 10.10 chapter 28 of the Procedures 
    in the House, the gentleman did not emphasize, and the Chair will 
    read, ``to a bill extending benefits to a certain class of 
    employees, an amendment to extend those benefits to an additional 
    category of employees within that class is germane.''
        Obviously, the Chair cannot select a narrow reading of one part 
    of the bill, as the gentleman from Texas has just done, but must 
    consider the bill as a whole.
        In doing so, we find that both the thrust of the bill, as well 
    as the report accompanying the bill explaining the bill, clearly 
    define the range and scope of coverage to the private sector.
        In the case of exemptions as put forth on page 14 of the 
    report, section 6 exempts all governmental employers, whether 
    Federal, State, local or a political subdivision.
        This section consistent with this exemption also provides a 
    rule of construction with respect to private-sector employers doing 
    counterintelligence or intelligence work with the CIA, DOD, DOE 
    atomic energy defense activities, FBI and NSA.
        Clearly, the committee was trying to stay within the limits of 
    its jurisdiction by attempting to legislate for the private sector 
    employer/employee, and trying to stay within the limitations 
    imposed by prior legislation by the Congress in which it had 
    legislated with respect to the Defense Department, intelligence 
    community and the like, so therefore, the Chair is prepared to rule 
    that in light of the fact that intentionally, or unintentionally, 
    the amendment of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bartlett] would in 
    effect do by indirection what cannot be done by direction, and 
    therefore, is not in keeping with Jefferson's Manual and the 
    citations following the germaneness rules, as well as Deschler's 
    Procedure, chapter 28, section 7.9 which clearly prohibits 
    broadening of exemptions in cases such as this. Therefore, the 
    Chair is compelled to sustain the point of order raised by the 
    gentleman from New York.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The principle cited above should be 
distinguished from the principle that, where a bill accords protection 
to a certain class, an amendment extending such protection to an 
additional category within that same class may be germane. See Sec. 12, 
supra, for further discussion.

[[Page 8166]]

Bill Increasing Armed Forces--Amendment Prohibiting Discrimination by 
    Persons Outside Armed Forces

Sec. 13.11 To a bill to provide for the common defense by increasing 
    the strength of the armed forces through voluntary enlistments and 
    induction, an amendment providing that no member of the armed 
    forces should be discriminated against because of his race, creed, 
    religion, or the like, by, among others, any common carrier, hotel, 
    or restaurant, was held to be not germane as imposing sanctions 
    upon a different class.

    During consideration of the Selective Service Act of 1948, 
(13) the following amendment was offered: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 6401 (Committee on Armed Services).
14. 94 Cong. Rec. 8681, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On page 21, line 6, add the following new section 6 and 
    renumber the sections that follow accordingly:
        ``Sec. 6. No member of the armed forces shall be discriminated 
    against in any manner because of his race, color, national origin, 
    ancestry, language, or religion by (1) any officer or employee of 
    the United States, of any State or any governmental subdivision 
    thereof, of any Territory or possession of the United States, or of 
    the District of Columbia, (2) any other member of the armed forces, 
    (3) any common carrier, (4) any hotel or other place of public 
    lodging . . . or (7) any business or service engaged in commerce. . 
    . .''

    In response to a point of order made by Mr. Robert L. F. Sikes, of 
Florida, the following argument was made by the proponent of the 
amendment:

        Mr. [Leo] Isacson [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, this amendment 
    deals with certain rights and consequences which flow from the 
    induction of Negroes into the armed forces of the United States. I 
    submit that there are other sections in this bill which deal with 
    the same subject, and it is therefore germane. I might also add 
    that the amendment was considered in the Senate and was held to be 
    germane.

    The Chairman, (15) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whatever action was taken in another body does not control the 
    action of this body.
        The Chair is prepared to rule. In the opinion of the Chair, the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Isacson] 
    clearly goes beyond the scope of the bill. It purports to impose 
    sanctions on persons who are not members of the armed forces, such 
    as common carriers, and other classes. Therefore, the Chair holds 
    that the amendment is not germane and sustains the point of order.

[[Page 8167]]

--Penalties Imposed on Persons Outside Armed Services for Maintaining 
    Brothels and the Like

Sec. 13.12 To a bill to provide for the common defense by increasing 
    the strength of the armed forces, an amendment proposing penalties 
    for the maintenance, by persons outside the armed forces, of 
    brothels and the like near army posts was held to be not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of the Selective Service 
Act of 1948, (16) the following amendment was offered: 
(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 6401 (Committee on Armed Services).
17. 94 Cong. Rec. 8685, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Edward H.] Rees [of Kansas]: At the 
    end of line 12, page 23, add the following and number the 
    succeeding sections accordingly:
        ``Sec. 8. (a) The training under this act shall be . . . 
    carried out on the highest possible moral . . . plane.
        ``(b) It shall be unlawful within such reasonable distance of 
    any military camp . . . as the Secretary of National Defense may 
    determine to be necessary to the protection of the health, morals, 
    and welfare of such persons who are receiving training under this 
    act . . . to establish or keep houses of ill fame [and the like]. . 
    . . Any person, corporation, partnership, or association violating 
    any of the provisions of this subsection shall be deemed guilty of 
    a misdemeanor. . . .''

    In response to a point of order that the amendment was not germane 
to the bill,(18) Mr. Rees stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. The point of order was raised by Mr. Walter G. Andrews (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I call attention to the fact that the committee 
    in charge of this bill approved practically all of the amendment I 
    am submitting under what is known as the Towe bill. . . .

    The following exchange then occurred with respect to the point of 
order:  (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 94 Cong. Rec. 8685, 8686, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: May I say to the distinguished 
    gentleman that the Towe bill was a training bill and had no 
    military obligation. This bill is to build up an Army.
        Mr. Rees: . . . I see no real difference. . . . Is it not a 
    fact that these boys under this bill are to go into training? . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I do not see how a point of order could lie 
    against this proposed amendment. It is within the broad scope of 
    this legislation. Certainly, if you can pass a law to take these 
    boys from their homes in peacetime without their consent, then you 
    can provide for protection in this amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Stephen] Pace [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I respectfully 
    submit

[[Page 8168]]

    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas is germane 
    to the purpose, intent, and policy of the bill. The bill proposes, 
    not a system of volunteers but a plan of induction for taking young 
    men from their homes and placing them in military-training camps. 
    Certainly it is within the jurisdiction of the Congress, where it 
    invokes conscription for the assembling of great masses of young 
    men in military-training camps, as this bill specifically provides, 
    to prescribe the circumstances and conditions under which they 
    shall be trained. . . .
        The Chairman [Francis H. Case, of South Dakota]: . . . The 
    Chair must remind the Committee that the provisions in the bill as 
    reported by the committee were made in order by a special rule 
    adopted by the House of Representatives. There may be provisions in 
    the bill which would not be germane if offered as an amendment by 
    individual Members, but are in order in the bill because they were 
    made in order by the rule adopted by the House.
        So every amendment offered must stand on its own bottom as to 
    whether or not it is germane.
        The Chair invites attention to the fact that the amendment 
    includes such language as ``It shall be unlawful to maintain 
    certain institutions,'' and further on says, ``Any person, 
    corporation, partnership, or association violating any of the 
    provisions of this subsection shall be deemed guilty of a 
    misdemeanor' and so forth. In that respect it seems to the Chair 
    that the amendment goes beyond the provisions of the bill, imposing 
    penalties and sanctions on persons outside the armed forces.
        Therefore, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

    After the above ruling, Mr. Rees offered the amendment without the 
words making violation of its provisions a misdemeanor and imposing 
penalties for such violations. (20) No point of order based 
on a question of germaneness was raised in this instance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 8686.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Amendment To Exempt Members of Armed Forces From Poll Taxes

Sec. 13.13 To a bill to provide for the common defense by increasing 
    the strength of the armed forces, an amendment providing that no 
    person inducted under the act should be required during such 
    service to pay any poll tax or other tax as a condition of voting 
    was held to be germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of the Selective Service 
Act of 1948, (1) Mr. George H. Bender, of Ohio, offered an 
amendment (2) containing the provisions described above. A 
point of order against the amendment was raised by Mr. John Bell 
Williams, of Mississippi, who contended that

[[Page 8169]]

the amendment was not germane. The Chairman,(3) in ruling on 
the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 6401 (Committee on Armed Services).
 2. 94 Cong. Rec. 8705, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1948.
 3. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair has examined the amendment. It seems to deal 
    entirely with persons who are inducted or enlisted in the armed 
    forces under this act. The Chair holds that the amendment is 
    germane and overrules the point of order.

Provision To Postpone Further Induction Into Armed Forces Until Certain 
    Date--Amendment To Increase Pay of All Members of Armed Forces

Sec. 13.14 To an amendment proposing that further induction into the 
    armed forces be postponed until a certain date, an amendment 
    proposing to amend the Pay Readjustment Act of 1942 to increase the 
    pay of all members of the armed forces was held not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, during consideration of a bill (4) 
relating to extension of the Selective Training and Service Act, the 
following amendment was under consideration: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 6064 (Committee on Military Affairs).
 5. See 92 Cong. Rec. 3649, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 13, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: On page 1, 
    in line 11 . . . insert the following proviso: ``Provided, That so 
    much of the second sentence of section 3(a) of the Selective 
    Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended, as precedes the first 
    proviso in such sentence is amended to read as follows:
        ``The President is authorized after, and not before, October 
    15, 1946, to select and induct (men) into the armed forces of the 
    United States . . . and no monthly requisitions for men shall be 
    made on selective service by either the Secretary of War or the 
    Secretary of the Navy between May 15, 1946, and October 15, 1946. . 
    . .''

    To such amendment, the following amendment was offered: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 3650.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Forest A.] Harness of Indiana: At the 
    end of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia, insert 
    a new section, as follows:
        That (a) the first paragraph of section 9 of the Pay 
    Readjustment Act of 1942, as amended, is hereby amended to read as 
    follows:
        ``The monthly base pay of enlisted men of the Army, Navy, 
    Marine Corps, and Coast Guard shall be as follows: Enlisted men of 
    the first grade, $165. . . .''

    A point of order was raised against the Harness amendment, as 
follows:

        Mr. [Overton] Brooks [of Louisiana]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment to the amendment on a bill 
    dealing with selective service seeks to write a gen

[[Page 8170]]

    eral Army pay bill, and this pay bill, if passed, would cover 
    millions of soldiers, sailors, and marines not brought within the 
    terms of selective service either during the war or at the present 
    time, and therefore, is not germane or related to the subject 
    matter of drafting men into the service.

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

        Mr. Harness of Indiana: . . . Mr. Chairman, I believe every 
    Member wants to vote on this increase in pay to stimulate volunteer 
    enlistments. The original Selective Service Act contained a 
    provision on pay for men inducted under the act. I cannot see any 
    reason why we should not consider the matter in connection with the 
    extension of selective service, especially in connection with the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia to suspend the act, 
    pending a trial period for obtaining voluntary enlistments. . . .

    The Chairman,(7) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ready to rule. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana is neither germane to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Georgia, nor is it germane to the bill as 
    reported, and which the House is now considering. The Chair 
    sustains the point of order.

Bill Requiring Audits of Government Corporations--Amendment To Require 
    Audits of Corporations Owned or ``Controlled'' by Government.

Sec. 13.15 To that section of a bill requiring that financial 
    transactions of government corporations be audited by the General 
    Accounting Office, an amendment to require that corporations owned 
    ``or controlled'' by the government be audited by such office was 
    held to be not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (8) was under consideration 
to provide for the effective administration of certain lending agencies 
of the federal government. An amendment was offered (9) as 
described above. A point of order was raised against the amendment, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. S. 375 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 9. 91 Cong. Rec. 1192, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 16, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: . . . (T)his amendment . . . 
    is an amendment of the act creating the General Accounting Office. 
    It is not germane to this bill. Its effect cannot be foretold at 
    the present time. . . . It seems to me ``Government-controlled 
    corporation'' is hard to define.

[[Page 8171]]

    The Chairman, Alfred L. Bulwinkle, of North Carolina, stating that 
the amendment ``broadens the scope of the bill,'' (10) 
sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 1193.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grants to Private Health Care Providers--Amendment To Authorize Grants 
    to States for Control of Specified Public Health Hazard

Sec. 13.16 To a bill authorizing categorical grants to certain private 
    entities furnishing health care to medically underserved 
    populations, a committee amendment authorizing direct grants to 
    states for control of a certain public health hazard was held not 
    germane because it related to different categories of recipients.

    On Mar. 5, 1986,(11) during consideration of H.R. 2418 
in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order 
against an amendment, thus demonstrating that to a bill authorizing 
certain financial assistance to be administered by one category of 
recipient for a particular purpose, an amendment authorizing assistance 
to be administered by a different category of agency recipient beyond 
the areas covered by the bill is not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 132 Cong. Rec. 3603, 3604, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the bill is as follows: . . .
    Section 1. Short Title: Reference to Act.

            (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Health 
        Services Amendments Act of 1985''. . . .
    Sec. 2. Medically Underserved Populations.

            Section 330(b) (42 U.S.C. 254c(b)) is amended--
            (1) by striking out the second, third, fourth, and fifth 
        sentences of paragraph (3); and
            (2) by adding at the end thereof the following:
            ``(4) in carrying out paragraph (3), the Secretary shall by 
        regulation prescribe criteria for determining the specific 
        shortages of personal health services of an area or population 
        group. . . .
            ``(5) The Secretary may not designate a medically 
        underserved population in a State or terminate the designation 
        of such a population unless, prior to such designation or 
        termination, the Secretary provides reasonable notice and 
        opportunity for comment and consults with--
            ``(A) the chief executive officer of such State;
            ``(B) local officials in such State . . .
    Sec. 3. Memorandum of Agreement.

            Section 330 (42 U.S.C. 254c) is amended by redesignating 
        subsection (h) as subsection (i) and by inserting after 
        subsection (g) the following new subsection:
            ``(h) In carrying out this section, the Secretary may enter 
        in a memorandum of agreement with a State. Such memorandum may 
        include, where appropriate, provisions permitting such State 
        to--

[[Page 8172]]

            ``(1) analyze the need for primary health services for 
        medically underserved populations within such State;
            ``(2) assist in the planning and development of new 
        community health centers . . .
    Sec. 4. Authorization of Appropriations.

            Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 330(i) (as redesignated 
        by section 202 of this Act) are amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) There are authorized to be appropriated for payments 
        pursuant to grants under this section $405,000,000 for fiscal 
        year 1986, $437,000,000 for fiscal year 1987, and $472,000,000 
        for fiscal year 1988. . . .
    Sec. 6. Migrant Health Centers.

            The first sentence of section 329(h)(1) (42 U.S.C. 
        254b(h)(1)) is amended by striking out ``and'' after ``1983,'' 
        and by inserting before the period a comma and ``$50,000,000 
        for the fiscal year ending September 20, 1986, $56,000,000 for 
        the fiscal year ending September 30, 1987, and $61,000,000 for 
        the fiscal year ending September 30, 1988''. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (12) The Clerk will report 
    the next committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 6, insert after line 5 the 
        following new section:
    Sec. 8. Plague.

            Section 317 (42 U.S.C. 247b) is amended by adding at the 
        end the following:
            ``(k) The Secretary, acting through the Director of the 
        Centers for Disease Control, may make grants to and enter into 
        contracts and cooperative agreements with States for the 
        control of plague. For grants, cooperative agreements, and 
        contracts under this subsection there are authorized to be 
        appropriated $1,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1986, 
        1987, and 1988.''. . . .

        Mr. [Mickey] Leland [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order that the amendment is not germane to the subject matter or 
    purpose of this bill and is in violation of clause 7 of rule XVI.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: . . . If no one wishes to be heard on 
    the point of order, the Chair is ready to rule.
        The amendment does not pertain to the subject matter of the 
    introduced bill and addresses a subject that is not covered by the 
    bill and the point of order is sustained.

Bill Relating to Agricultural Workers From Mexico--Amendment Requiring 
    Payment of Minimum Wage to United States Citizens Employed in 
    Agriculture

Sec. 13.17 To a bill extending an act authorizing the Secretary of 
    Labor to assist in supplying agricultural workers from Mexico, an 
    amendment requiring certain employers who contract for employees 
    under the act to pay United States citizens employed as 
    agricultural workers at a rate not less than a certain minimum was 
    held not germane.

[[Page 8173]]

    In the 83d Congress, a bill (13) was under consideration 
relating to importation of foreign agricultural workers. The following 
amendment was offered to the bill: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 3480 (Committee on Agriculture).
14. 99 Cong. Rec. 3157, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 15, 1953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 503. (a) Any employer who contracts employees under the 
    terms of this title for the planting, cultivating, and/or 
    harvesting of crops . . . which are supported at 90 percent of 
    parity under the terms of the preceding titles of this act, and who 
    also employs citizens of the United States for the same work on 
    such crops, shall pay to such citizens . . . an hourly wage at 
    least equal to 90 percent of the basic minimum wage provided for by 
    the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended. . . .

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

        Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane to the bill under consideration. It is an attempt to deal 
    with matters entirely outside the purview of this legislation, 
    legislation which would properly come within the jurisdiction of 
    another committee. It attempts to fix wages and deal with matters 
    that come within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Labor. It 
    might properly be an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act, but 
    not to this bill.

    The Chairman,(15) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Leo E. Allen (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment proposes to bring in a new class not contemplated 
    in the bill. Therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.

Provision Defining ``Confiscated Property of Foreign State''--Amendment 
    Relating to Just Compensation for Workmen Who Produced Such 
    Property

Sec. 13.18 To that section of a bill defining ``confiscated property of 
    a foreign state or government'' in part as property taken by force 
    without just compensation, an amendment proposing that such 
    property be defined further as that taken without payment of just 
    compensation ``to the workmen engaged in its production, as 
    determined by the wages and hours provisions of the Fair Labor 
    Standards Act,'' was held to be not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (16) was under 
consideration which sought to extend provisions of the National Stolen 
Property Act, and which stated in part: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. S. 3936 (Committee on the Judiciary).
17. See 86 Cong. Rec. 12990, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Oct. 1, 1940.

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

[[Page 8174]]

        Sec. 3. The term ``confiscated property'' shall be deemed to 
    include property which has been taken by means of force, or by 
    means of any law, decree, order, ordinance, or other act, direct or 
    indirect, of any foreign state or government, whether recognized or 
    unrecognized, or of any political subdivision of such state, or of 
    any official board . . . or agency of any such state, government, 
    or political subdivision, without payment of just compensation or 
    reasonable provision therefor having been made.

    To such bill, an amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: On 
    page 3, line 15, after ``payment of just compensation'', insert 
    ``to the workmen engaged in its production, as determined by the 
    wages and hours provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.''

    Speaking in response to a point of order raised by Mr. Sam Hobbs, 
of Alabama, Mr. Case, the proponent of the amendment, stated:

        I should like to point out that this section deals with a 
    definition of what confiscated property is, and my amendment goes 
    to the definition. The definition of confiscated property, as 
    suggested by the language in the bill, covers that which has been 
    taken by means of force or by means of any law without payment of 
    just compensation. It may be presumed--but the bill does not say--
    that just compensation relates to the owners of the property. My 
    amendment merely adds to that definition and presumption by 
    providing that the payment of just compensation shall also include 
    payment of just compensation to the workmen who are engaged in the 
    production of the property. Consequently, I maintain that the 
    amendment is germane, and germane at that point.

    Mr. Hobbs stated in response:

        . . . This bill obtains and applies only to the property itself 
    and not to the mode of its production. In other words, if property 
    is about to be brought into the United States, having been 
    confiscated elsewhere, and if the President ascertains that fact 
    and the further fact that it will have a deleterious effect on our 
    public interests, then he may embargo the bringing into this 
    country of that product. However, he could not do what this 
    amendment would have him do, go into a foreign country and enforce 
    wage and hour regulations there.
        This bill does not say a word about compensation to anybody 
    except the true owner of the property taken, and we respectfully 
    submit that it is manifestly not germane and could not . . . be 
    brought within the purview . . . of this bill.

    The Chairman (18) ruled that the amendment was not 
germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Ambrose J. Kennedy (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair thinks that the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Hobbs] 
    has correctly stated the parliamentary proposition. It is the 
    opinion of the Chair that the amendment is not germane, and 
    therefore the point of order is sustained.

[[Page 8175]]

Relief for Civilian Internees--Amendment Extending to Military 
    Prisoners of War

Sec. 13.19 To a section of a bill dealing with relief of civilian 
    internees, an amendment seeking to extend such relief to military 
    or naval prisoners of war was held not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, a bill (19) was under 
consideration which provided in part: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 4044 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
20. 94 Cong. Rec. 571, 572, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 26, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Title III

                                short title

        Sec. 301. This title may be cited as the ``Internees' Relief 
    Act of 1947.''

                                definitions

        Sec. 302. When used in this title--
        (1) The term ``civilian'' means only a person who, at the time 
    of the occurrence of the event which gave rise to a claim for 
    benefits under this title, was a citizen of the United States.
        (2) The term ``detention'' means any restraint of personal 
    liberty (a) due to capture by the enemy. . . .
        Sec. 303. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, the 
    provisions of titles I and II of the act entitled ``An act to 
    provide benefits for the injury, disability, death, or enemy 
    detention of employees of contractors with the United States, and 
    for other purposes'', approved December 2, 1942 (56 Stat. 1028), as 
    amended, are extended and shall apply in respect to the injury, 
    disability, or death resulting from injury, or detention of a 
    civilian. . . .
        Sec. 305. (a) The provisions of this title shall apply with 
    respect to injury, disability or death from injury, or detention, 
    only if the event giving rise to the right to benefits occurred at 
    Midway, Guam, Wake Island, the Philippine Islands, or at any other 
    Territory or possession of the United States, attacked or invaded 
    by the Imperial Japanese Government. . . .

    An amendment was offered, as follows:(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 572.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Antonio M.] Fernandez [of New 
    Mexico]: . . .
        (c) In this title wherever the words ``civilian'' or 
    ``civilians'' are used those words shall be construed to include 
    members of the military or naval forces who were citizens of the 
    United States.

    The amendment also sought to strike language specifically excluding 
military personnel from the terms of the bill. Mr. Carl Hinshaw, of 
California, who had reserved a point of order against the amendment, 
renewed the point of order, stating: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 573.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . To say that the term ``a person within the purview of 
    this title'' and so forth, shall include . . . members of any 
    military or naval force . . . would really

[[Page 8176]]

    change the entire title, which is intended to be an internees' 
    relief bill. . . .

    Mr. Fernandez responded:

        Mr. Chairman, the term includes prisoners of war, and if the 
    gentleman's contention is correct, then the so-called Van Zandt 
    amendment was also subject to a point of order. . . .

    The following ruling was then made by the Chairman: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Thomas A. Jenkins (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Referring to the remarks of the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
    Fernandez] relative to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania [Mr. Van Zandt] the Chair may say that no point of 
    order was lodged against the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania.
        Referring to the point of order made by the gentleman from 
    California, even if the language which the gentleman from New 
    Mexico seeks to strike out were not in the bill the Chair doubts 
    very much if the gentleman's amendment would be germane because the 
    title of section 3 definitely refers to one class and only one 
    class. This legislation affects the rights of that class known and 
    designated as internees, and then they have strengthened the bill, 
    evidently intending to strength(en) their position, by adopting the 
    language used on page 10, which the gentleman seeks to strike out. 
    Consequently, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.