[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§ 15. Amendments to Appropriation Bills; Rescission Bills]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 8187-8247]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 15. Amendments to Appropriation Bills; Rescission Bills

    An amendment offered to a general appropriation bill must be 
germane to that part which is under consideration.(3) And 
where an amendment to a general appropriation bill relates to the 
appropriation of specific funds, it must be offered to the specific 
item of appropriation to which it applies. If offered to the general 
introductory statement preceding the specific appropriation, it may be 
ruled out as not germane.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See the remarks of Chairman Franklin W. Hancock, Jr. (N.C.) at 81 
        Cong. Rec. 3763, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 22, 1937, made in 
        the course of ruling on a point of order raised by Mr. Tarver 
        to an amendment offered by Mr. Ellenbogen. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 6523 (Committee on Appropriations), Agriculture 
        Appropriations for 1938.
            On one occasion, the Chairman remarked, in the course of 
        ruling on the propriety of an amendment to a supplemental 
        appropriation bill that, ``If the amendment is germane to any 
        part of the bill, it is germane at the point at which it has 
        been offered.'' See Sec. 15.3, infra. The Chairman probably 
        intended his remarks to have reference only to the particular 
        context in which he made his ruling.
 4. See Sec. 15.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From the point of view of germaneness, an amendment limiting the 
use of funds by a particular agency funded in a general appropriation 
bill may be offered while the paragraph carrying the funds is pending, 
subject to clause 2 of Rule XXI, added in 1983, requiring the reading 
of the bill to have been completed, or to any general provisions 
portion of the bill affecting that agency or all agencies funded by the 
bill.(5) However, to

[[Page 8188]]

a paragraph containing funds for an agency but not transferring funds 
to that account from other paragraphs in the bill, an amendment 
increasing that amount by transfer from an account in another paragraph 
is not germane, since affecting budget authority for a different agency 
not the subject of the pending paragraph.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 15.1, infra.
 6. See Sec. 15.38, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A legislative provision which is permitted to remain in an 
appropriation bill may be amended by a germane proposition which does 
not add further legislation.(7) Thus, a legislative 
provision in a general appropriation bill, permitted to remain pursuant 
to a resolution waiving points of order against the bill, may be 
perfected by germane amendment.(8) Similarly, where an 
amendment to a general appropriation bill proposes a change in existing 
law but is permitted to remain because no point of order is raised 
against it, the amendment may be perfected by germane 
amendments.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. Sec. 15.15 and 15.45, infra.
 8. See Sec. 15.35, infra.
 9. See Sec. 15.49, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Senate amendment proposing legislation on an appropriation bill 
may be amended by germane amendments.(10) Furthermore, while 
it has been held that a Senate amendment proposing legislation on a 
general appropriation bill may be subject to an amendment of a similar 
nature offered in the House, the requirement remains in such 
circumstances that the House amendment be germane to the Senate 
amendment.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 27.10, infra.
11. See the proceedings at 116 Cong. Rec. 41504, 41505, 91st Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Dec. 15, 1970, in which a Senate amendment proposing 
        legislation on a general appropriation bill (H.R. 17755 
        [Committee on Appropriations], comprising Department of 
        Transportation appropriations for fiscal 1971) was reported 
        back from conference in disagreement, pursuant to provisions of 
        Rule XX clause 2 (see House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 [1991]) 
        prohibiting conferees from agreeing to certain Senate 
        amendments. A motion to concur in the amendment with a further 
        amendment was held to be in order, even though such further 
        amendment was also legislative in nature. See the ruling of 
        Speaker John W. McCormack (Mass.) at p. 41505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Germaneness is an express requirement of any amendment sought to be 
introduced pursuant to the ``Holman Rule,'' (12) which 
permits legislative matter in general appropriation bills where such 
matter reduces expenditures. Thus, it has been held that, to be in 
order under the Holman rule,

[[Page 8189]]

an amendment must not only retrench expenditures but must be germane to 
the provisions to which offered.(13) The amendment must not 
only show on its face an attempt to retrench but must be germane to a 
provision in the bill even though offered by direction of the committee 
having jurisdiction of the subject matter of the 
amendment.(14) To be germane, an amendment must affect only 
those funds carried in the bill. Thus, an amendment providing that 
appropriations ``herein and heretofore made'' shall be reduced by $70 
million through the reduction of federal employees as the President 
determines was held to be legislative and not germane to the bill, 
since it went to funds other than those carried therein, and was 
therefore not within the Holman rule exception.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Rule XXI clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 844a (1991).
13. See Sec. Sec. 15.14 and 42.57, infra.
            For further discussion of the Holman rule and the rules 
        with respect to legislation on appropriation bills generally, 
        see Ch. 26, supra.
14. See 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1549.
15. See Sec. 15.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under current practice, moreover, an amendment that permanently 
changes existing law is not germane if offered to a bill making 
appropriations for one fiscal year. On May 21, 1969,(16) the 
Chair ruled that, to a bill making appropriations for one fiscal year, 
an amendment retrenching expenditures for that year but also 
permanently changing existing law, by abolition of the Commission on 
Executive, Judicial and Legislative Salaries, was not germane. The 
Chair relied on the principle (17) that, to a provision in 
an appropriation bill proposing legislation for the fiscal year 
provided for by the bill an amendment rendering such legislation 
permanent is not germane. In so doing, the Chair effectively overruled 
an earlier line of precedents that had stood for the proposition that 
amendments which abolish agencies or functions in addition to reducing 
funds contained in a general appropriation bill are in order under the 
exception stated in Rule XXI, clause 2. Under those earlier 
rulings,(18) it was in order on a general appropriation bill 
to provide for the abolition of an office if the certain effect of that 
abolition was to reduce funds contained in the bill, even though the 
language provided permanent law, there being no distinction in the rule 
itself between permanent and temporary legislation. The germaneness 
rule as applied at

[[Page 8190]]

present precludes amendments which provide for permanent change in law 
when offered to temporary legislation.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 15.23, infra.
17. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2915.
18. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3887; 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 1507, 1509, and 1511.
19. See Sec. 24, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment is germane if drafted as a limitation on the use of 
funds appropriated,(20) provided the terms of the limitation 
are confined to funds in the bill. Thus, to provisions of a general 
appropriation bill, an amendment providing that no additional funds 
from ``any other source'' shall be expended for specified purposes is 
generally held to be not germane and to constitute legislation on an 
appropriation bill.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See, generally, Sec. 34, infra, for discussion.
 1. See, for example, the ruling of Chairman Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.) at 
        97 Cong. Rec. 4301, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 24, 1951, with 
        respect to a point of order made by Mr. Henry M. Jackson 
        (Wash.) against an amendment offered by Mr. Boyd Tackett 
        (Ark.). Under consideration was H.R. 3790 (Committee on 
        Appropriations), the Interior Department Appropriation Bill of 
        1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It may not be germane to amend an appropriation bill to change the 
source of funding for a project or activity from one fund in the 
Treasury to another, especially where the effect of utilizing a special 
fund is to reduce funds otherwise available for a totally unrelated 
program or purpose.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. Sec. 15.16, 15.22, and 15.39, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It has been held proper to amend a general appropriation bill to 
attach conditions to the use of the appropriated funds. Where certain 
funds appropriated by a general appropriation bill are to remain 
available beyond the fiscal year covered by the bill, an amendment may 
be germane which places certain restrictions, effective on a certain 
date that also falls after the expiration of the fiscal year, on the 
use of funds appropriated by the bill.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 15.27, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Limiting Use of Funds by Agency Funded in Previous Title of 
    Bill

Sec. 15.1 To the last title of a general appropriations bill, 
    containing general provisions applying to funds carried throughout 
    the bill, an amendment limiting the use of funds by an agency 
    funded in a previous title of the bill was held germane.

    An amendment limiting the use of funds by a particular agency 
funded in a general appropriations bill may be germane if offered at 
more than one place in the bill; thus, the amendment may be offered 
when the paragraph carrying such funds is

[[Page 8191]]

pending, or to any general provisions portion of the bill affecting 
that agency or all agencies funded by the bill. An illustration of this 
principle can be found in the proceedings of July 16, 
1979,(4) during consideration of H.R. 4393, Treasury, Postal 
Service and General Government Appropriations for fiscal 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 125 Cong. Rec. 18807, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Symms: On page 39, after line 16, 
        add the following new section:
            Sec. 613. No part of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
        made available to the Internal Revenue Service by this Act 
        shall be paid to any person as a reward or bounty for 
        information concerning violations of the internal revenue laws.

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Richardson Preyer (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is out of order. We have 
    already passed that place in the
    bill. . . .
        Mr. Symms: Mr. Chairman, the amendment [is] only a limitation 
    of spending and adds a new section to the bill. I would maintain 
    that it is in order and it is germane to the bill as a whole.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order. The Chair feels that the amendment comes at an appropriate 
    point in the bill and is germane to the general provisions title 
    and the point of order is overruled.

Place in Bill Where Restriction on Funds is Germane

Sec. 15.2 During consideration of a general appropriation bill, it was 
    held that an amendment providing that no funds made available under 
    the act shall be used for a certain purpose must be offered to the 
    specific item of appropriation to which it applies, rather than to 
    the general introductory statement preceding the specific 
    appropriations.

    In the 80th Congress, a bill (6) was under consideration 
making appropriations for foreign aid. The following language had been 
read: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.R. 6801 (Committee on Appropriations).
 7. See 94 Cong. Rec. 7189, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 4, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, That the following sums are appropriated, out of 
    any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for foreign 
    aid for the period beginning April 3, 1948, and ending June 30, 
    1949, and for other purposes, namely:

    The following amendment was offered: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 7190.

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

[[Page 8192]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: 
        Page 1, line 6, after the word ``purposes'', strike out the 
        comma and the word ``namely'' and insert ``on condition, 
        however, that no moneys authorized for appropriation hereunder 
        shall be paid or credited to any country which participates in 
        or aids in acts of aggression, such acts of aggression to be 
        determined by proclamation by the President of the United 
        States, namely.''

    Mr. John Taber, of New York, raising a point of order, stated:

        Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment 
    that it is legislation on an appropriation bill and that it is not 
    in order at this point in the bill and not germane.

    The following exchange ensued:

        Mr. Celler: I agree to the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

    Mr. Celler then offered an amendment which stated:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Celler: Page 1, line 6, after the 
        word ``purposes'', strike out the comma and the word ``namely'' 
        and insert ``but no funds made available under the authority of 
        this Act shall be paid or credited to Great Britain, namely.''

    Mr. Taber raised the point of order that the amendment was not in 
order at that point in the bill. The Chairman,(9) in ruling 
on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. W. Sterling Cole (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The paragraph to which the gentleman from New York offers an 
    amendment relates to the general provisions regarding the sums 
    carried in the various titles and paragraphs in the bill. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York relates to the 
    appropriation of specific funds. The Chair feels that the amendment 
    is not germane to this particular paragraph, and therefore sustains 
    the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under clause 2 of Rule XXI as amended in 
the 98th Congress, limitation amendments are in order only at the end 
of the reading of the bill for amendment if the Committee of the Whole 
does not rise and report the bill to the House, and limitation 
amendments at that point may be germane if relating to funds in 
previous paragraphs of the bill.

Supplemental Appropriation Bill Covering Diverse Items--Amendment 
    Relating to School Lunch Program as Germane Where Offered

Sec. 15.3 To a supplemental appropriation bill covering a number of 
    items and agencies, an amendment proposing another appropriation 
    authorized by law is germane.

    In the 79th Congress, during consideration of a supplemental 
appropriation bill,(10) an amend

[[Page 8193]]

ment relating to the school lunch program was offered (11) 
after the reading of those provisions of the bill affecting the Price 
Decontrol Board. A point of order was raised against the amendment, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.J. Res. 390 (Committee on Appropriations).
11. 92 Cong. Rec. 10472, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., July 30, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard B.] Wigglesworth [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, 
    the amendment that is offered seems to me to be not germane to the 
    section of the bill where it is offered.

    The Chairman,(12) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Wigglesworth] makes the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. If the amendment 
    is germane to any part of the bill, it is germane at the point at 
    which it has been offered. Therefore, the Chair overrules the point 
    of order.

Deficiency Appropriation Bill To Cover Pay Raises in Department of 
    Agriculture--Amendment Proposing Additional Funds To Implement 
    School Lunch Program

Sec. 15.4 To that title of a deficiency appropriation bill making 
    additional appropriations to cover pay raises in the Department of 
    Agriculture, an amendment proposing additional funds to enable the 
    Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the programmatic provisions 
    of the National School Lunch Act of 1946 was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of the Second Deficiency 
Appropriation Bill of 1949,(13) an amendment was offered 
(14) as described above. A point of order was raised against 
the amendment, as follows: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 4046 (Committee on Appropriations).
14. 95 Cong. Rec. 4177, 4178, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 8, 1949.
15. Id. at p. 4178.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane at this 
    point in the bill. Title II of the bill is limited to additional 
    amounts for appropriations for the fiscal year 1949 to meet 
    increased pay costs authorized by the act of July 3, 1948, and 
    comparable increases granted by the administrative action pursuant 
    to law, and so forth. . . .

    The Chairman,(16) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ready to rule. In view of the express intent of 
    title II, increased pay costs, the point of order is sustained.

[[Page 8194]]

Section of Supplemental Appropriation Bill Relating to Department of 
    Agriculture--Amendment in Form of New Paragraph To Enable Secretary 
    To Implement School Lunch Program

Sec. 15.5 To that section of a supplemental appropriation bill for 
    diverse departments and agencies relating to appropriations for the 
    Department of Agriculture, an amendment in the form of a new 
    paragraph making an appropriation to enable the Secretary of 
    Agriculture to carry out the provisions of the National School 
    Lunch Act was held to be germane, it not being necessary that it 
    relate to the immediately preceding paragraph.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of a supplemental 
appropriation bill,(17) the following exchange took place 
which related to an amendment to that portion of the bill concerning 
appropriations for the Department of Agriculture: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 8370 (Committee on Appropriations).
18. 98 Cong. Rec. 8514, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., June 28, 1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                           Department of Agriculture

                            office of the secretary

              Salaries and Expenses, Defense Production Activities

            For expenses necessary to enable the Department of 
        Agriculture to carry out its functions under the Defense 
        Production Act of 1950, as amended, $2,000,000.

        Mr. [William A.] Barrett [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Barrett: On page 30, after line 
        23, insert the following:

                         National School Lunch Program

            For an additional amount of $16,500,000 to enable the 
        Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the provisions of the 
        National School Lunch Act. . . .

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order 
    against the amendment. I make the point of order that the language 
    of the amendment and the paragraph are not germane to this point in 
    the bill. This part of the bill relates entirely to the salaries 
    and expenses of the defense production activities, while the 
    amendment relates to a local, domestic operation.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    language of the amendment provides an additional paragraph to the 
    Department of Agriculture section of the bill. It is germane to 
    this section, and the Chair, therefore, overrules the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).

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

[[Page 8195]]

Agriculture Appropriations--Restriction on Funds for Agricultural 
    Adjustment Administration Committeemen

Sec. 15.6 To an agriculture appropriation bill, an amendment offered as 
    a new section providing that ``none of the funds appropriated in 
    this act shall be used to pay the salaries . . . or expenses of 
    more than one Agricultural Adjustment Administration committeeman 
    in each county committee'' was held to be in order.

    In the 77th Congress, during consideration of the Agriculture 
Appropriation Bill of 1943,(20) an amendment was offered 
(1) as described above. A point of order was raised against 
the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 6709 (Committee on Appropriations).
 1. 88 Cong. Rec. 2452, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 13, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: . . . There are no funds 
    carried in the bill to pay the salaries of county committeemen or 
    community committeemen. . . . The amendment . . . does not have any 
    relation to any funds carried in the pending bill. . . .
        . . . I offer the additional point of order that the amendment 
    is certainly not germane to the portion of the bill to which it is 
    offered, which has no reference to the work of the Agricultural 
    Adjustment Administration.

    The Chairman,(2) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Robert Ramspeck (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio is a 
    limitation on all the funds appropriated in the pending bill. It 
    appears to the Chair that it is simply a limitation upon those 
    appropriations carried in the bill, and, therefore, the amendment 
    is in order. The Chair overrules the point of order.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 18.12, infra, for discussion of an amendment of a similar 
        nature which was held improper because not germane to a 
        specific paragraph to which it had been offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agriculture Appropriations--Prohibition on Use of Appropriations for 
    Purchase of Chemical Pesticides

Sec. 15.7 To a general appropriation bill providing funds for the 
    Department of Agriculture and including a specific allocation of 
    funds for animal disease and pest control, an amendment was held to 
    be germane which provided that no appropriation in the act be used 
    for the purchase or application of chemical pesticides where such 
    action would be prohibited by state or local law.

[[Page 8196]]

    In the 91st Congress, a bill (4) was under consideration 
comprising Department of Agriculture appropriations for fiscal year 
1970. The bill provided in part: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 11612 (Committee on Appropriations).
 5. See 115 Cong. Rec. 13752, 13753, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., May 26, 
        1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Plant and animal disease and pest control: For operations and 
    measures, not otherwise provided for, to control and eradicate 
    pests and plant and animal diseases and for carrying out assigned 
    inspection, quarantine, and regulatory activities, as authorized by 
    law, including expenses pursuant to the Act of February 28, 1947 as 
    amended (21 U.S.C. 114b-c), $89,493,000 . . .: Provided, That no 
    funds shall be used to formulate or administer a brucellosis 
    eradication program for the current fiscal year that does not 
    require minimum matching by any State of at least 40 per centum. . 
    . .

    An amendment was offered (6) as described above. A point 
of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 13753.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: . . . In the first 
    place, I do not know of any provision in this bill for the purchase 
    of chemical pesticides.
        May I say further, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment before us 
    goes to the State law, exempting or including pesticides based on 
    those States which have passed State laws.
        On that basis, Mr. Chairman, I contend that the amendment is 
    not germane. . . .

    The Chairman,(7) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment notes certain exceptions within or substantially 
    affecting States in circumstances in which the purchase or 
    application of such pesticides would be prohibited by State law or 
    regulation, or any citizen or instrumentality of State or local 
    government.
        It is a well-established rule that an amendment to an 
    appropriation bill is germane wherein it denies the use of funds 
    for a specific purpose.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Ottinger) appears to fall within that rule. It is a limitation upon 
    the use of funds appropriated in the bill. It is a denial of the 
    use of those funds for a specific purpose. Therefore, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

Funds for Foreign Assistance Programs--Prohibition on Use of Funds To 
    Pay Dues of United Nations Members

Sec. 15.8 To a bill providing funds for foreign assistance programs, an 
    amendment to deny use of funds therein to pay arrearages or dues of 
    members of the United Nations was held to be germane to the subject 
    of the bill and in order as a limitation.

    In the 87th Congress, a bill (8) was under consideration 
relating

[[Page 8197]]

to foreign assistance appropriations. The following amendment was 
offered to the bill: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 13175 (Committee on Appropriations).
 9. 108 Cong. Rec. 20187, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 20, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [A. Paul] Kitchin [of North Carolina]: 
    Add a new section to the title on page 8, after line 4, to read:
        ``Sec. 113. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
    pursuant to this act for carrying out the Foreign Assistance Act of 
    1961, as amended, may be used to pay in whole or in part any 
    assessments, arrearages or dues of any member of the United 
    Nations.''

    The following exchange (10) concerned a point of order 
raised against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at pp. 20187, 20188.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Cornelius E.] Gallagher [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order that the amendment is not germane to this 
    bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) The amendment says:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            None of the funds appropriated or made available to this 
        Act--
            That is this very bill.

        Mr. Gallagher: This amendment was covered in the United Nations 
    bond bill last week.
        The Chairman: That may be so, but it is still germane to this 
    bill because it deals with funds contained in this bill. The Chair 
    therefore overrules the point of order.

Special Relief Appropriation Bills--Amendment Relating to Construction 
    of Federal Buildings

Sec. 15.9 To a bill making appropriations for work relief and relief, 
    an amendment was held to be germane which proposed a program of 
    construction of federal public buildings and which provided in part 
    that ``with a view to relieving country-wide unemployment the 
    Postmaster General and the Administrator, in the selection of towns 
    or cities in which buildings are to be constructed, shall endeavor 
    to distribute the projects equitably throughout the country.''

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(12) making appropriations for work relief and relief, an 
amendment was offered (13) as described above. A point of 
order was raised against the amendment, as follows:(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.J. Res. 544 (Committee on Appropriations).
13. 86 Cong. Rec. 6756, 6757, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., May 23, 1940.
14. Id. at p. 6757.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment, first,

[[Page 8198]]

    that it is not germane to the joint resolution, this being a relief 
    bill, and the amendment being one authorizing a public-buildings 
    program and making appropriations therefor, and second, that it is 
    not germane to this part of the joint resolution.

    The Chairman,(15) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair, in view of the fact that this is a 
    bill for work and work relief and provides specifically, in certain 
    portions of it, as in lines 14 and 15, of page 3, for public 
    buildings, the point of order should not be sustained. . . .
        In view of the fact that there are specific designations of 
    public buildings and appropriations made for them in this joint 
    resolution, which is for work and work relief, and inasmuch as the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi proposes 
    erection of public buildings which would give work and work relief, 
    it seems to the Chair that it is germane to the bill. . . .

--Amendment Appropriating Funds for To Public Works Administration for 
    Loans To Finance Employment Projects

Sec. 15.10 To a bill making appropriations for work relief and relief, 
    an amendment appropriating money to the Public Works Administration 
    and authorizing the Commissioner of Public Works with the approval 
    of the President to make loans from such funds to various public 
    organizations to finance employment projects was held to be 
    germane.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(16) comprising appropriations for work relief and relief, 
an amendment was offered which stated in part: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.J. Res. 544 (Committee on Appropriations).
17. 86 Cong. Rec. 6760, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., May 23, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [H. Jerry] Voorhis of California: Page 
    33, line 7, add a new title as follows:

                                 ``Title II

        ``Section 1. There is hereby appropriated to the Public Works 
    Administration out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
    appropriated, the sum of $500,000,000, and the Commissioner of 
    Public Works . . . is hereby authorized . . . to make loans from 
    this fund to States, Territories, possessions, or political 
    subdivisions . . . to . . . aid in financing projects which will 
    provide new employment; (b) to organizations created pursuant to 
    law or under the authority of any public body to operate without 
    profit . . . to . . . aid in financing projects . . . which will 
    produce new employment, will be devoted to public use and are 
    within any one of the following classes: Hospitals, health centers, 
    clinics, colleges [and the like].''

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

[[Page 8199]]

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment that it is not germane to the rest of 
    the bill, it being a program involving the granting of funds to 
    States, cities, counties, and other municipalities without any 
    requirement that the money be used for relief. . . .

    The Chairman,(18) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
19. 86 Cong. Rec. 6760, 6761, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., May 23, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In accordance with the former ruling of the 
    Chair,(20) and the further fact that the bill before us 
    provides for funds to be paid to States, Territories, and so forth, 
    the Chair thinks the amendment germane, and therefore overrules the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 15.9, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Amendment Extending Life of Agency Not Referred to in Bill

Sec. 15.11 To a bill appropriating money for relief and work relief 
    programs to be administered by the President through existing 
    governmental agencies, an amendment proposing to extend the life of 
    a temporary agency not referred to in the bill was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of a relief 
appropriations bill,(1) the following amendment was offered: 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.J. Res. 361 (Committee on Appropriations).
 2. 81 Cong. Rec. 5024, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., May 25, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Alfred F.] Beiter [of New York]: Page 
    3, after line 24, add a new paragraph, as follows:
        ``In order to maintain or increase employment by providing for 
    useful public-works projects of the kind and character for which 
    the Federal Emergency Administrator of Public Works (hereinafter 
    called the Administrator) has heretofore made loans or grants 
    pursuant to title II of the National Industrial Recovery Act, the 
    Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935, or the Emergency Relief 
    Appropriation Act of 1936, the Federal Emergency Administration of 
    Public Works is hereby continued until June 30, 1939, and the funds 
    hereinbefore allocated to the Federal Emergency Administration of 
    Public Works shall be used for the making of loans or grants to 
    finance or aid in the financing of such projects, and in addition 
    thereto the Administrator is hereby authorized to use funds on hand 
    which have accrued from the sale of securities and funds which will 
    be received from the sale of securities for the making of loans or 
    grants to finance or aid in the financing of such projects. . . .''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at pp. 5024, 5025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: . . . [T]he amendment 
    goes

[[Page 8200]]

    very much beyond the scope of the purposes of the relief act under 
    consideration. In the first place, it undertakes to extend the life 
    of the Public Works Administration to June 30, 1939, beyond the 
    scope of the present act. In the second place, it amends the Relief 
    Acts of 1935 and 1936 by changing the powers of the Reconstruction 
    Corporation. . . .

        I think the whole purpose of this amendment is an effort to 
    revive an agency that expires by operation of law and to extend its 
    powers, and to amend other acts not in any way connected with the 
    subject matter under consideration.

    Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, stated, with respect to the point 
of order: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 5025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . It is true that the amendment proposes changes in law but 
    these proposed changes are in laws which are not affected by this 
    bill. The amendment, therefore, is not germane to the pending bill. 
    . . .

    The Chairman,(5) in sustaining the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Beiter] in addition to providing for many matters, provides for 
    extension of the Public Works Administration, an agency of the 
    Government not carried in this bill, and handled heretofore by 
    other legislation. The amendment also pertains to certain powers of 
    the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, about which there is 
    nothing in this bill. As the gentleman from Virginia has pointed 
    out, it also pertains to certain provisions of the independent 
    offices appropriation bill, still pending in the Congress.
        Because of the fact the amendment attempts to extend an agency 
    of the Government not covered by this bill and yet to be handled by 
    the Congress, the Chair feels the amendment is not germane to this 
    bill. . . .

--Amendment Authorizing Agency To Use Funds From Sale of Securities

Sec. 15.12 To a bill appropriating money for relief and work relief, an 
    amendment proposing to appropriate money to an existing federal 
    agency and authorizing the agency to use funds from the sale of 
    certain securities was held to be not germane.

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of a relief 
appropriations bill,(6) the following amendment was offered: 
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.J. Res. 361 (Committee on Appropriations).
 7. 81 Cong. Rec. 5025, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., May 25, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Alfred F.] Beiter [of New York]: Page 
    3, after line 24, add a new paragraph, as follows:
        ``In order to maintain or increase employment by providing for 
    useful public-works projects of the kind and char

[[Page 8201]]

    acter for which the Federal Emergency Administrator of Public Works 
    . . . has heretofore made [certain loans and grants], the funds 
    hereinbefore allocated to the Federal Emergency Administration of 
    Public Works shall be used for the making of loans and grants to 
    finance or aid in the financing of such projects, and in addition 
    thereto the Administrator is hereby authorized to use funds on hand 
    which have accrued from the sale of securities and funds which will 
    be received from the sale of securities, for the making of loans or 
    grants to finance or aid in the financing of such projects in 
    accordance with existing law.''

    Mr. Clifton A. Woodrum, of Virginia, having raised a point of order 
against the amendment, the Chairman (8) ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The only objectionable feature of this amendment from the 
    standpoint of germaneness is the authorization of the Federal 
    Emergency Administration of Public Works to use funds ``from the 
    sale of securities.'' . . .
        By reason of the fact that this amendment . . . does pertain to 
    the use of funds from the sale of securities, about which nothing 
    is contained in the pending bill, the Chair feels constrained to 
    sustain the point of order.

    Mr. Millard F. Caldwell, of Florida, then offered a similar 
amendment, which was held to be germane because it eliminated the 
provision as to the use of funds from the sale of securities.

Holman Rule Requirement of Germaneness

Sec. 15.13 To be in order under the Holman rule, an amendment proposing 
    legislation on an appropriations bill must be germane and, in 
    particular, must retrench expenditures under the bill sought to be 
    amended.

    In the 77th Congress, during consideration of a deficiency 
appropriations bill,(9) an amendment was held to be not 
germane which purported to retrench expenditures by excluding from the 
benefits of the Civil Service Retirement Act the President, the Vice 
President, and Members of Congress. The following proceedings 
(10) related to such amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 6548 (Committee on Appropriations).
10. 88 Cong. Rec. 1157, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 9, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill, that 
    it is legislation on an appropriation bill, and is out of order. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Donald H.] McLean [of New Jersey]: . . . There are 
    exceptions to the rule that an appropriation bill cannot carry 
    legislation, and I call the Chair's attention to the Holman rule. 
    That rule provides that if the legisla

[[Page 8202]]

    tion would result in the saving of expenditures it is not subject 
    to a point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) . . . The amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New Jersey is clearly not germane to the bill 
    under consideration. If it were germane it would be legislation on 
    an appropriation bill. It does not in any way retrench expenditures 
    under this bill. For two very good reasons, therefore, the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reduction Affecting Funds in Other Acts Not Germane Under Holman Rule

Sec. 15.14 To a bill providing supplemental appropriations for certain 
    specified departments of government, an amendment which would 
    affect appropriations in other Acts for virtually all departments 
    and agencies of government is not germane and not a proper 
    retrenchment under the Holman Rule.

    In the 89th Congress, a bill (12) was under 
consideration comprising supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1967. 
The following amendment was offered to the bill: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 18381 (Committee on Appropriations).
13. 112 Cong. Rec. 27424, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 18, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: . . . add a 
    new section as follows:
        ``Sec. 803. . . . appropriations herein and heretofore made for 
    personal services . . . shall, as the President shall determine, be 
    reduced by not less than $70,000,000 through the reduction, below 
    the number otherwise authorized under appropriations herein and 
    heretofore made, of not less than 10,000 full-time permanent 
    civilian Federal employees.''

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

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that the amendment 
    goes beyond the scope of this bill. It applies to funds that are 
    contained in other legislation and to funds that are made available 
    by previous law. . . .
        I raise the further point, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman's 
    amendment would require additional duties of the President, and for 
    that reason is subject to the point of order that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.

    Mr. Bow stated in response:

        I acknowledge that [the amendment] deals with personnel and 
    appropriations in other legislation as well as in this bill, but 
    the whole subject matter is the reduction of personnel and the 
    retrenchment of Federal expenditures. That follows the Holman rule.

    The Chairman,(14) in sustaining the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).

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

[[Page 8203]]

        The Chair notes that the Holman rule, in clause 2 of rule 21, 
    specifies that to fall within the exception provided by this rule, 
    the amendment must be germane to the subject matter of the bill. 
    The bill before the Committee provides supplemental appropriations 
    for certain governmental activities--activities specified in this 
    bill. The amendment goes much further than this, and with three 
    exceptions would be applicable to all departments and agencies of 
    the Government.
        The citations brought to the attention of the Chair by the 
    gentleman from Ohio--all of them, as far as the Chair can 
    determine, involved appropriation bills that dealt with the 
    activities of some department, and the amendments provided for 
    limitations or retrenchments of activities carried in the bill, and 
    were germane to the bill before the Committee.

    Subsequently, Mr. Bow offered the following amendment: 
(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 112 Cong. Rec. 27425, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 18, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Bow: . . . add a new section as 
    follows:
        ``Sec. 803. Notwithstanding any other provision, appropriations 
    herein . . . shall . . . be reduced . . . by not less than 
    $1,500,000,000 through substitution by reduction and transfer of 
    funds previously appropriated for governmental activities that the 
    President . . . shall have determined to be excess to the 
    necessities of the services and objects for which appropriated.''

    A point of order was again raised, as follows:

        Mr. Mahon: . . . [T]he amendment goes far beyond the scope of 
    this bill and applies to funds made available by other laws for 
    which appropriations are not provided in the pending measure.
        I make the further point of order that the amendment would 
    obviously impose additional duties on the President.

    The Chairman again sustained the point of order, and explained the 
operation of the Holman rule as follows:

        The Chair feels that the amendment is clearly legislation. . . 
    .
        Therefore, if the amendment were to be permitted it would have 
    to qualify as the gentleman has attempted to qualify it, under the 
    Holman exception, under the Holman rule, rule XXI, clause 2.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the Holman exception is 
    inapplicable in this instance for three reasons.
        First, the payment from a fund already appropriated of a sum 
    which otherwise would be charged against the Treasury has been held 
    not to be a retrenchment of expenditures under the Holman rule. . . 
    .
        Second, it seems to the Chair that the language proposed by the 
    gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow] authorizes the reappropriation of 
    unexpended balances, a practice prohibited by clause 5 of rule XXI.
        Third, the amendment goes to funds other than those carried in 
    this bill and is not germane.

Restriction on Funds in Other Acts

Sec. 15.15 To that provision in an appropriation bill prohib

[[Page 8204]]

    iting aid to one nation unless a certain condition is met, an 
    amendment prohibiting aid under that or any prior appropriations 
    act to another nation until that nation takes certain actions, and 
    referring to funds provided in other acts, was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 90th Congress, a bill(16) comprising foreign aid 
appropriations for fiscal 1968 was under consideration which, in part, 
prohibited aid to the United Arab Republic except under certain 
conditions. Points of order had been waived against the bill. The 
following amendment was offered: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 13893 (Committee on Appropriations).
17. 113 Cong. Rec. 32968, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 17, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Harold R.] Gross [of Iowa]: On page 
    13, line 14, strike the period, insert a colon, and add the 
    following: ``Provided further, That none of the funds provided in 
    this Act or any predecessor Act shall be made available to the 
    State of Israel until the Government of that country provides full 
    and complete reparations for the killing and wounding of more than 
    100 United States citizens in the wanton, unprovoked attack in June 
    1967 by Israel's military aircraft and torpedo boats on the United 
    States naval vessel, the Liberty.''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 32969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, this 
    amendment goes beyond the appropriation of funds in this and other 
    preceding acts.

    Mr. Gross stated in response:

        Mr. Chairman, this is clearly a limitation upon an 
    appropriation bill; that the funds not be expended for the stated 
    purpose unless the limitations are met.

    The Chairman,(19) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross] 
    refers to funds provided in this act or any predecessor act. It 
    covers an area not covered by the amendment in the bill.
        In the opinion of the Chair, it is clearly additional 
    legislation and is not germane to the . . . bill.

Amendment Relating to Funds From ``Other Sources''

Sec. 15.16 To a paragraph of a general appropriation bill, an amendment 
    providing that no additional funds from ``any other source'' shall 
    be expended for specified purposes was held to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of the Interior De

[[Page 8205]]

partment Appropriations Bill of 1952,(20) an amendment was 
offered (1) whose purpose was described by Mr. Boyd Tackett, 
of Arkansas, the proponent, as follows: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 3790 (Committee on Appropriations).
 1. 97 Cong. Rec. 4300, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 24, 1951.
 2. Id. at p. 4301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        My amendment merely limits [the Southwestern Power 
    Administration] to the exact amount this Congress gives them. In 
    other words, my amendment would prohibit the Southwestern Power 
    Administration from getting money from some other source and hiding 
    it from this Congress.

    Mr. Henry M. Jackson, of Washington, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane to the bill.(3) The 
Chairman,(4) in ruling on the point of order, stated: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 4300.
 4. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
 5. 97 Cong. Rec. 4301, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 24, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The provision of the bill sought to be amended has to do with 
    construction by the Southwestern Power Administration. The bill 
    before the House provides an appropriation of a specific amount of 
    money for this purpose. The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Arkansas [Mr. Tackett] has reference to funds from sources other 
    than those contained in the bill before the committee; therefore it 
    goes beyond the scope and the purposes of the bill presently before 
    the committee.
        . . . The Chair sustains the point of order.

Continuing Appropriations for Certain Agencies--Restriction Affecting 
    Other Funds

Sec. 15.17 To a joint resolution ``continuing'' appropriations for one 
    month, an amendment placing a restriction on the total 
    administrative budget expenditures for the fiscal year and thus 
    affecting funds not continued by the bill was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill(6) 
continuing appropriations through October 1967, the following amendment 
was offered: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.J. Res. 849 (Committee on Appropriations).
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 26957, 26958, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 27, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: On line 5 
    strike out the period, insert a semicolon and the following: ``and 
    that the joint resolution of June 30, 1967 (Public Law 90-38) as 
    amended by Public Law 90-75 and as amended herein, is further 
    amended by adding the following:
        ``Sec. 105. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, net 
    aggregate administrative budget expenditures during the fiscal year 
    ending June 30,

[[Page 8206]]

    1968 shall not exceed $131,500,000,000 . . . .''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 26959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: . . . The amendment of the 
    gentleman from Ohio seems clearly not to be in order because it is 
    not germane. It limits the expenditure of money not in the bill and 
    not covered in the resolution and it rescinds money not in the 
    resolution and not contained in the pending measure.

    In response to the point of order, the Speaker (9) 
stated: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 26959, 26960, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 27, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The joint resolution before the House extends the provisions of 
    Public Law 90-38, which currently expires on September 30, 1967, 
    through October 31, 1967.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow] 
    proposes to further amend Public Law 90-38 by adding two new 
    sections to the law--the first placing a limitation on net 
    aggregate administrative budget expenditures during fiscal 1968, 
    the second requiring a $5 billion reduction, through the 
    apportionment process, in administrative budget expenditures. . . .
        Public Law 90-38 provides ``continuing appropriations'' for 
    certain departments and agencies of the Government. Its provisions 
    cease to be effective when regular appropriation bills become law. 
    Since several appropriation acts have been signed by the President, 
    the provisions of Public Law 90-38 do not apply to all fiscal 1968 
    funds.
        The amendment, on the other hand, goes to the total 
    administrative budget. Its application goes beyond the scope of 
    Public Law 90-38.

    Citing precedents ``which stand for the general proposition that to 
a bill limited in its application to certain departments and agencies 
of Government, an amendment applicable to all departments and agencies 
is not germane,'' the Speaker sustained the point of 
order.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 26960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supplemental Appropriations for Relief--Amendment Imposing Prohibition 
    on Use Not Limited to Funds in Bill

Sec. 15.18 To a joint resolution making supplemental appropriations for 
    relief, an amendment prohibiting use of federal relief money for 
    political purposes but not limiting the prohibition to funds 
    appropriated by the pending bill, was held to be not germane.

    The proceedings of Feb. 16, 1938, relating to House Joint 
Resolution 596, making supplemental appropriations for relief, are 
discussed in Sec. 9.19, supra.

[[Page 8207]]

Provision Rescinding Agency's Funds for One Purpose--Amendment Imposing 
    Conditions on Availability of all Funds for Agency

Sec. 15.19 To a proposition rescinding an agency's funds for research 
    and education on the subject of motor vehicle seat belts and 
    passive restraints, an amendment conditioning the availability of 
    all of that agency's funds on certain findings with respect to 
    state compliance with federal standards for mandatory seat belt use 
    was conceded to be not germane, in that it affected regulatory 
    operations and was not confined to research and education funds.

    During consideration of H.R. 2577 (12) in the House on 
July 31, 1985,(13) a point of order against a motion to 
recede and concur with an amendment to the pending proposition was 
conceded and therefore sustained. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Supplemental Appropriations, fiscal 1985.
13. 131 Cong. Rec. 21832-34, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(14) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment reads as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 262: Page 75, lines 14 and 15, strike 
        out ``$7,500,000 or so much thereof as may be available on May 
        2, 1985'' and insert ``$2,000,000''. . . .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 262 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter stricken and inserted by said amendment, insert the 
        following: ``no funds shall be obligated until the Secretary 
        has made a complete, definitive and binding ruling on the 
        compliance of each state mandatory safety belt use law that has 
        been enacted as of the date of this act with the minimum 
        criteria set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
        208. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order regarding amendment No. 262. The point of order is 
    that that amendment is nongermane to the Senate amendment and so is 
    violative of the rules of the House relative to this point.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Mississippi 
    concedes the point of order. The point of order, therefore, is 
    sustained.

[[Page 8208]]

Bill Containing Funds for Allowances for Former President Nixon and 
    Other Agencies--Amendment Delaying Availability of all Funds 
    Pending Restitution by President Nixon

Sec. 15.20 While it may be in order on a general appropriation bill to 
    delay the availability of certain funds therein until a nonfederal 
    recipient meets certain qualifications so long as the contingency 
    does not impose new duties on federal officials or directly change 
    existing law, the contingency must be related to the funds being 
    withheld and cannot affect other funds in the bill which are not 
    related to that factual situation; thus, to a general appropriation 
    bill containing funds not only for certain allowances for former 
    President Nixon, but also for other departments and agencies, an 
    amendment delaying the availability of all funds in the bill until 
    Nixon has made restitution of a designated amount to the United 
    States government was held to be not germane where that contingency 
    was not related to the availability of other funds in the bill.

    In the proceedings of Oct. 2, 1974,(15) relating to 
supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1975,(16) the points 
of order made against the amendment in question were largely based on 
the contention that the amendment constituted legislation on an 
appropriation bill. Most points of order against amendments delaying 
the availability of funds pending an unrelated contingency are based on 
the issue of germaneness, and in the Chair's ruling it appeared that 
the defect in the amendment was that its scope was so broad as to 
affect funds in the bill other than those to which the limitation was 
directly related--in other words, that the amendment was not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 120 Cong. Rec. 33620, 33621, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
16. H.R. 16900.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. James V. Stanton [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. James V. Stanton: On page 14, line 
        5 after the period insert:
            ``Sec. 203. No funds shall be available for expenditure 
        under this act until such time as Richard M. Nixon has made 
        restitution to the United States Government in the amount of 
        $92,298.03 as previously determined by the Joint Committee on 
        Internal Revenue Taxation on page 201 of its report dated April 
        3, 1974.''. . .

[[Page 8209]]

        Mr. [Tom] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment.
        This amendment would impose some duty upon an agency of 
    Government in this bill. The Internal Revenue Service is the only 
    agency that can collect taxes. This obviously would require duties 
    not now required by law. It is obviously legislation in an 
    appropriation bill, and therefore it is subject to a point of 
    order. . . .
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment. . . . It merely delays 
    the availability of certain funds here appropriated until a certain 
    state of facts exist.
        It does not impose any duty upon a Federal official, in the 
    opinion of the Chair. The only duty it imposes by its terms, would 
    be upon President Nixon, who is no longer a Federal official. . . .
        If the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) wants to be heard on 
    the point of order, the Chair will withhold his final ruling. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: . . . The Chair is undoubtedly 
    correct, that this does not impose additional duties under the 
    standards set out in various cases. However, the objection of the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon), as I understand it, is that this 
    does not impose additional duties but creates substantive law. It 
    establishes a liability in effect on the President of the United 
    States, which liability does not exist by any judicial 
    determination unless this action is taken by this body.
        Mr. Chairman, what we are in effect doing is passing a special 
    bill with respect to liability of the President of the United 
    States for an amount of money that has only been determined by a 
    committee of this House and not by a court. If we pass this, we are 
    in effect saying that until he pays a certain amount of money, 
    which we say he owes by virtue of passing a law today, he will not 
    receive money that he would otherwise receive.
        I find this a very, very extensive legislative determination, 
    one which I would have doubts about on constitutional grounds, even 
    if it were brought up as a separate piece of legislation.
        I understand that the question of constitutionality is not 
    before the Chair with respect to a point of order, but I merely 
    point that out in emphasizing the great substantive effect of this 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Charles S.] Gubser [of California]: . . . (T)he word 
    ``restitution,'' if I understand the English language correctly . . 
    . would imply that the funds were held by Richard Nixon illegally. 
    Therefore if we . . . allow this amendment to stand, we are clearly 
    creating what should be a judicial decision, and we are giving it 
    legislative sanction, and it is therefore legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. Therefore I think the point of order should be 
    sustained. . . .
        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, this amendment says ``no funds in this 
    act'', and that means if this amendment is adopted unless former 
    President Nixon paid this amount of money the whole bill is dead. 
    If that does not constitute legislation on an appropriation bill I 
    do not know what does.

[[Page 8210]]

        The Chairman: The Chair must observe that the Chair is not in a 
    position to rule as suggested by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Eckhardt) on a question of constitutionality. The gentleman's point 
    may quite well be valid, but the Chair is not in a position to rule 
    on constitutionality, nor is the Chair in a position to rule upon 
    the validity of the commentary offered as to whether or not the 
    Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation may or may not have 
    established this precise figure as being owed. . . .
        The Chair is . . . impressed by the most recent comment made by 
    the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Steed) wherein the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma points out that by the terms of the amendment itself funds 
    under the entire act and not just funds for the former President, 
    would be inhibited. Let the Chair read the amendment.

            No funds shall be available for expenditure under this act 
        until such time as Richard M. Nixon has made restitution.

        The Chair is persuaded that the availability of some of the 
    funds in the act for other purposes will be based upon an unrelated 
    contingency, and the Chair is prepared to state on the basis of the 
    additional argument made since his preliminary determination that 
    he has changed his opinion regarding the scope and effect of the 
    amendment and sustains the point of order.

Senate Amendment Striking Provision Prohibiting Funds for Continental 
    Shelf Lease Sale--House Amendment Restricting Use of Funds in Bill 
    or any Other Act

Sec. 15.21 To a proposition limiting the use of funds in a bill for a 
    particular purpose, an amendment limiting the use of funds in other 
    Acts and for a purpose more general in scope is not germane; thus, 
    to a Senate amendment to an appropriation bill reported from 
    conference in disagreement, striking out a House provision 
    prohibiting the use of funds in the bill for a designated Outer 
    Continental Shelf lease sale in California, a House amendment 
    prohibiting the use of funds in the bill or in any other Act for 
    that lease sale and other California lease sales was conceded to be 
    non-germane as more general in scope.

    On Oct. 5, 1983,(18) during consideration of the 
Department of the Interior appropriations for fiscal 1984 (H.R. 3363) 
in the House, a point of order was conceded and sustained in the 
circumstances de

[[Page 8211]]

scribed above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 129 Cong. Rec. 27319, 27320, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment reads as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 95: Page 38, strike out all after line 
        21 over to and including line 15 on page 40.

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Yates moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 95 and concur therein 
        with an amendment, as follows: Restore the matter stricken by 
        said amendment, amended to read as follows:
            Sec. 113. (a) No funds in this or any other act may be 
        expended by the Department of the Interior for the lease or 
        sale of lands within the Department of the Interior Southern 
        California Planning area described in (1) through (4) below. No 
        funds may be expended for lease or sale of lands within the 
        area described in (1) through (4) so long as adjacent State 
        Tidelands continue to be designated as State Oil and Gas 
        Leasing Sanctuary pursuant to Sec. 6871.1 et seq. of the 
        California Public Resources Code . . .
            (1) An area of the Department of the Interior Southern 
        California Planning Area off the coastline of the State of 
        California Oil and Gas Leasing Sanctuary as described by Sec. 
        6871.1 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code in 
        effect September 29, 1983 . . .
            (4) An area within the boundaries of the Santa Barbara 
        Channel Ecological Preserve and Buffer Zone, as defined by 
        Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Public 
        Land Order 4587 . . . .
            (b) Until January 1, 1985, no funds may be expended by the 
        Department of the Interior for the lease or sale of lands in 
        OCS Lease Sale #80 which lie within an area located off the 
        coastline of the State of California Oil and Gas Leasing 
        Sanctuary as defined by Sec. 6871.1 et seq. California Public 
        Resources Code in effect September 29, 1983 . . . .
            (c) Until January 1, 1985, no funds may be expended by the 
        Department of the Interior for the lease or sale of lands 
        within the Department of the Interior Southern California 
        Planning area, as defined in section 2(a) of the Outer 
        Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331(a)), located in the 
        Pacific Ocean off the coastline of Santa Monica Bay, State of 
        California, which lies within a line on the California 
        (Lambert) Plane Coordinate System . . . .
            (f) In OCS Lease Sale 80, lease or sale of lands affecting 
        the responsibilities of the Department of Defense shall be with 
        the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense. . . .

        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against Senate amendment No. 95, the point of order 
    being that under rule XVI, clause 7, the provisions are not 
    germane.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is sustained.

[[Page 8212]]

Bill Appropriating Money From Reclamation Fund--Amendment To Increase 
    Appropriation From General Fund of Treasury

Sec. 15.22 To language in an appropriation bill appropriating money for 
    specific projects from the reclamation fund, an amendment proposing 
    to increase the appropriation ``from the general fund of the 
    Treasury'' was held to be not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of Interior Department 
appropriations of 1948,(20) an amendment was offered 
(1) as described above. A point of order was raised against 
the amendment, as follows: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 3123 (Committee on Appropriations).
 1. 93 Cong. Rec. 4081, 4082, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 25, 1947.
 2. Id. at p. 4082.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane 
    to this section of the bill in that this section deals with the 
    reclamation fund and not the general fund of the Treasury.

    The Chairman (3) sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appropriation for One Year--Amendment Permanently Changing Law

Sec. 15.23 To a bill making appropriations for the current fiscal year, 
    an amendment permanently changing existing law was held not germane 
    to the bill, and thus was not in order as a ``retrenchment'' of 
    expenditures even though it tended to reduce expenditures for that 
    year.

    In the 91st Congress, a bill (4) was under consideration 
making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year, including funds 
to cover increased pay costs resulting from the implementation of the 
report of the Commission on Executive, Judicial, and Legislative 
Salaries. The following amendment was offered to the bill: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 11400, Supplemental Appropriations, fiscal 1970 (Committee on 
        Appropriations).
 5. 119 Cong. Rec. 13269, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., May 21, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Hall: On page 61, after line 4 insert 
    the following:

                             General Provisions

            The Commission on Executive, Judicial, and Legislative 
        Salaries established under Public Law 90-206 is hereby 
        abolished. The salary increases recommended by the Presi

[[Page 8213]]

        dent as a result of the actions of said Commission are hereby 
        rescinded.

    Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, pointing out that the bill under 
consideration was a supplemental appropriation bill, objected to the 
amendment on two grounds, first, that it constituted legislation on an 
appropriation bill, and, second, that it was not germane to the 
bill.(6) In defending the amendment, Mr. Durward G. Hall, of 
Missouri, stated in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 13270.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Now, of course, under the restrictions or rescindments or 
    actions under rule XXI and the ``Holman rule,'' we can, in an 
    appropriation bill, take action by the act of the House to 
    eliminate anything that costs additional expense from the General 
    Treasury and that has been acted on previously.
        I think that the amendment is in order. Certainly it is 
    germane. Certainly it is a retrenchment on its face.

    The Chairman,(7) however, ruled that the amendment was 
not in order. He stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair has examined the amendment and the precedents, 
    and would call attention of the House to Cannon's Precedents, 
    volume 8, page 480, section 2914, which reads as follows: ``to a 
    section proposing legislation for the current year an amendment 
    rendering such legislation permanent was held not to be germane.''

        Then, in section 2915: ``to a provision in an appropriation 
    bill proposing legislation for the fiscal year provided for by the 
    bill an amendment proposing to make the provision permanent 
    legislation was held not to be germane.''
        The Chair therefore rules that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Missouri is not germane and therefore not in order; 
    and the Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent, based on 8 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec. 2915, represents the current practice under the 
germaneness requirement of the Holman rule; it effectively overrules an 
earlier line of precedents which stood for the proposition that it is 
in order on a general appropriation bill to provide for the abolition 
of an office if the certain effect of that abolition is to reduce funds 
contained in the bill, even though the language may provide permanent 
law, there being no distinction in the Holman rule itself between 
permanent and temporary legislation. The present practice and the 
earlier rulings are discussed in the introduction to this section.

--Amendment Permanently Changing Law Affecting Eligibility

Sec. 15.24 To a proposition appropriating funds for a program for one 
    fiscal year, an amendment permanently amending the authorizing

[[Page 8214]]

    law relating to eligibility for funding in any fiscal year is more 
    general in scope, amends another law, and is not germane.

    On Oct. 5, 1983,(8) during consideration of H.R. 3363 
(9) in the House, the Chair held that, to a Senate amendment 
to an appropriation bill reported from conference in disagreement, 
striking funds for a certain fisheries program, a House amendment 
permanently amending the authorizing law to provide authority for 
funding for a state ineligible under existing law was not germane and 
the point of order was conceded and sustained. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 129 Cong. Rec. 27313, 27314, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. The Department of the Interior Appropriations for fiscal 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment reads as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 16: Page 10, lines 10 and 11, strike 
        out ``; and for expenses necessary to carry out the Anadromous 
        Fish Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 757a-757f)''.

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Yates moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 16 and concur therein 
        with an amendment, as follows: Restore the matter stricken by 
        said amendment, amended to read as follows: '; $4,000,000, to 
        remain available until expended, for expenses necessary to 
        carry out the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 757a-
        757f), of which $500,000 shall be made available to the State 
        of Idaho without regard to the limitation as stated in 16 
        U.S.C. 757e and without regard to the Federal cost sharing 
        provisions in 16 U.S.C. 757a-757f: Provided, That 16 U.S.C. 
        757e is amended by adding the following new sentence: `The 
        State of Idaho shall be eligible on an equal standing with 
        other states for Federal funding for purposes authorized by 
        sections 757a to 757f of this title.' ''. . .

        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: . . . My point of order is 
    pursuant to clause 7 of rule XVI, the provisions of which indicate 
    that [the amendment] is not germane.
        Mr. Speaker, I make this point of order for two reasons, if the 
    Speaker would want me to be heard at this time.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is sustained.

--Amendment Affecting Permanent Appropriation and Permanently Modifying 
    Procedures for Consideration of Appropriation Bills

Sec. 15.25 To a general appropriation bill providing funds for one 
    fiscal year, an amendment changing existing law

[[Page 8215]]

    by imposing restrictions on a permanent appropriation for 
    compensation for Members of Congress, and furthermore amending the 
    rules of the House and Senate to modify procedures for 
    consideration of appropriation bills in subsequent years, was ruled 
    out of order as legislation on an appropriation bill and as not 
    germane, in that such amendment enlarged the scope of the bill and 
    was partly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules.

    On June 29, 1987,(11) during consideration of H.R. 2714 
(12) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a 
point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 133 Cong. Rec. 18082, 18083, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. The Legislative Branch Appropriations, fiscal 1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lungren: Page 31, after line 25, 
        insert the following new sections:
            Sec. 309. Subsection (c) of section 130 of the joint 
        resolution entitled ``Joint resolution making continuing 
        appropriations for the fiscal year 1982, and for other 
        purposes'' (approved October 1, 1981; Public Law 97-51) is 
        amended by striking out ``Effective'' and by inserting in lieu 
        thereof ``(1) Except to the extent provided by paragraph (2), 
        effective'' and by inserting at the end thereof the following 
        new paragraph:
            ``(2) If all general appropriation bills for any fiscal 
        year have not been presented to the President for signature 
        under section 7 of Article I of the Constitution before the 
        beginning of that fiscal year, then the appropriation contained 
        in paragraph (1) shall not be effective with respect to such 
        fiscal year.''.
            Sec. 310. It shall not be in order in either the House of 
        Representatives or the Senate to consider the general 
        appropriation bill making appropriations for the legislative 
        branch for any fiscal year unless and until all other general 
        appropriation bills for such fiscal year have been presented to 
        the President for signature under section 7 of Article I of the 
        Constitution. . . .

        Mr. [Vic] Fazio [of California]: Mr. Chairman, this amendment 
    violates the Rules of the House in several instances, as follows:
        First, it goes beyond the bill under consideration, amending 
    the continuing resolution, and as such is not germane. This is a 
    violation of rule XVI, clause 7.
        Second, the amendment constitutes legislation on an 
    appropriations bill and as such is in violation of clause 2 of rule 
    XXI.
        Third, in effect, this amendment amends the Rules of the House, 
    a subject which is under the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Rules. . . .
        Mr. Lungren: Mr. Chairman, I would have to concede that this is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. Unfortunately, this is the 
    only manner in which this subject seems to be able to be raised. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. William J. Hughes (N.J.).

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

[[Page 8216]]

        The gentleman from California [Mr. Lungren] has conceded the 
    point of order raised by the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
    gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], and the point of order is 
    sustained.

Provision Imposing Diverse Conditions Upon Availability of Funds--
    Amendment To Permanently Change Law Affecting Eligibility of 
    Recipients

Sec. 15.26 To a proposal continuing the availability of appropriated 
    funds and also imposing diverse legislative conditions upon the 
    availability of appropriations, an amendment directly and 
    permanently changing existing law as to the eligibility of certain 
    recipients was conceded to go beyond the scope of the categories of 
    legislative changes contained therein and to be nongermane.

    The proceedings of Dec. 10, 1981, relating to House Joint 
Resolution 370, continuing appropriations for fiscal 1982, are 
discussed in Sec. 23.4, infra.

Restriction on Funds Applicable Beyond Fiscal Year Covered by Bill

Sec. 15.27 To an appropriation bill for the Department of Defense, an 
    amendment was held to be germane which sought to implement certain 
    policies, already required by law to be put into effect, by 
    providing that none of the funds appropriated by the act be used, 
    after a certain date, extending beyond the fiscal year covered by 
    the bill, to finance military operations by United States forces in 
    Vietnam where some funds in the bill were available beyond that 
    fiscal year.

    In the 92d Congress, during consideration of Department of Defense 
appropriations for fiscal 1972,(14) the following amendment 
was offered: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 11731 (Committee on Appropriations).
15. 117 Cong. Rec. 41838, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 17, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: On 
    page 48, immediately following line 7, add the following new 
    section under Title VII:
        ``Sec. 745. In line with Title VI of the 1971 Military 
    Procurement Act calling for termination of all U.S. military 
    operations in Indochina at the earliest practicable date and for 
    the prompt and orderly withdrawal of all U.S. military forces at a 
    date certain, subject to the release of all American prisoners and 
    an accounting for all Americans missing in action, and notwith

[[Page 8217]]

    standing any other provisions in this Act, none of the funds 
    appropriated by this Act shall be used to finance any military 
    combat or military support operations by U.S. forces in or over 
    South Vietnam, North Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia, after November 7, 
    1972, if all American prisoners shall have first been released and 
    all Americans missing in action shall have been accounted for.''

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

        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on two grounds:
        First, very simply, the November 7, 1972, date goes beyond the 
    fiscal year for which this appropriation is being made;
        Second, and I think most important, is the final paragraph, 
    which was also written into the Boland amendment: ``if all American 
    prisoners shall have first been released and all Americans missing 
    in action shall have been accounted for.''
        This provision places an additional responsibility and duty 
    upon someone, but there is nothing in the amendment as to who would 
    have that responsibility and duty. The amendment provides that all 
    prisoners must have been released or accounted for. I repeat that 
    this is an additional responsibility in legislation in this 
    amendment. Therefore I urge my point of order.

    The following remarks were made in response to the point of order: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 41839.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jacobs: . . . So far as the responsibility is concerned, 
    this is only a provision that the amendment will take effect on the 
    happening of an event. That event may or may not happen. It places 
    no responsibility on anyone. . . .
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: . . . I should like to 
    point out, in response to the remarks of the distinguished 
    gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow], that there are funds provided in the 
    bill for programs that go beyond the end of the fiscal year.

    The Chairman,(17) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair will point out, first, 
    that there are funds in the bill that do go beyond this fiscal 
    year, and therefore holds that the termination date included in the 
    amendment of the gentleman from Indiana does not render the 
    amendment not germane. . . .
        For these reasons, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Appropriation for Emergency Fuel Assistance--Amendment Delaying 
    Availability Pending Enactment of Oil Windfall Profit Tax

Sec. 15.28 An amendment delaying the availability of an appropriation 
    pending an unrelated contingency is not germane to an appropriation 
    bill; thus, to a joint resolution appropriating funds to

[[Page 8218]]

    the Community Services Administration for emergency fuel 
    assistance, an amendment prohibiting any of such funds from being 
    obligated before the date of enactment of any law imposing an oil 
    windfall profit tax was held to be not germane.

    On Oct. 25, 1979,(18) during consideration of House 
Joint Resolution 430 in the House, the Speaker Pro Tempore 
(19) sustained a point of order against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 125 Cong. Rec. 29639, 29640, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Giaimo: Page 3, after line 3, 
        insert the following new sentence: ``None of the funds 
        appropriated by this Act may be obligated before the date of 
        the enactment of any Federal law imposing a windfall profit tax 
        on producers of domestic crude oil.''. . .

        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, the 
    amendment before us violates the rules of the House, inasmuch as it 
    is not germane under clause 7, rule XVI.
        The amendment clearly goes beyond the bill and, in fact, 
    addresses an entirely separate piece of legislation that is not 
    referred to in any manner in House Joint Resolution 430.
        I urge the point of order be sustained.
        We have ample precedents, Mr. Speaker, of similar situations 
    which clearly show that an amendment delaying the operation of 
    proposed legislation pending an unrelated contingency is not 
    germane. I cite Deschler's Procedure 28.4, Mr. Speaker. . . .
        Mr. Giaimo: . . . The amendment which I am offering here 
    addresses itself to this legislation. It is simply a limitation and 
    says none of the funds appropriated can be obligated before the 
    date of enactment of any Federal law imposing a windfall profit 
    tax.
        That is a simple limitation, which I think is not subject to a 
    point of order. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has examined several precedents and would like to 
    point to chapter 28, section 4.11 of Deschler's Precedents:

            To a bill extending and amending laws relating to housing 
        and the renewal of urban communities, an amendment providing 
        that no funds could be appropriated or withdrawn from the 
        Treasury for the purposes of the bill until enactment of 
        legislation raising additional revenue, was held not to be 
        germane.

        The Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman from 
    Kentucky (Mr. Natcher).

--Amendment Restricting Use of Oil Windfall Profit Taxes for Any Other 
    Purposes

Sec. 15.29 To a joint resolution appropriating funds to the Community 
    Services Administration for emergency fuel

[[Page 8219]]

    assistance, an amendment providing that notwithstanding any other 
    provision of law, no portion of any oil windfall profit taxes 
    imposed by law may be transferred to any other use except to the 
    extent that the amount of such taxes exceeded the amount 
    appropriated by the joint resolution, was conceded to be subject to 
    the point of order that it was not germane.

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 430 in the House on 
Oct. 25, 1979,(20) a point of order against the following 
amendment was conceded and sustained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 125 Cong. Rec. 29639, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Giaimo: Page 3, after line 3, 
        insert the following new sentence: ``Notwithstanding any other 
        provision of law [whether enacted before, on, or after the date 
        of the enactment of this Act], no portion of any windfall 
        profit taxes imposed by Federal law on producers of domestic 
        crude oil may be transferred to any other use except to the 
        extent that the amount of such taxes exceeds the amount 
        appropriated by this Act.''

        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo).
        Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The gentleman from 
    Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) concedes the point of order and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provision Restricting Availability of Funds Except Under Condition--
    Amendment Imposing Different Condition

Sec. 15.30 To a Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill 
    prohibiting the availability of funds in any Act for salaries and 
    expenses for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Treasury for 
    Enforcement and Operations after a date certain unless Congress 
    enacts authorizing legislation for the Customs Service, a proposed 
    substitute amendment restricting availability of funds in that bill 
    for the same office unless specific categories of products, 
    determined to have been produced by slave or convict labor in the 
    Soviet Union, are barred from customs entry into the United States 
    was conceded to be

[[Page 8220]]

    not germane as a condition totally unrelated to that contained in 
    the Senate amendment.

    The proceedings of Nov. 7, 1985, during consideration of H.R. 3036 
(Treasury and Postal Service appropriations for fiscal 1986), are 
discussed in Sec. 27.27, infra.

Provision Directing Park Service To Lease Land--Substitute Prohibiting 
    Use of Funds To Lease Property to Concessionaires

Sec. 15.31 For an amendment to a general appropriation bill directing 
    the National Park Service to lease certain land at fair market 
    rental value, a substitute prohibiting the use of funds in the bill 
    for lease of that property by the National Park Service to 
    concessionaires was held germane and a negative limitation on the 
    use of funds which did not add legislation to that permitted to 
    remain in the original amendment.

    During consideration of H.R. 14231 (2) in the Committee 
of the Whole on June 25, 1976,(3) the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. The Department of Interior Appropriation bill for fiscal 1977.
 3. 122 Cong. Rec. 20548-50, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Yates: On page 10, line 2, strike 
        the period, insert a semicolon and the following:
            Provided, That the National Park Service shall not lease 
        the facilities located at 900 Ohio Drive in the District of 
        Columbia on any other basis than the fair market rental value 
        generally pertaining for such premises in the area.

        Mr. [Gilbert] Gude [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gude as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Yates: On page 27, between lines 18 
        and 19, insert the following:
            ``Sec. 109. No part of the appropriations made available 
        under this title shall be available for the use of the Federal 
        buildings located at 900 Ohio Drive, Haines Point in the 
        District of Columbia by any concessioner of the National Park 
        Service for any purpose.''

        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order against the 
    amendment offered as a substitute by the gentleman from Maryland 
    (Mr. Gude). . . .
        Mr. Chairman, while this amendment has the appearance of a 
    simple limitation, as a matter of fact, it is much more than that. 
    The amendment prohibits the use of funds in the bill for use by a 
    national park concessioner of a National Park Service building. The 
    intent of the amendment is to

[[Page 8221]]

    evict the concessioner from the building. At the present time, the 
    concessioner which occupies the building pays an annual rent and 
    also pays for utilities and routine maintenance. If the 
    concessioner vacates the building, the National Park Service must 
    assume responsibility for maintenance and utility costs. The 
    National Park Service estimates these costs to be about $26,000 per 
    year.
        Mr. Chairman, there are ample precedents in the rules of the 
    House and I suggest that on page 551 under the Rules of the House, 
    under section 843, ample precedents are cited to demonstrate that 
    limitations on appropriation bills ``must not impose new duties 
    upon an executive officer.''
        Clearly this amendment imposes additional duties and 
    responsibilities on the National Park Service. . . .
        Mr. Gude: Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment provides nothing 
    more than the Park Service merely targets a lease. I do not think 
    it confers any responsibilities on them that they do not already 
    have. I think it is clearly germane and in order. It is no less 
    germane than the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Yates).

        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) raises a point of order 
    to the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from New York.
        The question the Chair must decide is whether the substitute 
    amendment is germane to the original amendment and whether it adds 
    additional legislation to that which is already in the amendment of 
    the gentleman from Illinois.
        The substitute amendment of the gentleman from Maryland, in the 
    opinion of the Chair, is germane--relating to leasing of the same 
    property, and does not add additional legislation to that which is 
    already in the original amendment. Rather, the substitute is a 
    negative limitation on funds in the bill.
        The Chair must, therefore, reluctantly overrule the point of 
    order.

Provision Limiting Funds for Salary Increases for Members of Congress--
    Amendment To Further Restrict Funds for Salaries of Members Voting 
    Against Increase

Sec. 15.32 To a proposition limiting the use of any fiscal 1980 funds 
    to pay salary increases for Members of Congress above 5 percent 
    while permitting top executive and judicial salaries to be 
    increased by 7 percent, an amendment further restricting 
    availability of those funds to pay salaries of those Members voting 
    against any salary increase for Members contained in the pending 
    joint resolution was held germane as an additional restriction on 
    the use of the same funds, applied to the same category of 
    recipients.

[[Page 8222]]

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 404 in the House on 
Sept. 25, 1979,(5)  the Speaker overruled a point of order 
against the amendment described above, demonstrating that, to a 
proposition restricting the availability of funds to a certain category 
of recipients, an amendment further restricting the availability of 
those funds to a subcategory of the same recipients is germane. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 125 Cong. Rec. 26135, 26136, 26138, 26140-43, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 H.J. Res. 404

            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
        Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of applicable 
        corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds, for the 
        several departments, agencies, corporations, and other 
        organizational units of the Government for the fiscal year 
        1980, namely:
            Sec. 101. (a)(1) Such amounts as may be necessary for 
        continuing projects or activities. . . .
            For the fiscal year 1980, funds available for payment to 
        executive employees, which includes Members of Congress, who 
        under existing law are entitled to approximately 12.9 percent 
        increase in pay, shall not be used to pay any such employee or 
        elected or appointed official any sum in excess of 5.5 percent 
        increase in existing pay and such sum if accepted shall be in 
        lieu of the 12.9 percent due for such fiscal year: Provided 
        further, That for the purpose of carrying out this provision 
        and notwithstanding the provisions of the Federal Pay 
        Comparability Act of 1970, the Executive Salary Cost-Of-Living 
        Adjustment Act, or any other related provision of law, which 
        would provide an approximate 12.9 percent increase in pay for 
        certain Federal officials for pay periods beginning on or after 
        October 1, 1979, and notwithstanding section 102 of this joint 
        resolution, the provisions of section 304 of the Legislative 
        Branch Appropriation Act, 1979, which limit the pay for certain 
        Federal offices and positions, shall apply to funds 
        appropriated by this joint resolution or any Act for the fiscal 
        year 1980 except that in applying such limitation the term ``at 
        a rate which exceeds by more than 5.5 percent the rate'' shall 
        be substituted for the term ``at a rate which exceeds the 
        rate'' where it appears in subsection (a) of such section for 
        the purpose of limiting pay increases to 5.5 percent. . . .

        Mr. [George M.] O'Brien [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. O'Brien: On page 5, strike lines 
        10 through 16.
            On page 6, line 3, strike everything after ``1980'' through 
        line 8, and insert a period. . . .

        Mr. [Joseph L.] Fisher [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fisher as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. O'Brien: Page 5, beginning on line 3, 
        strike out ``(except as to executive salaries which are covered 
        subsequently)'' and insert in lieu thereof ``(without regard to 
        section 305 thereof)''.

[[Page 8223]]

            Page 5, strike out line 10 and all that follows down 
        through ``limitation'' on line 4 of page 6 and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
            Notwithstanding the provisions of the Federal Pay 
        Comparability Act of 1970, the Executive Salary Cost-Of-Living 
        Act, or any other related provision of law, which would provide 
        an approximate 12.9 percent increase in pay for certain Federal 
        officials for pay periods beginning on or after October 1, 
        1979, and notwithstanding section 102 of this joint resolution, 
        the provisions of section 304 of the Legislative Branch 
        Appropriation Act, 1979, shall apply to funds appropriated by 
        this joint resolution or any Act for the fiscal year 1980; 
        except that in applying the limitation in such section 304 to 
        the pay of offices and positions (other than Members of 
        Congress) covered by that section the term ``at a rate which 
        exceeds by more than 7 percent the rate'' shall be substituted 
        for the term ``at a rate which exceeds the rate'' where it 
        appears in subsection (a) of such section for the purpose of 
        limiting such pay increases to 7 percent, and in applying such 
        limitation to the pay of Members of Congress. . . .

        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Peyser to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Fisher as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. 
        O'Brien: After the substitute offered by the gentleman from 
        Virginia add the following:
            Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, no 
        part of the funds appropriated by this Act for fiscal year 1980 
        shall be available to pay the salary of any Member at a rate 
        which exceeds the salary rate payable for that office for 
        September 30, 1978, if at any time in the consideration of this 
        resolution that Member voted in a recorded vote for any 
        amendment that has the effect of limiting the amount payable 
        for Members of Congress to the rate payable for September 30, 
        1978. . . .

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: . . . I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the substitute. 
    The amendment conditions the use of funds to pay salaries on the 
    votes of Members of Congress on this resolution and, therefore, 
    introduces new subject matter, both a Member's voting record and a 
    new method of calculating pay depending on the Member's voting 
    record. The amendment places nongermane restrictions on the use of 
    funds and should be ruled out of order. . . .
        The Speaker: (6) . . . The Chair will rule that the 
    Fisher substitute contains a selective restriction on the 
    availability of funds in the bill by separating salaries of certain 
    employees, as opposed to Members of the Congress of the United 
    States, and that is in order. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Peyser) is a further selective 
    restriction on the availability of fiscal 1980 funds for the 
    Members' pay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that the amendment as offered by the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Peyser) is germane to the Fisher amendment, and 
    the point of order of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) 
    is overruled.

[[Page 8224]]

Provision Restricting Funds To Pay Salary Increases for Members--
    Amendment To Use Changes in Public Debt as Standard for Determining 
    Funds Available for Salaries

Sec. 15.33 An amendment which conditions the expenditure of funds 
    covered by a bill by adopting as a measure of their availability 
    the monthly increase in the public debt limit may be germane so 
    long as the amendment does not directly affect other provisions of 
    law or impose contingencies predicated upon other unrelated actions 
    of Congress; thus, to a joint resolution making continuing 
    appropriations and restricting the use of any fiscal 1980 funds to 
    pay cost-of-living salary increases for Members of Congress and 
    other federal employees above a certain percentage, an amendment 
    prohibiting the use of all such funds to pay over 99 percent of 
    Members' salaries in any month in which the public debt has been 
    increased was held germane since not amending or affecting the 
    public debt limit, but rather using that limit as an easily 
    ascertainable standard by which to relate Members' salary 
    entitlements to the entire Federal fiscal situation.

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 404 (continuing 
appropriations for fiscal year 1980), the Speaker overruled a point of 
order against the amendment described above. The proceedings of Sept. 
25, 1979,(7) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 125 Cong. Rec. 26150-52, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Kramer [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Kramer: Page 6, insert before line 
        13 the following: Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
        joint resolution or any other provision of law, for any month 
        immediately following any month during which the total public 
        debt subject to the statutory debt limit, as reported in the 
        monthly statement of the public debt published by the 
        Department of the Treasury, indicates an increase from the 
        level so reported during the preceding month, no part of the 
        funds appropriated for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
        1980, by this Act or any other Act may be used to pay the 
        salary of any Member of the Congress at a rate greater than 99 
        percent of the rate which would be payable without regard to 
        this sentence. . . .

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane.
        The amendment deals with the subject of Federal pay and has the 
    pur

[[Page 8225]]

    pose of limiting Federal pay. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Kramer) introduces a new subject of a 
    public debt, a completely new subject of public debt, and a 
    different method of limiting Federal pay, that is, calculated 
    relations between Federal pay and the public debt. . . .
        Mr. Kramer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from Deschler's 
    Procedure, chapter 25, section 2.1 and also section 2.3. I think 
    the precedents are very clear that this amendment is germane. I 
    read as follows:

            A joint resolution providing continuing appropriations for 
        departments and agencies of government, to provide funds until 
        the regular appropriation bills are enacted, is not a ``general 
        appropriation bill'' within the meaning of clause 2 Rule XXI.
            The restrictions against unauthorized items or legislation 
        in a general appropriation bill or amendment thereto are not 
        applicable to a joint resolution continuing appropriations, 
        despite inclusion of diverse appropriations which are not 
        ``continuing'' in nature.

        Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding, in talking to the 
    Parliamentarian's office, that a contingency amendment is, indeed, 
    germane, provided that the contingency itself is within the scope 
    of the performance of Congress.
        I would ask that the amendment be ruled germane on that basis. 
    . . .
        The Speaker: (8) The Chair is ready to rule on the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
    Kramer) provides a mechanism for measuring the ceiling to be placed 
    on the amount of fiscal 1980 funds which can be available to pay 
    salary increases for Members. The amendment does not in any way 
    directly affect provisions of law relating to public debt levels 
    during fiscal 1980.
        As indicated in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 
    24.18, the Chair ruled on July 26, 1973, that an amendment which 
    conditions the expenditure of funds in a bill by adopting as a 
    measure of their availability the expenditure during that fiscal 
    year of a comparable percentage of funds authorized by other acts 
    is germane, so long as the amendment does not directly affect the 
    obligation and expenditure of other funds or the administration of 
    other programs.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the legislative standard stated in 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado as a measure 
    of the amount of pay increase to be paid by fiscal 1980 
    appropriated funds is an easily ascertainable method of adjusting 
    the availability of those funds in relation to the Federal 
    financial situation as a whole, and is not drafted as a contingency 
    which is dependent upon specific unrelated events or actions of 
    Congress.
        The gentleman's point of order is overruled.

Restriction on Use of Funds for Enforcement of OSHA Regulations 
    Applicable to Small Farms--Amendment To Ensure Compliance by 
    Congress With OSHA Requirements

Sec. 15.34 To a substitute amendment prohibiting the use of

[[Page 8226]]

    funds in a general appropriation bill for the enforcement of any 
    regulation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act applicable 
    to small farms, an amendment adding at the end thereof the 
    requirement that such funds be expended to assure full compliance 
    under that Act by Congressional Members and staff was held not 
    germane.

    The proceedings of June 24, 1976, relating to H.R. 14232 (Labor and 
Health, Education and Welfare appropriations for fiscal 1977), are 
discussed in Sec. 8.20, supra.

Provision To Bar Use of Contributions to United Nations Program for 
    Assistance to Cuba--Amendment To Make Provision Applicable to Any 
    Country That Has Severed Diplomatic Relations

Sec. 15.35 To a provision in a general appropriation bill ``That the 
    President shall seek to assure that no contribution to the United 
    Nations Development Program . . . shall be used for projects for . 
    . . assistance to . . . Cuba,'' an amendment was held to be germane 
    which sought to make the provision applicable to any country which 
    has severed diplomatic relations with the United States.

    In the 90th Congress, the foreign aid appropriation bill for fiscal 
1968 (9) was under consideration, which provided in part: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 13893 (Committee on Appropriations).
10. See 113 Cong. Rec. 32886, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 16, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        International organizations and programs: For expenses 
    authorized by section 302(a), $125,000,000: Provided, That the 
    President shall seek to assure that no contribution to the United 
    Nations Development Program authorized by the Foreign Assistance 
    Act of 1961, as amended, shall be used for projects for economic or 
    technical assistance to the Government of Cuba, so long as Cuba is 
    governed by the Castro regime: Provided further, That no part of 
    this appropriation shall be used to initiate any project, activity, 
    or program which has not been justified to the Congress.

    The following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri: On page 
    3, line 5, delete the words ``That the President shall seek to 
    assure that''; and further, on line 10, after the word ``regime'' 
    add a comma and the words ``or to any country which has severed 
    diplomatic relations with the United States.''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 32887.

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

[[Page 8227]]

        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, this 
    amendment does not serve just to perfect a legislative provision 
    that might be protected by the rule adopted earlier, but it seeks 
    to expand into a whole new area not contemplated in the present 
    legislative provision and purports to deal with countries with 
    which we have broken diplomatic relations. We would be adding a 
    whole new section since the amendment is not limited to funds 
    appropriated under this Act.

    The Chairman,(12) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The section of the bill to which the amendment is offered is 
    legislation which has been permitted to remain by waiver of points 
    of order. Such legislative provisions can be perfected by germane 
    amendments.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Missouri is germane and therefore overrules the point of 
    order.

Bill Permitting President To Allocate Appropriation to Agencies--
    Amendment To Allocate Portion to Specified Agency

Sec. 15.36 To a bill appropriating a certain sum and providing that the 
    President may make allocations therefrom to various agencies of the 
    government, an amendment proposing that a certain amount of such 
    fund should be allocated to a specific agency of the government was 
    held to be germane.

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of a relief 
appropriations bill,(13) an amendment was offered 
(14) as described above. Mr. John Taber, of New York, raised 
the point of order that the amendment was not germane. The 
Chairman,(15) in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.J. Res. 361 (Committee on Appropriations).
14. 81 Cong. Rec. 5012, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., May 25, 1937.
15. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida . . . 
    provides that part of the appropriation in this bill shall be 
    allocated to one of the agencies of government, the Federal 
    Administration of Public Works.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is germane to 
    the bill, and therefore overrules the point of order.

Bill Containing Funds for Agency--Amendment Containing Funds for 
    Different Agency for Related Purpose

Sec. 15.37 To a portion of an appropriation bill containing funds for a 
    certain purpose to be expended by one government agency, an 
    amendment containing funds for another government agency

[[Page 8228]]

    for the same general purpose may not be germane although authorized 
    by law; thus, to a title of a general appropriation bill containing 
    funds for energy programs administered by the Department of Energy, 
    an amendment appropriating a portion of those funds for a pilot 
    wood utilization program authorized by law to be conducted by the 
    Department of Agriculture was held not germane.

    On July 24, 1981,(16) during consideration of a bill 
(17) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Anthony C. 
Beilenson, of California, sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 127 Cong. Rec. 17226, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. H.R. 4144, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations, fiscal 
        1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Weaver: Page 16, line 19, insert 
        immediately before the period the following: ``, and Provided 
        further, That $5,000,000 of the funds provided herein shall be 
        made available to the Secretary of Agriculture for the 
        establishment of pilot wood utilization projects and 
        demonstrations as authorized by the Wood Residue Utilization 
        Act of 1980, Public Law 96-554.''.

        Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the gentleman's amendment. . . .
        The amendment is not germane to this paragraph of the bill nor 
    to the bill as a whole. The wood residue program is authorized by 
    Public Law 96-554, and clearly is to be administered by the Forest 
    Service, Department of Agriculture, which is funded under the 
    Interior appropriations bill.

        This program was not authorized to be administered or funded by 
    the Department of Energy, which is where the gentleman's amendment 
    applies.
        Under clause 7, rule XVI, it is stated that it is not in order 
    during consideration in the House to introduce a new subject by way 
    of amendment, and an amendment inserting an additional section 
    should be germane to the portion of the bill to which it is 
    offered.
        I contend this amendment is not germane to this paragraph or 
    this bill and is in violation of clause 7, rule XVI. . . .
        Mr. Weaver: . . . [T]he Department of Energy now funds wood 
    utilization programs. This bill is law. We are not changing 
    existing law. We are referring only to existing law and it is an 
    energy manufacturing program and, therefore, definitely germane to 
    this bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bevill).
        For the purposes stated by the gentleman from Alabama, the 
    distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the point of order is 
    sustained and the amendment is held not germane to the

[[Page 8229]]

    pending title of the bill, which relates only to the Department of 
    Energy.

Paragraph Containing Funds for Agency--Amendment Increasing Amount by 
    Transferring Funds From Other Accounts

Sec. 15.38 To a paragraph of a general appropriation bill containing 
    funds for an agency but not transferring funds to that account from 
    other paragraphs in the bill, an amendment increasing that amount 
    by transfer from an account in another paragraph is not germane, 
    since affecting budget authority for a different agency not the 
    subject of the pending paragraph.

    Where a paragraph of a bill, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
State and Judiciary Appropriations for fiscal 1986 (H.R. 2965), 
contained funds for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but did not 
transfer funds from other accounts in the bill, an amendment increasing 
that budget authority by transfer from funds contained in a paragraph, 
not yet read, for the National Endowment for Democracy was ruled out as 
not germane. The proceedings of July 17, 1985,(18) were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 131 Cong. Rec. 19431, 19432, 19435-37, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (19) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

                        Federal Bureau of Investigation

                             salaries and expenses

            For expenses necessary for detection, investigation, and 
        prosecution of crimes against the United States; including 
        purchase for police-type use of not to exceed one thousand six 
        hundred forty passenger motor vehicles . . . acquisition, 
        lease, maintenance and operation of aircraft; and not to exceed 
        $70,000 to meet unforeseen emergencies of a confidential 
        character, to be expended under the direction of the Attorney 
        General, and to be accounted for solely on his certificate; 
        $1,194,132,000, of which not to exceed $25,000,000 for 
        automated data processing and telecommunications and $1,000,000 
        for undercover operations shall remain available until 
        September 30, 1987. . . .

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Florida: On page 15, in 
        line 4, strike ``$1,194,132,000,'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$1,203,625,000, of which $9,493,000 shall be derived by 
        transfer from the appropriation in this Act for ``National 
        Endowment for Democracy'',''.

    Mr. Neal E. Smith, of Iowa, raised a point of order against the 
amendment:

[[Page 8230]]

        Mr. Smith of Iowa: . . . My point of order is that it is in 
    violation of clause 7, rule XVI. It involves an increase in the FBI 
    by a transfer of funds. There are no transfers in the bill for the 
    FBI. The money would be transferred from a source that is entirely 
    different and unrelated, and therefore taking money that is 
    intended for one purpose and transferring it to an entirely 
    different purpose when it is offered as an amendment is not 
    germane. . . .
        Mr. Young of Florida: . . . The amendment does not violate 
    section 303 of the Budget Act because the amendment does not 
    provide new budget authority but rather provides funds by transfer 
    from elsewhere in the bill.
        The amendment does not violate rule XXI, clause 2, because it 
    is in order to perfect a paragraph in the bill permitted to remain 
    by a waiver of points of order, so long as the amendment does not 
    add legislation or unauthorized items. A transfer of funds within 
    the confines of an appropriation bill is not considered 
    legislation, and clearly the amendment does not add unauthorized 
    items. The amendment is germane to the bill which contains numerous 
    other transfers. For example, I call to the Chair's attention page 
    6 and page 7, where there are numerous transfers from one fund to 
    another in that section of the bill alone.
        So I would hope that the Chair would overrule the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: If no one else wishes to be heard on the point of 
    order, the Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair believes that the amendment is not germane to this 
    paragraph because there are no other transfers involved in this 
    particular paragraph and it would affect an account in an unrelated 
    portion of the bill.
        The Chair, therefore, upholds the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith].

Bill Providing New Budget Authority--Amendment To Provide In Lieu 
    Thereof for Transfer of Unexpended Balances of Funds Previously 
    Appropriated

Sec. 15.39 It is not germane to change a direct appropriation of new 
    budget authority from the general fund of the Treasury into a 
    reappropriation (in effect a rescission) of funds previously 
    appropriated for an entirely different purpose in a special reserve 
    account; thus, to a bill providing new budget authority for 
    emergency agricultural credit, an amendment contained in a motion 
    to recommit with instructions to provide, in lieu of that new 
    budget authority, for a transfer of unexpended balances of funds 
    previously appropriated for a totally unrelated purpose was held to 
    be not germane.

[[Page 8231]]

    On Feb. 28, 1985,(20) during consideration of H.R. 1189 
(1) in the House, Speaker Pro Tempore Alan D. Wheat, of 
Missouri, sustained a point of order against a motion to recommit the 
bill with instructions to the committee of jurisdiction. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 131 Cong. Rec. 4133, 4134, 4146, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. Emergency Farm Credit Appropriation, fiscal 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 H.R. 1189

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may 
    be cited as the ``Emergency Agricultural Credit Appropriations 
    Act''.

                         DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                          Farmers Home Administration

                       agricultural credit insurance fund

        For an additional amount for guaranteed loans under this fund 
    in accordance with and subject to the provisions of 7 U.S.C. 1928-
    1929, $1,000,000,000, which shall be in addition to the 
    $150,000,000 provided in Public Law 98-396 and the $500,000,000 
    made available by Public Law 98-473. Such funds shall be available 
    in order that farm producers may obtain the necessary financing for 
    calendar 1985 operations. Such funds shall be used to prevent 
    foreclosure of farm loans through extending the period of repayment 
    of existing loans and the reduction in rate of interest. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion to 
    recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Conte moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 1189, to the 
        Committee on Appropriations, with instructions to that 
        committee to report the bill back to the House forthwith, with 
        the following amendment.
            On page 2, in line 10, after ``$1,000,000,000,'' insert 
        ``to be derived by transfer from unobligated balances in the 
        Energy Security Reserve.''.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the motion to recommit with instructions in 
    that it attempts to propose as instructions, language which would 
    not have been in order directly as an amendment during the reading 
    of the bill. The instructions include what is in effect a 
    rescission which was not considered by the House and which would 
    have violated clause 7 of rule XVI if there had been a reading of 
    the bill for amendment.
        The bill under consideration provides supplemental 
    appropriations for fiscal year 1985. The gentleman's instructions 
    would rescind funds appropriated in fiscal year 1980 for the 
    Synthetic Fuels Corporation, a matter clearly not related to this 
    bill.
        Mr. Speaker, because the motion contains language not in order 
    during consideration of the bill in the House, I believe it 
    violates the germaneness rule of the House. I ask for a ruling of 
    the Chair. . . .
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, the 
    point of order should be overruled. An amendment in a motion to 
    recommit with instructions

[[Page 8232]]

    must be germane to the bill as a whole. Although the amendment does 
    affect previously appropriated funds, so do several provisions of 
    the bill itself.
        On page 2, in lines 15 through 18, there is language that 
    provides that funds in the bill ``shall be used to prevent 
    foreclosure of farm loans through extending the period of repayment 
    of existing loans.'' This language directly affects loans 
    guaranteed with funds under existing law.
        On page 3, in lines 2 through 14, there is language which 
    provides for ``review of FATM loans,'' and ``deferral of principal 
    and interest and the foregoing of foreclosure.'' This language 
    directly affects loans held by the Farmers Home Administration.
        On page 4, in lines 2 through 5, there is language directing 
    the administrator of the Small Business Administration to use loan 
    guarantee authority to restructure existing loans.
        Taken as a whole, the bill clearly affects the use of 
    previously appropriated funds and authority. My amendment, which 
    also affects previously appropriated funds, is germane, and 
    therefore I ask the Chair to overrule the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Mississippi makes the point of order that 
    the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts 
    (Mr. Conte) is not germane to the bill H.R. 1189. The bill reported 
    from the Committee on Appropriations provides only new budget 
    authority for emergency agricultural credit. The bill does not 
    directly transfer or reappropriate any unexpended balances of 
    appropriations nor does it rescind previously appropriated funds.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the effect of the motion to 
    recommit is to decrease sums already appropriated for a program--
    Synfuels payments for future defaults on loans guaranteed pursuant 
    to the Energy Security Act--totally unrelated to the program under 
    consideration--farm credit--and to convert into immediate budget 
    outlays obligational authority which was not intended to represent 
    any outlays except in the event of a future default. The amendment 
    in the motion to recommit has the effect of transferring the 
    original appropriation for Synfuels loan guarantees, a proposition 
    not contemplated in the bill reported from the Committee on 
    Appropriations. The Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The instant ruling is important as it 
stands for the proposition that it is not germane to decrease sums 
already appropriated for a program totally unrelated to the proposition 
under consideration (in effect a rescission), and to convert into 
immediate budget outlays obligational authority which was not intended 
to represent any outlays except in the unlikely event of a future 
default. Of course, germaneness was the only test here, since the 
pending bill was not a general appropriation to which Rule XXI clause 6 
would apply. In such a case, the amendment would clearly have been a

[[Page 8233]]

reappropriation in violation of that rule.

Rescission of Prior-year Appropriations

Sec. 15.40 To a bill reducing certain prior-year appropriations and 
    containing a paragraph appropriating money ``for grants to States 
    for administration of unemployment compensation and employment 
    service facilities'' as authorized in another act, an amendment was 
    held to be germane which provided that ``any unobligated balance of 
    the appropriation made in the first paragraph under the heading 
    `Employment Office Facilities and Services' in title VII of the 
    Labor-Federal Appropriation Act, 1946, shall be carried to the 
    surplus fund and covered into the Treasury, and after June 30, 
    1946, appropriations shall be made only for grants to States for 
    administration of unemployment compensation and employment service 
    facilities as authorized'' since both the bill and amendment 
    reduced prior-year appropriations.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (2) was under consideration 
reducing certain appropriations and contract authorizations available 
for the fiscal year 1946. The bill stated in part: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 4407 (Committee on Appropriations).
 3. See 91 Cong. Rec. 9846, 9850, 9851, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 19, 
        1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That the appropriations and contractual 
    authorizations of the departments and agencies available in the 
    fiscal year 1946, and prior year unreverted appropriations, are 
    hereby reduced in the sums hereinafter set forth, such sums to be 
    carried to the surplus fund and covered into the Treasury 
    immediately upon the approval of this act.

     Title I--Executive Office of the President, Independent Offices, 
                         and Executive Departments

                       executive office of the president

                        Office for Emergency Management

        Foreign Economic Administration:

        Salaries and expenses, $5,226,461, and limitations under this 
    head are hereby decreased as follows: (1) Travel within continental 
    United States from ``$234,000'' to ``$150,000,'' (2) reimbursement 
    to employees for emergency or extraordinary expenses from 
    ``$75,000'' to ``$40,000,'' and (3) expenses of a confidential 
    character from ``$1,200,000'' to ``$25,000.''. . .
        Office of Economic Stabilization:
        Salaries and expenses, $53,780, and limitations under this head 
    are hereby decreased as follows: (1) Penalty mail

[[Page 8234]]

    costs from ``$2,250'' to ``$1,500,'' (2) traveling expenses from 
    ``$4,500'' to ``$4,000,'' and (3) printing and binding from 
    ``$2,000'' to ``$1,600.''. . .

               emergency funds appropriated to the president

        Emergency fund for the President, national defense, 
    $45,000,000.
        Defense aid--lend-lease:
        (1) Ordnance and ordnance stores, supplies, spare parts, and 
    materials, $57,990,000.
        (2) Aircraft and aeronautical material, $85,705,000. . . .

                            Independent Offices

        Civil Service Commission: Salaries and expenses, Civil Service 
    Commission (national defense), $2,032,000.
        Employees' Compensation Commission: Employees' compensation 
    fund, $1,761,644.
        Federal Communications Commission: Salaries and expenses, 
    Federal Communications Commission (national defense), $930,000. . . 
    .

                           social security board

        There is appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not 
    otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1946, 
    for grants to States for administration of unemployment 
    compensation and employment service facilities operated in 
    conjunction therewith, as authorized in title III of the Social 
    Security Act, approved August 14, 1935, as amended, $30,000,000, 
    which shall be in addition to the amounts appropriated for such 
    purposes in title II of the Labor-Federal Security Appropriation 
    Act, 1946.

    The following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of 
    Massachusetts]: On page 8, line 10, after the period, strike out 
    lines 11 through 20 and insert the following:
        ``On July 1, 1946, any unobligated balance of the appropriation 
    made in the first paragraph under the heading `Employment Office 
    Facilities and Services' in title VII of the Labor-Federal 
    Appropriation Act, 1946, shall be carried to the surplus fund and 
    covered into the Treasury, and after June 30, 1946, appropriations 
    shall be made only for grants to States for administration of 
    unemployment compensation and employment service facilities as 
    authorized in title III of the Social Security Act, approved August 
    11, 1935, as amended, and in the act of June 6, 1933, as amended, 
    known as the Wagner-Peyser Act.''

    Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane and that it was legislative in character. 
The Chairman,(4) in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment is obviously 
    germane. It relates to the same subject as specified in the bill.

    The following exchange ensued:

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, this, to my mind, 
    is the situation: The amendment is a rescission. The paragraph 
    which is made in order under the rule is an appropriation; 
    therefore the amendment is not in order.

[[Page 8235]]

        The Chairman: In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment 
    offered is germane to the paragraph which deals with appropriations 
    for this purpose. The amendment offered also deals with 
    appropriations for the same purpose. In the opinion of the Chair 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts is 
    clearly germane and the Chair overrules the point of order. . . .
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: I do not question the 
    germaneness, but I heard the bill referred to as a legislative 
    bill, and if it is interpreted as a legislative bill, the amendment 
    making an appropriation, of course, would not be in order.
        The Chairman: This certainly is not a general appropriation 
    bill but a bill with reference to rescission of appropriations. The 
    only question which could occur from a parliamentary standpoint 
    would be the question of germaneness. In the opinion of the Chair, 
    the amendment is clearly germane. . . .

Germaneness--Guidelines Under Impoundment Control Act

Sec. 15.41 Debate concerning procedures under section 1011(3) of the 
    Impoundment Control Act of 1974, suggested that only those 
    amendments to a ``rescission bill'' would be germane which would 
    (1) strike rescissions contained in the bill, (2) change the amount 
    proposed to be rescinded but not to a figure in excess of that 
    recommended by the President, or (3) add rescissions recommended by 
    the president in the same message covered by the bill but not in 
    excess of the proposed amount.

    On Dec. 4, 1974,(5) the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of H.R. 17505 (a bill to 
rescind certain budget authority recommended in Presidential messages). 
During the course of the proceedings, the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 120 Cong. Rec. 38192, 38193, 38202, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 17505) 
    to rescind certain budget authority recommended in the messages of 
    the President of September 20, 1974 (H. Doc. No. 93-361), October 
    4, 1974 (H. Doc. No. 93-365) and November 13, 1974 (H. Doc. No. 93-
    387), transmitted pursuant to section 1012 of the Impoundment 
    Control Act of 1974; and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that general debate be limited to 1 hour and that 
    the time be divided equally between the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) and myself.

[[Page 8236]]

        The Speaker: (6) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
    bill H.R. 17505, with Mr. Bolling in the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (7) Under the unanimous-consent 
    agreement, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) will be recognized 
    for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) 
    will be recognized for 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, the House in the consideration of this 
    measure is breaking new ground. This is the first bill to be 
    reported to the House as a result of the passage by the Congress of 
    the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. We 
    will remember that over a period of months there was considerable 
    controversy between the legislative branch and the executive branch 
    over the withholding of funds to carry out various programs that 
    had been approved by Congress and had been appropriated for by the 
    Congress.
        This new act provides a process for rescission in a special way 
    which has not heretofore existed. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of Members and others, I will ask 
    permission to insert at this point in the Record an explanation of 
    the Impoundment Control Act which is title X of the Congressional 
    Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344). It 
    is brief and simple but, in my judgment, useful:

             Summary of Rescission and Deferral Provisions of the 
            Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974

            Title X of this Act provides two ways for the President to 
        terminate or defer spending that the Congress has provided--
        either through a budget rescission or a budget deferral. In 
        each case, Congress has the opportunity to overturn the 
        President and to require that the funds it originally provided 
        be made available for obligation.

                         rescission of budget authority

            When the President decides not to use all or part of the 
        money which the Congress has provided for a program, he must 
        send a rescission message to the Congress. The House and Senate 
        then have 45 days in which to approve the President's proposal 
        through a rescission bill canceling the budget authority 
        previously made available. This bill must be passed by the 
        House and Senate and signed by the President. If this is not 
        done within 45 days of the date of the Presidential message 
        containing the proposed rescission, the money must then be made 
        available for obligation.

                          deferral of budget authority

            When the President proposes to delay spending for some 
        project or program for some period of time not beyond the end 
        of the fiscal year, he must send a budget deferral message to 
        the Congress.

[[Page 8237]]

            The President may then defer spending according to his 
        proposal unless and until either the House or Senate passes an 
        impoundment resolution disapproving the proposed deferral. As 
        opposed to the rescission process, this requires action by only 
        one House. . . .

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I have a question 
    for the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte). This being, I 
    believe, the maiden voyage of this kind of legislation in the 
    House, I am not fully aware of what rights a common, garden-variety 
    Member of the House has to amend this bill.
        I understand that there was some $8 billion in the foreign aid 
    pipeline as of last July 1, the beginning of this fiscal year. 
    Would it be within the prerogative of a Member of the House, just 
    an ordinary Member, to offer an amendment to this bill, to perform 
    a rescission on the money in the pipeline for the foreign giveaway 
    program?
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: . . . No, it would 
    not be in order because we would be limited here to the subject 
    matters and the maximum amounts that the President sent up for 
    rescission, and since that is not a part of that package, no one 
    can get a crack at it in this bill. Let me further explain.
        Let me point out to the gentleman from Iowa that section 
    1011(3) of the Budget and Impoundment Control Act states that a 
    ``rescission bill means a bill or joint resolution which only 
    rescinds, in whole or in part, budget authority proposed to be 
    rescinded in a special message transmitted by the President under 
    section 1012 . . . ''
        The statement of purpose, and the enacting clause, of H.R. 
    17505 contain citations to section 1012 of the Impoundment Control 
    Act of 1974, in order to insure that the bill is a rescission bill, 
    within the meaning of Public Law 93-344.
        Accordingly, amendments to the bill are limited as follows:
        First, the committee amendments, of which two are substantive, 
    striking the rescissions for REA and REAP;
        Second, amendments which would strike rescissions in the bill, 
    or change the amount rescinded, provided the amount in the 
    amendment is equal to or less than, the amount proposed in the 
    Presidential message; and
        Third, amendments which would add rescissions, provided the 
    rescission to be added has been proposed by the President in a 
    message cited in the enacting clause of the bill, and the amount is 
    equal to, or less than, the amount proposed by the President. . . .
        The Chairman: The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                             National Park Service

            Contract authority provided for the fiscal year ending June 
        30, 1973 by section 105(a)(10) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act 
        of 1970 (Public Law 91-605) for ``Parkways'' is rescinded in 
        the amount of $10,461,000. . . .

        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 4, line 1, strike ``IV'' and 
        insert ``III''.

        The committee amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise 
    and

[[Page 8238]]

    report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the 
    recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, 
    as amended, do pass.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Bolling, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee 
    having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 17505) to rescind 
    certain budget authority recommended in the messages of the 
    President of September 20, 1974 (H. Doc. 93-361), October 4, 1974 
    (H. Doc. 93-365) and November 13, 1974 (H. Doc. 93-387), 
    transmitted pursuant to section 1012 of the Impoundment Control Act 
    of 1974, had directed him to report the bill back to the House with 
    sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be 
    agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    bill and all amendments thereto to final passage.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If 
    not, the Chair will put them en gros.
        The amendments were agreed to.
        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was 
    read the third time, and passed.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The statement made by Mr. Conte, above, 
reflects the agreed-upon parameters of amendments to the rescission 
bill concurred in by the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, 
Richard Bolling, who was the chief sponsor and manager of the Budget 
and Impoundment Act in the 93rd Congress.

Specific Project Added to River and Harbor Projects

Sec. 15.42 To that portion of the Civil Functions, Department of the 
    Army, Appropriation Bill pertaining to river and harbor projects, 
    an amendment in the form of a new paragraph providing an 
    appropriation for a specific inland waterway previously authorized 
    by law was held to be germane.

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of the Civil Functions, 
Department of the Army, Appropriation Bill of 1950,(8) the 
following amendment was offered: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 3734 (Committee on Appropriations).
 9. 95 Cong. Rec. 3141, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 24, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: 
    Page 8, after line 8, insert the following new paragraph:
        ``Tennessee-Tombigbee inland waterway: For the prosecution of 
    the works of improvement with respect to the Tombigbee and 
    Tennessee Rivers heretofore authorized by law (Public Law 522, 79th 
    Cong.) $3,000,000.''

[[Page 8239]]

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

        Mr. [Clarence A.] Cannon [of Missouri]: I make the point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment is not germane at this 
    point in the bill, and therefore not in order.

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

        This is the part of the bill that covers projects of this kind. 
    I have prepared this amendment to carry out the mandate of Congress 
    2 years ago and the recommendation of the Army engineers. This 
    amendment merely introduces a new section after line 8 on page 8 
    and provides for funds to begin construction of this great inland 
    waterway. . . .

    A further point of order was made as follows:

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: The provision for rivers and 
    harbors is entirely included in the paragraph beginning at line 10 
    on page 5 of the bill and ending on line 8, page 8, and all 
    amendments relating to additional rivers and harbors projects would 
    have to be offered within that paragraph. . . .
        I think that it must be offered as an amendment to the figure 
    $176,000,000 on page 6, line 22, where all provisions for rivers 
    and harbors are included.

    The ruling of the Chairman (10) was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair invites attention to the fact that the 
    paragraph of the bill now under consideration relates to rivers and 
    harbors, maintenance and improvements of existing river and harbor 
    works. The gentleman from Mississippi offers an amendment . . . 
    which seeks to add a new paragraph under the same heading of rivers 
    and harbors, maintenance and improvements of existing river and 
    harbor work. The Chair invites attention to the fact that the 
    pending amendment relates to the prosecution of work on 
    improvements with respect to certain rivers as heretofore 
    authorized by law. The Chair is constrained to believe that the 
    amendment is in order as a new paragraph and, therefore, overrules 
    the point of order.

Appropriation Bill--Amendment To Raise Revenue

Sec. 15.43 To a bill appropriating money, an amendment proposing to 
    raise revenue is not germane.

    For discussion of this principle, see 8 Cannon's Precedents 
Sec. 3038; and see the proceedings of Apr. 26, 1932, at 75 Cong. Rec. 
8982, 8983, 72d Cong. 1st Sess. See also clause 5(b) of Rule XXI as 
added by the 98th Congress in 1983, providing that: No bill or joint 
resolution carrying a tax or tariff measure shall be reported by any 
committee not having jurisdiction to report tax and tariff measures, 
nor shall an amendment in the House or proposed by the Senate carrying 
a tax or tariff measure be

[[Page 8240]]

in order during the consideration of a bill or joint resolution 
reported by a committee not having that jurisdiction. A question of 
order on a tax or tariff measure in any such bill, joint resolution, or 
amendment thereto may be raised at any time. Rule XXI clause 5(b) is 
discussed further at Deschler's Procedure (1987 supp.) Ch. 17, 
Sec. Sec. 17.12 et seq. For general discussion of committee 
jurisdiction, see Ch. 17 Sec. Sec. 26 et seq., supra. Also of interest 
are Ch. 26 (legislation on appropriation bills) and Ch. 13 Sec. Sec. 13 
et seq. (House prerogatives with respect to revenue measures), supra.

Amendment Enlarging Scope of Provision by Striking Language

Sec. 15.44 To that provision in a general appropriation bill requiring 
    deposit in the Treasury of all receipts from sale of electric power 
    in the ``southeastern power area,'' an amendment striking out the 
    limitation with respect to geographic area was held to so enlarge 
    the scope of the provision sought to be amended as to present a 
    different subject and to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of the Interior 
Department Appropriation Bill of 1952,(11) an amendment was 
offered (12) as described above. A point of order was raised 
against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 3790 (Committee on Appropriations).
12. 97 Cong. Rec. 4294, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 24, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Arkansas on the ground that it is not germane to the matter now 
    under consideration and that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill; and that it changes the scope and purpose of the bill.

    The Chairman,(13) in sustaining the point of order, 
cited the principle that, ``if the effect of striking out the language 
[is to so alter] the scope and import of the text as to present a 
subject different from that under consideration, it is not germane.'' 
(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
14. 97 Cong. Rec. 4295, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 24, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Different Methods of Apportionment of Funds Among States

Sec. 15.45 To an appropriation bill an amendment striking out a 
    legislative provision stating that certain funds ``shall be 
    apportioned among the States in accordance

[[Page 8241]]

    with regulations promulgated by the Secretary'' and inserting a 
    provision that such funds be made available to the states pursuant 
    to a specified provision of existing law was held to be in order as 
    a germane amendment which did not add further legislation.

    In the 83d Congress, the Departments of Labor, and Health, 
Education, and Welfare and related Independent Agencies Appropriation 
Bill of 1955 (15) was under consideration, which provided in 
part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 9447 (Committee on Appropriations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Office of Vocational Rehabilitation

        . . . For payments to States . . . in accordance with the 
    Vocational Rehabilitation Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. ch. 4) . . . 
    $21,000,000. . . . Provided further, That the funds herein 
    appropriated shall be apportioned among the States in accordance 
    with regulations promulgated by the Secretary to insure equitable 
    maintenance and improvement of State programs . . . . 
    (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 100 Cong. Rec. 7963, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., June 9, 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The following amendment was offered: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at pp. 7963, 7964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: 
    Page 17, line 15, strike out ``shall be apportioned among the'' and 
    strike out all of lines 16 through 20, inclusive, and in lieu 
    thereof insert the following: ``shall be made available to the 
    States in accordance with the provisions of section 3 (a) of Public 
    Law 113, 78th Congress, approved July 6, 1943.''

    Mr. John Taber, of New York, having raised a point of order against 
the amendment, the Chairman (18) ruled as follows: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Donald W. Nicholson (Mass.).
19. 100 Cong. Rec. 7964, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., June 9, 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is well established that if a legislative provision is 
    permitted to remain in an appropriation bill, it may be amended by 
    a germane proposition which does not add further legislation. This 
    amendment provides a method of apportionment different from what is 
    specified in the pending bill. It deals with money in the bill and 
    its apportionment. Therefore, it is germane. The provision in the 
    bill certainly grants wide, discretionary power to the Secretary of 
    the Department as to how money in the paragraph shall be 
    apportioned among the States, and under this provision of the bill 
    the Secretary seems not to be bound by prior laws governing the 
    matter. The pending amendment is also legislation, but it would 
    narrow authority granted by the bill, and would confine the 
    Secretary to the provisions of an existing law. Therefore the 
    amendment does not add further legislation, and, as already stated, 
    it is germane. . . .

[[Page 8242]]

Appropriation To Maintain National Forests--Amendment To Make the 
    Appropriation Available for Payment to States

Sec. 15.46 To that paragraph in an appropriation bill making an 
    appropriation for protection, maintenance and development of 
    national forests, an amendment was held to be not germane which 
    sought to make the appropriation available for certain payments to 
    states.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of the Department of 
Agriculture Appropriations Bill of 1952,(20) an amendment 
was offered whose purpose was explained by the proponent as follows: 
(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 3973 (Committee on Appropriations).
 1. 97 Cong. Rec. 5217, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., May 10, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clair] Engle [of California]: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of 
    this amendment is to earmark $1,350,000 which is money illegally 
    taken away from the western counties by the Forest Service. That 
    money was due to these counties under the Forest Management Act of 
    May 23, 1908, which provides that 25 percent of all moneys received 
    during any fiscal year from each national forest shall be paid at 
    the end of the year to the State in which the national forest is 
    situated, to be expended as the State legislatures may prescribe 
    for the benefit of public schools and public lands of the county or 
    counties in which the national forest is situated.

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

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: I make a point of order against 
    the amendment on the ground that it is not germane to the paragraph 
    to which offered, that it is not authorized by law, and that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman, (2) in ruling on the point of order, 
    stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The paragraph to which the amendment is offered makes an 
    appropriation for specific purposes, namely, for the 
    ``administration, protection, use, maintenance, improvement, and 
    development of the national forests,'' thus the paragraph provides 
    money for narrowly defined use only on national forests, which 
    belong to the Federal Government.
        The amendment in question seeks to make available a part of 
    this appropriation for a purpose entirely different from the 
    purposes spelled out in the paragraph of the bill. . . . Regardless 
    of the use to which the States could put the money, the payment of 
    claims to States as outlined . . . is in no wise germane to the 
    administration, protection, et cetera, of national forests. 
    Building State roads and schools is even further remote from 
    expenditures on Federal forests.

[[Page 8243]]

Provisions Restricting Funds for Activities of Legal Services 
    Corporation--Amendment Applying Some Substantive Provisions of 
    Federal Law to Corporation

Sec. 15.47 To a Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill 
    subjecting funds for the Legal Services Corporation to a 
    comprehensive series of restrictions on its activities for that 
    fiscal year and reconstituting its board of directors, a proposed 
    amendment also applying to that corporation ``with respect to the 
    use of funds in the bill'' certain substantive provisions of 
    Federal criminal and civil law not otherwise applicable to it was 
    held not germane.

    The proceedings of Oct. 26, 1989, relating to the conference report 
on H.R. 2991, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1990, are discussed 
in Sec. 34.37, infra.

Unrelated Method of Reducing Expenditure

Sec. 15.48 To a joint resolution providing for continuing 
    appropriations for certain governmental functions pending enactment 
    of regular appropriation bills and curtailing certain government 
    expenditures, an amendment requiring the Bureau of the Budget to 
    compile and report to each Member of the House the total federal 
    expenditures in his congressional district and directing the 
    Members to take certain steps to effect a reduction in 
    expenditures, was ruled not germane as a method of reducing 
    expenditures unrelated to reductions in the joint resolution.

    In the 90th Congress, a joint resolution (3) was under 
consideration continuing appropriations for fiscal 1968. The following 
proceedings (4) related to the propriety of a proposed 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.J. Res. 888 (Committee on Appropriations).
 4. 113 Cong. Rec. 29290, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 18, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Charles S.] Joelson [of New 
        Jersey] Strike out everything after the first paragraph and add 
        the following after the first paragraph:
            ``The Bureau of the Budget shall . . . submit to each 
        Member of the House of Representatives a list of federal 
        expenditures . . . in the congressional district represented by 
        each Member . . . for the 1968 fiscal year.

[[Page 8244]]

            ``. . . Each Member . . . shall . . . submit to the 
        chairman of the House Appropriations Committee a list of 
        recommended elimination or reduction of Federal spending in the 
        congressional district represented by him or her . . . .''

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane 
    to the joint resolution. It would impose additional duties on the 
    Bureau of the Budget and would require reports of committees which 
    are not now required. . . .
        Mr. Joelson: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is directed at the 
    reduction of expenditures in each congressional district to the 
    tune of 5 percent of the total expenditures in each district. As I 
    understand the resolution under consideration, its purpose is to 
    reduce spending by 5 percent. My amendment would merely establish a 
    different way of accomplishing this purpose. Therefore, I submit 
    that the amendment is germane.
        The Chairman: (5) Reading the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New Jersey, in the opinion of the Chair the 
    amendment includes a directive to the Bureau of the Budget and 
    provides for an investigation by Members of the House and a review 
    by the Committee on Appropriations. The Chair thinks the points 
    made by the gentleman from Texas are well taken. The Chair sustains 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Charles A. Vanik (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provision Authorizing President To Make Reductions With Assistance of 
    Budget Director--Amendment To Authorize Budget Director To Hold 
    Certain Funds in Reserve or Make Certification as to Necessity for 
    Release

Sec. 15.49 Where an amendment to a general appropriation bill sought to 
    reduce appropriations and contract authorizations and to authorize 
    the President to make such reductions with the assistance of the 
    Director of the Bureau of the Budget, a substitute for such 
    amendment was held to be germane and not to add additional 
    legislation which required the Director of the Bureau of the Budget 
    to place in reserve, from funds available for administrative 
    expenses, certain amounts not to be released for expenditure unless 
    the Director certifies that maintenance of essential government 
    services so requires.

    In the 81st Congress, during proceedings relating to a general 
appropriation bill for 1951,(6) an

[[Page 8245]]

amendment was under consideration which provided: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.R. 7786 (Committee on Appropriations).
 7. 96 Cong. Rec. 6812, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., May 10, 1950. See also 
        Sec. 15.50, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: On page 
    411, following line 21, insert a new chapter, as follows:

     ``Chapter X-A. General Reductions in Appropriations and Contract 
                               Authorizations

        ``Reductions in appropriations and contract authorizations 
    contained in this act are hereby made in the sum of $500,000,000 
    [and the President is hereby authorized, with the aid and 
    assistance of the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, to make 
    such reductions totaling $500,000,000 in appropriations and 
    contract authorizations contained in this act, including funds for 
    Government corporations]. . . .''

    Despite its legislative features, no point of order was made 
against the Thomas amendment. To such amendment, the following 
amendment was offered: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 6813.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Clarence A.] Cannon [of Missouri] as 
    a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Thomas: On page 411, 
    after line 21, insert the following:
        ``In apportioning funds for the fiscal year 1951, the Director 
    of the Bureau of the Budget shall place in reserve not less than 5 
    percent of the amounts available for administrative expenses and 
    such reserves shall not be released for expenditure unless the 
    Director of the Bureau of the Budget shall certify that maintenance 
    of essential Government service so requires.''

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

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment submitted by the gentleman 
    from Missouri on the ground that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, that it adds additional duties to be performed 
    by an executive officer of the Government.

    The Chairman,(9) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment very carefully and is of 
    the opinion that the amendment is in order as a substitute for the 
    Thomas amendment. The Chair might point out that the Thomas 
    amendment contained some legislative features. The substitute 
    offered by the gentleman from Missouri is germane and does not, in 
    the opinion of the Chair, add any additional legislation. The 
    Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Amendment to Legislative Provision

Sec. 15.50 Where an amendment to a general appropriation bill is 
    technically improper because proposing a change in existing law, 
    but is per

[[Page 8246]]

    mitted to remain through the failure to raise a point of order, the 
    amendment may be perfected by germane amendments.

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of a general 
appropriation bill,(10) an amendment was under consideration 
authorizing the President, assisted by the Director of the Bureau of 
the Budget, to make certain reductions in 
appropriations.(11) To such amendment, an amendment was 
offered to require the Director of the Bureau of the Budget to place in 
reserve a certain portion of the amounts available for administrative 
expenses, such reserves not to be released for expenditure except under 
certain conditions.(12) In ruling on a point of order made 
by Mr. James G. Fulton, of Pennsylvania, the Chairman (13) 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 7786 (Committee on Appropriations).
11. See 96 Cong. Rec. 6812, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., May 10, 1950. See also 
        Sec. 15.49, supra.
12. Id. at p. 6813.
13. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] has offered a 
    substitute amendment which has been reported. The gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania [Mr. Fulton] has made a point of order against the 
    amendment.
        The Chair . . . is of the opinion that the amendment is in 
    order as a substitute for the Thomas amendment. The Chair might 
    point out that the Thomas amendment contains some legislative 
    features. The substitute offered by the gentleman from Missouri is 
    germane and does not . . . add any additional legislation.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Expenditure Limitation in Dollar Amount - Amendment Increasing 
    Limitation Pursuant to Formula

Sec. 15.51 To a provision in a general appropriation bill fixing an 
    expenditure limitation in a dollar amount for a fiscal year, an 
    amendment increasing the limitation by an amount to be computed 
    pursuant to a specified formula was held to be germane.

    On May 21, 1969,(14) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration a section of an appropriation bill setting a 
limitation on expenditures for the fiscal year at $192,900,000,000. An 
amendment was offered increasing the limitation by an amount equal to 
certain budgetary fixed costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 115 Cong. Rec. 13271, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11400, Supplemental Appropriations for fiscal 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, on the

[[Page 8247]]

grounds that it constituted legislation. Acknowledging that legislative 
provisions in that portion of the bill itself were not subject to the 
point of order, because the House had adopted a resolution 
(15) waiving such points of order, the Member making the 
objection (George H. Mahon, of Texas) contended that the waiver 
pertained only to matter contained in the bill, not amendments to the 
bill. The Chairman, relying on the principle that a provision as to 
which points of order have been waived may be perfected by germane 
amendment, overruled the point of order. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See H. Res. 414 at 115 Cong. Rec. 13246, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., May 
        21, 1969, waiving points of order against Title IV of H.R. 
        11400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Jeffery] Cohelan of California: 
        On page 62, line 3, add the following as a new section:
            ``(c) The limitation set forth in subsection (a), as 
        adjusted in accordance with the proviso to that subsection, 
        shall be increased by an amount equal to the aggregate amount 
        by which expenditures and net lending (budget outlays) for the 
        fiscal year 1970 on account of items designated as ``Open-ended 
        programs and fixed costs'' in the table appearing on page 16 of 
        the Budget for the fiscal year 1970 may be in excess of the 
        aggregate expenditures and net lending (budget outlays) 
        estimated for those items in the April review of the 1970 
        budget.''

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment in that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        Mr. Chairman, the rule pertaining to title IV only protects 
    what is in the bill, not amendments to the bill.
        The Chairman [Chet Holifield, of California]: The Chair is 
    ready to rule.

        The Chair has examined title IV. This is a new subparagraph to 
    title IV. Title IV is legislation in a general appropriation bill, 
    and all points of order have been waived in title IV, as a result 
    of it being legislation. Therefore the Chair holds that the 
    amendment is germane to the provisions contained in title IV and 
    overrules the point of order.