[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§ 14. Amendments Conferring Powers Not Granted in Bill]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 8176-8187]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 14. Amendments Conferring Powers Not Granted in Bill

    The amendments discussed in this section are those which seek to 
confer authority or powers upon persons, agencies or other entities, of 
a type or in a manner not addressed or contemplated in the 
bill.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Discussed elsewhere are topics such as amendments which substitute 
        one agency for another to administer provisions of the bill 
        (Sec. 7, supra), or which limit powers (Sec. 33, 
        infra).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joint Resolution Discharging Indebtedness of Commodity Credit 
    Corporation--Amendment Authorizing Corporation To Transfer or Sell 
    Surplus Commodities

Sec. 14.1 To a joint resolution directing the Secretary of the Treasury 
    to discharge indebtedness of the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
    the Secretary by cancellation of specified notes, an amendment 
    authorizing the corporation to transfer certain surplus commodities 
    to the Department of National Defense and providing for the sale of 
    surplus commodities

[[Page 8177]]

    for use abroad was held not germane.

    In the 83d Congress, a bill (5) was under consideration 
to discharge certain indebtedness of the Commodity Credit Corporation. 
The bill stated: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.J. Res. 358 (Committee on Appropriations).
 6. See 100 Cong. Rec. 897, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 27, 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc.--

                         Department of Agriculture

                        commodity credit corporation

        The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed 
    to discharge indebtedness of the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
    the Secretary of the Treasury by canceling notes issued by the 
    Corporation to the Secretary of the Treasury . . . (2) in the 
    amount of $129,553,795 for the net costs during the fiscal year 
    1953 . . . under the International Wheat Agreement Act of 1949 (7 
    U.S.C. 1641, 1642); and (3) in the amount of $2,064,060 for the 
    funds transferred and expenses incurred through the fiscal year 
    1953 . . . under the head ``Eradication of foot-and-mouth and other 
    contagious diseases of animals and poultry'' pursuant to authority 
    granted in the Department of Agriculture Appropriation Act, 1953.

    An amendment was offered as described above. The amendment stated 
in part:

        Sec. 3. In order to make American farm commodities available to 
    users in other countries on the same basis as farm commodities from 
    other nations, all other agricultural commodities of whatever kind 
    or character, title to which is in the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation, unless already committed for sale, shall be offered 
    for sale for use outside the continental United States, its 
    Territories, and possessions, at prevailing or competitive world 
    prices; Provided, however, That the President . . . may restrict . 
    . . sales of such commodities for use in Communist-dominated 
    countries. . . .

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

        Mr. [Walter F.] Horan [of Washington]: . . . The amendment 
    seeks to introduce proposals which not only are not included in the 
    joint resolution but are foreign to the basic act establishing the 
    Commodity Credit Corporation. In effect it is an amendment of the 
    law establishing the Corporation and therefore is in no sense 
    germane to the proposition included in the joint resolution.

    The Chairman, Leo E. Allen, of Illinois, sustained the point of 
order.(7) Subsequently, another amendment was offered which 
related to sale of commodities for use abroad, and which stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 898.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: 
    Before the semicolon, line 5, add the following: ``Provided, 
    commodities of at least an equal value are offered for sale by the 
    Commodity Credit Corporation from its stocks at prevailing or 
    competitive

[[Page 8178]]

    world prices, for use outside the continental United States, its 
    possessions or Territories.''

    Mr. Horan again raised the point of order that the amendment was 
not germane to the bill.
    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows:

        Mr. Whitten: . . . This resolution before us today authorizes 
    the Secretary of the Treasury to cancel certain notes of the 
    Commodity Credit Corporation in the amount of $741 million.
        The amendment which I have offered would authorize that action 
    only under certain conditions. Those conditions are that 
    commodities of an equal value be offered in world markets at 
    prevailing prices, by the Commodity Credit Corporation.

    The Chairman, however, again sustained the point of order.

Bill Concerning Federal Farm Appraisers--Amendment Making Officers of 
    Farm Loan Associations Eligible for Appointment as Federal 
    Appraisers; Requiring Approval of Certain Appraisals

Sec. 14.2 To that section of a bill authorizing federal farm appraisers 
    to make appraisals for the public, an amendment was held to be not 
    germane which related to the eligibility of officers of national 
    farm loan associations for appointment as appraisers and which in 
    certain instances required approval, by a second federal farm 
    appraiser, of appraisals made by such officers.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (8) was under consideration 
which stated: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 4873 (Committee on Agriculture).
 9. 92 Cong. Rec. 2446, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 19, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Appraisal System

        Sec. 6. Land bank appraisers appointed pursuant to the 
    provisions of section 3 to the Federal Farm Loan Act, as amended, 
    shall hereafter be known as Federal farm appraisers and, in 
    addition to their duties under laws heretofore enacted, they may, 
    under rules prescribed by the Board, make appraisals for the public 
    as provided in this section. Reports of Federal farm appraisers for 
    the public shall be confined to the appraisal of property. . . .

    The following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas] On page 
    9, line 18, strike out all of line 18 and the remainder of page 9 
    and on page 10 down to and including line 9, and insert the 
    following: ``Secretary-treasurers of national farm loan 
    associations . . . shall be eligible for appointment as Federal 
    farm appraisers; but when any mortgage loan is made by the Federal 
    land bank upon the basis of an appraisal by a Federal farm 
    appraiser who is the secretary-treasurer

[[Page 8179]]

    of a national farm loan association, the mortgage may be pledged 
    with a farm loan registrar as collateral for Federal farm loan 
    bonds unless and until another appraisal of the property has been 
    made by a Federal farm appraiser who is not secretary-treasurer of 
    any national farm loan association and he approves the report of 
    the first appraisal or submits a report of his own which is 
    favorable.''

    Mr. John W. Flannagan, Jr., of Virginia, raised the point of order 
that the amendment was not germane to the bill. In support of the point 
of order, Mr. Clifford R. Hope, of Kansas, made the following remarks:

        . . . The purport of section 6 is to set up a system of public 
    appraisal. . . . The gentleman from Texas offers an amendment which 
    would strike out section 6 and would simply provide for a new 
    method of selecting appraisers, or rather, for using a certain 
    other official as an appraiser, making him eligible to be an 
    appraiser. But it does not in any sense go to the question involved 
    in section 6. . . .

    The Chairman, Jerome B. Clark, of North Carolina, in ruling on the 
point of order, stated: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 2447.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas sets up an entirely different method and runs 
    in a different direction. The Chair holds that the amendment is not 
    germane and therefore, sustains the point of order.

Bill Authorizing Rivers and Harbors Projects--Amendment Authorizing 
    Secretary of Interior To Dispose of Electrical Energy Generated

Sec. 14.3 To a bill authorizing construction of public works on rivers 
    and harbors, an amendment providing for disposition, by the 
    Secretary of the Interior, of electrical energy generated at these 
    projects was held germane.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of the river and harbor 
construction bill,(11) an amendment was offered which stated 
in part: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 3961 (Committee on Rivers and Harbors).
12. 90 Cong. Rec. 2846, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 21, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Joseph J.] Mansfield of Texas: Page 
    29, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following paragraph:
        Electric power . . . generated at projects authorized by this 
    act . . . shall be delivered to the Secretary of the Interior, who 
    shall . . . dispose of such power . . . in such manner as to 
    encourage the most widespread use thereof at the lowest possible 
    rates to consumers consistent with sound business principles. . . .

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

[[Page 8180]]

        Mr. [William J.] Miller of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill. 
    This bill deals with rivers and harbors projects and with the 
    powers of the Secretary of War. This amendment attempts to 
    legislate and define the powers of the Secretary of the Interior.

    The Chairman, John M. Costello, of California, in ruling on the 
point of order, stated: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 2847.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [T]he bill deals entirely with the matter of the construction 
    of dams and the distribution of water, and actually the generation 
    and disposition of power on various rivers and various projects. It 
    appears to the Chair it would be futile to create these dams and 
    not also allow for the distribution of the power that is being 
    generated at these dams, and that, therefore, the amendment is 
    germane to the legislation before the Committee.

Bill Authorizing President To Order Military Reservists to Active Duty 
    With Civilian Conservation Corps--Amendment Authorizing President 
    To Make Permanent Assignment to Corps

Sec. 14.4 To that section of a bill authorizing the President to order 
    reserve military officers to active duty with the Civilian 
    Conservation Corps, an amendment authorizing the President to 
    assign certain reserve officers to a permanent section of the corps 
    was held to be germane.

    In the 75th Congress, a bill (14) was under 
consideration to establish the Civilian Conservation Corps. The 
following amendment was offered: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 6551 (Committee on Labor).
15. 81 Cong. Rec. 4394, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., May 11, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Bertrand W.] Gearhart [of 
    California]: Page 5, after ``respectively'', strike out the period, 
    insert a colon and the following: ``Provided, That qualified 
    Reserve officers of the Army and qualified officers of the Naval 
    and Marine Reserves on duty with the Civilian Conservation Corps as 
    of June 30, 1937, and for at least 6 months prior thereto, and 
    qualified Reserve officers of these services who have completed at 
    least 2 years of active duty with the Civilian Conservation Corps 
    and are not now on such duty, be assigned to a permanent section of 
    the corps to be organized under the direction of the President, and 
    such officers will be assigned to this section for a period without 
    limitation. Reserve officers of the Army and officers of the Naval 
    and Marine Reserves who are not now on Civilian Conservation Corps 
    duty and who qualify may be taken into the permanent section of the 
    corps as vacancies occur.''

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

        Mr. [Lister] Hill of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order

[[Page 8181]]

    that the amendment is not germane to the section and is not germane 
    to the bill.
        This section of the bill simply authorizes the President to 
    call Reserve officers to duty and then prescribes what their 
    relative rank shall be when they are called to duty following the 
    provisions of the National Defense Act. The amendment, as I 
    understood from hearing it read, would set up a special 
    organization of Reserve officers in the Civilian Conservation 
    Corps. The amendment would change the organization of the Reserve 
    officers so far as those now on duty or who have been on duty with 
    the C.C.C. are concerned. . . .

    In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Gearhart, stated:

        Mr. Chairman, the second section of the bill confers upon the 
    President the power to assign Reserve officers to C.C.C. duty. The 
    amendment which I offer merely grants additional authority to the 
    President, after he has exercised the original authority conferred 
    upon him by the first portion of the bill. It simply provides 
    further authority in the President over the C.C.C. officers after 
    these officers have been assigned to their duties.

    The Chairman,(16) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Edward E. Cox (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is convinced that the amendment is germane to the 
    section in question. It simply modifies in a certain degree the 
    discretion vested in the President in section 6 of the bill. 
    Therefore, the point of order is overruled.

Provisions To Regulate Financial Disclosure and Ethical Conduct of 
    Executive Branch Employees--Amendment Providing for Special 
    Prosecutor To Investigate Violations by Such Employees and by 
    Others

Sec. 14.5 To a title of a bill confined to regulating the financial 
    disclosure, ethical conduct and conflicts of interest by executive 
    branch employees, an amendment changing existing law to provide a 
    permanent procedure for appointment of a special prosecutor to 
    investigate and prosecute violations, committed not only by 
    executive branch employees, but by persons formerly employed or 
    never employed in the executive branch, was held not germane.

    During consideration of the Ethics in Government Act of 1977 
(17) in the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 27, 
1978,(18) the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 1.
18. 124 Cong. Rec. 31974-77, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 8182]]

        Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hyde: On page 44 of the 
        substitute, insert the following after line 9:

                           Part C--Special Prosecutor

                               special prosecutor

            Sec. 226. (a) Title 28 of the United States Code is amended 
        by inserting immediately after chapter 37 the following new 
        chapter:

                     ``Chapter 39--Special Prosecutor . . .
    ``Sec. 591. Appointment

            ``(a) Upon receiving any specific information that any of 
        the persons described in subsection (c) of this section has--
            ``(1) knowingly authorized or engaged in any Federal 
        criminal act or omission involving the abuse of Federal office; 
        . . . or
            ``(3) violated any Federal criminal law relating to the 
        obstruction of justice or perjury or conspired to violate any 
        such Federal criminal law or to defraud the United States:
            the Attorney General shall conduct, for a period not to 
        exceed sixty days, such preliminary investigation as the 
        Attorney General deems appropriate to ascertain whether the 
        matter under investigation is so unsubstantiated that no 
        further investigation or prosecution is warranted.

            ``(b) Upon receiving any specific information that any of 
        the persons described in subsection (c) of this section has 
        committed a violation of the Ethics in Government Act of 1977, 
        as set forth in section 204 of such Act, the Attorney General 
        shall apply to the special panel of the court for the 
        appointment of a special prosecutor.
            ``(c) The persons referred to in subsections (a) and (b) of 
        this section are as follows:
            ``(1) The President or Vice President.
            ``(2) Any individual serving in a position compensated at 
        level I of the Executive Schedule under section 5312 of title 5 
        of the United States Code. . . .
            ``(5) Any individual who held any office or position 
        described in any of paragraphs (1) through (4) of this 
        subsection during the incumbency of the President or during the 
        period the last preceding President held office, if such 
        preceding President was of the same political party as the 
        incumbent President.
            ``(6) A national campaign manager or chairman of any 
        national campaign committee seeking the election or reelection 
        of the President. . . .
    ``Sec. 592. Prosecutorial jurisdiction; authority

            ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a special 
        prosecutor appointed under this chapter shall have, with 
        respect to all matters in such special prosecutor's 
        prosecutorial jurisdiction established under this chapter, all 
        the investigative and prosecutorial functions and powers of the 
        Department of Justice, the Attorney General, and any other 
        officer or employee of the Department of Justice.

        Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the gentleman's amendment is not germane.
        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment seeks to add new 
    language to title II of the bill. The new language amends title 28 
    of the United States Code to provide a mechanism for the 
    appointment of a Special Prosecutor. It appears to be identical, 
    save for one important change, to H.R. 9705, a bill

[[Page 8183]]

    reported favorably by the Committee on the Judiciary last June 19. 
    The reach of the gentleman's amendment goes far beyond the subject 
    matter and scope of title II of the bill.
        Title II is entitled ``Executive Personnel Financial Disclosure 
    Requirements.'' It is limited exclusively to people in the 
    executive branch of Government. The provisions of the gentleman's 
    amendment are not limited to people in the executive branch. His 
    amendment covers people who are not even in the government--
    national campaign managers--as well as people in another branch--
    Members of Congress.
        Title II of the bill is concerned with the disclosure of 
    personal finances and provides for a civil penalty for failure to 
    file or falsifying a disclosure report. The gentleman's amendment 
    deals with criminal conduct that is not related to the financial 
    disclosures required by title II. The criminal conduct covered 
    includes obstruction of justice and criminal violations of the 
    Federal election laws.
        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment goes far beyond the 
    scope and subject matter of title II and, I submit, is therefore 
    not germane. . . .
        Mr. Hyde: . . . Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment, I feel, 
    is clearly germane. The basic test of germaneness is that the 
    fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to the 
    fundamental purpose of the bill (VIII Cannon's Precedents of the 
    House 2911; Deschler's Procedure, 28.5). The title of the bill 
    gives some indication of its purpose and its text further 
    underscores that purpose, that is, to effect ethics in government.
        My amendment creates a mechanism to effect ethics in government 
    as well as to enforce the provisions of section 204 of H.R. 1. 
    Consequently, the fundamental purpose of the amendment is closely 
    aligned with that of the bill itself.
        Another test of germaneness is whether the subject matter of 
    the amendment relates to the subject matter under consideration. 
    (Deschler's Procedure, 28.3). Here, too, the relation of the 
    amendment to the bill is clear. The subject matter of the bill is 
    in broad terms the ethics of Government officials, which the 
    subject matter of the amendment is the enforcement of these same 
    ethical standards.
        Another test of germaneness is whether the subject matter of 
    the amendment lies within the jurisdiction of a committee other 
    than that reporting the bill. This test is more clearly met than 
    any other since the Judiciary Committee has reported in separate 
    legislation a variant of the amendment I am offering.
        Furthermore, it should be noted that the rule under which H.R. 
    1 is being considered specifically waives any points of order on 
    grounds of germaneness against the substitute embodied in H.R. 
    13850. I submit that the language of this waiver is broad enough in 
    both its letter and its spirit to also permit consideration of this 
    amendment.
        It is also noteworthy that the Senate passed bill (S. 555), of 
    which H.R. 1 was one title, contained another title on appointment 
    of Special Prosecutors. If H.R. 1, or the substitute, is passed by 
    the House, there necessarily will be a conference pitting the 
    Senate's comprehensive approach to ethics against a House-passed 
    bill that covers only a fraction of the ground.

[[Page 8184]]

        The Chairman: (19) The gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Danielson) makes a point of order against the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) on the grounds it 
    is not germane to title II of the bill to which it is offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19.  Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has made some very 
    persuasive arguments with respect to the germaneness of the 
    amendment to the entire bill, but the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Illinois goes to title II of the bill, and for the 
    reasons stated by the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Danielson), the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Creating Executive Agency To Protect Consumer Interests--Amendment 
    To Confer Authority Upon Congressional Committees To Direct Agency 
    To Intervene in Legal Proceedings

Sec. 14.6 To a bill creating an independent agency in the executive 
    branch to protect consumer interests, an amendment in the form of a 
    new section conferring upon Congressional committees with oversight 
    responsibility for consumer interests the authority to direct that 
    agency to intervene in administrative or judicial proceedings was 
    held not merely to reserve to Congress a disapproval authority over 
    the agency but to confer new power on Congressional committees, and 
    was ruled out as beyond the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Government Operations and beyond the scope of the bill.

    During consideration of the Consumer Protection Act of 1975 
(20) in the Committee of the Whole on Nov. 6, 
1975,(1) the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 7575.
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 35373, 35374, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elliott] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Levitas: On page 25, following 
        Section 13 of H.R. 7575 as reported, add the following new 
        section:
            Sec. 14(a) Whenever a committee of the Congress having 
        specific oversight responsibility with respect to the 
        operations of a Federal agency determines that the result of a 
        proceeding or activity of such agency may substantially affect 
        an interest of consumers, such committee may by resolution 
        order the Administrator to intervene as a party or otherwise 
        participate for the purpose of representing the interests of 
        consumers, as provided in Section 6(a)(1) and (2).
            (b) Whenever a Committee of the Congress having specific 
        oversight responsibility with respect to the operations of a 
        Federal agency determines that an intervention by the 
        Administrator pursuant to Section

[[Page 8185]]

        6(a) is not properly representative of an interest of 
        consumers, or that such intervention is one that does not 
        substantially affect an interest of consumers, such committee 
        may by resolution order the Administrator to withdraw such 
        intervention as a party or to conduct such intervention in a 
        manner consistent with such determination as the committee 
        shall make by such resolution.
            (c) The Administrator shall, at the direction by resolution 
        of a committee of the Congress having specific oversight 
        responsibility of the affected Federal agency, institute, or 
        intervene as a party, in a proceeding in a court of the United 
        States involving judicial review of any Federal agency action 
        pursuant to the provisions of Section 6(d). . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this amendment is not germane. What it attempts 
    to do is superimpose upon this executive agency a committee of the 
    Congress having oversight. This committee, that is the Government 
    Operations Committee, does not have jurisdiction over that 
    particular aspect of the matter.
        I also think this would be in contravention to the rules of the 
    House and be changing the rules of the House, it seems to me.
        On those bases I feel the amendment is not germane and make the 
    point of order. . . .
        Mr. Levitas: Mr. Chairman, yesterday when the Chair ruled as 
    out of order an amendment in the form of a substitute which I 
    offered, it was on the basis that it would have removed a proposed 
    agency from the executive branch into the congressional branch of 
    Government. This amendment does not do that. It simply gives 
    additional powers that can be exercised at the direction of the 
    oversight committees and it does not attempt to shift the Agency's 
    location from one branch of the Government to the other.
        Since it has as its purpose the further protection of consumers 
    by requiring the Administrator or the Agency to take action or 
    modify proposed action in order to better protect the consumer 
    interest, it is akin, it seems to me, to the fundamental purpose of 
    the bill and therefore I submit is germane to the purposes of the 
    bill. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: . . . I would like to point out 
    in addition that this will give additional committees within the 
    Congress the right to change the effectiveness of an executive 
    agency. If we create this Agency and it works within the 
    department, this amendment would give one committee, not the 
    Congress of the United States but one committee, the right and the 
    authority to interfere with the functioning of that Agency. I think 
    it would be unconstitutional and certainly not in keeping with the 
    prerogatives that we give to the Executive when we give him 
    authority. Until we change the law an individual committee of the 
    Congress does not have the right to tell the executive branch what 
    to do and how to function under the law passed by the Congress. . . 
    .
        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    believe the point of order should be overruled. The bill creates an 
    agency and grants certain powers to the agency. This amendment 
    proposes to reserve certain of those powers that are granted.
        The gentleman from Texas said it would be improper and not 
    germane to

[[Page 8186]]

    reserve those powers. I would say there is precedent for this type 
    of amendment. In the Education Act Amendments of 1974, I believe it 
    was, the Office of Education in HEW was given authority to adopt 
    rules and regulations to implement the action. That legislation 
    specifically reserved to the Congress and to the committees of the 
    Congress the authority to review those rules and regulations before 
    they took effect and to veto in effect any of the rules and 
    regulations that the Congress felt were not in conformity with the 
    intent of the Congress in passing the act.
        So in making a grant of authority to an agency I believe we 
    also have authority to reserve a certain overview and veto power or 
    direction of the authority we are giving to the agency. I submit 
    with those precedents this amendment should be in order. . . .
        Mr. Levitas: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out one 
    additional precedent that occurs to me and that is the Budget 
    Control Impoundment Act that was adopted by the last Congress, 
    which not only provides for congressional review of executive 
    actions, but also authorizes an arm of the Congress to enforce 
    those congressional decisions by taking legal actions in court.
        I think that is certainly far less of an action than is 
    contemplated by this amendment and which is for the protection of 
    the consumer, which is the underlying purpose of this bill.
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is ready to rule. In the 
    opinion which the Chair gave yesterday on the point of order made 
    to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Levitas), the Chair did not base that 
    opinion strictly on the arguments reiterated by the gentleman from 
    Georgia today. While the Chair cannot decide the constitutional 
    questions raised, in the opinion of the Chair, the emphasis 
    contained in the amendment on congressional oversight 
    responsibilities and the authority conferred upon committees to 
    order certain actions to be undertaken by the Consumer Office in 
    furtherance of those committees' oversight function, is an issue 
    which is not related to the scope of the pending bill. The effect 
    of the amendment extends the oversight responsibilities and 
    authority of House committees, a matter not within the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on Government Operations, and goes beyond the 
    issue of merely reserving to Congress a disapproval authority over 
    promulgated agency regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Consequently, the Chair is constrained to support the point of 
    order.

Bill Reforming Economic Regulation of Railroads--Amendment Relating to 
    Diverse Issues Including Authority of Interstate Commerce 
    Commission and Secretary of Transportation

Sec. 14.7 Where a bill reforming the economic regulation of railroads 
    was being read for amendment by titles, and the title under 
    consideration, entitled ``railroad inter-carrier practices'' dealt 
    with diverse subjects, including bank

[[Page 8187]]

    ruptcy and employee protection issues, an amendment to such title 
    which (1) addressed those issues as well as railroad rates and 
    ratemaking, (2) included provisions requesting a study of the 
    impact of possible tax law changes on railroads, and (3) conferred 
    certain powers on the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Secretary 
    of Transportation and other officials, was held germane even though 
    portions of the amendment indirectly affected a previous title of 
    the bill already perfected by amendment.

    The proceedings of Sept. 5, 1980, relating to H.R. 7235, the Rail 
Act of 1980, are discussed in Sec. 3.24, supra.