[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§ 3. Amendment as Relating to Subject Matter Under Consideration]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 7447-7569]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 3. Amendment as Relating to Subject Matter Under Consideration

    A broad requirement of the germaneness rule is that an amendment 
relate to the subject matter under consideration. It has been stated 
that,

        The fundamental test of germaneness . . . is that a proposition 
    submitted must be akin and relative to the particular subject 
    matter to which the proposition is offered as an 
    amendment.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 3.26, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, an amendment relating to a subject to which there is no 
reference in the text to which offered may not be germane to the 
bill.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 5.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of course, the fact that two subjects are related does not 
necessarily render them germane to each other.(1) 
``Germaneness,'' as has been noted,(2) implies more than 
``relevance.'' For example, it has been held that, to a proposal to 
authorize certain activities, an amendment proposing to investigate the 
advisability of undertaking such activities is not 
germane.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See, for example, Sec. 3.57, infra.
 2. See Sec. 1, supra.
 3. See Sec. 5.29, infra.

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

[[Page 7448]]

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

Amendment Affecting Excess-Profits Tax Credits Offered to Bill Relating
 to Settlement of Strikes

Sec. 3.1 To a bill relating to the settlement of labor disputes and 
    strikes, an amendment was held to be not germane which proposed 
    reduction of excess-profits tax credits of employers in an amount 
    determined by the duration of any work stoppages resulting from 
    labor disputes on the employers' premises.

    In the 79th Congress, during consideration of a bill (4) 
relating to the settlement of labor disputes, the following amendment 
was offered: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 4908 (Committee on Labor).
 5. 92 Cong. Rec. 1009, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 6, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of 
    Pennsylvania] to the Case amendment: Page 15, after line 8, add a 
    new section, as follows:

        Excess-Profits Tax Carry-Back Credits as Affected by Strikes

        Sec. 14. If in any taxable year ending after December 31, 1945, 
    there exists a stoppage of work at any time during such taxable 
    year because of a labor dispute at the factory, establishment, or 
    other premises of the taxpayer, who is an employer under any of the 
    provisions of this act, the unused excess-profits credit for such 
    taxable year shall be reduced by an amount which is such part of 
    the unused excess-profits credit as the number of days during which 
    such stoppage was in effect is of the total number of days in such 
    taxable year prior to January 1, 1947.

    After Mr. Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, made the point of order 
that the amendment was not germane, Mr. Eberharter stated:

        . . . [T]he amendment applies only to those employers who are 
    taxpayers and whose plant or establishment is affected by a strike 
    or by a work stoppage. Therefore, it brings them entirely within 
    the provisions of both the committee bill and the Case amendment.

    The Chairman,(6) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Emmet O'Neal (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [A]fter having examined all the bills that have been 
    introduced, including the declarations of policy, the opening 
    paragraphs, and all the remainder of the bills, as far as the Chair 
    can discover there is not one word mentioned about taxes or the 
    disposition of taxes. Although the rule and the action of the House 
    in adopting the rule opened the whole question to a very wide 
    interpretation, the Chair does not feel that the question of the 
    disposition of excess profits is within the purview of any of the 
    bills. The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

[[Page 7449]]

Amendment Declaring Intent of Congress as to Suspension of Tax Measures 
    Offered to Bill Relating to Settlement of Strikes

Sec. 3.2 To a bill relating to the settlement of labor disputes and 
    strikes, an amendment declaring the intent of Congress that certain 
    tax measures be suspended for the duration of any strikes that 
    impair the economy was held not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, during consideration of a bill (7) 
relating to the settlement of labor disputes, the following amendment 
was offered: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 4908 (Committee on Labor).
 8. 92 Cong. Rec. 854, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 4, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey, of West 
    Virginia, to the Case substitute for H.R. 4908: On page 3, line 18, 
    after the word ``arbitration'', strike out the period, insert a 
    comma, and insert ``And in this connection it is the declared 
    intent of the Congress that all subsidies now being paid out of the 
    United States Treasury in the form of tax refunds, tax rebates, and 
    `carry back' payments to individuals, companies, or corporations, 
    be suspended for the duration of any strike or strikes now existing 
    or that may occur during the calendar year that lead to industrial 
    unrest, delay reconversion, and otherwise impair our national 
    economy.''

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

        Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment is clearly out of order. It is not germane to the bill. 
    There is nothing in this bill that has anything to do with the 
    carry-back.

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

        Mr. Bailey: The Congress is being asked for a two-page 
    declaration of policy contained in the proposed Case substitute to 
    H.R. 4908 to make known its intent as regards strikes in industry. 
    This declaration of policy is also predicated on the assumption 
    that the speedy end of strikes will be in the public welfare and 
    tend also to stabilize our post-war economy.

    The Chairman, Emmet O'Neal, of Kentucky, in ruling on the point of 
order, stated: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 855.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Bailey] deals with both taxation 
    and the disposition of taxes, and is not germane to the pending 
    amendment.
        The point of order is sustained.

Bill Relating to Settlement of Strikes--Amendment to Federal Corrupt 
    Practices Act Concerning Political Contributions of Labor 
    Organizations

Sec. 3.3 To a bill relating to the settlement of labor disputes

[[Page 7450]]

    and strikes, an amendment seeking to amend the Federal Corrupt 
    Practices Act and concerning political contributions of labor 
    organizations was held to be not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(10) relating to settlement of labor disputes, the following 
amendment was offered: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 4908 (Committee on Labor).
11. 92 Cong. Rec. 1020, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 6, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Ralph E.] Church [of Illinois]: Page 
    15, line 9, of the Case amendment, insert the following:
        Section 13 of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, 1925, is 
    hereby amended to read as follows:
        Sec. 13. It is unlawful . . . for any corporation . . . or any 
    labor organization to make any contribution . . . or levy any 
    assessments on its . . . members . . . in connection with any 
    election at which Presidential and Vice Presidential electors, or a 
    Senator or a Representative in . . . Congress are to be voted for. 
    . . .

    Mr. Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, having raised the point of 
order that the amendment was not germane, the Chairman (12) 
without elaboration held that the amendment was not germane to the 
bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Emmet O'Neal (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Prohibiting Compensation to Persons Forcibly Seeking To 
    Prevent Workmen From Returning to Work Offered to Amendment 
    Prohibiting Compensation to Defense Employees Participating in 
    Strikes

Sec. 3.4 To an amendment prohibiting compensation to persons 
    participating in strikes while employed in the production of 
    defense articles, a substitute prohibiting compensation under 
    specified circumstances to any person ``who assists in maintaining 
    a picket line or otherwise seeks forcibly to prevent the return of 
    workmen'' to work, was held not germane.

    In the 77th Congress, during proceedings relating to the Military 
Appropriations Bill of 1942,(13) the following proposition 
(14) was under consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 4965 (Committee on Appropriations).
14. See 87 Cong. Rec. 4837, 4838, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., June 6, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Joe] Starnes [of Alabama]: On page 
    71, after line 12, insert a new section, as follows:
        Sec. 11. No part of any appropriation contained in this act 
    shall be available

[[Page 7451]]

    for the payment of compensation to any person by whomsoever 
    employed who, while employed directly or indirectly, in the 
    manufacture or production of any defense article, as defined in 
    Public Act No. 11, Seventy-seventh Congress, shall hereafter stop 
    work for a period in excess of 10 days by reason of being a 
    voluntary participant in any strike called in any plant 
    manufacturing or producing defense articles.

    The following substitute amendment was offered: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 87 Cong. Rec. 4887, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., June 9, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Substitute amendment for the Starnes amendment by Mr. [Francis 
    H.] Case of South Dakota:
        Sec. 13. No part of any appropriation contained in this act 
    shall be available for the payment of compensation to any person 
    for services in a plant engaged in the manufacture or production of 
    any defense article . . . who assists in maintaining a picket line 
    or otherwise seeks forcibly to prevent the return of workmen after 
    the National Mediation Board shall have certified to the President 
    that further stoppage of work in that plant will critically impede 
    the national-defense program.

    The following proceedings (16) then took place with 
respect to a point of order raised against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at pp. 4887, 4888.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John B.] Snyder [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (17) . . . The Chair . . . is clearly 
    of the opinion that the substitute amendment is not in order by 
    reason of the fact that it is not germane to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Starnes]. The amendment as 
    offered by the gentleman from Alabama has to do with the stoppage 
    of work, by its terms saying ``shall hereafter stop work for a 
    period in excess of 10 days,'' and so forth, whereas the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from South Dakota has to do with picketing 
    and picketing lines, which is quite different from a stoppage of 
    work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For that reason the substitute is not in order, inasmuch as it 
    is not germane to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Alabama [Mr. Starnes]. On the ground that it is not germane, the 
    Chair holds it is out of order.

Bill To Promote Cotton Research and Marketing--Amendment Affecting 
    Labor in Cotton Industry

Sec. 3.5 To a bill establishing a cotton research program and promoting 
    the marketing of cotton, an amendment providing for research with 
    respect to training and utilization of displaced farm labor in the 
    cotton industry, was held to be not germane.

    The following exchange,(18) which occurred during 
consideration of the Cotton Research and

[[Page 7452]]

Promotion Act of 1966,(19) concerned the propriety of 
amendments offered by Mr. William F. Ryan, of New York:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 4838, 4839, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 3, 1966.
19. H.R. 12322 (Committee on Agriculture).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: [The amendments] 
    are not germane. They provide for research and development projects 
    and studies with respect to training or retraining and utilization 
    of displaced farm labor engaged in the growing of cotton. . . .
        The bill under consideration deals only with cotton and the 
    promotion and research in the field of cotton. The bill has nothing 
    whatever to do with farm labor. . . .
        Mr. Ryan: Mr. Chairman, I know of nothing more germane or 
    relevant to a bill which deals with the increased productivity of 
    cotton, which deals with the question of competitive efficiency, 
    than at the same time to deal with the question of what happens to 
    individuals engaged in the farming of cotton who are affected by 
    that increased productivity. . . .
        [Section 6(b) of H.R. 12322] provides for research and 
    development projects and studies with respect to production and 
    distribution to make marketing more efficient and cotton generally 
    more competitive.
        My amendment is a companion to that section. It calls for 
    research and development projects and studies with respect to 
    training . . . of displaced farm labor engaged in the growing of 
    cotton. . . .
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is of the opinion that 
    the amendment deals with persons in farm labor, and the bill itself 
    deals with commodities and the promotion of commodities, and that 
    the amendment is not germane and sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provision Abolishing Federal Energy Administration--Amendment Delaying 
    Termination

Sec. 3.6 To an amendment abolishing the Federal Energy Administration 
    on a date certain and transferring some of its functions to other 
    agencies at that time, an amendment delaying the termination date 
    of that agency for one year was held to be germane.

    On June 1, 1976,(1) during consideration of H.R. 12169 
(Federal Energy Administration extension), in response to a point of 
order, the Chair held the following amendment germane to the matter to 
which it was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 122 Cong. Rec. 16025, 16026, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fithian to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Schroeder: Strike out 
        ``That the Federal Energy Administration is abolished'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following section:
            ``Sec. 1. Section 30 of the Federal Energy Administration 
        Act of 1974 is amended by striking out `June 30,

[[Page 7453]]

        1976' and inserting in lieu thereof `September 30, 1977'.''
            On line 3 of section 2 insert after ``shall be abolished'' 
        the words ``effective September 30, 1977''.
            On line 4 of section 3 strike the colon and insert the 
        words ``effective September 30, 1977:''

        The Chairman: (2) Does the gentleman from Michigan 
    reserve his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve my 
    point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
    insist upon his point of order?
        Mr. Dingell: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair will be glad to hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, the amendment must be not only 
    germane to the amendment in the nature of a substitute and to the 
    bill but it must be germane to the particular part of the bill to 
    which it is addressed.
        Mr. Chairman, if we will read the bill, we will observe there 
    are two parts. There is a section 1 and a section 2. Section 1 
    relates to authorizations for appropriations, and section 2 relates 
    to the extension of the life of the agency. The provisions relating 
    to the extension of the agency itself, we will observe, are in 
    section 2, which appears at page 10 of the bill, and while it might 
    be desirable to have the amendment that the gentleman offers set 
    forth as a policy from his point of view, the fact of the matter is 
    that the amendment should be offered to the later part of the bill, 
    section 2, printed at page 10, and not to the Schroeder amendment 
    as offered. . . .
        Mr. [Floyd J.] Fithian [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I recognize 
    what the distinguished subcommittee chairman is speaking about, but 
    I would call to his attention the fact that the extension of the 
    life of the Federal Energy Administration affects both section 1 
    and section 2. Therefore, it seems to me that in the normal, 
    orderly process of the business of the House, we ought to offer 
    this amendment at the earlier time.
        We should note that the amendment that has been offered clearly 
    indicates that in section 1, section 30 of the Federal Energy 
    Administration Act of 1974 is amended by striking out ``June 30, 
    1976,'' which is in section 1, and extending it to another date 
    which is 15 months hence. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think what we 
    now have to decide is whether or not we can proceed to debate a 
    matter which we can alter and come out halfway between the 
    Schroeder position and the Dingell position. That, it seems to me, 
    is not altogether unreasonable, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. 
    Schroeder) is an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    entire bill and the Schroeder amendment is open to amendment at any 
    point. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
    Fithian) simply changes the date in the Schroeder amendment when 
    FEA is to be abolished. It simply provides for a change of date.
        The amendment is germane to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute offered by the gentlewoman

[[Page 7454]]

    from Colorado (Mrs. Schroeder). The Chair, therefore, overrules the 
    point of order.

Provision To Establish Termination Date for Energy Agency--Substitute 
    Providing Reorganization Plan

Sec. 3.7 For an amendment establishing a termination date for the 
    Federal Energy Administration, a substitute not dealing with the 
    date of termination but providing instead a reorganization plan for 
    that agency was held to be not germane.

    On June 1, 1976,(3) during consideration of a bill 
(4) extending the Federal Energy Administration Act, an 
amendment was offered which sought to change a provision of the bill 
relating to the date of termination of the Federal Energy 
Administration. A substitute for that amendment was then offered. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 122 Cong. Rec. 16051, 16055, 16056, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. H.R. 12169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Floyd J.] Fithian [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fithian: Page 10, line 4, strike 
        out ``September 30, 1979'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``December 31, 1977''. . . .

        Mr. [Gary] Myers of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Fithian). . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania as a 
        substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Fithian: On page 
        10, after line 4, add the following:
            ``Sec. 3. Section 28 of the Federal Energy Administration 
        Act of 1974 is amended by inserting the following, in lieu 
        thereof,
            `` Notwithstanding section 527 of the Energy Policy and 
        Conservation Act, upon termination of this Act, as provided for 
        in Section 30 of this Act, all functions of the Federal Energy 
        Administration shall be transferred to existing departments, 
        agencies or offices of the Federal Government, or their 
        successors. The President, through the Director of the Office 
        of Management and Budget, shall file, 12 months before the 
        termination of this Act, a plan and program with the Speaker of 
        the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, 
        to provide for the orderly transfer of the functions of the 
        Federal Energy Administration to such departments, agencies or 
        offices. Within 90 days after the submission of this plan and 
        program, either House of Congress may pass a resolution 
        disapproving such plan and program.' ''. . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, my point of 
    order is in several parts. The first, Mr. Chairman, is that the 
    amendment must be germane to the Fithian amendment. I make the 
    point that it is not.
        Mr. Chairman, the Fithian amendment, if the Chair will note, 
    simply relates to the termination of the exist

[[Page 7455]]

    ence of the FEA as an agency and sets a date for the expiration 
    thereof.
        This amendment goes much further, and if the Chair will consult 
    the amendment, the Chair will find that it relates to the 
    compensation of executives, that it relates and fixes the levels at 
    which executives' salaries and compensation will be held. It deals 
    with the administration being able to employ and fix the 
    compensation of officers and employees and it limits the number of 
    positions which may be at different GS levels.
        It goes much further. It deals with section 527 of the Energy 
    Policy and Conservation Act, which is not referred to in the 
    Fithian amendment and, indeed, which is not referred to elsewhere 
    in the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, it deals with the fixing of the compensation of 
    Federal employees. It deals with the powers of the President, the 
    duties and powers of the Director of the Office of Management and 
    Budget functioning through and under the President. It deals with 
    the filing of the plans for the termination of the act with the 
    Speaker of the House of Representatives and it provides a plan to 
    deal with the orderly transfer of functions to the Federal Energy 
    Administration to such Departments and so forth.
        It goes further and effectively amends the Reorganization Act 
    by providing that the plan may be approved or disapproved by either 
    House of Congress in a fashion in conformity with the requirements 
    of the Reorganization Act. . . .
        Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: . . . This amendment simply deals 
    with the termination of the FEA after 15 months. The only 
    difference between my amendment and the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Indiana (Mr. Fithian) would be that it does indicate that the 
    President should through OMB present to the Congress a plan. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
    Fithian) goes solely to the question of the date of termination of 
    the FEA. The substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania, now before the Committee, goes beyond that issue to 
    the question of reorganization of that agency. Therefore, it is not 
    germane as a substitute. The point of order would have to be 
    sustained; but the gentleman's amendment might be in order 
    following the Fithian amendment as a separate amendment to the 
    Committee proposal.

Appropriations for Programs Administered by Department of Energy--
    Amendment Appropriating Funds for Program Under Department of 
    Agriculture

Sec. 3.8 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 for the 
    same general purpose may not be germane al

[[Page 7456]]

    though 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,(6) during consideration of the Energy 
and Water Development Appropriations, fiscal 1982,(7) in the 
Committee of the Whole, Chairman Anthony C. Beilenson, of California, 
sustained a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 127 Cong. Rec. 17226, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. H.R. 4144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 7457]]

Proposition To Authorize Gasoline Rationing--Amendment Establishing 
    User Charge for Gasoline

Sec. 3.9 To a section of an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    which amended section 4 of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act 
    of 1973 to authorize the President to establish priorities, 
    including rationing of gasoline, among users of petroleum products, 
    an amendment providing that any rationing proposal for individual 
    users of gasoline should include payment of a user charge to 
    qualify for additional allocations was held to constitute a tax 
    which was not within the category of rationing authority in the 
    substitute and was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of the Energy Emergency Act (H.R. 11450) in 
the Committee of the Whole on Dec. 14, 1973, (8) the Chair 
ruled that an amendment to an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
was not germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 119 Cong. Rec. 41750, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Sec. 103. Amendments to the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 
                                    1973

        (a) Section 4 of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 
    is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
    subsections:
        ``(h)(1) If the President finds that, without such action, the 
    objectives of subsection (b) cannot be attained, he may promulgate 
    a rule which shall be deemed a part of the regulation under 
    subsection (a) and which shall provide, consistent with the 
    objectives of subsection (b), an ordering of priorities among users 
    of crude oil, residual fuel oil, or any refined petroleum product, 
    and for the assignment to such users of rights entitling them to 
    obtain any such oil or product in precedence to other users not 
    similarly entitled. A top priority in such ordering shall be the 
    maintenance of vital services (including, but not limited to new 
    housing construction, education, health care, hospitals, public 
    safety, energy production, agriculture, and transportation 
    services, which are necessary to the preservation of health, 
    safety, and the public welfare). . . .
        ``(6) For purposes of this subsection, the term `allocation' 
    shall not be construed to exclude the end-use allocation of 
    gasoline to individual consumers.
        Mr. [James G.] Martin of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered 
    by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Martin of North Carolina to the 
        amendment

[[Page 7458]]

        in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: On page 
        6, at line 6, strike the period, and add: ``; Provided, 
        however, That any proposal by the President for the rationing 
        of fuel for personal automobiles and recreational vehicles 
        should, in addition to the basic non-discriminatory ration, 
        include provisions under which the individual consumer may 
        qualify for additional allocations of fuel upon payment of a 
        fee or user charge on a per unit basis to the Federal Energy 
        Administration.''

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order against the amendment on the ground that it 
    is not germane. . . .
        I make the point of order on the amendment on the ground that 
    it authorizes a user's fee in the nature of a tax and that is not 
    supposed to come within the jurisdiction of our committee. That 
    authority is delegated to the Ways and Means Committee.
        Mr. Martin of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the 
    amendment is germane and pertinent to the section dealing with 
    gasoline rationing. . . .
        This amendment does not propose a tax as such and so does not 
    run afoul of the prerogatives of the honorable Committee on Ways 
    and Means. Instead it proposes an administrative fee to be charged, 
    much as fees are charged by the National Park Service under the 
    Golden Eagle plan for use of our park resources. This fee as I 
    propose it would be charged for preferential use of any extra 
    limited fuel resources.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is constrained to 
    sustain the point of order on the ground that this amendment in 
    effect would result in a tax not directly related to the rationing 
    authority conferred by the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provisions Authorizing Rationing Plans and Monitoring of Fuel 
    Supplies--Amendment to Set Aside Fuel for Agriculture.

Sec. 3.10 To a bill authorizing the imposition of rationing plans by 
    the President to conserve energy, providing mechanisms to avoid 
    energy marketing disruptions, and broadened by amendment to provide 
    for monitoring of middle distillates and supplies of diesel oil, an 
    amendment adding a new section to require a set-aside program to 
    provide middle distillates for agricultural production was held to 
    be germane.

    On Aug. 1, 1979,(10) during consideration of the 
Emergency Energy Conservation Act of 1979,(11) Chairman 
Dante B. Fascell held that the test of germaneness of an amendment 
adding a new section at the end of a bill is its relationship to the 
bill as a whole, as perfected by the Committee of the

[[Page 7459]]

Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 21967, 21968, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. S. 1030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Thomas J.] Tauke [of Iowa]: Page 50, 
    after line 2, insert the following new section:

             monitoring of middle distillate supply and demand

        Sec. 4. (a) Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
    enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall establish and 
    maintain a data collection program for monitoring, at the refining, 
    wholesale, and retail levels, the supply and demand levels of 
    middle distillates on a monthly basis in each State.
        (b) The program to be established under subsection (a) shall 
    provide for--
        (1) the prompt collection of relevant demand and supply data 
    under the authority available to the Secretary of Energy under 
    other provisions of law;
        (2) making such data available to the Congress, as well as to 
    appropriate State agencies and the public in accordance with 
    otherwise applicable law, beginning on the 5th day after the close 
    of the month to which it pertains, together with projections of 
    supply and demand levels for the then current month; and
        (3) the review and adjustment of such data and projections not 
    later than the 15th day after the initial availability of such data 
    and projections under paragraph (2).
        (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``middle 
    distillate'' has the same meaning as given that term in section 
    211.51 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on 
    the date of the enactment of this Act.
        (d) The program established under this section shall not 
    prescribe, or have the effect of prescribing, margin controls or 
    trigger prices for purposes of the reimposition of price 
    requirements under section 12(f) of the Emergency Petroleum 
    Allocation Act of 1973.
        Redesignate the following sections accordingly.

    After some debate, Mr. Tauke made a request, as follows, and the 
amendment was agreed to, as modified: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 125 Cong. Rec. 21966, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Tauke: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
    amendment as follows:

            On line 16 strike ``5th'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``10th''.

        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Iowa?
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk will report the modification to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            On line 16 strike ``5th'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``10th''.

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Tauke), as modified.
        The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

    Thereafter, Mr. Tauke offered the following amendment: 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 21967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Tauke: Page 50, after line 2, insert 
    the following new section:

[[Page 7460]]

       national middle distillate set-aside program for agricultural 
                                 production

        Sec. 4. (a) Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
    enactment of this Act, the President shall establish and maintain a 
    national set-aside program to provide middle distillates for 
    agricultural production.
        (b) The program established under subsection (a) shall--
        (1) be made effective only if the President finds that a 
    shortage of middle distillates exists within the various regions of 
    the United States generally, or within any specific region of the 
    United States, and that shortage--
        (A) has impaired or is likely to impair agricultural 
    production; and
        (B) has not been, or is not likely to be, alleviated by any 
    State set-aside program or programs covering areas within that 
    region;
        (2) provide that, in regions in which such program is 
    effective, prime suppliers of such fuel be required to set aside 
    each month 1 percent of the amount of the middle distillates to be 
    supplied during that month in that area;
        (3) provide that amounts of fuel set aside under such program 
    be directed to be supplied by such prime suppliers to applicants 
    who the President determines would not otherwise have adequate 
    supplies to meet requirements for agricultural production;
        (4) provide that such prime suppliers may meet such 
    responsibilities for supplying fuel either directly or through 
    wholesale purchasers who resell fuel, but only in accordance with 
    the requirements established under such program; and
        (5) shall not supersede any State set-aside program for middle 
    distillates established under the Emergency Petroleum Allocation 
    Act of 1973.
        (c) For purposes of this section--
        (1) The term ``agricultural production'' has the meaning given 
    it in section 211.51 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, as 
    in effect on the date of the enactment of this section, and 
    includes the transportation of agricultural products.
        (2) The term ``prime supplier'', when used with respect to any 
    middle distillate, means the supplier, or producer, which makes the 
    first sale of the middle distillate into any region for consumption 
    in that region.
        (3) The term ``middle distillate'' has the same meaning as 
    given that term in such section 211.51.
        (4) The term ``region'' means any PAD district as such term is 
    defined in such section 211.51. Redesignate the following sections 
    accordingly.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is a conservation 
    bill. It deals with conservation of petroleum and petroleum 
    products and energy. It deals also with rationing.
        Mr. Chairman, if the chairman will observe the amendment before 
    him, he will notice it creates a national middle distillate set-
    aside program for agricultural production. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is 
    quite possible this is a highly desirable thing but that is not the 
    ques

[[Page 7461]]

    tion before the Chair. The question before the Chair is, Does this 
    bill deal with the set-aside of middle distillates or set-asides of 
    other petroleum products? The answer to that question is a 
    resounding no. The legislation, S. 1030 before us, contains nothing 
    relating to set-aside of petroleum products or matters relating to 
    set-aside of petroleum products.
        The members of the committee could not have reasonably expected 
    set-aside amendments to be laid before them on the basis of the 
    legislation which lies before us; so the purposes of the bill and 
    the purposes of the amendment are quite different and distinct. I 
    would, therefore, urge on the chair that this amendment is not 
    germane.
        I would further state that the proposal goes on to deal with a 
    number of set-aside matters which are not included in the proposal 
    before us, but which are embodied in other statutes, such as the 
    Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act. The legislation deals with the 
    term ``agricultural production'' as defined in section 211.51 of 
    title X, which is not under the jurisdiction of the Commerce 
    Committee.
        The proposal deals with and defines the term prime supplier of 
    middle distillate and the term defines a number of other matters 
    which are not found in the legislation here.
        As a matter of fact, it would convert the legislation before us 
    from essentially a conservation program to an allocation program, 
    something which would not be the intention of the committee, as 
    opposed to a rationing program which was. . . .
        Mr. Tauke: . . . Mr. Chairman, in this particular measure that 
    we are considering, we have taken great pains during the past 
    several hours to provide specific consideration for certain 
    businesses that are part of our economy. We considered, for 
    example, nursing homes and health institutions. We have considered 
    with the last amendment of the gentleman from Michigan a whole host 
    of other special businesses in this country. This is a special 
    consideration for the agricultural industry.
        In addition, I think it is appropriate to note that in this 
    measure that the bill has been dealing with the allocation of fuels 
    when supplies are scarce. That is what is the exact purpose of this 
    amendment is, to deal with the allocation of fuels at a time when 
    supplies are scarce.
        So in view of both of those items, it occurs to me that it is 
    appropriate that this amendment be considered a part of this 
    measure. . . .
        Mr. [Charles] Pashayan [Jr., of California]: The point of 
    order, I believe, has something to do with the substance of the 
    amendment as it relates to the bill. The point I am making is that 
    although this is dealing with the set aside, that is only the form. 
    The substance, in fact, relates to the bill, because it is the only 
    way agriculture can be protected under the bill; whereas other 
    businesses do not need set asides and that is the only way we can 
    protect agriculture, so I do think it relates to the substance of 
    the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: . . . Mr. Chairman, this bill 
    before us deals with EPCA in the rationing section and adds a 
    section on conservation.

[[Page 7462]]

        Now, EPCA stands for the Emergency Energy Policy and 
    Conservation Act. It is in the conservation parts of this bill that 
    we have the Tauke amendment offered.
        The Department of Energy regulations, based on the Emergency 
    Energy Policy and Conservation Act, include those DOE regulations 
    based on that act, include set aside programs for energy 
    conservation or energy usage; so it seems to me that the amendment 
    of the gentleman from Iowa is clearly germane in that he is dealing 
    with set asides as a method of conservation, but from the 
    standpoint of concern about the agricultural community and whether 
    or not the agricultural community will have adequate energy to meet 
    its needs in the interests of the society. . . .
        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to be heard in favor of the point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, I just would like to point out briefly that this 
    is, unlike the other amendments we have had which deal with 
    hospitals, nursing homes and the whole other host of special 
    interests sought to be protected, those all sought to be protected 
    under conservation plans that might be put forward under this bill 
    and the limitation of Presidential powers to put forward such 
    plans.
        This amendment is quite different. It seeks to set up an 
    allocation plan specifically to set aside certain amounts of fuel 
    for agriculture.
        Therefore, it seems to me quite different from anything else in 
    this bill. It is unrelated and I believe it clearly is out of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: . . . One other point that omitted my 
    attention until the staff drew it to my attention, and it is that 
    the very rationing part of this bill was added as an amendment to 
    the basic legislation in the subcommittee. Therefore, making the 
    legislation quite broad in its approach and for that reason of 
    breadth and for the reason that we accepted that rationing 
    amendment or that rationing portion as an amendment in the 
    subcommittee, it seems to me that the offering of the gentleman 
    from Iowa is very appropriate in the full House at this time.

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair has examined the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Iowa and considered the point of order as to its germaneness 
    to the bill raised by the gentleman from Michigan.
        The [test of the germaneness of a new section is its 
    relationship] to the bill as read to this point and in that case we 
    have a bill at this point in which section 2 deals with rationing.
        Section 3 deals with conservation and market disruption, 
    specifically the purpose which the gentleman from Indiana pointed 
    out on page 24 which establishes mechanisms to alleviate 
    disruptions in gasoline and diesel oil markets; in addition to 
    which, a new section 4 has been agreed to by the committee which 
    provides for the monitoring of middle distillates and supply of 
    diesel oil.
        Therefore, the scope of the bill as read to this point is 
    significantly broadened and it is now considerably more diverse 
    than any one section thereof.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order and holds 
    that the amendment is germane.

[[Page 7463]]

Energy Conservation Bill--Amendment Prohibiting School Busing; Imposing 
    Criminal Penalties

Sec. 3.11 To a title of a bill designed to enable agencies of the 
    government to formulate policies of energy conservation, an 
    amendment prohibiting certain uses of fuel (for school busing) by 
    any person and imposing criminal penalties for such use was held 
    not germane to the fundamental purpose of the title.

    On Sept. 17, 1975,(14) it was demonstrated that the test 
of the germaneness of an amendment in the form of a new section to a 
title of a bill being read by titles is the relationship between the 
amendment and the pending title. The proceedings during consideration 
of the Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975 (15) 
in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 28925-27, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. H.R. 7014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Collins of Texas: Page 273, insert 
        after line 4 the following new section:

            energy conservation through prohibition of unnecessary 
                                 transportation

            Sec. 450. (a)(1) No person may use gasoline or diesel fuel 
        for the transportation of any public school student to a school 
        farther than the public school which is closest to his home 
        offering educational courses for the grade level and course of 
        study of the student and which is within the boundaries of the 
        school attendance district wherein the student resides.
            (2) Any person who violates subsection (1) of this section 
        shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 
        one year, or both, for each violation of such subsection. . . .

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        [T]his is clearly beyond the scope of the matters that are 
    dealt with in this title of the bill. It would very substantially 
    introduce administrative duties that are not provided for in any 
    way in the bill, and it is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of this 
    committee. . . .
        Mr. [James M.] Collins of Texas: Mr. Chairman, we have had a 
    similar amendment in conservation bills before which have passed 
    the House before, and in this particular bill. It comes in 
    conjunction with sections on energy conservation through van 
    pooling arrangements, through the use of car pools. It is an 
    identical type of conservation measure as the limitation of 
    limousines we discussed earlier, and the conservation of gasoline.
        This is very much consistent because what we are talking about 
    here in conservation, the unnecessary and unneeded uses of 
    transportation. Also, we have the jurisdiction over the FEA, and it 
    seems to me that we would be concerned with this. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman from New York makes 
    a point of order

[[Page 7464]]

    against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Collins) on grounds that it is not germane to title IV. The 
    gentleman from Texas, in responding to the point of order, has 
    cited certain amendments that have been adopted to the bill during 
    debate, and the Chair is not clear as to whether he is talking only 
    about this bill or about earlier bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Collins of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I understand that 
    specifically this bill itself, in this particular bill itself on 
    page 270, we have a section of this bill which says, ``Energy 
    Conservation Through Van Pooling Arrangements.''
        On page 271, we have a section called ``Use of Carpools.'' We 
    just adopted the Santini amendment, which is related to it. We 
    talked about limousines. We have been talking about transportation 
    and vehicles. Here we are talking about conservation, and we could 
    conserve a great deal of gasoline and diesel fuel. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan): . . . I would point out 
    that the bill before us relates to allocation of gasoline. It 
    relates to the conservation of energy. But this amendment adds a 
    criteria category and purpose to the bill which is above, apart and 
    different from anything else found anywhere else in the bill, and 
    that is a specific prohibition of the use of fuels for a particular 
    purpose, which carries us beyond the purposes of the bill.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, I would cite to the Chair that the nature 
    of the amendment must be such as to notify the House that it might 
    reasonably anticipate it and might be related to the purposes for 
    which the bill is drawn.
        Mr. Chairman, I might add further that the amendment adds 
    criminal sections, imposing, for example, penalties on bus drivers 
    of school buses, and goes well beyond the allocation powers or the 
    conservation powers which are vested in the Federal Government, 
    adding, essentially, a new criminal section of the bill which was 
    not previously before us and which is not in the bill. . . .
        Mr. [M. G.] Snyder [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
    call the attention of the Chair to title VI of the bill, 
    particularly section 605, where we have a section that prohibits 
    the use of natural gas as boiler fuel for the generation of 
    electricity.
        It would seem to me that here we have a similar type of fuel--
    gasoline--and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Collins) by his 
    amendment would prohibit the use of that fuel in transporting 
    school children. . . .
        Mr. Collins of Texas: Mr. Chairman, there is one further thing 
    I wish to say. We have talked about whether there were penalties or 
    not provided in this bill.
        In the bill itself, in previous sections, violations were set 
    out and there were penalties of $5,000. There are several sections 
    in the FEA sections that provide for penalties. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair would like to state at the outset that the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ottinger) against 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Collins) is 
    on the ground that the amendment is not germane to title IV, and we 
    are in effect limited in our consider

[[Page 7465]]

    ation to the matters contained in title IV.
        As will be clear in the statement which the Chair will make, 
    the ruling that the present occupant of the Chair made under 
    seemingly similar circumstances on an earlier bill is different.
        The amendment would prohibit the use by any person--and that is 
    the key to the ruling of the Chair--of gasoline or diesel fuel for 
    certain transportation of public school students, and would 
    establish a criminal penalty for violation of the amendment's 
    provisions. The Chair has noted the Chair's ruling, cited in 
    Deschler's Procedures, chapter 28, section 26.9, that an amendment 
    restricting the regulatory authority of the President, who was 
    authorized by the bill to establish priorities among users of 
    petroleum products, was germane where the amendment required the 
    product so allocated be used only for certain transportation of 
    public school students.
        It appears to the Chair that the ruling on that occasion was 
    specifically directed to the fact that the bill conferred certain 
    regulatory authority upon the President, and that the amendment 
    placed a specific limitation and direction on the power so 
    delegated. The amendment now in question does not address itself to 
    the authority of an agency of Government, except in its last 
    subsection relating to certain determinations by the Administrator 
    of the Federal Energy Administration. But the direct thrust of the 
    amendment is to prohibit certain uses of fuel by any person.
        It is true that the title to which the amendment is offered 
    deals with the subject of the conservation of energy, but the 
    provisions of title IV address the goal of conservation through 
    actions and encouragement by an agency of Government, not through 
    prohibitions on the use of fuel by any person.
        The Chair is unable to discover in title IV or in the basic act 
    being amended criminal prohibitions applicable to any person using 
    the fuel in a certain way.
        The Chair, therefore, finds that the amendment is not germane 
    to the fundamental purposes of the title to which offered and 
    sustains the point of order.

Proposition To Require Study of Energy Conservation--Amendment 
    Requiring Study of Effect of Regulations on Energy Shortage

Sec. 3.12 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute establishing a 
    Federal Energy Administration and directing that agency to conduct 
    a comprehensive study of energy conservation, an amendment 
    directing that agency to conduct another study as to whether 
    regulations issued under the Economic Stabilization Act were 
    contributing to the energy shortage was held to be germane.

    During consideration of the Energy Emergency Act (17) in 
the Committee of the Whole on Dec.

[[Page 7466]]

14, 1973,(18) the Chair held that to a proposition 
establishing an executive agency and conferring broad authority 
thereon, an amendment directing that agency to conduct a study of a 
subject within the scope of that authority was germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 11450.
18. 119 Cong. Rec. 41752, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James R.] Jones of Oklahoma:
        Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from West Virginia 
    (Mr. Staggers).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jones of Oklahoma to the amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers:
            On page 9, after line 22, section 104 is amended by 
        inserting the following new subsection after subsection (c), 
        and redesignating the subsequent subsections:
            Sec. 2. Price Control and Shortages. The President and the 
        Administrator shall conduct a review of all rulings and 
        regulations issued pursuant to the Economic Stabilization Act 
        to determine if such rulings and regulations are contributing 
        to the shortage of petroleum products, coal, natural gas, and 
        petrochemical feedstocks, and of materials associated with the 
        production of energy supplies, and equipment necessary to 
        maintain and increase the exploration and production of coal, 
        crude oil, natural gas, and other fuels. The results of this 
        review shall be submitted to the Congress within thirty days of 
        the date of enactment of this Act. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    regretfully make a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, as the Chair will note, the amendment before us 
    imposes the duty upon the President to perform a study related to 
    the effectiveness and the effects of another statute, namely, the 
    Economic Stabilization Act. As the Chair notes, the Economic 
    Stabilization Act and studies under the Economic Stabilization Act 
    lie in the jurisdiction of another committee, namely the Committee 
    on Banking and Currency.

        I am sure the Chair is also aware that nowhere else in this 
    statute appears the Economic Stabilization Act.
        While I recognize the merits of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma and salute him for an awareness of a 
    problem of considerable importance, nevertheless the rules of this 
    House do not permit this committee to amend the Economic 
    Stabilization Act, referring to the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce, and indeed the Economic Stabilization Act is not 
    mentioned anywhere else in the bill.
        Of course, it follows the committee of which we are now a part 
    may not direct studies relating to the effect of that under the 
    guise of amending the bill H.R. 11882, because it deals with 
    different matters.
        I make a point of order against the amendment on the grounds of 
    germaneness. . . .
        Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: I think the amendment is germane to this 
    bill, because in the first place it does fit into the overall 
    concept of the bill in trying to ease our energy problems and fits 
    in with the title of the bill.
        Second, it does not amend the Economic Stabilization Act in any 
    way but

[[Page 7467]]

    merely calls for a study to give to this Congress information that 
    will be necessary in case an amendment to that act is necessary in 
    the future.
        So I believe it is germane to this bill, because it does fit 
    into the overall objective.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
    Jones) only provides for a study of certain effects of actions 
    taken under the Economic Stabilization Act. The amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute in its present form is replete with various 
    studies.
        Therefore the Chair overrules the point of order.

Permanent Direction to Agency To Promulgate Regulations Based on Study

Sec. 3.13 While an amendment to an annual authorization bill which 
    requires a study to be made with a portion of the authorized funds 
    may be germane, a permanent direction to the agency or department 
    in question to promulgate regulations based on such study is not 
    germane.

    The proceedings of Oct. 12, 1979, relating to H.R. 3000, the 
Department of Energy authorizations for fiscal 1980 and 1981, are 
discussed in Sec. 24.3, infra.

Proposition Requiring Agency To Conduct Study--Amendment Requiring 
    Agency To Propose Legislation

Sec. 3.14 To a proposition directing that a study be conducted to 
    determine the feasibility of establishing certain standards of fuel 
    economy for automobiles, an amendment requiring submission by the 
    investigating agency of proposed legislation implementing the 
    conclusions of such study was held to be germane.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(20) during consideration of H.R. 
11450, the Energy Emergency Act, the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration a section of an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
that directed the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a study of 
the feasibility of establishing a fuel economy improvement standard of 
twenty percent for 1980 and subsequent model year automobiles. An 
amendment was offered to that section, requiring submission by the 
Agency of proposed legislation which would affirmatively establish a 
fuel economy improvement standard of twenty-five percent or

[[Page 7468]]

as close thereto as was deemed feasible in the light of criteria 
specified in the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 41747, 41748, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: Page 67, after 
        line 26, add the following . . .
            ``(b)(1)) Subject to paragraph (2) and (3), not later than 
        30 days after submission of the results of the study under 
        subsection (a), the Administrator shall submit to the Committee 
        on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of 
        Representatives and the Committee on Public Works of the Senate 
        proposed legislation which would establish a 25 per centum fuel 
        economy improvement standard applicable to 1980 and later model 
        new motor vehicles. . . .
            ``(2) If the Administrator determines that establishing a 
        fuel economy improvement standard of 25 per centum for 1980 and 
        later model new motor vehicles--
            (A) is technologically or economically unfeasible,
            (B) cannot be complied with safety and without interferring 
        with applicable emission requirements, or
            (C) will have unreasonably disruptive impact on employment 
        or the economy,
    he shall propose legislation establishing such lesser fuel economy 
    improvement standard which he determines is as close to 25 per 
    centum as possible without having any of the effects described in 
    subparagraphs (A), (B), or (C). . . .

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that this amendment is not germane, that we have 
    no other subject matter such as this in the bill, and, furthermore, 
    that the House of Representatives or the Congress in prior action 
    has authorized another Department of the Federal Government to 
    undertake the same study, and thus this amendment is not in order. 
    . . .
        Mr. Rogers: Mr. Chairman, actually this simply carries out part 
    of the provision in the law which provides for a study on how this 
    can be accomplished.
        All this amendment does, in connection with that study, is to 
    say the following: Where that study says, ``He shall report to the 
    Congress,'' this simply says or sets forth the manner in which he 
    shall do that, by proposing specific legislative proposals that we 
    ourselves would rule on, as the results of a study. And then he 
    proposes how we can save fuel mileage.
        That is all it is doing. It is set at 1980, and it simply 
    carries out what we are trying to do in that study by having him 
    report to the Congress.
        It simply tells him how he shall make his report to the 
    Congress, that it is proper and economically feasible. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) For the reasons stated by the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rogers), the Chair overrules the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although an amendment which directs that 
certain actions or activities be undertaken is not germane

[[Page 7469]]

to a proposal merely to investigate the subject matter 
involved,(2) the amendment offered by Mr. Rogers in the 
above instance required simply the submission of proposed legislation 
as a follow-up of the study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Prescribing Standards for Educational Agencies Administering 
    Programs--Amendment Providing Remedies Where Agencies Deny Equal 
    Educational Opportunity

Sec. 3.15 To an Education and Labor Committee amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute extending and amending several laws relating to 
    federal assistance to state and local educational agencies and 
    prescribing standards to be followed by educational agencies in the 
    administration of federally funded educational programs, an 
    amendment proscribing educational agencies from denying equal 
    educational opportunity to public school students and providing 
    judicial and administrative remedies for denials of equal 
    educational opportunity and of equal protection of the laws was 
    held germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 69 (3) in the Committee of 
the Whole on Mar. 26, 1974,(4) the Chair held that to a 
proposition amending several laws providing federally funded 
assistance, an amendment restricting the activities of the state and 
local agencies which are the recipients of those funds and also 
providing a judicial remedy where the restrictions imposed upon those 
agencies are not complied with is germane. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. A bill to amend and extend the Elementary and Secondary Education 
        Act.
 4. 120 Cong. Rec. 8262-64, 8269, 8270, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Esch to the committee substitute 
        amendment: Page 58, after line 18, insert a new Title II (and 
        number the succeeding Titles and Sections accordingly):

                  ``TITLE II--EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

            Sec. 201. This title may be cited as the ``Equal 
        Educational Opportunities Act of 1974''.

                           Part A--Policy and Purpose

            Sec. 202. (a) The Congress declares it to be the policy of 
        the United States that--
            (1) all children enrolled in public schools are entitled to 
        equal educational opportunity without regard to race, color, 
        sex, or national origin; and

[[Page 7470]]

            (2) the neighborhood is the appropriate basis for 
        determining public school assignments.
            (b) In order to carry out this policy, it is the purpose of 
        this Act to specify appropriate remedies for the orderly 
        removal of the vestiges of the dual school system. . . .

                           Part B--Unlawful Practices

                    denial of equal educational opportunity

            Sec. 204. No State shall deny equal educational opportunity 
        to an individual on account of his or her race, color, sex, or 
        national origin, by--
            (a) the deliberate segregation by an educational agency of 
        students on the basis of race, color, or national origin among 
        or within schools . . .

                              Part C--Enforcement

                                 civil actions

            Sec. 207. An individual denied an equal educational 
        opportunity, as defined by this title may institute a civil 
        action in an appropriate district court of the United States 
        against such parties, and for such relief, as may be 
        appropriate. The Attorney General . . . may also institute such 
        a civil action on behalf of such an individual. . . .

                               Part [D]--Remedies

                      formulating remedies; applicability

            Sec. 213. In formulating a remedy for a denial of equal 
        educational opportunity or a denial of the equal protection of 
        the laws, a court, department, or agency of the United States 
        shall seek or impose only such remedies as are essential to 
        correct particular denials of equal educational opportunity or 
        equal protection of the laws.
            Sec. 214. In formulating a remedy for a denial of equal 
        educational opportunity or a denial of the equal protection of 
        the laws . . . a court, department, or agency of the United 
        States shall consider and make specific findings on the 
        efficacy in correcting such denial of the following remedies 
        and shall require implementation of the first of the remedies 
        set out below, or of the first combination thereof which would 
        remedy such denial:
            (a) assigning students to the schools closest to their 
        places of residence which provide the appropriate grade level 
        and type of education for such students, taking into account 
        school capacities and natural physical barriers; . . .

                           transportation of students

            Sec. 215. (a) No court, department, or agency of the United 
        States shall, pursuant to section 214, order the implementation 
        of a plan that would require the transportation of any student 
        to a school other than the school closest or next closest to 
        his place of residence which provides the appropriate grade 
        level and type of education for such student. . . .

        Mr. [Lloyd] Meeds [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, it is settled 
    that while a bill may be brought before the House embracing 
    different subjects, as does the bill now under consideration, it is 
    not in order to introduce a new subject (V, 5825), which is 
    precisely what the gentleman's amendment would do. The fundamental 
    purpose of H.R. 69 is to extend, modify and create educational 
    programs; the fundamental purpose of the gentleman's amendment is 
    to limit the power of Federal courts to determine what constitutes 
    a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution. 
    Therefore, the amendment is not germane (VIII, 2911). Going beyond 
    the fundamental purposes of H.R. 69 and the gentleman's amendment,

[[Page 7471]]

    there is not even a specific provision of his amendment which deals 
    with educational programs, which, along with administrative 
    provisions governing such programs and two or three studies, are 
    the only subjects dealt with in H.R. 69. The facts permit only one 
    conclusion; the gentleman's amendment must be ruled out of order by 
    reason of clause 7 of rule XVI. . . .
        This amendment can in no way be described as dealing with 
    educational programs, in whole or in part. It is, as previously 
    stated, nothing less than a straightforward attempt to limit the 
    jurisdiction and power of our courts to interpret the 14th 
    amendment to the Constitution and to fashion appropriate remedies 
    for its violation. While I would, on another occasion, argue that 
    this represents a ``backdoor'' attempt to amend the Constitution--
    on the theory that a right for which there is no enforceable remedy 
    is no right at all--that is not my purpose today. I wish only to 
    point out in some detail both the particular and the fundamental 
    purposes of the gentleman's amendment so that the Chair might 
    better understand why they are completely unrelated to the bill 
    under consideration which, as I have said, deals entirely with 
    various educational programs. . . .
        Mr. [Marvin L.] Esch [of Michigan]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I think 
    we should point out that the amendment offered by me, on behalf of 
    others and myself, is clearly in order to H.R. 69. I would refer 
    the Chair to the fact that H.R. 69 not only amends the Elementary 
    and Secondary Education Act of 1965, but also amends the General 
    Education Benefit Act on which the Commissioner of Education has 
    specific authority to deal on all matters pertaining to elementary 
    and secondary education.
        Furthermore, it also amends the Emergency School Aid Act. 
    Indeed, in title IX under section 901, there are specific 
    amendments to the Emergency School Aid Act referring to the 
    question of integrated schools and even going specifically to the 
    point as to the number of minority group children which comprise 
    the makeup of a minority school.
        So, clearly an amendment which would be related to the 
    education in segregated or nonsegregated schools would be clearly 
    in order.

        It should also be pointed out that such matter pertains 
    specifically to the transportation of pupils, which is also a part 
    of this act. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that there are 
    many other extraneous matters even apart from the Elementary and 
    Secondary Education Act, such as the amendment extending adult 
    education sections, which surely do not pertain to the K through 12 
    programs, and even on the study of the need for athletic trainers 
    in secondary schools and institutions of higher education, which 
    clearly are far beyond the boundary of merely amendments to 
    Elementary and Secondary Education Act. . . .
        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: . . . Section 2995 of 
    volume VIII of the Precedents of the House clearly states that it 
    is up to the maker of an amendment to prove germaneness. I do not 
    think that is possible. H.R. 69 deals with various forms of Federal 
    aid to education. Every provision of the bill is related to that 
    purpose. On the other hand, the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from

[[Page 7472]]

    Michigan does not in any way deal with Federal aid or with aid of 
    any sort to education. The sole purpose of the amendment is to 
    define unlawful practices as they relate to the segregation of 
    schoolchildren. A further major section of the amendment places 
    restrictions on Federal courts and directs the Attorney General to 
    take certain actions. The heart and substance of the amendment is 
    aimed at limiting the transportation of students. H.R. 69 does not 
    touch upon that subject matter in any way. Clearly transportation 
    is not germane to H.R. 69.
        On September 22, 1914, the Chairman of the (Committee of the) 
    Whole ruled that to be germane an amendment must be ``akin to, or 
    near to, or appropriate to or relevant to and germane amendments 
    must bear such relationship to the provisions of the bill as well 
    as meet the other tests; that is, that they be in a natural and 
    logical sequence to the subject matter and propose such 
    modifications as would naturally, properly and reasonably be 
    anticipated.''
        Certainly there is no logical sequence between providing 
    Federal aid on the one hand and restricting the powers of the 
    courts on the other.
        I would also call the attention of the Chair also to a ruling 
    on May 24, 1917, by Chairman Hamlin that if any portion of an 
    amendment is not germane then the whole amendment must go. 
    Certainly, the section of the amendment which limits court orders 
    is not germane to H.R. 69 nor is the section directing intervention 
    by the Attorney General.
        I would point out further that the amendment does not amend 
    existing law; it merely adds new language to the bill--another 
    clear sign of the non-germane nature of the amendment. . . .
        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: . . . (The bill) deals 
    with educationally deprived children, with libraries, with learning 
    results from educational innovation, with support and assistance to 
    federally impacted school districts, with adult education, with 
    community education, education for the handicapped, bilingual 
    education, the study of rate funding, the study of the need for 
    athletic trainers, the amendments to the General Education 
    Provisions Act, and, finally, amendments to the Emergency School 
    Aid Act, which deals with the same subject, that is, methods by 
    which equal educational opportunities may be obtained.
        The mere fact that this seeks to achieve those objectives by 
    different means and with different enforcement mechanisms cannot 
    render the amendment not germane to the bill before us. Mr. 
    Chairman, I believe and I assert that the amendment is germane to 
    the bill and I hope that the Chair will so rule. . . .
        Mr. Meeds: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. O'Hara) that the Elementary and Secondary Education 
    Act covers a great deal of education. That is precisely my point of 
    order.
        Nowhere does it deal with the court's interpretation of the 
    14th amendment rights, and that is what the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Esch) seeks to do.
        Second, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Esch) is urging that 
    because

[[Page 7473]]

    his amendment amends the Emergency School Aid Act, which is also 
    amended by H.R. 69, this is sufficient to overcome the question of 
    germaneness.
        There is a very slight amendment which deals with a totally 
    different matter in this bill. As a matter of fact, there are two 
    minor matters involved. But neither of these minor amendments is in 
    any sense connected with the fundamental purpose of the gentleman's 
    amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Meeds) makes the point of 
    order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Esch) is not germane to the committee substitute amendment for 
    H.R. 69.
        The committee substitute amendment for H.R. 69 has as its major 
    purpose the extension and amendment of several statutes relating to 
    Federal assistance to State and local educational agencies.
        The committee amendment contains many diverse sets of 
    guidelines to be followed by State and local educational agencies 
    in the administration of those federally funded educational 
    programs.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan does, as 
    the gentleman from Washington suggests, go to the delineation of 
    Federal court jurisdiction over constitutional questions of what 
    constitutes a denial of equal educational opportunity and of equal 
    protection of the laws; but it also contains broad directives to 
    State and local educational agencies which would prohibit those 
    agencies from implementing plans which deny, in several enumerated 
    ways, equal educational opportunity. The remedies to be imposed for 
    the violations by State agencies are not limited to court 
    proceedings but include Federal departmental and agency proceedings 
    as well, such as those of the Office of Education.
        The Chair would like to point out that while committee 
    jurisdiction is not an exclusive test of germaneness, the Committee 
    on Education and Labor has considered bills similar in text to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan.
        The Chair would also point out that under the precedents it is 
    not the function of the Chair to construe the legal effect of an 
    amendment. That is left to the committee itself. The Chair feels 
    because the amendment operates, in part, as a direct restriction on 
    the State and local educational agencies whose activities are being 
    funded and directed in many diverse ways by the committee amendment 
    that the amendment is germane, and the Chair overrules the point of 
    order.

Title Restricting Federal Control Over Education--Amendment Denying Use 
    of Funds for Abortion Counselling

Sec. 3.16 To a title of a bill establishing a new Department of 
    Education, containing findings and purposes and setting forth 
    restrictions on the authority of the new department to exercise 
    federal con

[[Page 7474]]

    trol over education, an amendment denying the use of funds under 
    federal programs to assist the teaching or counseling of the use of 
    abortion was ruled out of order as not germane, being unrelated to 
    the fundamental purpose of the title to restrict federal control 
    over public education and curricula, inasmuch as it sought to 
    address funding authority rather than legal restrictions.

    On June 12, 1979,(6) the Chair sustained a point of 
order against an amendment to a title of a bill (7) which 
restricted the authority of an entity to exercise control over 
institutions for which it was to administer funding under existing 
laws, holding that the amendment, which curtailed the authority of the 
agency to provide funds for certain reasons, was not germane. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 125 Cong. Rec. 14464, 14465, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. H.R. 2444, Department of Education Organization Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: On page 57, after line 7 
        insert new section:

              prohibition against abortion educational expenditure

            Sec. 104. No provision of law relating to a program 
        administered by the Secretary or by any other officer or agency 
        of the executive branch of the Federal Government shall be 
        construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to 
        fund, control, supervise, or to assist in any manner, directly 
        or indirectly, the teaching of abortion as a method of family 
        planning, or counseling the use of abortion by students or 
        others, or the practice of abortion, through or in conjunction 
        with the National Defense Education Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-864), 
        as amended; the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
        (P.L. 80-10), as amended; the Higher Education Act of 1965 
        (P.L. 89-329), as amended; the Adult Education Act (P.L. 89-
        750), as amended; or any other federally sponsored educational 
        program, except as explicitly provided by statute. . . .

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I would say [the 
    germaneness rule] requires an amendment to be germane to the 
    subject under consideration and to be germane the amendment must 
    have the same fundamental purpose as the bill under consideration. 
    This amendment does not and I would like to speak on it if I might. 
    . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment has the effect of amending 
    statutes not before the House. The amendment imposes an additional 
    restriction on the expenditure of funds that are not now in the 
    law. The amendment is not related to Federal control but is a 
    direct restriction on Federal funding.
        Mr. Chairman, the prior amendments to this title have been 
    ruled proper as clarifying the intent of the legislation, not to 
    extend the authority

[[Page 7475]]

    of the Federal Government in the areas of discrimination and 
    religion. They did not undermine or add new restrictions to the 
    authority but merely offer to prevent its undue expansion.
        This amendment would curtail, in a manner not previously 
    considered by the committee of substantive jurisdiction, existing 
    authority to assist biological and health educational programs and 
    rather than protecting the local authority from Federal control 
    will add a new restriction and extend Federal control over that 
    local authority. This is not a matter appropriate to a 
    reorganization bill. It is not a decision that is within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations and should 
    not be approved, ``except as explicitly provided by statute.'' It 
    just does not eliminate a flaw in this amendment because it simply 
    leads us in circles. In effect, the amendment says no provision of 
    law shall be construed to do so and so except as explicitly 
    provided by statute. Of course, no provision of the law can be 
    construed to do anything except as provided by statute. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: . . . I would indicate that my colleague, the 
    gentleman from Texas, is correct in indicating that my amendment 
    would attach to several provisions of law; however, under this 
    reorganization that is precisely what we are doing. We are bringing 
    the administration provisions of law, of statutes heretofore 
    enacted, under the jurisdiction of the new Secretary of Education.
        I would also point out that on page 90 in section 437 the 
    General Education Provision Act is specifically referred to.
        The Speaker in November of 1971 in a direct ruling similar to 
    this indicated where the General Education Provision Act is brought 
    before the Congress, that opens up the provisions that are covered 
    by the General Education Provisions Act.
        Even beyond that, I limited the amendment to specific 
    educational acts that under this reorganization are brought under 
    the jurisdiction of the new Secretary of the Cabinet office to be 
    created.
        I think the rulings of the Chair in the past days, yesterday 
    and today, clearly indicate that this amendment as a limitation on 
    programs administered by the Secretary of the new department to be 
    created would be germane.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas makes the point of order against the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio on the grounds that it 
    is not germane to the bill.
        The Chair might state that the precedent cited by the gentleman 
    from Ohio did not involve a reorganization bill. The amendment 
    which the gentleman from Ohio has offered would provide that no 
    provision of law shall be construed to authorize the Secretary of 
    Education or any other officer to fund, control, or assist the 
    teaching of abortion as a family planning method or the counseling 
    or use of the practice of abortion in connection with federally 
    sponsored educational programs, except where explicitly provided by 
    statute.
        The gentleman has argued in opposition to the point of order 
    that the pro

[[Page 7476]]

    visions of title I as perfected by the Committee of the Whole 
    yesterday already limit in various respects the authority of the 
    Department of Education and other Federal officials to control the 
    activities of local educational agencies receiving Federal funds 
    for educational purposes.
        The provisions of section 103 of the bill as amended contain 
    restrictions on the authority of the Federal Government to exercise 
    control over the local discretionary use of Federal funds and to 
    require eligibility standards for the receipt of such funds; but it 
    is contrary to the fundamental purpose of those limitations to 
    directly change the Secretary's authority to provide funds to local 
    educational agencies.
        Nothing in the bill before the Committee of the Whole, which is 
    essentially an organizational bill, changes the authority to 
    provide Federal funds for educational purposes under those laws 
    whose administration is transferred to the new Department.
        Title I, as amended, remains restricted in scope to expressions 
    of policy which indicate that the authorities being transferred by 
    this bill are not to be construed as being expanded to permit 
    increased Federal control over local educational policies.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Title Establishing Administrative Structure of Department of 
    Education--Amendment Relating to Transportation of Students To 
    Establish Racial Balance

Sec. Sec. 3.17 To a title of a bill establishing a new Department of 
    Education, which only addresses the administrative structure of the 
    Department and not its authority to carry out the programs 
    transferred to it, an amendment prohibiting the Department from 
    withholding federal funds to force the transportation of students 
    or teachers to establish racial or ethnic balance was held to be 
    not germane.

    During consideration of the Department of Education Organization 
Act of 1979 (9) in the Committee of the Whole on June 12, 
1979,(10) Chairman Lucien N. Nedzi, of Michigan, held an 
amendment to title II of the bill to be not germane. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 2444.
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 14466, 14485, 14486, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 TITLE II--ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT

                               establishment

        Sec. 201. (a) There is hereby established an executive 
    department to be known as the Department of Education. There shall 
    be at the head of the Department a Secretary of Education, who 
    shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
    consent of the Senate. The Department shall be administered, in 
    accordance with the provisions of this Act, under

[[Page 7477]]

    the supervision and direction of the Secretary.
        (b) There shall be in the Department an Under Secretary, who 
    shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
    consent of the Senate. The Under Secretary shall perform such 
    functions as the Secretary shall prescribe and shall act for and 
    exercise the functions of the Secretary during the absence or 
    disability of the Secretary. . . .
        Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dornan: Page 58, after line 6, 
        insert the following new section:

         prohibition against the withholding by the secretary of funds 
                      to force racial-ethnic quota busing

            Sec. 201(c). The Secretary and the Department may not 
        withhold any funds, grants, contracts or awards otherwise 
        authorized to be granted because of failure to transport 
        students or teachers (or to purchase equipment for such 
        transportation) in order to establish racial or ethnic school 
        attendance quotas or guidelines in any school or school system, 
        or because of the failure to transport students or teachers (or 
        to purchase equipment for such transportation) in order to 
        carry out such a plan in any school or school system. . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I will make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Under the test imposed by rule XVI, clause 7, it is not 
    germane. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: . . . I make the point of order 
    on the amendment under rule XVI, clause 7, requiring that 
    amendments be germane to the subject under consideration. To be 
    germane, the amendment must have the same fundamental purpose of 
    the bill under consideration. The purpose of H.R. 2444 to establish 
    a Department of Education deals only with the organizational 
    structure of that Department. Amendments affecting programs or 
    assigning new duties to the Secretary or his assistants or 
    employees that are not now authorized by law are not consistent 
    with that organizational purpose and, therefore, should be ruled 
    out of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) 
    desire to be further heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Horton: I just wanted to make the point that this is in the 
    section that has to do with the establishment of the Department and 
    that this is a matter that is not within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Government Operations, and it is not involved in the 
    organization of this Department, and, therefore, it should be ruled 
    not germane.
        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I would like 
    to add something to the point of order, if I may.
        It occurs to me that the manner in which the amendment is 
    written, Mr. Chairman, is limitation of the jurisdiction of a court 
    of competent jurisdiction. It goes far beyond the scope of this 
    bill and not only affects the court of competent jurisdiction, but 
    in effect tells and directs the Secretary of Education to ignore 
    and disobey the orders of the court.
        Mr. Dornan: Mr. Chairman, I have a final thought. On page 56 of 
    H.R.

[[Page 7478]]

    2444 we say in line 12 ``(5) to increase the accountability of 
    Federal education programs to the President, the Congress, and the 
    public;''.
        All I am doing with this amendment is merely limiting the scope 
    of the Secretary of this new Department of Education, and the 
    statement that I just read increases the accountability of this 
    Federal program to the Congress.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair would point out to the gentleman that the matters 
    alluded to in his final argument pertain to title I. The amendment 
    which the gentleman has offered is to title II which deals with the 
    structure of the new Department of Education. Title II does not go 
    to the basic question whether substantive educational programs 
    should be retained and to the purposes for which funds under those 
    programs may be expended. Accordingly the Chair sustains the point 
    of order.

Amendment Relating to Wage Discrimination Based on Race, Offered to 
    Bill To Eliminate Wage Discrimination Based on Sex of Employee

Sec. 3.18 To a bill seeking to eliminate wage discrimination based on 
    the sex of the employee, an amendment to make the provisions of the 
    bill applicable to discrimination based on race was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 87th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(11) prohibiting wage discrimination based on sex of an 
employee, the following amendment was offered: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 11677 (Committee on Education and Labor).
12. 108 Cong. Rec. 14778, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., July 25, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Charles S.] Joelson [of New Jersey]:
        After section 4, add the following:
        Sec. 5. Whenever the word ``sex'' is used in this Act, the 
    words ``or race'' shall be added immediately thereafter.

    A point of order was made, as follows:

        Mrs. [Edith] Green of Oregon: . . . The amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New Jersey is not germane to the bill under 
    discussion, which has to do with equal pay for equal work. It does 
    not cover the subject which the gentleman from New Jersey has 
    covered in his amendment.

    The Chairman (13) sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Edna F. Kelly (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Providing for Reorganization of Executive Agencies--Amendment 
    Relating to President's Term of Office

Sec. 3.19 To a bill providing for reorganization of the executive 
    departments and agencies of the government, an

[[Page 7479]]

    amendment concerned with the term of office of the President was 
    held not germane.

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of a government 
reorganization bill,(14) the following amendment was 
offered: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. S. 3331 (Select Committee on Government Organization).
15. 83 Cong. Rec. 5114, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Apr. 8, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Hamilton] Fish Jr., [of New York]: 
    Page 82, after line 15, add a new section, as follows:
        Sec. 429. That it is the sense of the Congress that the 
    precedent established by Washington and other Presidents of the 
    United States in retiring from the Presidential office after their 
    second term has become by universal concurrence a part of our 
    republican system of government . . . and that the Congress 
    commends the observance of this precedent.

    Mr. James M. Mead, of New York, having made the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane, Mr. Fish responded:

        Mr. Chairman, this bill has to do with the reorganization of 
    the executive departments of the Government and the executive 
    agencies of the Government. If this bill goes through, the 
    President will be clothed with vast powers to preserve and 
    perpetuate himself in office. . . .

    The Chairman, Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, in ruling on the point of 
order, stated: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 5115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There is nothing in the pending bill relative to the term of 
    office of the President of the United States.
        The point of order is sustained.

Bill To Remove Federal Loan Agencies From Department of Commerce--
    Amendment Relating to Term of Federal Loan Administrator

Sec. 3.20 To a bill proposing to remove federal loan agencies from the 
    Department of Commerce, an amendment relating to the term of office 
    and removal from office of the Federal Loan Administrator was held 
    not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (17) was under 
consideration which provided in part: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. S. 375 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
18. See 91 Cong. Rec. 1184, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 16, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That the Federal Loan Agency, created by 
    section 402 of the President's Reorganization Plan No. 1 under 
    authority of the Reorganization Act of 1939, shall continue as an 
    independent establishment of the Federal Government and shall 
    continue to be administered under the direction and supervision of 
    the Federal Loan Administrator in the same manner and to the same 
    extent as if Executive Order 9071, dated February 24, 1942, 
    transferring the functions of the Federal Loan Agency to the Depart

[[Page 7480]]

    ment of Commerce, had not been issued.

    The following amendment was offered to the bill:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Louis E.] Graham [of Pennsylvania]: 
    Page 2, line 2, insert a new subsection as follows:
        Section 1. (a) The term of office of the Federal Loan 
    Administrator created by section 402 of the President's 
    Reorganization Plan No. 1 under authority of the Reorganization Act 
    of 1939, shall be for the period of 1 year, unless he is sooner 
    removed by the President, upon reasons to be communicated by him to 
    the Senate, and he shall receive a salary at the rate of $12,000 
    per annum.
        A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: I make the point of order 
    that the amendment is not germane to the bill. It goes far beyond 
    any purpose of the bill in that it changes the organic law of the 
    lending agency and is not germane to this legislation.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at pp. 1184, 1185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Graham: . . . [T]here is no broadening of this act by this 
    amendment. It does not create a new agency; it does not create a 
    new administrator; the title remains the same, the Agency is still 
    in effect, the Administrator is still designated as the Federal 
    Loan Administrator, and the salary remains the same. Only two 
    changes are embodied in my amendment. One is fixing a definite 
    term, which is surely within the power of the legislative branch of 
    the Government to do, and the other is the protection to the 
    individual named by the President that he shall not be removed 
    except upon reason communicated by the President.

    The Chairman, Alfred L. Bulwinkle, of North Carolina, in ruling on 
the point of order, stated: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 1185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    [Mr. Graham] provides that the Federal Loan Administrator shall 
    hold office for a year and be confirmed by the Senate. The bill 
    under consideration has but one object, that is, to remove from the 
    Department of Commerce all of the Federal loan agencies. Therefore, 
    the Chair holds that the amendment is not germane. The point of 
    order is sustained.

--Amendment Relating to Management of Import-Export Bank

Sec. 3.21 To a bill having for its sole purpose the removal of federal 
    loan agencies from the Department of Commerce, an amendment 
    relating to management of the Export-Import Bank of Washington by a 
    board of directors was held not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (1) was under consideration 
to pro

[[Page 7481]]

vide for the effective administration of certain lending agencies of 
the federal government. The following amendment was offered to the 
bill: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. S. 375 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 2. 91 Cong. Rec. 1191, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 16, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. (Jesse P.) Wolcott (of Michigan): Page 
    2, line 20, at the end of section 4, add a new section as follows:
        Sec. --. (a) The management of the Export-Import Bank of 
    Washington shall be vested in a board of directors consisting of 
    five persons appointed by the President of the United States by and 
    with the advice and consent of the Senate. . . .
        (c) No functions, powers, or duties of the Export-Import Bank 
    of Washington except as provided in Executive Order 9361, dated 
    July 15, 1943, and Executive Order 9880, dated September 15, 1943, 
    shall be transferred to or consolidated with any other department, 
    agency, or corporation of the Government unless the Congress shall 
    otherwise by law provide.
        (d) All acts and Executive orders or parts of the same which 
    are in conflict with the provisions of this section are hereby 
    repealed and rescinded.

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

        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to this section or 
    to the bill. The bill attempts merely to lift the Reconstruction 
    Finance Corporation out of the Commerce Department unchanged. This 
    is an attempt to change the organic law under which it was created. 
    It goes further than the bill contemplates. It has no relation to 
    the purposes of the bill, and, in my opinion, is not germane.

    The Chairman, Alfred L. Bulwinkle, of North Carolina, sustained the 
point of order,(3) referring to a prior ruling in which he 
had found an amendment not to be sufficiently related to the sole 
object of the bill, to ``remove from the Department of Commerce all of 
the Federal loan agencies.''4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at pp. 1191, 1192.
 4. Id. at p. 1185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Requiring Percentage of Automobiles To Be Manufactured 
    Domestically and Mandating Diverse Studies of Impact of 
    Manufacturers' Practices--Amendment Requiring Study of Antitrust 
    Implications of Practices

Sec. 3.22 To a bill mandating that a certain percentage of automobiles 
    sold in the United States be manufactured domestically, imposing an 
    import restriction on any person violating that requirement, and 
    requiring diverse studies of the impact of the bill and of 
    discriminatory practices of manufacturers

[[Page 7482]]

    affecting domestic production of automobile parts, an amendment 
    directing the Attorney General to study the antitrust and tax 
    implications of automobile manufacturers' sale-lease price 
    differentials was held not germane as relating to a subject 
    (antitrust and tax law) beyond the scope of studies and 
    requirements contained in the bill.

    During consideration of the Automotive Products Act of 1983 
(5) in the Committee of the Whole on Nov. 2 and 3, 
1983,(6) the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
amendment described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 1234.
 6. 129 Cong. Rec. 30527, 30781, 30782, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

       sec. 9. study of discriminatory practices affecting domestic 
                     production of motor vehicle parts.

        Within eighteen months after the date of the enactment of this 
    Act, the Secretary and the Federal Trade Commission shall jointly 
    undertake an investigation, and submit to Congress a written 
    report, regarding those policies and practices of vehicle 
    manufacturers that are used to persuade United States motor vehicle 
    dealers, in choosing replacement parts for motor vehicles, to favor 
    foreign-made parts rather than domestically produced parts. Such 
    report shall include, but not be limited to, recommended 
    administrative or legislative action that the Secretary and the 
    Federal Trade Commission consider appropriate to assure that 
    domestic producers of replacement parts are accorded fair access to 
    the United States market for such parts.

         sec. 10. impact study regarding motor vehicle dealerships.

        (a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
    Advisory Council, shall conduct a continuing study of the extent to 
    which this Act has affected employment in any way at retail motor 
    vehicle dealerships located in the United States including, but not 
    limited to, dealerships which have either--
        (1) franchises for at least one make of motor vehicle 
    manufactured by domestic manufacturers for sale and distribution in 
    interstate commerce and at least one make of motor vehicle imported 
    into the United States for such sale and distribution; or
        (2) franchises for one or more makes of motor vehicles imported 
    into the United States for sale and distribution in interstate 
    commerce but no franchises for any make of motor vehicle 
    manufactured by domestic manufacturers for sale and distribution in 
    interstate commerce.
    The study shall identify and consider all factors affecting such 
    employment and shall establish an employment base period for all 
    such dealerships which the Secretary shall utilize in the conduct 
    of the study. . . .

        Mr. [James J.] Florio [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Florio: On page 36, after line 4, 
        insert the following new section:

[[Page 7483]]

          sec. 11. impact study regarding unfair price discrimination.

            (a) The Attorney General, in consultation with the Advisory 
        Council, shall conduct a study of the antitrust and tax 
        implications and of the impact on retail motor vehicle 
        dealerships and consumers of the practice whereby manufacturers 
        sell or lease, or offer to sell or lease, any passenger car, 
        truck, or station wagon to any person (including any other 
        automobile dealer) during any period of time at a price which 
        is lower than the price at which the same model of passenger 
        car, truck or station wagon, similarly equipped, is sold or 
        leased, or offered for sale or lease, to such retail dealers 
        during the same period. . . .

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    Jersey is out of order in accordance with rule XVI, clause 7, the 
    rule of germaneness.
        The gentleman has offered as an amendment a form of a bill 
    which is pending before the gentleman's subcommittee which deals 
    with the question of how leasing companies buy automobiles through 
    dealerships and under what circumstances. . . .
        The findings of the bill say that there has been serious injury 
    due to increases in imports. The purposes of the bill are declared 
    as they are going to remedy the serious injuries by not allowing 
    foreign-made merchandise to be sold in the United States.
        Clearly, this amendment, which deals with domestic-sales 
    arrangements of domestic companies, has nothing whatever to do with 
    the bill and should be declared out of order. . . .
        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, as 
    salutory as the purpose of this amendment is, I certainly would 
    support it under other circumstances. It gives responsibilities to 
    the Attorney General that are not in the bill. It requires a study 
    of antitrust matters which are not at all pertinent to the bill 
    before us and it deals with pricing.
        For all those reasons, I believe it is nongermane and, 
    therefore, regrettably, I have to assert a point of order.
        The Chairman: (7) Does the gentleman from New Jersey 
    wish to be heard on the point of order? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
        The basic test of germaneness is the question of whether the 
    amendment relates to the basic subject matter of the bill. The 
    basic subject matter of the bill before the House relates to the 
    domestic content of automobiles.
        This particular amendment, in part, provides for a study of 
    antitrust and tax implications of manufacturers sale-lease 
    practices.
        In the opinion of the Chair, that takes it beyond the subject 
    matter covered by the bill and it is not related to that subject 
    matter.
        Therefore, under rule XVI, clause 7, the Chair finds that the 
    amendment is not germane and sustains the point of order.

Study of Impact of Regulations on Automobile Industry--Amendment To 
    Require Study of Feasibility of Alternatives to Automobiles

Sec. 3.23 To a bill authorizing loan guarantees to a private

[[Page 7484]]

    automobile manufacturer, amended to require a study of the economic 
    impact of federal regulations on the entire automobile industry, an 
    amendment requiring another study of that corporation's long-term 
    involvement in the automobile industry and also the feasibility of 
    its production of advanced alternatives to automobiles was held 
    germane as within the scope of the bill as amended.

    On Dec. 18, 1979,(8) during consideration of H.R. 5860 
(9) in the Committee of the Whole, it was held that to a 
proposition providing financial assistance to an individual business 
entity, broadened by amendment to address the issue of government 
regulation of the entire industry of which that entity is a part, a 
further amendment relating to the future role of that business entity 
within the industry is germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 125 Cong. Rec. 36822-24, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. A bill authorizing loan guarantees to the Chrysler Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: 
        On page 23, after line 5, insert the following new subsection 
        (c):
            ``(c) The Board shall have the power to require the 
        Secretary of Transportation to complete, within six months of 
        such request, an assessment of the economic impact on the 
        automobile industry of Federal regulatory requirements and the 
        necessity thereof.''

        The Chairman: (10) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania (Mr. Moorhead).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    was agreed to.
        Mr. [Andrew] Maguire [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Maguire to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: 
        Insert the following new Section 11 immediately after line 6, 
        page 22 and renumber the following sections accordingly;

                            long-term planning study

            Sec. 11. (a) The Secretary of Transportation, after 
        consultation with other appropriate federal agencies, shall 
        submit to the Board and to the Congress as soon as practicable, 
        but not later than six months after enactment of this Act, an 
        assessment of the longterm via

[[Page 7485]]

        bility of the Corporation's involvement in the automobile 
        industry.
            (b) The Secretary of Transportation shall conduct a study 
        to assess the feasibility of the Corporation producing advanced 
        alternatives to existing automobiles which can be manufactured 
        at reasonable cost, for a broad market, and which incorporate 
        the best conservation, safety, and environmental 
        characteristics of the experimental motor vehicles designed 
        under contract to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
        Administration. The study shall include the feasibility of 
        federal, state, and local governments, and private corporations 
        contracting, over the next three to five years, with the 
        Corporation for the purchase of such advanced automobiles. . . 
        .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. Mr. Chairman, 
    under the guise of having here a direction to the Secretary of 
    Transportation to make certain additions to the financing plan, the 
    gentleman would impose on an officer of Government, little 
    mentioned in the legislation, the responsibility of doing a number 
    of things: First, consulting with other agencies; second, 
    submitting to the Board and the Congress an assessment of the long-
    term viability of the corporation; but in addition to that it would 
    require them to conduct a broad study to assess the feasibility of 
    the corporation's producing advanced alternatives to existing 
    automobiles which may be manufactured at a reasonable cost, for a 
    broad market, and which incorporate the best conservation, safety 
    and environmental characteristics, and so forth.
        The study shall include the feasibility of State and Federal 
    Government's engaging in certain actions, including private 
    corporations contracting, over the next 3 to 5 years, with the 
    corporation for the purchase of such advanced automobiles.
        Mr. Chairman, we have a situtation where we have, first of all, 
    essentially a lengthy study to be completed, and recommendations 
    with regard to the purchase of advanced automobiles, something 
    which is nowhere in contemplation of the Board. They are not to 
    engage in the purchase of automobiles, and it would just occur to 
    me, Mr. Chairman, that this goes beyond the language in the 
    legislation which is simply to afford loan guarantees to Chrysler 
    and not to set up lengthy studies for the Department of 
    Transportation.
        As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, were this amendment to be 
    introduced to stand on its own, it would have been referred to an 
    entirely different committee, probably the Committee on Interstate 
    and Foreign Commerce. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, it is both 
    nongermane as relates to the general purposes of the bill, which 
    are to set up a program of loan guarantees for Chrysler; but, 
    second, it is not even within the jurisdiction of the committee 
    which has considered this matter and reported it to the House. . . 
    .
        Mr. Maguire: . . . Mr. Chairman, I really do not think that the 
    lengthiness of a study goes to the issue of whether or not an 
    amendment is germane. . . .
        The amendment is germane because it relates to the subject 
    matter that is before us in this bill, and I would simply say that 
    I think the gentleman has failed to sustain his case.
        The Chairman: . . . [T]he Chair is prepared to rule.

[[Page 7486]]

        The Chair would like to make two points: First, the amendment 
    requires a study of just the Chrysler Corp., and that is certainly 
    pertinent to the bill; but, in addition to that, the Committee of 
    the Whole has already adopted in the Solomon amendment a study 
    dealing with the economic impact of the whole automobile industry 
    on a variety of things. The Chair, therefore, believes that this 
    amendment is germane, and he overrules the point of order.

Bill Reforming Economic Regulation of Railroads--Amendment Requesting 
    Study of Impact of Tax Law Changes on Railroads

Sec. 3.24 Where a bill reforming the economic regulation of railroads 
    was being read for amendment by titles, and the title under 
    consideration, entitled ``railroad inter-carrier practices'' dealt 
    with diverse subjects, including bankruptcy and employee protection 
    issues, an amendment to such title which (1) addressed those issues 
    as well as railroad rates and ratemaking, (2) included provisions 
    requesting a study of the impact of possible tax law changes on 
    railroads, and (3) conferred certain powers on the Interstate 
    Commerce Commission, the Secretary of Transportation and other 
    officials, was held germane even though portions of the amendment 
    indirectly affected a previous title of the bill already perfected 
    by amendment.

    On Sept. 5, 1980,(11) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 7235, the Rail Act of 1980. Title II of the 
bill, which had been perfected by amendment, related to the following 
subjects:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 126 Cong. Rec. 24375-97, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            TITLE II--RAILROAD RATES, PROFITS, AND REINVESTMENT

        Sec. 201. Regulation of railroad rates in the absence of 
    effective competition.
        Sec. 202. Determination of the absence of effective 
    competition.
        Sec. 203. Investigation and suspension of rates.
        Sec. 204. Contracts.
        Sec. 205. Demand sensitive rates.
        Sec. 206. Phaseout of capital incentive rates.
        Sec. 207. Permissive limited liability rates.
        Sec. 208. Rate discrimination.
        Sec. 209. Exemption.
        Sec. 210. Intrastate rates.
        Sec. 211. Transition rate adjustments and inflation-based rate 
    increases.
        Sec. 212. Customer solicitation expenses.
        Sec. 213. Safe railroad reinvestment requirements.

[[Page 7487]]

    Title III, under consideration, related to the following subjects:

                TITLE III--RAILROAD INTER-CARRIER PRACTICES

        Sec. 301. Compensatory joint rate relief.
        Sec. 302. Rate bureaus.
        Sec. 303. Long and short haul transportation.
        Sec. 304. Railroad entry.
        Sec. 305. Service during periods of peak demand.
        Sec. 306. Reciprocal switching.
        Sec. 307. Car service compensation.
        Sec. 308. Car service orders for exigent circumstances.
        Sec. 309. Employee protection.

    An amendment was offered to Title III:

        The Chairman: (12) When the Committee of the Whole 
    House rose on Thursday, July 24, 1980, title III was open to 
    amendment at any point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Les AuCoin (Ore.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there any amendments to title III? . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Staggers: Page 125, strike out 
        line 14 and all that follows through line 17 on page 138 
        (including the material between lines 17 and 18)) and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following . . .
            Page 98, strike out the item in the table of contents 
        relating to section 301 and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following new items:
            Sec. 301. Compensatory joint rate relief.
            Sec. 302. Expedited division of revenues proceedings.
            Sec. 303. Regulation of railroad rates.
            Sec. 304. Determination of market dominance.
            Sec. 305. Zone of rate flexibility.
            Sec. 306. Rate regulation proceedings and study.
            Sec. 307. Inflation-based rate increases.
            Sec. 308. Investigation and suspension of rates.
            Sec. 309. Contracts.
            Sec. 310. Demand sensitive rates.
            Sec. 311. Phaseout of capital incentive rates.
            Sec. 312. Permissive limited liability rates.
            Sec. 313. Rate discrimination.
            Sec. 314. Exemption.

            Sec. 315. Intrastate rates.
            Sec. 316. Customer solicitation expenses.
            Sec. 317. Efficient marketing.
            Redesignate the following items in the table of contents 
        for title III accordingly.
            Page 98, at the end of the items relating to title III in 
        the table of contents, insert the following new item:
            Sec. 326. Safe railroad reinvestment requirements.
            Sec. 327. Rock Island and Milwaukee Railroad amendments.
            Sec. 328. Loan guarantees.
            Sec. 329. Amendment to the Regional Rail Reorganization Act 
        of 1973.
            Sec. 330. Savings provisions.
            Sec. 331. Relationship to title II.
            Sec. 332. Rail Technology and Shipper Needs Board; other 
        shipper assistance. . . .

                          regulation of railroad rates

            Sec. 303. (a) Subchapter I of chapter 107 of title 49, 
        United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 10701 
        the following new section:
        Sec. 10701a. Standards for rates for rail carriers.

[[Page 7488]]

            ``(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) or (c) of this 
        section and unless a rate is prohibited by a provision of this 
        title, a rail carrier providing transportation subject to the 
        jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission under 
        subchapter I of chapter 105 of this title may establish any 
        rate for transportation or other service provided by the 
        carrier. . . .

                                intrastate rates

            Sec. 315. (a) Section 11501(a) of title 49, United States 
        Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking out ``(a)(1)'' and inserting in lieu 
        thereof ``(a)'';
            (2) by striking out ``subchapter I or subchapter IV'' and 
        inserting in lieu thereof ``subchapter IV'';
            (3) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as 
        paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively; and
            (4) by striking out paragraph (2). . . .

                        ``employee protection agreements

            ``Sec. 106. (a) Not later than 5 days after the date of 
        enactment of the Harley O. Staggers Rail Act of 1980, in order 
        to avoid disruption of rail service and undue displacement of 
        employees, the Rock Island Railroad and labor organizations 
        representing the employees of such railroad with the assistance 
        of the National Mediation Board, may enter into an agreement 
        providing protection for employees of such railroad who are 
        adversely affected as a result of a reduction in service by 
        such railroad. Such employee protection may include, but need 
        not be limited to, employee relocation incentive compensation, 
        moving expenses, and separation allowances. . . .

                            ``congressional findings

            ``Sec. 102. The Congress finds that--
            ``(1) the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act 
        of 1976 was not intended to imply that there would be no labor 
        protection in the event of a total abandonment by a major rail 
        carrier and the Milwaukee Railroad Restructuring Act requires 
        the imposition of employee protection in all abandonments when 
        the rail carrier is in bankruptcy whether such carrier is being 
        reorganized or has been ordered to be liquidated. . . .

                                loan guarantees

            Sec. 328. (a) To promote competition in the transportation 
        of coal, the Secretary of Transportation shall, no later than 
        45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, take final 
        action of any application for loan guarantees, under section 
        511 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 
        1976, to be used in connection with joint ownership, 
        construction, or rehabilitation of any facilities (including 
        support facilities) for a second rail carrier to serve the 
        Powder River Coal Region in Montana and Wyoming.
            (b) The Secretary of Transportation may waive the 
        provisions of section 511(g) of the Railroad Revitalization and 
        Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 in making the loan guarantees 
        described in subsection (a) of this section. . . .

                            relationship to title ii

            Sec. 331. In any case in which any provision of or 
        amendment made by title II of this Act conflicts with any 
        provision of or amendment made by this title, the provision of 
        or amendment made by this title shall control.

            rail technology and shipper needs board; other shipper 
                                   assistance

            Sec. 332. (a)(1) There is hereby established a Rail 
        Technology and Shipper Needs Board (hereinafter in

[[Page 7489]]

        this section referred to as the ``Board''), which shall be 
        composed of the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of 
        Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of 
        Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of Labor, and the 
        Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The Secretary 
        of Transporation shall serve as Chairman of the Board and shall 
        have the responsibility for expediting the proceedings of the 
        Board. . . .
            (g)(1) The Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of 
        the Treasury shall jointly submit to the Congress, within 9 
        months of the effective date of this Act, a comprehensive 
        report on the anticipated effect (including the loss of revenue 
        to the Federal Treasury) of amending section 103 of the 
        Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide an exemption from 
        taxation for obligations incurred in connection with the 
        rehabilitation of railroad feeder lines. Such report shall also 
        include such criteria as may be necessary to prevent the abuse 
        of such special tax status. . . .

        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, in 
    considering the point of order, the nature of the amendment must be 
    considered. The salient question is whether or not by amending 
    title III, a title dealing with the question of railroad 
    intercarrier practices, and by including in that amendment a number 
    of specific matters which I will deal with later in my point of 
    order, and including provisions on title II dealing with railroad 
    rates, profits, and reinvestment, whether or not the Staggers 
    amendment is germane to the provisions in title III. That is the 
    essential question.
        In an amendment offered in this way, which, incidentally, is a 
    very, very unusual way of offering an amendment, or a substitute, 
    the question is not only one of the germaneness to the bill as a 
    whole, but the question of whether or not the amendment is germane 
    to the title sought to be amended. Such would not be true had an 
    amendment of this nature been offered after the completion of title 
    III and as a new title to the bill, or had the amendment been 
    offered as a full substitute altering the provisions previously put 
    into effect under title II.
        The first point I wish to make is the broadest point upon which 
    my point of order rests, and that is that the general subject 
    matter of title II is quite different from the subject matter dealt 
    with in title III. Essentially title II is what its title says it 
    is. It is a title dealing with railroad rates, profits, and 
    reinvestment. . . .
        . . . If the Staggers-Rahall-Lee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute deals with a different subject matter not germane to the 
    subject matter dealt with in title III, or if any part of the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute deals with some subject 
    matter not germane to title III, then the whole amendment must 
    fall. Title III, as I have pointed out, deals with railroad 
    intercarrier practices. It is true, of course, that under that 
    general heading there are several different categories that I think 
    could be understood by the sections and their headings. . . .
        The subject matter of title II deals primarily with a question 
    involved with ICC within the brackets of control defined in that 
    area and with the question of relationship between the carrier and 
    the shipper, the most salient and sensitive of which is a situation 
    involving what we call the captive shipper.

[[Page 7490]]

    Therefore, we urge as a broad proposition, and the broadest 
    proposition of our point of order, that provisions relating to the 
    title II matters and in effect attempting to strike a compromise in 
    that area of contracts, that is, the rate control area, the 
    jurisdictional area of ICC, is not germane to the provisions 
    dealing essentially with the intercarrier relationships and certain 
    other provisions in title III. We are aware of the fact that there 
    are instances where a miscellaneous section of the bill deals with 
    such a wide variety of subjects that it may be said if that were an 
    original bill, the provisions of another title of the bill would be 
    germane to it, even though the subject matter of the other title 
    has already been dealt with, but we urge that that is not the case 
    here. This is not a wide variety of subject matter. It is a subject 
    matter related to the question of interrailroad relations.
        Where there are other subject matters involved, they are narrow 
    and in most instances related to that broader topic. But the 
    position we are taking here is not limited to that broad 
    contention. There are other provisions in the Staggers substitute 
    which deal with a variety of subjects not touched even in the 
    original bill. These are sought to be brought under consideration 
    or perhaps as a matter of compromise and sweetener to various 
    groups, and they go far beyond the original area of title III. They 
    actually would amend provisions of other laws besides those related 
    to title III. It should be noted that the scope of title III is 
    limited to provisions amending the codified Interstate Commerce 
    Act, title 49 of the United States Code. In contrast, the Staggers-
    Rahall-Lee amendment in section 327 amends several other laws and 
    titles of the United States Code. . . .
        Section 327 fails to meet the test of germaneness for the same 
    reasons that the Senate amendment was deemed nongermane. First, the 
    section contains substantial amendments to existing laws which are 
    not amended by title III. Second, in contrast to title III, the 
    section provides for a substantial authorization of appropriations 
    from the U.S. Treasury and significantly alters the rights of the 
    United States as a creditor.
        Moreover, the Milwaukee and Rock Island amendments are 
    subjected to a point (of) order because the provision seeks to 
    accomplish the purposes of title III by methods that are not 
    closely allied to methods encompassed in title III. See Deschler's 
    Procedure, chapter 28, section 33.11, providing that:

            To a bill designed to aid in the control of crime through 
        the research and training, an amendment aimed at the control of 
        crime through regulation of the sale of firearms and affecting 
        laws not amended by the bill was held not germane.

        While title III seeks to further railroad revitalization by 
    revisions and regulatory requirements, section 327 seeks to 
    accomplish this objective in part through a substantial expenditure 
    of Federal funds. . . .
        This provision enters into that field and purports to regulate 
    through Federal law an area far beyond the original provision of 
    title III. None of the title III provisions relate to the 
    relationship between the Federal Government and State governments, 
    or alter State jurisdiction over rules, classifications, and rates 
    and practices in any

[[Page 7491]]

    way. The scope of title III is limited to interstate transportation 
    by rail 
    carriers. Therefore, section 315 of the proposed amendment dealing 
    with intrastate transportation is subject to a point of order.
        Moreover, the scope of the intrastate amendment to title III is 
    even broader than the intrastate language in title II. The title II 
    language is limited to certain preemptions of intrastate 
    ratemaking, and as I have pointed out, this has been enlarged to 
    classifications, rules, and practices. Thus, section 315 provides 
    authority for a Federal Government to preempt State regulatory 
    authority over virtually the entire operations of intrastate 
    railcarriers. . . .
        . . . We should deal with one subject matter and not inject 
    into it other subject matters during the reading of the bill. There 
    are ways to get to these points which I have alluded to, either by 
    adding a new section or a new title, which would then fall within 
    the germaneness rule with respect to the whole bill, or by offering 
    a substitute amendment at the end.
        But let us note the ingenious manner in which it is attempted 
    to leave in place, without touching it, the provisions that this 
    body with careful deliberation has established through the 
    Eckhardt-Rahall amendment to title II. The language which is 
    contained in this amendment that attempts to get by that is this:

            In any case in which any provision of or amendment made by 
        title II of this Act conflicts with any provision of or 
        amendment made by this title, the provision of or amendment 
        made by this title shall control.

        What is attempted to be done is to enter into the whole major 
    subject matter of title II and reverse it by putting this in a 
    title which does not have anything to do with the question of the 
    jurisdictional scope and limitations of the ICC. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, there is yet another section which is itself 
    subject to the point of order. That is section 332. This is subject 
    to a point of order under the committee jurisdiction test as well 
    as the subject matter test.
        In particular, section 322(g) requires the Secretary of the 
    Treasury to submit a report on the anticipated effect of amending 
    section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide an 
    exemption from taxation for obligations incurred in connection with 
    the rehabilitation of railroad feeder lines.
        This matter is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
    on Ways and Means, and, therefore, it is not germane to legislation 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce. See Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 4.42, where 
    it is said:

            To a title of a bill reported from the Committee on 
        Interstate and Foreign Commerce containing diverse petroleum 
        conservation, and allocation provisions, an amendment imposing 
        quotas on the importation of petroleum products from certain 
        countries was held to be a matter within the jurisdiction of 
        the Committee on Ways and Means and was ruled out as not 
        germane.

        Mr. Chairman, for these many reasons, all of which are 
    supported by reason and all of which are based upon the protection 
    of the processes of this House, I urge that the Chair should rule 
    the Staggers-Rahall-Lee amendment not germane. . . .

[[Page 7492]]

        Mr. [James J.] Florio [of New Jersey]: . . . Mr. Chairman, 
    title III, as reported by the Committee, is a diverse title dealing 
    with many and diverse railroad issues, including surcharges and 
    cancellations, rate bureaus, and employee protection in abandonment 
    proceedings involving bankrupt carriers. The title has unrelated 
    provisions dealing with many sections of the Interstate Commerce 
    Act. These provisions were separated from title II simply to break 
    up an otherwise unwieldy series of provisions. A quick synopsis of 
    the provisions in title II will bear this out.
        Section 301 permits carriers recovering less than 110 percent 
    of their variable costs in a particular movement to surcharge or 
    cancel such rates. Section 302 narrows the antitrust immunity 
    railroads have under the Reed-Bulwinkle Act to establish rates 
    collectively. Section 303 permits a railroad to charge more for a 
    longer haul than a shorter haul in the same direction over the same 
    route, contrary to existing law.

        Section 304 allows one railroad to construct a new railroad 
    line across another railroad. Section 305 provides that carriers 
    which meet commitments on contracts do not violate their common 
    carrier obligations.
        Section 306 permits the ICC to order one railroad to pick up 
    and deliver cars not on its own lines. Section 307 gives the ICC 
    the discretion to grant antitrust immunity to shippers to discuss 
    the compensation that will be paid for the use of their own cars.
        Section 308 defines the conditions which must exist before the 
    ICC may issue car service orders and limits the duration of such 
    orders. Section 309 provides for employee protection in abandonment 
    proceedings involving bankrupt rail carriers and amends title II of 
    the United States Code which deals with bankruptcy proceedings for 
    railroads.
        It is clear from a mere recitation of the extent of this title 
    that there is no common thread running through title III, except 
    that all sections deal with railroad matters. The name of title 
    III, the ``Railroad Inter-Carrier Practices,'' was used primarily 
    because section 301, the most important provision in the title, 
    addresses such practices. The title was not intended to govern the 
    subject matter of that entire title. The amendment we are offering 
    is germane because it generally deals with railroads and it 
    includes section 301 of the bill as reported by the committee with 
    other minor changes.
        The amendment contains minor changes in the present section 301 
    which are clearly germane to title III. It also contains sections 
    dealing with regulation of rates by the ICC, the establishment of 
    competition between a rail movement and existing or potential 
    movements by rail or other modes, a study by the ICC on the extent 
    to which competition should enter into the ICC decisionmaking 
    process, the establishment of a percentage zone of permissible rate 
    increases which is identical to a provision currently in title III 
    relative to general rate increases, suspension or investigation of 
    rates, contracts, exemption of rail carriers from most provisions 
    of the act, specific changes to sections of title III which will be 
    maintained, and changes to the Rock Island Transition and Employee 
    Assistance Act.

[[Page 7493]]

        Present title III amends and affects a great number of sections 
    of the Interstate Commerce Act and other statutes, a list of which 
    has been provided to the Parliamentarian, and including title II of 
    the United States Code.
        In conclusion, title III covers a broad range of railroad 
    issues, as does the amendment. There is no unifying factor in title 
    III, but they address matters affecting railroads and, accordingly, 
    and under the precedents, the amendment is and does appear to us to 
    be germane.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel) 
    reserved a point of order.
        Does the gentleman from Minnesota wish to be heard on the point 
    of order? . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    further point of order.
        The point of order of the gentleman from Texas does deal with 
    germaneness, and the argumentation by the subcommittee chairman 
    also dealt with that.
        Mr. Chairman, my point of order against this amendment is one 
    of germaneness, as well. I invite the Chair's attention to section 
    328 of the proposed amendment dealing with loan guarantees. That 
    section states as its purpose, and I quote, ``to promote 
    competition in the transportation of coal.''
        The purpose of the bill before us, according to its purpose in 
    section 3, is ``to provide for the restoration, maintenance and 
    improvement of the physical facilities and financial stability of 
    the rail system of the United States.''
        Nowhere in the bill are we dealing with promoting competition 
    in the transportation of one particular item. The proposed 
    amendment's purpose is, as I stated, ``competition in the 
    transportation of coal,'' and not the ``rehabilitation (of) the 
    rail system in order to meet the demands of interstate commerce and 
    the national defense,'' as the bill proposes to do.
        The chairman of the subcommittee argues that because there are 
    a lot of different things in the bill, somehow it escapes the rules 
    of germaneness. If we are to accept that kind of reasoning, any 
    substitute, however gross, however nongermane, would somehow be 
    declared germane.
        This particular section, section 328, was not included in the 
    original bill and cannot escape that rule of germaneness, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The amendment specifically amends section 4(f) of the 
    Department of Transportation Act and states that such section of 
    the Department of Transportation Act shall not apply to any loan 
    guarantee described in the loan guarantee section attempting to 
    promote competition in the transportation of coal. The bill and the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the committee do 
    not amend this provision of the law, and this new amendment is 
    waiving a section of another law not contained in the original bill 
    nor in the committee amendment.
        This is an omnibus bill, I grant that. It does involve 
    financing of the rail system. But the amendment proposed by the 
    gentleman from West Virginia, and others, goes much farther than 
    the bill and expands the scope to involve loan guarantees to 
    promote competition in the transportation of a single commodity. . 
    . .

[[Page 7494]]

        Mr. Florio: Mr. Chairman, on the point that has been raised, I 
    think I have adequately addressed the question that the scope of 
    this amendment and the scope of the bill, titles I and II, are 
    sufficiently broad, related to railroad matters, that they are 
    germane, and I would just renew our request that the Chair so rule. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I should 
    like to be heard on the question of germaneness of the Staggers 
    substitute. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I point out at the outset that in his argument 
    the gentleman from Texas has referred to the Staggers substitute as 
    containing a provision to amend the Internal Revenue Code.
        As a matter of fact, there is no such provision in the Staggers 
    substitute. There is only a request for a study and a report of the 
    results of that study.
        Mr. Chairman, I believe the amendment is germane to title III 
    of this bill. Title II affects a broad range of issues affecting 
    railroads. It amends many provisions of the Interstate Commerce 
    Act, both in subchapter 107, subchapter 109, subchapter 111, and 
    subchapter 113, and it, as well, amends title 11 of the United 
    States Code as it applies to railroads.
        Similarly, the amendment affects a broad range of issues 
    affecting railroads. It includes amendments to various subchapters 
    of the Interstate Commerce Act and to title 45 of the United States 
    Code as it affects railroads.
        The only unifying factor in title III is that all of the 
    provisions affect railroads. In the same way, the amendment is a 
    diverse one which deals with many issues affecting railroads.
        Title III was separated from other parts of this bill only so 
    that the bill would be easier to follow. There is no logical 
    distinction between the titles of the bill. The heading for title 
    II, ``Inter-Carrier Practices,'' was chosen because the most 
    important provision in that title deals with how railroads divide 
    revenues. The other provisions do not relate only to inter-railroad 
    practices. . . .
        Mr. Eckhardt: . . . I did not say that section 332(g) seeks to 
    amend the Revenue Code. What I said, in particular, section 332(g) 
    requires the Secretary of the Treasury to submit a report on the 
    anticipated effect of amending section 103 of the Internal Revenue 
    Code of 1954 to provide an exemption from taxation for obligations 
    incurred in connection with the rehabilitation of railroad feeder 
    lines.
        I did not say that it amended the Code. I said precisely what 
    it does. Yet I think it is quite clear that it calls upon the 
    Secretary of the Treasury to make a recommendation. Such 
    recommendation is clearly also within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Texas makes the point of order that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
    Staggers) is not germane to title III of H.R. 7235 but rather is an 
    attempt to indirectly amend provisions already amended in title II 
    of the bill which has been passed in the reading for amendment, and 
    also to include extraneous provisions relating to railroads not 
    addressed by title III.
        First, the Chair would state that the Chair does not rule on 
    the consistency

[[Page 7495]]

    of amendments but rather on the substance of amendments.
        Under the provisions of House Resolution 716 governing 
    consideration of the bill pending, the bill is being considered by 
    titles, and title III, not merely section 301, is now open to 
    amendment at any point. Thus, the relevant test of germaneness of 
    the amendment is its relationship to the entire pending text, title 
    III, and not merely to section 301 relating to joint rates.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the scope of title 
    III and basically agrees with the characterization of that title 
    made by the gentleman from New Jersey that title III is diverse in 
    its treatment of railroad regulation and employee protection and 
    bankruptcy issues and is not merely confined to inter-carrier 
    practices issues, as suggested by the title heading.
        The Chair would also agree that the revenue provisions cited by 
    the gentleman from Texas do not amend the Internal Revenue Code but 
    do instead call for a study on taxation, which study, if submitted, 
    would be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
        In a similar situation, an amendment requesting a study of a 
    possible change in tax law, but not amending the Internal Revenue 
    Code, was held germane to a bill not reported by the Committee on 
    Ways and Means; this ruling on October 18, 1979.
        The Chair would also note that the loan guarantee provision 
    cited by the gentleman from Minnesota relates to railroad carriers 
    only although applicable to rail transportation of coal. The Chair 
    would in this case rely on the precedent cited in Deschler's 
    Procedure, chapter 28, sections 2.15 and 2.16, standing for the 
    proposition that an amendment may be germane to more than one 
    portion of the bill, and involving a comparable situation wherein a 
    title of the bill in which the amendment would have been 
    particularly germane had been passed in the reading for amendment. 
    The amendment in that case was offered to a subsequent title of the 
    bill containing miscellaneous provisions on a general subject; and 
    Chairman Price stated at that time that while ``an examination of 
    the amendment shows that it would have been more appropriately 
    offered to another title of the bill, the Chair does observe that 
    the title which is under consideration is referred to as 
    miscellaneous amendments, and it amends several other acts.''
        The Chair would state that there are two other precedents in 
    chapter 28 of Deschler's that are applicable in this case. Section 
    14.3 states that an amendment may be germane at more than one place 
    in the bill, thus where the first several sections of the bill 
    pertain to one category within the subject under consideration and 
    subsequent sections introduce other such categories, an amendment 
    adding a further such category may be offered at either of two 
    places, the point which in the reading of the text the sections 
    dealing with the first category have been passed, or at the end of 
    that part of the text where the other categories have been added.
        Section 14.11 states that the test of germaneness of an 
    amendment in the form of a new section to the title of the bill 
    being read by titles is the relationship between the amendment and 
    the pending title.

[[Page 7496]]

        The Chair feels that title III is sufficiently broad in scope 
    to admit as germane an amendment dealing, inter alia, with the 
    subject of railroad rates and other railroad related employee 
    protection, bankruptcy, and financial assistance provisions 
    although they may only be applicable to specific railroads or to 
    specific commodities transported by rail.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Provision Requiring Study of Impact of Bill on Activities Not Directly 
    Regulated by Bill--Amendment Imposing Conditions Relating to Such 
    Activities

Sec. 3.25 Where an amendment seeks to make the effectiveness of a bill 
    conditional upon factors not otherwise related to the subject 
    matter of the bill, such amendment is not rendered germane merely 
    because a study is required by the bill to be made regarding the 
    impact of the bill upon factors or activities which are not 
    directly regulated by the bill.

    The proceedings of Nov. 2 and Nov. 3, 1983, relating to H.R. 1234, 
the Fair Practices and Procedures in Automotive Products Act of 1983, 
are discussed in Sec. 31.20, infra.

Bill Affecting Income Tax Liability of Life Insurance Companies--
    Amendment Proposing Repeal of Certain Excise Taxes

Sec. 3.26 To a committee substitute relating to the income tax 
    liability of life insurance companies, an amendment proposing the 
    repeal of certain wartime excise tax rates on specified articles 
    was held not germane.

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(13) relating to the income tax liability of life insurance 
companies for 1948 and 1949, Mr. Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, offered an amendment (14) whose purpose he 
described as follows: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.J. Res. 371 (Committee on Ways and Means).
14. 96 Cong. Rec. 992, 993, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 26, 1950.
15. Id. at p. 993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . This amendment repeals the wartime excise-tax rates on 
    such articles as furs, jewelry, luggage, toilet preparations, 
    lubrication oils, gasoline, tires and tubes, automobile trucks and 
    buses, automobiles and motorcycles [and other articles].

    The Chairman, Albert A. Gore, of Tennessee, in ruling on a point of 
order raised against the amendment, discussed the parliamentary 
question as follows: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 995.

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

[[Page 7497]]

        The Committee of the Whole has under consideration House Joint 
    Resolution 371 and a committee amendment thereto, to which the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Martin] has offered an amendment. 
    The gentleman from Tennessee (17) has made a point of 
    order against the amendment to the amendment on the grounds that it 
    is not germane. . . . House Joint Resolution 371, and the committee 
    amendment thereto, deals with the Internal Revenue Code in one 
    particular, to wit, the income tax liability of insurance 
    companies. The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts deals with sundry and different parts of the Internal 
    Revenue Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Jere Cooper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The fundamental test of germaneness . . . is that a proposition 
    submitted must be akin and relative to the particular subject 
    matter to which the proposition is offered as an amendment. . . .
        The Chair feels that this fundamental test of germaneness is 
    not met by the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts. Therefore, the point of order is sustained.

Bill Affecting Income Taxes--Amendment Seeking To Amend Law Respecting 
    Inheritance Taxes

Sec. 3.27 To a bill providing for the current payment of individual 
    income taxes, an amendment seeking to amend the law respecting 
    inheritance taxes was held not germane.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of the Current Tax 
Payment Bill of 1943,(18) an amendment was offered whose 
purposes were outlined by the proponent as follows: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 2570 (Committee on Ways and Means).
19. 89 Cong. Rec. 3940, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., May 4, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, this is 
    the provision that I have been urging for some time, and I expect 
    to keep up the struggle until we reach these large fortunes that 
    are now escaping taxes entirely.
        Before the passage of the income tax amendment, large 
    interests, through their shrewd lawyers, knowing that the American 
    people were going to adopt an income- and inheritance-tax 
    amendment, created these trusts and through them transferred their 
    property, you might say, to future generations. In that way they 
    have escaped all inheritance and income taxes on those 
    inheritances.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 3941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jere] Cooper [of Tennessee]: . . . I make the point of 
    order that the amendment is not germane to this bill.
        This bill is one to provide for the current payment of 
    individual income taxes. This amendment seeks to amend the estate 
    tax law which is not touched in any way in this bill . . . There is 
    nothing in this bill relating to the subject matter of the 
    amendment.

[[Page 7498]]

    Mr. Rankin stated in response:

        . . . The enacting clause of this bill reads:

            Be it enacted, etc., That (a) this act is to be cited as 
        the current tax payment act of 1943.

        It seems to me, that inasmuch as this is a tax collection 
    measure, my amendment would be in order. . . .

    The Chairman,(1) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair draws attention to the fact that the bill under 
    consideration provides for the current payment of individual income 
    taxes. The amendment offered by the gentleman relates to 
    inheritance taxes.
        The point of order is sustained.

Provisions for Tax Credits--Senate Amendment Authorizing Rebates for 
    Social Security Recipients

Sec. 3.28 To a proposition seeking to reduce tax liabilities of 
    individuals and businesses by providing diverse tax credits within 
    the Internal Revenue Code, an amendment to provide rebates to 
    recipients under retirement and survivor benefit programs was held 
    to be not germane.

    Where a House bill contained several diverse amendments to the 
Internal Revenue Code to provide individual and business tax credits, 
that part of a Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute contained 
in a conference report which authorized appropriations for special 
payments to social security recipients was deemed not to be related to 
tax benefit provisions in the Internal Revenue Code and was held to be 
not germane. The proceedings of Mar. 26, 1975,(2) were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 121 Cong. Rec. 8911, 8912, 8931, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was the conference report on H.R. 2166, the Tax 
        Reduction Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Sec. 702. Special Payment to Recipients of Benefits Under Certain 
                 Retirement and Survivor Benefit Programs.

        (a) Payment.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall, at the 
    earliest practicable date after the enactment of this Act, make a 
    $50 payment to each individual, who for the month of March, 1975, 
    was entitled . . . to--
        (1) a monthly insurance benefit payable under title II of the 
    Social Security Act,
        (2) a monthly annuity or pension payment under the Railroad 
    Retirement Act of 1935, the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937, or the 
    Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, or
        (3) a benefit under the supplemental security income benefits 
    program established by title XVI of the Social Security Act; . . .
        (c) Coordination With Other Federal Programs.--Any payment made

[[Page 7499]]

    by the Secretary of the Treasury under this section to any 
    individual shall not be regarded as income (or, in the calendar 
    year 1975, as a resource) of such individual (or of the family of 
    which he is a member) for purposes of any Federal or State program 
    which undertakes to furnish aid or assistance to individuals or 
    families, where eligibility to receive such aid or assistance (or 
    the amount of such aid or assistance) under such program is based 
    on the need therefor of the individual or family involved. . . .
        Mr. [Barber B.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: I make a point of 
    order against the conference report on the ground that it contains 
    matter which is in violation of clause 7, rule XVI.
        The nongermane matter I am specifically referring to is that 
    section of the report dealing with a rebate to social security 
    recipients. This section appears as section 702 of the conference 
    report on page 55. . . .
        There is clearly nothing in the House bill dealing with social 
    security matters. There is nothing relating to a trust fund or the 
    relationship of trust fund and general fund.
        For that reason, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this . . . is 
    clearly outside the scope of the House bill. . . .
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: . . . In the House-passed bill 
    there was a provision very specifically rebating funds to 
    individuals under title I. The measure included in this conference 
    report does not affect the trust fund in any way. It does not in 
    any way amend the Social Security Code.
        In the statement of the managers we say the following:

            The conferees emphasize that these payments are not Social 
        Security benefits in any sense, but are intended to provide to 
        the aged, blind, and disabled a payment comparable in nature to 
        the tax rebate which the bill provides to those who are 
        working.

        Therefore, in a broadly based bill such as this kind, where 
    various kinds of rebates are passed along to different segments of 
    the public, it seems to me that this is perfectly within the scope 
    of the bill and should be determined germane to the bill. . . .
        The Speaker: (3) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Title V of the Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    ``Miscellaneous Provisions'' contained sections which did not amend 
    the Internal Revenue Code and which could not be considered germane 
    to any portion of the House-passed bill or the bill as a whole. 
    Specifically, section 501 of the Senate amendment providing a 
    special payment to recipients of benefits under certain retirement 
    and survivor benefit programs, a modification of which was 
    incorporated into section 702 of the conference report, is not 
    germane to the House-passed bill. That provision is not related to 
    the Internal Revenue Code and would provide an authorization of 
    appropriations from the Treasury.
        For this reason, the Chair holds that the section 702 of the 
    conference report is not germane to the House bill and sustains the 
    point of order.
        Mr. Conable: Mr. Speaker, I move the House reject the 
    nongermane amendment covered by my point of order.

[[Page 7500]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York is recognized for 20 
    minutes in support of his motion.

Bill Relating to Retirement of Supreme Court Justices--Amendment 
    Subjecting Justices' Retirement Pay to Taxation

Sec. 3.29 To a bill relating to retirement of Justices of the Supreme 
    Court, an amendment providing that their retirement pay shall be 
    subject to taxation under the applicable federal income tax law was 
    held not germane.

    In the 75th Congress, a bill (4) was under consideration 
relating to retirement of Justices of the Supreme Court and stating in 
part: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 2518 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 5. See 81 Cong. Rec. 1124, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 10, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That Justices of the Supreme Court are 
    hereby granted the same rights and privileges with regard to 
    retiring, instead of resigning, granted to judges other than 
    Justices of the Supreme Court by section 260 of the Judicial Code 
    (U.S.C., title 28, sec. 375), and the President shall be authorized 
    to appoint a successor to any such Justice of the Supreme Court so 
    retiring. . . .

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 1125.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jed J.] Johnson of Oklahoma: Page 1, 
    line 4, insert after the word ``retiring'' the words ``except that 
    their retired pay shall be subject to taxation under the applicable 
    Federal income-tax law.''

    Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane. The Chairman,(7) in ruling on the 
point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill under consideration deals with the retirement of 
    Justices of the Supreme Court, whereas the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma deals with the subject of taxation and 
    salaries. In the opinion of the Chair the amendment is not germane, 
    and the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Repealing Tax on Margarine--Amendment Relating to Cottonseed Oil 
    Used in Margarine

Sec. 3.30 To a bill repealing a tax on oleomargarine, an amendment 
    relating to the production of cottonseed oil for use in the 
    manufacture of oleomargarine was held to be not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of a bill (8) 
repealing the tax on oleomargarine, the following amendment was 
offered: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 2245 (Committee on Agriculture discharged).
 9. 94 Cong. Rec. 5003, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 28, 1948.

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

[[Page 7501]]

        Amendment offered by Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Add the 
    following new section at the end of the bill:
        No cottonseed oil shall be used in the manufacture or 
    production of oleomargarine unless such cottonseed oil shall have 
    been produced from cottonseed grown in areas certified to be free 
    from pink boll weevil worm infestation.

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

        Mr. [Edward A.] Mitchell [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania is not germane. It is a frivolous amendment and has 
    nothing to do with the measure itself. It relates to the production 
    of raw material and has nothing to do with this bill.

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

        Mr. Gross: . . . I contend it is entirely germane since it is 
    going to deal with what goes into oleomargarine.

    The Chairman,(10) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Leslie C. Arends (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The pending bill deals with the removal of a tax on 
    oleomargarine, whereas the gentleman's amendment deals with the 
    question of content.
        The point of order is sustained.

Federal Aid Highway Bill--Amendment Commending Certain Military 
    Personnel for Operations

Sec. 3.31 To an omnibus federal aid highway bill, an amendment in the 
    form of a new section commending certain members of the armed 
    forces for specified military operations was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of the Federal Aid 
Highway Act of 1970,(11) the following amendment was 
offered: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 19504 (Committee on Public Works).
12. 116 Cong. Rec. 38971, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Nov. 25, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas, increasing numbers of American military personnel 
    remain in captivity in North Vietnam in circumstances which violate 
    the Geneva Convention of 1949. . . .
        Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives 
    that the official command, officers and men involved in the 
    military expedition of November 21, 1970, seeking release from 
    captivity of United States prisoners-of-war . . . be commended for 
    the courage they displayed in this hazardous and humanitarian 
    undertaking. . . .

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

        Mr. [John C.] Kluczynski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    make a point of order against the amendment; that the amendment is 
    not germane to the bill.

    In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Samuel S. Stratton, 
of New York, stated: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at pp. 38971, 38972.

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

[[Page 7502]]

        Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to enlist the support of 
    this House for action taken in an effort to rescue these prisoners. 
    . . .

    The following exchange then took place: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 38972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman from New York will 
    suspend. This bill is a bill having to do with the highway system 
    of the United States. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, allow me to make my point. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman has not addressed himself to the 
    point of order and the Chair is constrained to rule that the 
    gentleman is out of order.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, let me explain. The resolution 
    under which this bill is considered specifically waives points of 
    order and, secondly, this is an amendment to the section of the 
    emergency relief provision of the bill.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will suspend. There are no points 
    of order waived on those things that are not germane to the bill. . 
    . .
        The Chair is constrained to rule the gentleman is speaking on 
    an amendment that is not germane to the bill. The gentleman must 
    suspend under the ruling of the Chair.
        The Chair holds that the amendment is not germane and sustains 
    the point of order.

--Amendment Permitting Governors To Divert Funds to Urban Mass 
    Transportation

Sec. 3.32 To a bill authorizing funds for the federal aid highway 
    program, an amendment permitting the governor of a state to divert 
    funds from the highway program to urban mass transportation 
    projects was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 
1968,(16) the following amendment was offered: 
(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 17134 (Committee on Public Works).
17. 114 Cong. Rec. 19926, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 3, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William F.] Ryan [of New York]: On 
    page 25, after line 7, insert the following:

        Use of Certain Funds for Urban Mass Transportation Purposes

        Sec. 6. (a) The Governor of a State may elect to have any funds 
    apportioned to such State . . . made available, in a manner 
    prescribed by regulations of the Secretary of Transportation, for 
    urban mass transportation purposes within such State. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at pp. 19926, 19927.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Fallon [of Maryland]: . . . I make a point of 
    order against the amendment. . . . [T]he point of order is that 
    this is the same amendment which was offered by the gentleman in 
    1966 in the Highway Act, which will use moneys from the highway 
    trust fund for other modes of transportation.

[[Page 7503]]

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 19927.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ryan: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, on August 11, 
    1966, I offered a similar amendment. At that time, it was ruled out 
    of order on the ground that it related to mass transportation and 
    not highways. . . . So on August 16, 1966, I offered it as an 
    amendment to the mass transit bill; and it was ruled out of order, 
    on the ground that it related to highways and not to mass 
    transportation.
        We cannot have it both ways. . . .

    The Chairman,(20) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On August 11, 1966, the present occupant of the chair presiding 
    at that time, in respect to a bill authorizing funds to Federal aid 
    highways held that an amendment permitting the diversion of funds 
    apportioned to a State from highway construction to urban mass 
    transportation was not germane.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. The ruling referred to, made during consideration of H.R. 14359 
        (the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1966) is found at 112 Cong. 
        Rec. 19103, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        To a bill providing for the construction of highways, an 
    amendment providing for grants for urban mass transportation was 
    ruled out as not germane.
        The Chair, following those precedents, sustains the point of 
    order.

Bill Modifying Requirements as to Gold Backing United States Currency--
    Amendment Establishing Strategic Gold Reserve Related to Credits 
    for Foreign Governments

Sec. 3.33 To a bill modifying requirements relating to gold reserves 
    held as backing for Federal Reserve notes and other United States 
    currencies, an amendment to establish a strategic gold reserve and 
    requiring deposits therein in amounts equal to any deposits of gold 
    to the credit of foreign governments was held not germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill (1) 
relating to gold reserves and changing the domestic monetary 
relationship between gold and currency, the following amendment was 
offered: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 14743 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 2. 114 Cong. Rec. 3687, 3688, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 21, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Albert W.] Johnson of Pennsylvania: 
    On page 4 following line 12 add three new sections:
        Sec. 13. From the total gold reserve available for the payment 
    of foreign claims following the effective date of this Act, there 
    shall be established a Strategic Gold Reserve to be main

[[Page 7504]]

    tained by the Secretary of the Treasury.
        Sec. 14. Whenever for any reason any quantity of gold shall be 
    removed from the Treasury for foreign shipment or for deposit to 
    the credit of any foreign government, or . . . international 
    organization within the United States, the Secretary of the 
    Treasury shall immediately place an equal number of ounces of gold 
    into the Strategic Gold Reserve.
        Sec. 15. Gold placed in the Strategic Gold Reserve shall no 
    longer be a part of the monetary reserves of the United States, and 
    may be removed from the Strategic Gold Reserve only by Act of 
    Congress.

    In response to a point of order raised by Mr. Wright Patman, of 
Texas, Mr. Johnson stated:

        Mr. Chairman, I respectfully insist that my amendment is 
    germane to the bill under consideration. This bill eliminates the 
    gold-reserve requirements on currency by repealing in part several 
    statutory requirements. My amendment would place certain conditions 
    on the ultimate disposition of any gold reserve to be authorized by 
    the bill under consideration. . . . This amendment deals with gold 
    and the subject matter of the bill is gold.

    The Chairman,(3) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would hold that the amendments offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania are not dealing with the sole question 
    involved in H.R. 14743; that is, reserves behind Federal Reserve 
    notes and U.S. notes and Treasury notes of 1890. Therefore, it is 
    not germane to the bill before the Committee, and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order against the amendment.

Bill Amending Federal Reserve Act to Facilitate Expansion of Currency--
    Amendment Fixing Gold Weight of Dollar

Sec. 3.34 To a bill to facilitate currency expansion by amending the 
    Federal Reserve Act, an amendment seeking to amend the Gold Reserve 
    Act by fixing the gold weight of the dollar was held not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (4) was under consideration 
to amend the Federal Reserve Act. The bill stated in part: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 3000 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 5. See 91 Cong. Rec. 5285, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., May 29, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That (a) the third paragraph of section 16 
    of the Federal Reserve Act, as amended, is amended by changing the 
    first sentence of such paragraph to read as follows:
        Every Federal Reserve bank shall maintain reserves in gold 
    certificates of not less than 25 percent against its deposits and 
    reserves in gold certificates of not less than 25 percent against 
    its Federal Reserve notes in actual circulation. . . .

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 5287.

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

[[Page 7505]]

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Clair] Engle of California: On page 
    1, beginning with line 3, strike out through line 9 and the word 
    ``circulation'' in line 10 on page 1 and insert in lieu thereof the 
    following: ``That the dollar consisting of nine and eleven twenty-
    firsts grains of gold nine-tenths fine shall be the standard unit 
    of value, and all forms of money issued or coined by the United 
    States shall be maintained at a parity of value with this standard, 
    and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to 
    maintain such parity.''

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

        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: . . . The amendment is not 
    germane to the bill. . . . It would change the gold content of the 
    dollar. It would make the value of an ounce of gold $56. It would 
    give an unearned increment to the foreign holders of gold of 
    $8,500,000,000. It would give those foreign holders credits in the 
    United States to that extent if they desire to use it. It certainly 
    goes far beyond the intention or the purport of the bill.

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

        Mr. Engle of California: . . . Mr. Chairman, the amendment does 
    exactly the same as proposed by this bill. This bill would permit a 
    certain currency expansion by reducing the reserve in back of the 
    currency from 40 percent to 25 percent. My amendment will permit an 
    equal currency expansion by reducing the gold content of the dollar 
    in exactly the same proportion. In other words, in one instance you 
    are reducing the gold reserve in back of the currency from 40 
    percent to 25 percent, and in the other you are simply taking the 
    same percentage of gold out of the dollar. It has exactly the same 
    purpose and would permit the identical amount of currency 
    expansion.

    The Chairman,(7) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from California (Mr. Engle) offers an amendment 
    to the bill which proposes to modify the Gold Reserve Act, which is 
    a subject foreign to the subject matter of the bill now before the 
    Committee. Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Price Control Bill--Amendment Affecting Powers of Federal Reserve Board 
    Over Currency

Sec. 3.35 To a bill intended to control prices of commodities, an 
    amendment relating to certain powers of the Federal Reserve Board 
    over currency and credit was held not germane.

    In the 77th Congress, during consideration of a price control 
bill,(8) the following amendment was offered: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 5990 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 9. 87 Cong. Rec. 9244, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 28, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 7506]]

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Horace J.] Voorhis of California: On 
    page 20, line 20, at the end of title II, insert a new title to 
    read as follows:

                                 Title III

        Section 1. (A) Section 207 of title II of the Banking Act of 
    1935 is amended to read as follows:
        ``Sec. 207. The sixth paragraph of section 19 of the Federal 
    Reserve Act, as amended, is amended to read as follows:
        `` `Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section, the 
    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in order to 
    prevent injurious credit expansion or contraction, may by 
    regulation change the requirements as to reserves to be maintained 
    against demand or time deposits, or both, by member banks; but the 
    amount of the reserves required to be maintained by any such member 
    bank as a result of any such change shall not be less than the 
    amount of the reserves required by law to be maintained by such 
    bank on the date of enactment of the Banking Act of 1935.' ''. . .

    In response to Mr. John Taber, of New York, who raised the point of 
order that the amendment was not germane, Mr. Voorhis stated:

        Mr. Chairman, this amendment has to do with the fundamental 
    problem of inflation and deflation. It has to do with the question 
    of the control of the creation and destruction of what America now 
    uses for its money, namely, demand bank deposits. . . .

    The Chairman, Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, in ruling on the point of 
order, stated: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 9245.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The pending bill deals with price fixing or more specifically 
    with a ceiling on prices of commodities, rents and so forth. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from California deals with the 
    Federal Reserve Board and its power of dealing with currency and 
    credit matters. The Chair thinks this amendment is not closely 
    enough allied with the pending bill to make it in order and, 
    therefore, the point of order made by the gentleman from New York 
    is sustained.

Modification of Mortgage Foreclosure Procedures--Amendment Providing 
    Moratorium on Foreclosures in Depressed Areas

Sec. 3.36 Where an amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill 
    provided in part for amelioration of procedures relating to 
    mortgage foreclosure under the National Housing Act, an amendment 
    thereto providing for a moratorium on foreclosures of mortgages in 
    economically depressed areas was held to be germane.

    In the 86th Congress, during consideration of the Housing Act of 
1959,(11) an amendment was offered substituting the text of 
another bill.(12) The substitute con

[[Page 7507]]

sisted in part of a title relating to avoidance of foreclosure in 
certain cases of default due to circumstances beyond the control of a 
mortgagor.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. S. 57 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
12. 105 Cong. Rec. 8636-42, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., May 20, 1959. The 
        substitute was the language of H.R. 7117.
13. Id. at p. 8641 (title VI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Willard S. Curtin, of Pennsylvania, offered, as an amendment to 
the substitute, a new section providing for procedures by which an 
unemployed mortgagor residing in an economically depressed area could 
avoid foreclosure of a mortgage.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at pp. 8654, 8655.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to a point of order against the amendment raised by Mr. 
Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, the Chairman (15) stated: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
16. 105 Cong. Rec. 8655, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., May 20, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair calls attention to the 
    fact that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    is to section 601 which is under title VI of the amendment under 
    consideration. This particular section deals with the avoidance of 
    foreclosure and states the procedures and circumstances under which 
    a foreclosure may be avoided. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania very definitely applies to that section 
    because it states the term ``unemployed mortgagor'' means any 
    individual who is a mortgagor under a mortgage insured under this 
    act.
        The Chair rules that the amendment is germane. The point of 
    order is overruled.

Bill Relating to Design of Coin Currency--Amendment Providing for 
    Issuance of Commemorative Coin

Sec. 3.37 To a bill relating to the design of public coin currency, an 
    amendment providing for issuance of a commemorative coin is not 
    germane; thus, to a bill requiring public currency coins to bear a 
    design and date emblematic of the Bicentennial of the American 
    Revolution, an amendment providing for the issuance or sale of 
    Bicentennial gold commemorative coins was held to be not germane.

    On Sept. 12, 1973,(17) during consideration of H.R. 8789 
in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order 
against the following amendment, thus illustrating that one individual 
proposition is not germane to another individual proposition, although 
the two may belong to the same class:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 119 Cong. Rec. 29376, 29377, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 H.R. 8789

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United

[[Page 7508]]

    States of America in Congress assembled, That the reverse side of 
    all dollars, half-dollars, and quarters minted for issuance on or 
    after July 4, 1975, and until such time as the Secretary of the 
    Treasury may determine shall bear a design determined by the 
    Secretary to be emblematic of the Bicentennial of the American 
    Revolution.
        Sec. 2. All dollars, half-dollars, and quarters minted for 
    issuance between July 4, 1975, and January 1, 1977, shall bear 
    ``1776-1976'' in lieu of the date of coinage; and all dollars, 
    half-dollars, and quarters minted thereafter until such time as the 
    Secretary of the Treasury may determine shall bear a date 
    emblematic of the Bicentennial in addition to the date of coinage.
        Mr. [Phillip M.] Crane [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Crane: Page 2, after line 4, add 
        the following new section and redesignate the succeeding 
        sections accordingly:
            Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule, 
        regulation, or order, the Secretary of the Treasury is 
        authorized and directed to coin and issue or cause to be sold, 
        between July 4, 1975, and January 1, 1977, special gold coins 
        commemorating the Bicentennial of the American Revolution of 
        such design, in such denomination, in such quantities (not 
        exceeding sixty million pieces), and containing such other 
        metals, as he determines to be appropriate. Notwithstanding any 
        other provision of law, coins minted under this section may be 
        sold to and held by the public, and the Secretary of the 
        Treasury is authorized, by regulation, to limit the number of 
        gold pieces which any one person may purchase. . . .

        Mrs. [Leonor K.] Sullivan [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language in this amendment, because 
    under the Rules of the House, one individual proposition may not be 
    amended by another individual proposition, even though the two 
    belong in the same class.
        This bill merely changes the designs of our existing coins. It 
    does not change the content of the coin or of the denomination.
        Further, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing here in this bill with 
    currency and not commemorative coins.
        Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order. . . .
        Mr. Crane: . . . It must be abundantly clear to one and all 
    that we are not talking about coin of the realm when we talk about 
    minting a gold coin with .13 ounces of gold that will be selling 
    for $35. We are speaking exclusively about commemorative coins. If 
    we were talking about minting coin of the realm and circulating 
    that, we would have to sell the coins at a figure substantially 
    half that figure of $35 which the Treasury ordered.
        Second, with respect to the question of the action of this 
    particular bill, it seems to me that there is something much more 
    dramatic involved than overturning existing law on the subject of 
    what shall be on the reverse or the obverse side of any coin, which 
    at the present time regulations dictate cannot be altered except 
    once every 25 years, and that the talk of creating another 
    commemorative coin for distribution to those who wish to 
    memorialize the Bicentennial is not nearly so radical a departure 
    from the intent of this legislation and, in fact, is, indeed, 
    germane. . . .
        Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I believe this 
    amend

[[Page 7509]]

    ment is not germane to the bill before us and, therefore, think 
    that a point of order on germaneness should lie. This bill does 
    deal with coin of the realm. The entire purpose of having half 
    dollars, dollars, and quarters minted into Bicentennial coin is 
    because they are coins in general circulation at the present time.
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment would create a whole new coin 
    which would be a collector's item and not be coin of the realm, as 
    the gentleman has suggested. Therefore, I do think that it changes 
    the subject of the bill; changes the purpose of the bill, and, 
    therefore, is not germane.
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Spark M. Matsunaga (Hi.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair having listened to the arguments made by the 
    gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Sullivan), the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Crane), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wylie) 
    recalls that on October 15, 1969, the Chair, while presiding over 
    the debate on H.R. 14127, had a similar amendment offered, and at 
    that time the Chair ruled that to a bill relating to the minting 
    and issuance of public currency, as is the case proposed by H.R. 
    8789, an amendment providing for minting any coin for a private 
    purpose or for a commemorative purpose was held not to be germane.
        Accordingly, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

--Amendment Specifying Metal Content of Other Coins and Requiring 
    Issuance in Uncirculated Proof Form

Sec. 3.38 To a bill relating to the design of certain coin currency, an 
    amendment specifying the metal content of other coin currency and 
    requiring its issuance in uncirculated proof form was held not 
    germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 8789 in the Committee of the Whole on 
Sept. 12, 1973,(19) Chairman Spark M. Matsunaga, of Hawaii, 
sustained points of order against two amendments (relating to the metal 
content of another currency coin) to a bill requiring certain coins to 
bear a design and date emblematic of the Bicentennial of the American 
Revolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 29377, 29378, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Phillip M.] Crane [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Crane: On page 2, following line 
        4, insert a new section 3 as follows and renumber the 
        succeeding section accordingly:
            Sec. 3. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law with 
        respect to the design of coins, the Secretary of the Treasury 
        shall mint and issue at face value through the Federal Reserve 
        banks after July 4, 1975, and until such time as the Secretary 
        of the Treasury may determine, one hundred and fifty million or 
        more circulating one-dollar coins which shall bear a design 
        determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be emblematic of 
        the bicentennial of the American Revolution. These one-dollar 
        coins shall meet the following specifications:

[[Page 7510]]

            (A) a diameter of 1.500 inches;
            (B) a cladding of an alloy of 800 parts of silver and 200 
        parts of copper; and
            (C) a core of an alloy of silver and copper such that the 
        whole coin weighs 24.592 grams and contains 9.837 grams of 
        silver and 14.755 grams of copper.
            (b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall mint and issue, in 
        uncirculated proof form, the above-specified coin in quantities 
        and prices as he shall determine to be appropriate. . . .

        Mrs. [Leonor K.] Sullivan [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I insist 
    on my point of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I repeat what I said on the previous amendment. 
    Under the Rules of the House, one individual proposition may not be 
    amended by another individual proposition, even though the two 
    belong in the same class. . . .
        Mr. Crane: . . . Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that the 
    gentlewoman's objections are not consistent. In the last one we 
    were talking about striking an altogether new coin and minting gold 
    coins. Under the provisions of this particular act we are planning 
    to continue to mint a dollar denomination coin. All that is 
    proposed is changing in the present legislation the imprint on the 
    reverse side of that coin. What this particular amendment does is 
    give the Secretary of the Treasury further instructions with 
    respect to the content of that coin, stipulating that approximately 
    40 percent of this shall be made up of silver instead of the 
    percentage of composition of copper and nickel in the present 
    coinage. . . .
        Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: . . . I support the point of 
    order made by the gentlewoman from Missouri. Again, the Eisenhower 
    proof set dollar was not minted as coin of the realm. These 40-
    percent silver dollars were minted to be sold as collectors' items, 
    as proof coins. As the gentleman in the well knows, they are being 
    sold for $10 apiece. They are not in general circulation. They are 
    not being minted for general distribution.
        The bill before us specifically provides for the minting of 
    general circulation coin of the realm. . . .
        Mr. Crane: I am not suggesting, in response to the objection 
    the gentleman raises, that these coins not be distributed as coin 
    of the realm. Instead, they will be minted with only 40 percent of 
    silver content. The Treasury can still make a profit by selling 
    those at $1. So these are coin of the realm. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair, after listening to the arguments on both sides, is 
    constrained to sustain the point of order for the reason that the 
    bill now pending provides for a new coinage design that would be 
    emblematic of the Bicentennial of the American Revolution and it 
    applies to dollars, half-dollars, and quarters. The amendment goes 
    to the metal content of the dollar coin, a matter not within the 
    purview of the bill . . . and the Chair therefore is constrained to 
    sustain the point of order.

    Subsequently,(20) another amendment was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 29378, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 12, 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 7511]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Symms: On page 2, following line 
        4, insert a new section 3 as follows and renumber the 
        succeeding section accordingly:
            Sec. 3. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law with 
        respect to the design of coins, the Secretary of the Treasury 
        shall mint and issue at face value through the Federal Reserve 
        banks after July 4, 1975, and until such time as the Secretary 
        of the Treasury may determine, one hundred and fifty million or 
        more circulating one-dollar coins which shall bear a design 
        determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be emblematic of 
        the bicentennial of the American Revolution. These one-dollar 
        coins shall meet the following specifications:
            (A) a diameter of 1.500 inches;
            (B) a cladding of an alloy of 800 parts of silver and 200 
        parts of copper; and
            (C) a core of an alloy of silver and copper such that the 
        whole coin weighs 24.592 grams and contains 9.837 grams of 
        silver and 14.755 grams of copper.

        Mrs. Sullivan: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
    this amendment. It goes to the metal content of the coin and not 
    the design of the coin. . . .
        Mr. Symms: Mr. Chairman, I would say on the point of order, it 
    is coin of the realm, and I would be willing to hear the ruling of 
    the Chair.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair's previous ruling applies to the point of order 
    against the amendment, that this amendment goes to the metal 
    content of the coin whereas the bill pending before the committee 
    pertains only to the design and date of the coin proposed to be 
    minted. The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Amendment Relating to Military Personnel After Separation From Service 
    Not Germane to Bill Providing Allowances for Military Dependents

Sec. 3.39 To a bill providing allowances and allotments for dependents 
    of military personnel, an amendment relating to the pay of such 
    military personnel after separation from the service was held not 
    germane.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of a bill (1) 
relating to allowances and allotments for dependents of military 
personnel, the following amendment was offered: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. S. 1279 (Committee on Military Affairs).
 2. 89 Cong. Rec. 8465, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 18, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Walter C.] Ploeser [of Missouri]: At 
    the end of the bill insert a new section, as follows:
        Sec. 16. That such act be amended by adding a new section to 
    title I thereof to be numbered 122 and to read as follows:
        ``Sec. 122. That . . . every person who . . . is separated from 
    (military) service . . . shall be paid monthly, for a period of 10 
    months in the case of a

[[Page 7512]]

    person receiving the base pay of an enlisted man and for a period 
    of 5 months in the case of any other person, an amount equal to the 
    monthly base pay plus one-half of dependency benefits payable under 
    this act in the case of enlisted men, and an amount equal to the 
    monthly base pay in the case of all other persons. . . .''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 8466.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: . . . The point of order is 
    that the amendment . . . is not germane to the pending bill and, in 
    addition to that, the proposed amendment would amend the Pay 
    Adjustment Act rather than the bill now pending before the 
    committee. . . .

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

        Mr. Ploeser: . . . I submit that my intention is to extend into 
    the post-war period for a brief . . . time such aid to dependents 
    as may become necessary due to difficulties in reemployment. If 
    this aid is to be extended to dependents, it becomes . . . 
    necessary to extend into the post-war period the vehicle upon which 
    dependency allowances are necessarily attached. . . . The 
    dependency allowance is, by virtue of statute now, an attachment to 
    the base pay. It therefore became necessary, in order to extend one 
    to extend both.

    The Chairman,(4) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment which the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Ploeser] 
    offers might apply to the Pay and Adjustment Act of 1942. However, 
    the pay of the enlisted personnel of the Army cannot be germane to 
    a bill which provides for maintenance to the Servicemen's 
    Dependents Allowance Act of 1942.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Benefits and Compensation for Reservists--Return to Civilian Jobs

Sec. 3.40 To that section of a bill providing for restoration to their 
    former civilian jobs of certain persons completing active military 
    duty, an amendment providing that each such employee be entitled to 
    receive the benefits of any annual leave that would have accrued 
    was held to be germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (5) was under consideration 
to strengthen the national defense and to authorize the President to 
order reservists and retired Army personnel into active military 
service. The bill stated in part: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. S.J. Res. 286 (Committee on Military Affairs).
 6. 86 Cong. Rec. 10438, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Aug. 15, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 3. (a) Any member of any reserve component of the land or 
    naval forces who . . . may be assigned to active duty . . . who . . 
    . completes the

[[Page 7513]]

    period of service required under this joint resolution shall be 
    entitled to a certificate to that effect. . . .
        (b) In the case of [a] person who has left a position or by 
    reason of being ordered into such active military service is 
    required to leave a position . . . in the employ of any employer . 
    . .
        (A) if such position was in the employ of the United States 
    Government . . . such person shall be restored to such position or 
    to a position of like status and pay. . . .

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 10442.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Eugene J.] Keogh [of New York]: On 
    page 3, line 14, after ``pay'', insert the following: ``and shall 
    be entitled to receive his regular compensation for the period of 
    any accrued annual leave to which he is or may be entitled, such 
    leave to be computed from the day he is ordered into such active 
    military service, the provisions of the acts of May 10, 1916, and 
    August 29, 1916 (title 5, sec. 58, U.S.C.) to the contrary 
    notwithstanding.''

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

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that the amendment is not germane to the subject matter of 
    the section involved.
        The Chairman: (8) Does the gentleman desire to be 
    heard on the point of order? The section deals with benefits and 
    compensation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Clifton A. Woodrum [Va.].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, the amendment provides an additional 
    and different method of paying the members of the Reserve and sets 
    up something entirely different from what has been provided. The 
    section provides for reemployment and the amendment provides for 
    compensation and for credit in connection with retirement and sick 
    leave. They are entirely different.
        The Chairman: The Chair is constrained to hold that section 3 
    is practically entirely devoted to the benefits and compensation 
    which these men who are called into the service shall receive. It 
    would appear to the Chair that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York is certainly in line with that. Therefore 
    the Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill Increasing Numbers in Military Ranks--Amendment Affecting Rank of 
    Individual Upon Retirement

Sec. 3.41 To a bill making provision for a deputy chief of staff of the 
    Army and increasing the number of certain ranks, an amendment 
    providing that a certain official upon retirement from the Army be 
    retired with the rank of major general was held not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of a bill (9) 
making provision for a deputy chief of staff, the following amendment 
was offered: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. S. 2222 (Committee on Military Affairs).
10. 84 Cong. Rec. 8707, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., July 6, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 7514]]

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Dow W.] Harter of Ohio: Add a new 
    section as follows:
        Sec. 2. That the present incumbent of the position of president 
    of the Mississippi River Commission shall, upon retirement from 
    active service in the Army, be retired with the rank of major 
    general and with the pay and allowances authorized by law for an 
    officer on the retired list of such rank.

    Mr. James W. Wadsworth, Jr., of New York, made the point of order 
against the amendment that it was not germane. The Speaker pro 
tempore,(11) in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The rule of germaneness applies to a committee amendment 
    just the same as to an amendment offered by a Member in his 
    individual capacity.
        . . . The bill before the House confines itself to one subject, 
    and the amendment attempts to inject into the bill an entirely 
    different subject from that which is contained in the bill pending 
    before the House. In the opinion of the Chair the amendment is not 
    germane to the pending bill, and for that reason the Chair sustains 
    the point of order.

Bill Authorizing Construction of Ships for Navy--Amendment Defining 
    Naval Frontier of United States

Sec. 3.42 To a bill authorizing the construction of certain ships for 
    the Navy, an amendment defining the naval frontier of the United 
    States and providing for its protection by the Navy was held not 
    germane.

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of a naval authorization 
bill,(12) the following amendment was offered: 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 9218 (Committee on Naval Affairs).
13. 83 Cong. Rec. 3707, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 18, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert] Crosser [of Ohio]: After 
    section 11 add a new section, as follows:
        Sec. 12. The naval forces of the United States shall be 
    employed to maintain inviolate the frontier against any foreign 
    foe, the naval frontier of the United States being defined as 
    extending from Bering Strait to [specified points], but in their 
    operations shall not go beyond the limits of that part of the 
    Western Hemisphere which lies west of the meridian running through 
    the twentieth degree of west longitude . . . excepting when on 
    friendly visits, except in the event of military attack upon the 
    United States or any of its possessions, and except in case of the 
    violation of . . . the Monroe Doctrine.

    Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia, made the point of order against the 
amendment that it was not germane to the bill.
    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows:

        Mr. Crosser: . . . I say it is perfectly silly to talk about 
    building any

[[Page 7515]]

    number of ships unless you state for what purpose they are being 
    built. This is all the amendment does. We say that is for the 
    purpose of defending our frontiers and say nothing about 
    establishing any policy whatever.

    The Chairman,(14) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The amendment, in effect, attempts to define the naval 
    frontiers of the country or some boundary lines in the oceans. The 
    bill under consideration is one pertaining to the building of 
    warships. There is nothing in the bill which goes to setting any 
    boundary lines pertaining to the country. The amendment is 
    therefore not germane to the bill, and the Chair sustains the point 
    of order.

--Amendment Directing Investigation of Navy Accounting System

Sec. 3.43 To that section of a bill relating to contracts for 
    construction of vessels for the Navy, an amendment directing the 
    Comptroller General to make an investigation of the accounting 
    system of the Navy and to report his findings to Congress was held 
    not germane.

    In the 75th Congress, a naval authorization bill (15) 
was under consideration which stated in part: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 9218 (Committee on Naval Affairs).
16. 83 Cong. Rec. 3687, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 18, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 7. The allocation and contracts for construction of the 
    vessels herein authorized and the replacement thereof, as well as 
    for the procurement and construction of airplanes and spare parts, 
    shall be in accordance with the terms and conditions provided by 
    the act of March 27, 1934 (48 Stat. 503), as amended.

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 3696.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Everett McK.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: 
    Add a new section to be designated as section 8:
        The Comptroller General of the United States is authorized and 
    directed to make a thorough investigation of the accounting system 
    employed by the Navy Department in securing compliance with the act 
    of March 27, 1934, and to submit a special report to Congress not 
    later than March 15, 1939, embodying the findings of the 
    Comptroller General, together with his recommendations for 
    enforcing compliance with that act.

    Mr. Dirksen, speaking in response to a point of order raised by Mr. 
Carl Vinson, of Georgia, stated: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 3697.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Section 7 of the act deals entirely with allocations and 
    contracts for construction of vessels in the pending bill. It 
    relates to the fact that these vessels must be built in accordance 
    with the act of March 27, 1934. The amendment seeks only to make 
    effective and to secure substantial compliance with the act of 1934 
    that is stated in the bill.

[[Page 7516]]

    The Chairman,(19) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The amendment in substance directs the Comptroller 
    General to investigate the accounting system used by the Navy 
    Department in carrying out the provisions of the act of March 27, 
    1934. While that act is referred to in the proposed bill, the 
    amendment brings in another branch of the Government than the Navy 
    Department, namely, the Comptroller General, and directs him to 
    perform certain duties. For that reason the amendment is not 
    germane to the bill or to the section, and the Chair sustains the 
    point of order.

Bill Increasing Loans for Veterans' Housing--Amendment Increasing 
    Interest Rate

Sec. 3.44 To a bill encouraging new residential construction for 
    veterans' housing by increasing the authorized maximum for direct 
    loans, an amendment increasing the authorized interest rate on 
    direct loans was held to be germane.

    Under consideration on Mar. 25, 1957, was a bill (20) to 
encourage new residential construction for veterans' housing. The above 
ruling (1) of Chairman Robert L. F. Sikes, of Florida, is to 
be distinguished from a prior contrary ruling with respect to a similar 
amendment which sought to affect the interest rate on ``guaranteed'' 
loans. With respect to the earlier amendment, Chairman Sikes had 
stated: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 4602 (Committee on Veterans' Affairs).
 1. See 103 Cong. Rec. 4314, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill before us deals solely with direct loans, as is 
    clearly shown in the title and in the bill itself. To bring in 
    guaranteed loans in addition would be to bring in a new class of 
    loans. . . .

Provisions Establishing Study of Use of Merchant Marine in Defense--
    Amendment Waiving Coastwise Trade Laws for Two Vessels

Sec. 3.45 To a title of a bill containing diverse provisions relating 
    to the authority of the Secretary of Defense, amended to establish 
    a study of the use of the merchant marine for defense purposes, an 
    amendment waiving the coastwise trade laws (a matter within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries) for 
    not more than two undesignated commercial passenger vessels was 
    held germane, where the amendment was not in the form of a private

[[Page 7517]]

    bill and was related to national security issues.

    On May 30, 1984,(3) during consideration of H.R. 5167 
(the Department of Defense authorization bill for fiscal 1985), it was 
demonstrated that the germaneness of an amendment is determined by the 
relationship between its text and the portion of the bill to which 
offered, and is not judged by motives for offering the amendment which 
circumstances may suggest, when the Chair overruled a point of order 
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 130 Cong. Rec. 14493-96, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Mario] Biaggi [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Biaggi: On page 157, line 18, add 
        the following section:

                               ``sealift mobility

            ``Sec. 1010. (a) In recognition of the projected shortfall 
        of our national sealift capacity and the critical role in 
        supporting our sealift mobility played by the U.S. merchant 
        marine in transporting troops and supplies during the times of 
        national emergency and war, and in recognition of the immediate 
        need for auxiliary sealift capacity pending the results of the 
        recommendations of the Commission on Merchant Marine and 
        Defense, compliance with sections 12106 and 12107 of title 46, 
        United States Code, and section 27 of the Act of June 5, 1920, 
        Ch. 250 (46 App. U.S.C. 883) shall be waived for national 
        security purposes for not more than two passenger vessels that 
        the Secretary of Transportation in consultation with the 
        Secretary of Defense determines, within one year of the date of 
        enactment of this Act, meet the following criteria. The vessel:
            ``(1) has a passenger capacity in excess of 750; . . .
            ``(4) entered passenger cruise service after 1974.
            ``(b) In order to insure its availability and utility for 
        national defense purposes, each vessel qualifying under this 
        section--
            ``(1) shall have all alterations, repairs, and rebuilding 
        of that vessel that are necessary to bring the vessel into 
        compliance with part B of Subtitle II of title 46, United 
        States Code, done in the United States, and shall comply with 
        all other requirements of law;
            ``(2) shall have all non-emergency alterations, repairs, or 
        rebuilding of that vessel done in the United States;
            ``(3) shall operate on routes that benefit its defense 
        utility purpose and shall not operate on routes presently being 
        served by other comparable, similarly qualified passenger 
        vessels;''. . . .

        Mr. [Jack M.] Fields [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order that the amendment before the House is out of order 
    because it is nongermane and because it is a private bill.
        It is not germane because it has no legitimate defense 
    rationale and because it has tax and revenue dimensions. No vessel 
    need also have coastwise privileges with its tax advantages in 
    order to fly the U.S. flag.
        It is a private bill because it is actually H.R. 4333, the 
    effect of which would be to admit to American registry and to 
    coastwise privileges two British

[[Page 7518]]

    steamship vessels, the Cunard Countess and the Cunard Princess, and 
    which the Parliamentarian advised would be subject to objection as 
    a private bill. That was because H.R. 4333 is merely an attempted 
    public version of H.R. 2883 which was introduced as a private bill 
    and which was returned to committee by unanimous consent because it 
    was subject to objection. . . .
        But, private legislation presented as an amendment to a public 
    bill is out of order in accordance with the precedents of the 
    House. Even a casual reading of the precedents establishes that 
    ``it is not in order to amend a private bill by adding provisions 
    general and public in character.''. . .
        Private legislation is defined as legislation ``for the 
    interest of individuals, public companies, or corporations, a 
    parish, city or county or other locality.'' If there was ever a 
    bill which satisfied that definition it is the one presented to us 
    in the form of the so-called Troop Transport or Sealift Mobility 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. Biaggi: . . . To begin with, nowhere in this bill are two 
    vessels named. The fact of the matter is, the two vessels selected 
    will be done by the Secretary of Defense, together with the 
    Secretary of Transportation.
        The vessels that are available so far for consideration are at 
    least a minimum of five, and perhaps even greater. . . .
        So clearly the argument whether this is a private bill does not 
    hold water.
        The amendment specifies two vessels, and those vessels will be 
    designated, as I said before, by the Secretary of Defense and 
    Secretary of Transportation.
        The gentleman also raises the question of taxes. He would have 
    you believe that this is the first time that this event ever took 
    place. The fact of the matter is, it happens often. But the 
    circumstances are individually considered by the Committee on 
    Merchant Marine and Fisheries. There has never been that question 
    raised before.
        I believe my amendment is germane. To assess the germaneness of 
    an amendment to this defense bill, we have to first look at the 
    very close relationship between the merchant marine and national 
    defense.
        A principal basis of our current defense policy is the ability 
    of our armed forces to deploy men and supplies from the United 
    States to overseas locations. Upward of 95 percent of all movements 
    required in an overseas emergency will be by sealift.
        There is a demonstrated shortfall of sealift capacity. The 
    Jones amendment, which was just passed within the last hour 
    establishing a Commission on Merchant Marine and Defense has 
    already been accepted and is directed at assessing the Nation's 
    sealift requirements for cargo and personnel. The Commission 
    measure was considered--as H.R. 3289--by the Armed Services and 
    Merchant Marine Committees. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the linkage between defense policy and maritime 
    policy is clearest in the area of domestic waterborne commerce. . . 
    .
        Only vessels of the United States may operate in the domestic 
    commerce. With rare exceptions those vessels must be constructed in 
    the United

[[Page 7519]]

    States. The ability to operate in the coastwise market--a protected 
    market--provides economic viability to a commercial operation that 
    is essential if the operator's vessels are to be available for 
    sealift purposes. By having our fleet close by our shores our 
    military will have at hand useful vessels to transport men and 
    supplies to the theatre of action should the need arise. While U.S. 
    flagships in the foreign commerce are also important, it is much 
    more difficult to be assured of their immediate availability 
    because so much of their time is spent on the high seas or in 
    foreign ports.
        The exceptions to the requirement that vessels be built in the 
    United States are predominantly those based on national defense 
    needs.
        In one instance, Congress provided that, where required for 
    national defense, the Secretary of Defense could order waiver of 
    compliance with those laws that would otherwise restrain certain 
    vessels from operating as vessels of the United States.
        Another example of this waiver authority can be found in title 
    50 of the U.S. Code--the war and national defense title. That law 
    authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to requisition, 
    purchase, or charter foreign vessels lying idle in the jurisdiction 
    of the United States when those vessels are necessary to the 
    National Defense.
        The substance of my amendment is to implement the portion of 
    the defense authorization bill relating to sealift capacity. The 
    national defense aspect of these vessels has been recognized by the 
    Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, which supports initiatives 
    that would add passenger ships to the U.S. flag fleet. The letter 
    of support was directly addressing H.R. 4333, a bill very similar 
    to my amendment. . . .
        Finally, the amendment meets the several tests that are 
    employed to judge whether an amendment is germane. It meets the 
    subject matter test. The subject matter of H.R. 5167 is broad. It 
    has been further broadened by the Jones amendment establishing a 
    commission on merchant marine and defense.
        My amendment meets the committee jurisdiction test. If 
    introduced separately my amendment would have been referred to the 
    Merchant Marine Services Committee. Adoption of the Jones amendment 
    causes the bill to overlap the jurisdiction of the two committees 
    as well.
        This amendment meets the fundamental purposes test. The 
    adoption of the Jones Commission amendment has broadened the 
    fundamental purpose of H.R. 5167. One of its purposes is to study 
    and examine the capability of the merchant marine to meet national 
    defense needs during an emergency including transportation of cargo 
    and personnel. My amendment provides support to the national 
    defense by commercial merchant vessels--vessels that could be used 
    to transport personnel during wartime. . . .
        Mr. [Herbert H.] Bateman [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to comment very briefly on the germaneness aspect. I believe 
    the question of the private versus public bill has been expounded. 
    I am sure the Chair will be prepared to rule on it.
        With reference to the germaneness question, Mr. Chairman, I 
    think it is a very serious one. May I say, and very

[[Page 7520]]

    briefly, but for the fact that there is a Jones Act in title 46, an 
    act and a provision of law falling under the jurisdiction of the 
    Merchant Marine Committee, there would be absolutely no purpose for 
    this bill being on the floor.
        This bill is here, needs to be here, and has as its only real 
    purpose the granting of an exemption under the provisions of the 
    Jones Act. That is a matter for the jurisdiction of the Merchant 
    Marine Committee; not a matter of jurisdiction for the Armed 
    Services Committee.
        I suggest that the matter before us is not germane to the 
    purposes of the Defense Department authorization bill. . . .

        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is ready to rule on the 
    gentleman's point of order, and germaneness is the only relevant 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whether or not an amendment is germane should be judged from 
    the provisions of its text rather than from the motives which the 
    circumstances may suggest. The burden of proof is on the proponent 
    of an amendment to establish its germaneness.
        The Chair will observe that title X, basically a broad general 
    provisions title of the bill, has been, as the gentleman from New 
    York has pointed out, further broadened by the adoption of numerous 
    other amendments. The subject matter of title X has also been 
    broadened within the jurisdiction of another committee, and it has 
    been added by an amendment.
        The Jones amendment establishing a commission has introduced 
    the subject of sealift capacity. The Chair feels that the pending 
    amendment is drafted to emphasize only that the waivers of law have 
    defense-related ramifications, and the Chair does not feel that he 
    looks behind the language of an amendment to the intent or motive 
    of its author. Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order 
    and recognizes the gentleman from New York to explain his 
    amendment.
        The point of order is overruled.

Bill Authorizing Foreign Developmental and Economic Assistance--
    Amendment Establishing Center to Promote Assistance to Foreign and 
    Domestic Business Enterprise

Sec. 3.46 To a bill reported from the Committee on International 
    Relations amending laws and authorizing appropriations relating to 
    foreign developmental and economic assistance, an amendment 
    establishing within the Agency for International Development a 
    minority resources center to coordinate and promote assistance to 
    minority business enterprise in domestic programs as well as in the 
    foreign assistance programs covered by the bill, was held not 
    germane.

    During consideration of the International Development and Food 
Assistance Act of 1978 (5) in

[[Page 7521]]

the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order 
against the amendment described above, holding that the amendment was 
broader in scope than the bill and beyond the scope of the reporting 
committee. The proceedings of May 12, 1978,(6) were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 12222.
 6. 124 Cong. Rec. 13498, 13499, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Parren J.] Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: Page 42, 
        insert the following new section after line 25 and redesignate 
        the succeeding sections accordingly:

                          minority business enterprise

            Sec. 402. (a) Chapter 1 of part III of the Foreign 
        Assistance Act is amended by inserting after section 602 the 
        following new section:
            ``Sec. 602A. Minority Business Enterprise.--(a) In order to 
        increase the participation of minority business enterprises in 
        activities funded by the agency primarily responsible for 
        administering part I of this Act, the Administrator of such 
        agency shall, within 90 days after the effective date of this 
        section, establish a Minority Resource Center (hereafter in 
        this section referred to as the `Center').
            ``(b) The Center shall--
            ``(1) establish and maintain, and disseminate information 
        from, an international information clearinghouse for minority 
        business enterprises, for purposes of furnishing to such 
        businesses information with respect to business opportunities 
        involving the implementation of the general policy set forth in 
        section 101 of this Act;
            ``(2) assist minority business enterprises in obtaining 
        investment capital and debt financing by utilizing such 
        financial vehicles as minority enterprise small business 
        investment companies, minority banks, and minority trade 
        associations . . .
            ``(7) participate in and cooperate with all Federal 
        programs and other programs designed to provide financial, 
        management, and other forms of support and assistance to 
        minority business enterprises. . . .

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment . . .
        The Chairman: (7) Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Ashbrook] insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Elliott Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ashbrook: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. . . .
        Title IV, as presented to us on page 41 of this bill, goes to 
    current procurement methods. The amendment of the gentleman from 
    Maryland would create a new office in the United States ostensibly 
    for the purpose of boosting minority sales and business 
    participation.
        Mr. Chairman, I believe that title IV would not be a proper 
    vehicle by which to do that. This amendment goes beyond the scope 
    of the title of the bill and is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: . . . The amendment is clearly within 
    the scope of the bill. Throughout the bill there are references to 
    facilitating our relationships with the various countries that 
    receive assistance under this bill; and certainly the establishment 
    of

[[Page 7522]]

    minority businesses helps to facilitate those relationships. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: . . . Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that the 
    gentleman is creating an entire new office, that title IV only 
    relates to administrative provisions and goes to current 
    procurement methods, and that using this bill as a vehicle to 
    create an entire new office and an entire new section goes far 
    beyond the scope of title IV. . . .
        Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, if I may reply to that 
    objection, I think we have established precedent in this House for 
    the kind of action I am taking today.
        If the Members will recall, last year we added onto the 
    Department of Transportation bill a whole new section establishing 
    a minority business resource service. If I may continue for just a 
    moment, that section was added on under the general title of 
    ``Administrative Provisions of DOT,'' so that a precedent has been 
    established. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Ohio makes the point of order that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland is not germane to 
    title IV or to the bill.
        The bill under consideration relates to development and 
    economic aid programs for the assistance of foreign countries. The 
    amendment would direct the Administrator of the Agency for 
    International Development to establish a minority resources center 
    and would authorize that center to perform a variety of functions 
    to assist minority business enterprises. Although such assistance 
    is required under some of the designated functions of the center to 
    bear a relationship to the general policy of the International 
    Development and Food Assistance Act of 1977, the amendment does not 
    specifically limit such assistance and participation to foreign aid 
    programs.
        For example, in subsection (a) of the amendment, there is 
    provision that in order to increase the participation of minority 
    business enterprises in activities funded by the agency primarily 
    responsible for administering part I of this act, the administrator 
    of such agency shall, within 90 days from the effective date of 
    this section, establish a minority resource center.
        That appears to the Chair to be within the general scope of the 
    act itself, and would not of itself render this amendment 
    nongermane.
        However, several of the designated functions which follow in 
    subsection (b) go beyond this, and appear to be entirely domestic 
    in character. For example, paragraph (b)(4) of the amendment would 
    allow the use of domestic investment companies, banks, and trade 
    associations.
        Paragraph (b)(7) requires the center to participate in all 
    Federal programs, domestic and otherwise, designed to provide 
    support and assistance to minority enterprises.
        It, therefore, appears to the Chair that the amendment, as it 
    is presently drafted, is far broader in scope than the bill, and in 
    part beyond the jurisdiction of the reporting committee. For the 
    reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.

[[Page 7523]]

 Prohibition on Use of Armed Forces to Evacuate American Civilians From 
    Sinai--Amendment Interpreting Bill as Not Authorizing Any New Use 
    of Armed Forces Generally

Sec. 3.47 For an amendment providing that United States armed forces 
    may not be used to remove United States technicians placed in the 
    Sinai region under the provisions of the joint resolution under 
    consideration, a substitute stating that authority contained in the 
    joint resolution does not permit introduction of United States 
    troops in a manner not already permitted by existing law was held 
    to be germane, dealing with the same issue (the use of United 
    States troops) in a related but less specific manner.

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 683 (to implement 
the United States proposal for early-warning system in the Sinai) the 
Chair overruled a point of order as described above. The proceedings of 
Oct. 8, 1975,(8) in the Committee of the Whole, were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 121 Cong. Rec. 32417, 32427, 32428, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. K. Gunn McKay (Utah).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        President is authorized to implement the ``United States 
        Proposal for the Early-Warning System in Sinai'': Provided, 
        however, That United States civilian personnel assigned to 
        Sinai under such proposal shall be removed immediately in the 
        event of an outbreak of hostilities between Egypt and Israel or 
        if the Congress by concurrent resolution determines that the 
        safety of such personnel is jeopardized or that continuation of 
        their role is no longer necessary. . . .

        Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dellums: Page 2, line 7, 
        immediately before ``in the event'' insert ``, without the use 
        of the Armed Forces of the United States unless expressly 
        authorized by the United States Congress,''. . . .

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Eckhardt as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Dellums: On page 2, on line 10 after 
        the period, add the following: ``Nothing contained in this 
        resolution shall be construed as granting any authority to the 
        President with respect to the

[[Page 7524]]

        introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or 
        into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly 
        indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not 
        have had in the absence of this joint resolution.''. . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: . . . [T]he substance 
    of the gentleman's amendment is not germane to the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from California. . . .

        Mr. Eckhardt: . . . The proposal by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Dellums) is that no Armed Forces be permitted to be 
    used in connection with the evacuation of the technicians, period. 
    I mean, that is an absolute prohibition.
        What this amendment says is that no authority that the 
    President does not now have to remove technicians is granted by 
    virtue of this resolution. Now, the difference is obvious, but the 
    two go to the same point. This is a restriction on the limitation 
    of the Dellums amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair has reviewed the point of order made by 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and it appears to the Chair that 
    the argument made by the gentleman from Texas is well taken and 
    that his amendment is germane as a substitute, dealing with the 
    same question of the use of armed forces to evacuate civilian 
    technicians.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Bill Authorizing Military Assistance--Amendment Permitting Use of Funds 
    to Influence Political Activities in Foreign Nation

Sec. 3.48 To a bill authorizing military assistance to foreign nations, 
    an amendment permitting funds authorized in the bill to be used to 
    carry out assassinations or to influence political activities in 
    foreign nations was held germane as a related use to which foreign 
    military assistance could be put.

    On Mar. 3, 1976,(10) during consideration of the 
International Security Assistance Act of 1976 (11) in the 
Committee of the Whole, Chairman Frank E. Evans, of Colorado, overruled 
a point of order and held the following amendment to be germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 5234, 5235, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. H.R. 11963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. John L. Burton: Page 59, 
        immediately after line 15, insert the following new section:

                        limitation on covert activities

            Sec. 417. Section 662(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
        1961 is amended--

[[Page 7525]]

            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' immediately after ``(a)''; and
            (2) by inserting at the end thereof the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(2) funds appropriated under the authority of this Act 
        may be expended (A) for planning or carrying out any 
        assassination, or (B) to finance, directly or indirectly, any 
        foreign political activity or to otherwise influence any 
        foreign election.''. . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, there is no funding in this bill for the CIA or 
    for covert operations. The amendment is certainly not germane to 
    this bill. . . .
        Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, as I 
    understand the committee chairman's position, it is that there are 
    no funds in this authorization and no funds authorized for the 
    activities described, but as I understand further, the funds for 
    this particular agency are not treated in the authorization, so it 
    seems to me the Chair is ill disposed to take cognizance of what 
    the funds are for.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.
        The language in the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. John L. Burton) is an amendment directing how funds 
    within the bill itself shall be expended. Thus, the amendment 
    directly relates to the subject matter of and the funds within the 
    bill, and the point of order is overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Burton had earlier offered a similar 
amendment but with the opposite effect--prohibiting the use of funds in 
the bill to carry out assassinations. When the Committee rejected that 
amendment (which was also germane as a limitation on use of funds in 
the bill) he offered the amendment permitting such use of military 
assistance funds.

Bill Providing for Evacuation of Vietnamese--Amendment Prohibiting 
    Evacuation to Any State Without Consent of Congress

Sec. 3.49 To a bill dealing with the evacuation of certain individuals, 
    an amendment prohibiting their evacuation to any of the states of 
    the United States without the consent of Congress, was held to 
    relate to the evacuation process, not to immigration policy, and 
    was therefore germane.

    During consideration of the Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation 
Assistance Act (12) in the Committee of the Whole on Apr. 
23, 1975,(13) the Chair overruled a point of order against 
the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 6096.
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 11546, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bob] Casey [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page 7526]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Casey: Page 3, after line 3, 
        insert (e) none of the ``other foreign nationals'' referred to 
        in paragraph (d) shall be evacuated to any of the States of the 
        United States, without the express consent of Congress. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment in that the amendment is not 
    germane. It deals with the immigration policy, and would change the 
    standards on immigration. . . .
        Mr. Casey: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment would change no 
    standards on immigration except that the classified people under 
    paragraph (d) of section 4 which says that--

            . . . none of the other foreign nationals referred to in 
        paragraph (d) shall be evacuated to any of the States of the 
        United States without the express consent of the Congress.

        It is certainly germane, because it has to do with the 
    evacuation of these people under section (d) of section 4.
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The language of the amendment does not limit the operation of 
    the bill. It pertains strictly to the evacuation process. It does 
    not mention immigration policy. It simply says that persons in a 
    certain category of evacuees contained in the bill cannot be 
    evacuated to any of the States of the United States without the 
    consent of the Congress. Therefore the amendment is germane, and 
    the point of order is not sustained.

Provisions Authorizing Humanitarian Assistance for War Victims--
    Amendments Stating Sense of Congress as to Causes of Condition

Sec. 3.50 To a substitute providing humanitarian and evacuation 
    assistance to victims of war in South Vietnam, amended to deny any 
    such assistance to designated groups allegedly responsible for the 
    war, two amendments containing Congressional foreign policy 
    declarations with respect to the roles of other nations in causing 
    and ending that war were held to go beyond the scope of the purpose 
    of the bill and were ruled out as not germane; subsequently, a more 
    narrowly drawn amendment (which stated that actions by the groups 
    denied assistance under the substitute had necessitated the relief 
    to be provided), was held germane as an expression of foreign 
    policy not extending beyond the purposes of the substitute as 
    amended.

    On Apr. 23, 1975, during consideration of H.R. 6096, the Vietnam 
Humanitarian and Assist

[[Page 7527]]

ance Act, an amendment (15) denying assistance to particular 
groups was agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 11507, 11508, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the substitute amendment for the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Eckhardt as a substitute for the amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: Insert new section 8 and 
        renumber following sections:
            ``Sec. 8. To insure that the assistance is provided to such 
        persons throughout South Vietnam no funds authorized in this 
        Act shall be used, directly or indirectly, to aid the 
        Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) or the Provisional 
        Revolutionary Government (PRG) nor shall any funds authorized 
        under this Act be channeled through or administered by the DRV 
        or the PRG.''

    Amendments subsequently offered, expressing the sense of Congress 
relative to the causes of circumstances addressed by the bill's 
provisions, and including broad declarations of foreign policy, were 
ruled out of order as not germane, the bill being limited to relief for 
a specific situation. The first of the amendments was offered by Mr. 
Robert E. Bauman, of Maryland: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 11510.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
    substitute amendment for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman to the substitute amendment 
        offered by Mr. Eckhardt for the amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: At the end of the substitute 
        and renumber accordingly; add the following new section:
            ``Sec. --. The Congress finds that the provisions of this 
        Act are made necessary by the flagrant violations of the Paris 
        Peace Agreement by the military forces of the North Vietnamese 
        and the Viet Cong now engaged in military aggression against 
        the people and government of the Republic of Vietnam; further, 
        the Congress condemns in the strongest possible terms this 
        aggression as well as the support given to the North Vietnamese 
        by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People's 
        Republic of China, both of which share responsibility for the 
        faithful observance of the Paris Agreement; and further, the 
        Congress views the attitude of the governments of the Soviet 
        Union and the People's Republic of China towards this 
        aggression as a critical test of good faith, and calls upon 
        them immediately to use their influence to end the aggression 
        by the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong.''. . .

        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I raise 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill; 
    that it includes information that does not have any indication that 
    it relates to the object of what is being done in the substitute 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (17) Does the gentleman from Maryland 
    desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).

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

[[Page 7528]]

        Mr. Bauman:  . . . I would say that while this amendment may 
    not be pleasing to the 71 Members who voted against the Ashbrook 
    amendment, it goes to the very heart of the matter which is 
    contained in this bill, which deals with humanitarian aid and 
    evacuation procedures. By reason of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Montgomery) it now includes the 
    problem of prisoners of war and missing in action and 
    accountability.
        In fact, it deals with policy in that matter. The scope of the 
    bill has broadened considerably, and it is all within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations and deals 
    directly with the reason that this legislation must be offered 
    today and acted upon. In fact, that is the very reason for this 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I seek 
    recognition on the point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Maryland (Mr. Bauman) does this: It intends to direct international 
    policy, to direct the State Department to provide general 
    provisions controlling the policy of the United States in matters 
    far beyond the Vietnamese question.
        The substitute on the floor does none of these things. It 
    essentially provides, in its major provisions, which are similar to 
    the committee bill, means by which certain persons may be removed 
    from Vietnam, that is, citizens of the United States and 
    dependents, persons entitled to come over because of their 
    connection with the U.S. nationals. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has examined the amendment and in the opinion of the 
    Chair, the amendment, particularly the language, ``the Congress 
    views the attitude of the governments of the Soviet Union and the 
    People's Republic of China toward this aggression as a critical 
    test of good faith,'' does, in fact, go far beyond the scope of the 
    legislation before us.
        The point of order is sustained.
        Mr. [John H.] Buchanan [Jr., of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the substitute amendment for the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Buchanan to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Eckhardt as a substitute for the amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: On page 3, after line 9, 
        add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 8. The Congress finds that the provisions of this 
        Act are made necessary by the flagrant violations of the Paris 
        Peace Agreement by the military forces of the North Vietnamese 
        and the Viet Cong now engaged in military aggression against 
        the people and government of the Republic of Vietnam; further, 
        the Congress condemns in the strongest possible terms this 
        aggression as well as the support given to the North Vietnamese 
        by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People's 
        Republic of China, both of which share responsibility for the 
        faithful observance of the Paris Agreement.''. . .

        Mr. Edgar: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order on the same 
    grounds I stated before. This amendment is not germane. This piece 
    of legislation raises issues which should not be dealt with in this 
    fashion. . . .

[[Page 7529]]

        Mr. Buchanan: . . . I have stricken from the original amendment 
    the language to which the Chair earlier referred. I believe all the 
    remaining language deals specifically with what the provisions of 
    this legislation do and why they are necessary. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        While it is true that the Chair did refer particularly to 
    certain language in the earlier amendment, the Chair does not 
    indicate that if that particular language had not been there, the 
    amendment would have been found to be in order.
        The language of the amendment still goes far beyond the scope 
    of the bill.
        The point of order is sustained.

    A more narrowly drawn amendment was then offered, and the Chair, 
overruling a point of order, held that, to the proposition designed to 
provide assistance for Vietnam war victims, perfected by amendment to 
prohibit use of that assistance to a specified group, a further 
amendment stating that the necessity for the relief provided had been 
caused by the actions of the group denied assistance was germane: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 11511, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the substitute amendment for the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rousselot to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Eckhardt as a substitute for the amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: On page 3, after line 9, 
        add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 8. The Congress finds that the provisions of this 
        Act are made necessary by the flagrant violations of the Paris 
        Peace Agreement by the military forces of the North Vietnamese 
        and the Viet Cong now engaged in military aggression against 
        the people and government of the Republic of Vietnam. . . .

        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order on the same grounds I stated before. I object to 
    this amendment because it is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Rousselot: . . . We have stricken from this language all 
    the basic objections the Chair has raised. Also, it does very much 
    refer to this legislation. It discusses the Paris peace agreements 
    and the necessity for the use of military forces.
        It is totally germane on the basis of the Chairman's own 
    statement.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair finds that the present amendment is narrowly drawn. 
    It refers to the situation in Vietnam to which this substitute in 
    its perfected form is directed, and the Chair overrules the point 
    of order.

Provisions Authorizing Humanitarian Assistance for War Victims and 
    Naming Parties Responsible for War--Amendment Requiring 
    Negotiations With Such Parties

Sec. 3.51 To a bill dealing with humanitarian and evacu

[[Page 7530]]

    ation assistance to war victims in South Vietnam, broadened by 
    amendment to deny any such assistance to designated parties 
    allegedly responsible for the war, to assert that the necessity for 
    the relief provided has been caused by the actions of the group 
    denied assistance, and to require negotiations to account for 
    Americans missing in action, a further amendment requiring 
    negotiations with that designated group to end the war and resolve 
    the status of those missing was held germane to the bill as so 
    amended.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(19) during consideration of H.R. 6096, 
the Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act, the following 
amendments were agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 11545, 11546, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. (John H.) Rousselot (of California): 
    On page 3, after line 9, add the following new section:
        ``Sec. 8. The Congress finds that the provisions of this Act 
    are made necessary by the flagrant violations of the Paris Peace 
    Agreement by the military forces of the North Vietnamese and the 
    Viet Cong now engaged in military aggression against the people and 
    government of the Republic of Vietnam.''. . .
        Amendment offered by Mr. [G. V.] Montgomery [of Mississippi]: 
    Page 3, immediately after line 14, add the following new section:
        Sec. 9. It is the sense of the Congress that as the 
    humanitarian aid provided under this Act is made available in South 
    Vietnam, the President is requested to use all appropriate 
    diplomatic means at his disposal to obtain (1) an updated 
    accounting of Americans listed as missing in action in Southeast 
    Asia, and (2) the return of the remains of known American dead. The 
    President is further requested to report to the Congress within 30 
    days after aid is made available in Southeast Asia, the diplomatic 
    actions being taken. . . .

        Amendment offered by Mr. (John M.) Ashbrook (of Ohio): On page 
    3, line 13, add the following section 7 and renumber the following 
    sections accordingly:
        ``Sec. 7. No funds authorized in this Act shall be used, 
    directly or indirectly, to aid the Democratic Republic of Vietnam 
    (DRV) or the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG) nor shall 
    any funds authorized under this Act be channeled through or 
    administered by the DRV or the PRG.''

    Subsequently, a further amendment was offered, as follows: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 11550.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. John L. Burton (of California): Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. John L. Burton: On page 3, add 
        section 8: ``The Secretary of State is directed to initiate 
        immediate discussions with representatives of the Provisional 
        Revolutionary Government of the Re

[[Page 7531]]

        public of South Vietnam, to declare the support of the United 
        States for all political goals of the agreement and protocols 
        on ending the war and restoring peace in Vietnam, including 
        specifically the terms of Article 12 and to determine the 
        precise conditions under which the Provisional Revolutionary 
        Government would agree to establishment of a cease-fire and to 
        a political settlement of the conflict. The Secretary is 
        further directed to discuss with the Provisional Revolutionary 
        Government of the Republic of South Vietnam the status of any 
        Americans who are presently listed as missing in action in 
        Vietnam.
            ``Within seven days, the Secretary shall advise the United 
        States Congress and appropriate officials in Vietnam, including 
        the legislative branch of the government in Saigon and 
        principle Third Force leaders, of the progress and results of 
        these discussions.''

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a point of order against the amendment because it goes much further 
    than the scope of the bill and it is not germane. . . .
        Mr. John L. Burton: . . . I think that the amendment is in 
    order. It certainly deals with the whole problem of the bill. We 
    had something dealing with those missing in action, and this deals 
    with trying to get the information on the missing in action. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the judgment of the Chair, the addition of the amendments by 
    the gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot) and the gentleman 
    from Mississippi (Mr. Montgomery) which is very similar to the 
    second part of the pending amendment, did adequately broaden the 
    scope of this bill so that the amendment of the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. John L. Burton) would be in order. The Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

Provisions for Assistance to Refugees--Amendment To Postpone Effective 
    Date Pending President's Report to Congress

Sec. 3.52 An amendment, offered to a substitute, postponing the 
    effective date of provisions for humanitarian and evacuation 
    assistance for South Vietnam refugees until the President 
    determines and reports to Congress on the ownership of gold sought 
    to be removed from Cambodia and South Vietnam was held to be not 
    germane.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(2) during consideration of the Vietnam 
Humanitarian Assistance and Evacuation Act,(3) in the 
Committee of the Whole, a point of order was sustained against an 
amendment offered to a substitute, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 121 Cong. Rec. 11511, 11512, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. H.R. 6096.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment

[[Page 7532]]

    to the substitute amendment for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. John L. Burton to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Eckhardt as a substitute for the amendment in 
        the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: At the end add 
        a new section:
            ``This Act shall become effective when the President 
        determines and reports to Congress whether the 16 tons of gold 
        that Lon Nol and former President Thieu tried to send to 
        Switzerland was American property or their own personal 
        gold.''. . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I raise 
    a point of order that the amendment is not germane to the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute. . . .
        Mr. John L. Burton: . . . It is an amendment that sets an 
    active triggering date for the legislation. It is not more 
    different than saying that it shall take effect on a certain date. 
    We are just saying in this amendment that we are setting this date 
    for the determination whether or not that 16 tons of gold with 
    American money is just a limitation on the executive power of the 
    bill.
        The Chairman:(4) The Chair is ready to rule. A 
    similar situation arose in the 93d Congress on a bill authorizing 
    military assistance to Israel and funds to be used in an emergency 
    force when an amendment was offered postponing the availability of 
    those funds until the President certified the existence of a 
    designated level of energy supplies. (Deschler's, chapter 28, 
    section 24.18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment in question is not germane to the purposes of the 
    substitute and the point of order is sustained.

Bill Providing Foreign Aid--Amendment Providing Aid for Areas in United 
    States

Sec. 3.53 To a bill providing aid to foreign countries, an amendment 
    providing aid for certain areas in the United States held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 84th Congress, during consideration of a bill (5) 
to amend the Mutual Security Act of 1954, the following amendment was 
offered: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. S. 2090 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 6. 101 Cong. Rec. 9663, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., June 30, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West 
    Virginia]: On page 20, after line 25, insert a new subsection as 
    follows:
        (b) It is the sense of the Congress that where there are areas 
    within the continental United States in which unemployment 
    statistics as certified by the Secretary of Labor exceed 15 percent 
    of the labor force in such area or areas, the areas in question are 
    hereby declared to be eligible for assistance under the provisions 
    of this act.

    Responding to a point of order by Mr. James P. Richards, of South 
Carolina, that the amendment was not germane, the proponent stated:

[[Page 7533]]

        . . . I should argue the point of germaneness . . . by calling 
    attention to the fact that the title to the act itself invites just 
    such an amendment as mine: ``To amend the Mutual Security Act of 
    1954, and for other purposes.''
        Let me ask, Mr. Chairman, if this amendment . . . is ruled out 
    of order, where, then, may I inquire, is the mutuality? Is not the 
    United States a part of this pact that we are setting up here?

    The Chairman (7) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair invites attention to the fact that the pending 
    bill is to amend the Mutual Security Act of 1954. The bill relates 
    entirely to aid to foreign countries. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from West Virginia relates entirely to assistance to 
    areas in this country. Certainly, there can be no connection 
    between the two. . . .
        [T]he Chair sustains the point of order.

--Amendment to Discourage Establishment of Foreign Chanceries in 
    Residential Areas

Sec. 3.54 To a bill authorizing new foreign aid programs and extending 
    and revising existing mutual security laws, an amendment intended 
    to discourage the establishment of foreign chanceries in 
    residential areas of the District of Columbia was ruled out as not 
    germane.

    In the 87th Congress, during consideration of the Mutual Security 
Act of 1961,(8) the following amendment was offered: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 8400 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 9. 107 Cong. Rec. 16059, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 16, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Carroll D.] Kearns [of Pennsylvania]: 
    Page 5, after line 25, insert the following:
        (j) It is the policy of the Congress that, since the United 
    States is generally required, in locating its chanceries abroad, to 
    observe applicable laws and zoning regulations, foreign nations 
    with which the United States maintains diplomatic relations should, 
    in the interest of comity (a necessary foundation for the 
    achievement of the objectives of the Mutual Security Act of 1961), 
    observe the laws and zoning regulations (in the District of 
    Columbia) and locate their chanceries in business areas. . . .

    Ruling on a point of order raised by Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, 
with regard to the amendment's germaneness, the Chairman 
(10) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The amendment does seem to the Chair to have something to 
    do with the zoning laws of the District of Columbia, a subject 
    matter which is not encompassed in the bill H.R. 8400; therefore, 
    the Chair sustains the point of order.

[[Page 7534]]

Provisions Requiring Notice to Congress of Curtailment of Agricultural 
    Exports--Amendment Requiring Payments to Farmers in Case of 
    Curtailment.

Sec. 3.55 To a section requiring notice to Congress of curtailment of 
    export of agricultural commodities, contained in a title of a bill 
    reported from the Committee on International Relations extending 
    and amending the Export Administration Act, an amendment requiring 
    domestic payments to farmers having in storage commodities for 
    which exports have been suspended was held not germane as beyond 
    the scope and subject matter of the section or title.

    On Apr. 20, 1977,(11) during consideration of H.R. 5840 
(12) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a 
point of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 11437, 11440, 11441, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. The Export Administration Amendments of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 105. Section 4(f) of the Export Administration Act of 
    1969, as amended by section 104 of this Act, is further amended by 
    adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
        ``(3) If the authority conferred by this section is exercised 
    to prohibit or curtail the exportation of any agricultural 
    commodity in order to effectuate the policies set forth in clause 
    (B) of paragraph (2) of section 3 of this Act, the President shall 
    immediately report such prohibition or curtailment to the Congress, 
    setting forth the reasons therefor in detail. If the Congress, 
    within 30 days after the date of its receipt of such report, adopts 
    a concurrent resolution disapproving such prohibition or 
    curtailment, then such prohibition or curtailment shall cease to be 
    effective with the adoption of such resolution. . . .

        Mr. [Keith G.] Sebelius [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Sebelius: Page 8 after line 21, 
        insert the following:
            ``(4)(A) Notwithstanding any provision of law, whenever the 
        President of the United States or any other member of the 
        executive branch of the Federal Government suspends or causes a 
        suspension of export sales of corn, wheat, soybeans, grain 
        sorghum, or cotton, the Secretary of Agriculture shall make 
        payments described in subsection (B) and (C) to any farmowner 
        or operator who has in storage at the beginning of the 
        suspension any amount of the commodity for which export sales 
        have been suspended; except that no such payments may be made 
        with regard to any such commodity unless, at the close of the 
        calendar month preceding the calendar month in which the 
        suspension is initiated, the price received by producers of 
        such commodity was less than the parity price.

[[Page 7535]]

            ``(B) The first payment described in subsection (A) shall 
        become payable at the initiation of the suspension of export 
        sales of the commodity concerned. Such payment shall be made at 
        a rate of 10 per centum of the parity price per bushel or bale 
        of the commodity concerned which was produced by the farm owner 
        or operator and which is held in storage by him at the time of 
        the initiation of the suspension. . . .

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, 
    apparently the amendment the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Sebelius) 
    has presented is a parity amendment pending in the part of the bill 
    before the Agriculture Committee.
        Mr. Sebelius: That is right.
        Mr. Zablocki: It is not germane to section 105, which deals 
    solely with existing authority of the President to limit export 
    controls for foreign policy purposes under the Export 
    Administration Act.
        Second, the amendment gives the President new authority where 
    export controls are imposed for new purposes under a new act.
        And, third, this new authority deals solely with domestic 
    matters which are within the jurisdiction of another country.
        As I said, it is a parity amendment.
        Lastly, this is a farm subsidy issue, not an issue of foreign 
    affairs.
        This bill does not deal with agricultural parity, it does not 
    deal with support controls.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the amendment is not in 
    order. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        H.R. 5840 is a bill to amend the Export Administration Act of 
    1969 in order to extend the authorities of that act, improve the 
    administration of export controls under that act, and to strengthen 
    the antiboycott provisions of that act.
        Section 105 of the bill as amended amends the procedure by 
    which the Secretary of Commerce can notify the Congress of the 
    exercise of authority curtailing exports of agricultural products. 
    It thereafter gives the Congress a certain period of time within 
    which to disapprove if it so chooses.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
    Sebelius) goes beyond the purview of the title and the section to 
    which offered, in that it would require payments by the Secretary 
    of Agriculture to any farmowner or operator who has in stowage at 
    the beginning of the suspension any amount of the commodity for 
    which export sales have been suspended.
        For the reasons stated by the Chair and the reasons given by 
    the gentleman from Wisconsin, the point of order is sustained.

Bill Prohibiting Transportation of Foreign Convict-Made Goods--
    Amendment Prohibiting Imports From Country Not in Conformity With 
    Minimum Wage Requirements

Sec. 3.56 To a bill amending the Wages and Hours Act and containing 
    provisions governing transportation of foreign goods made by 
    convicts,

[[Page 7536]]

    an amendment prohibiting the importation from any foreign country 
    of any goods produced under conditions not compatible with United 
    States law governing wages and hours was held to be germane.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(14) comprising amendments to the Wage-Hour Law, the 
following amendment was offered: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 5435 (Committee on Labor).
15. 86 Cong. Rec. 5275, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Apr. 30, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John C.] Schafer of Wisconsin: Page 
    17, line 4, after the period insert a new section as follows:
        Sec. 21. In order to protect the minimum-wage and maximum-hour 
    standards prescribed in sections 6 and 7 it shall be unlawful for 
    any person to import . . . from any foreign country . . . any goods 
    . . . produced . . . in foreign countries unless such imports are 
    produced . . . under the same minimum-wage and maximum-hour 
    provisions which would be applicable if they were . . . produced . 
    . . in the United States.

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

        Mr. [Robert C. W.] Ramspeck [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane to this bill. 
    The amendment deals with the question of foreign commerce. The bill 
    deals only with interstate commerce, with wage and hour provisions 
    within this country.

    The following exchange then occurred:

        Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: . . . [T]he gentleman who made the 
    point of order apparently is not familiar with the bill, which, on 
    page 16, section 20, proposes to regulate and prohibit convict-
    produced goods, not only produced in the United States but in 
    foreign lands. It specifically refers to foreign convict-produced 
    goods; and even though the point of order had been made at the 
    proper time it could not be sustained because this amendment is 
    clearly germane to the bill, as it also relates to foreign 
    production.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair will ask the gentleman 
    to point out the particular language in the bill to which he 
    refers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Claude V. Parsons (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: I will read. Page 16, lines 13 to 17:

            * * * the United States, or place noncontiguous but subject 
        to the jurisdiction thereof, or from any foreign country, into 
        any State, Territory, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, or district 
        of the United States, or place noncontiguous but subject to the 
        jurisdiction thereof.

        This language of the bill specifically refers to foreign 
    commerce and foreign products and has a prohibition with reference 
    to convict-produced foreign goods moving into this country.

    The Chairman, in ruling on the point of order, stated:

        The section under discussion, known as section 12, page 16, is 
    headed ``Pro

[[Page 7537]]

    hibition against interstate transportation of convict-made goods,'' 
    and in the course of describing what shall be prohibited the 
    section does prohibit the transportation in interstate commerce of 
    penal- or reformatory-institution-made goods from the States, 
    Territories, and any district of the United States or from any 
    foreign country.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman proposes to prohibit the 
    importation into this country of any goods manufactured, mined, or 
    otherwise, from any foreign country that does not comply with our 
    minimum wage rates.
        The Chair thinks that in construing this amendment to section 
    20 it is clearly germane, because it prohibits the importation of 
    foreign-made goods that does not prescribe minimum rates. The point 
    of order is overruled.

Bill Imposing Conditions on Use of Agricultural Products for Relief--
    Amendment Adding Further Restrictions

Sec. 3.57 To a bill relating to emergency relief to India and requiring 
    in part that the Secretary of Agriculture certify that the 
    procurement of any agricultural product for such purpose would not 
    impair the fulfillment of vital needs of the United States, an 
    amendment requiring that such procurement not lead to curtailment 
    of domestic use of such products was held to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a bill (17) was under consideration 
relating to emergency relief assistance to India and containing the 
provision described above. The following amendment was offered to the 
bill: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 3791 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
18. 97 Cong. Rec. 5832, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., May 24, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Thruston B.] Morton [of Kentucky]: 
    Page 2, line 16, after ``United States'', insert ``nor require [the 
    Secretary of Agriculture] to promulgate regulations for the 
    curtailment of the domestic use of such products during the period 
    of such procurement.''

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

        Mr. [James P.] Richards [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order that the gentleman's amendment is not 
    germane. . . . [It seems] to me that the sense of this amendment is 
    that we are dealing with a phase of our domestic economy here that 
    would not come within the scope of the bill.
        Mr. Morton: . . . The bill specifically provides that the 
    Secretary of Agriculture shall certify that such procurement will 
    not impair the fulfillment of the vital needs of this country. I 
    just go one step further and say that if he certifies that it does 
    not impair the vital needs of this country he cannot, while this 
    grain is being purchased, go ahead and pass a lot of reg

[[Page 7538]]

    ulations on the excuse that we had to ship this grain to India. . . 
    . He has to give his certification, and this qualifies the 
    certification and tightens it up. . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    gentleman from Kentucky offers an amendment which, in the words of 
    the gentleman from Kentucky, goes one step further than the pending 
    bill, and also in the words of the gentleman from Kentucky, makes 
    an additional proviso. The gentleman from South Carolina makes the 
    point of order that the additional proviso is not germane. Clause 7 
    of rule XVI says that no motion or proposition on a subject 
    different from that under consideration shall be admitted under 
    color of amendment. The test of germaneness, it seems to the Chair, 
    is whether or not a new subject matter is introduced by way of 
    amendment. The gentleman from Kentucky makes the point of order 
    that his additional proviso is related to the proviso in the bill. 
    The Chair would cite to the gentleman the precedent on page 88, 
    volume 9, of Cannon's Precedents which says this:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Albert A. Gore (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            The fact that two subjects are related does not necessarily 
        render them germane.

        Under the rule cited and the precedent cited, and others at 
    hand, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of order.

Bill Authorizing Loan to United Nations--Amendment to Encourage 
    Supporters to Purchase United Nations Bonds

Sec. 3.58 To a bill authorizing a loan to the United Nations, an 
    amendment inviting Members who support the measure to purchase 
    United Nations bonds was held to be not germane.

    In the 87th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(20) authorizing a loan to the United Nations, the following 
amendment was offered: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. S. 2768 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 1. 108 Cong. Rec. 19477, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 14, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: On page 3, 
    after section 6, insert a new section 7 reading as follows: 
    ``Provided further, That Members of the Congress who vote 
    affirmatively for the bill and thereby express their satisfaction 
    therewith shall be invited and encouraged to invest not less than 
    $1,000 each in United Nations bonds and shall be reimbursed under 
    the terms and conditions set forth in section 3 for reimbursement 
    of the United States Government.''

    The Chairman, Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, ruling on a point 
of order raised by Mr. Thomas E. Morgan, of Pennsylvania, held that the 
amendment was not germane.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 19478.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Providing for Admission of Hawaii--Amendment Affecting Boundaries 
    of Hawaii

Sec. 3.59 To a bill providing for the admission of the State of

[[Page 7539]]

    Hawaii, an amendment to allow certain other Pacific islands either 
    to be constituted into another state with the consent of the United 
    States and Hawaii, or to be included as part of the State of 
    Hawaii, was held to be germane.

    In the 86th Congress, during consideration of a bill (3) 
to provide for the admission of Hawaii into the Union, an amendment was 
offered as described above, for purposes stated by the proponent as 
follows: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. S. 50 (Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs).
 4. 105 Cong. Rec. 4034, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 12, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: . . . [This legislation] 
    leaves hanging as a part of no State, some portions of that 
    Territory that was once ruled by the royal line of Hawaii. It 
    leaves without any statehood status other islands and territories 
    in the Pacific Ocean over which the American flag flies and over 
    which we claim jurisdiction.
        This amendment, if adopted, will provide not for the immediate 
    incorporation of areas that may not presently fit into the 
    organization of the new State, but it does provide an opportunity 
    for the ultimate inclusion of every acre of American territory in 
    the Pacific Ocean to be organized into the State of Hawaii.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 4035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne N.] Aspinall [of Colorado]: . . . The bill with 
    which we are dealing, S. 50, deals with the immediate admission of 
    a new State into the Union. . . . [Subsection (a) of the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Texas] deals with the enlargement of 
    that State at some indefinite time in the future under totally 
    different circumstances. . . .
        Subsection (b) [of the amendment] anticipates that these island 
    areas may, at some future time, seek to become a separate State. It 
    provides that they may become such if they so vote, and if the 
    State of Hawaii consents, and if the Congress agrees. This 
    situation is entirely foreign to the purposes of S. 50. . . .

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

        Mr. Poage: Mr. Chairman, basically the amendment which has been 
    offered is one that changes the boundaries of the proposed State of 
    Hawaii. The boundaries of the State of Hawaii are defined in the 
    legislation before us. 
    . . .
        We are . . . fixing a different set of boundaries from those 
    that were outlined in the original bill. We are providing that some 
    of those boundaries shall be in effect today; that others of them 
    shall be in effect at future dates upon the happening of future 
    events.

    The Chairman, Paul J. Kilday, of Texas, in ruling on the point of 
order, stated: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at pp. 4035, 4036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In ruling on the first portion of the amendment, the Chair will 
    point out

[[Page 7540]]

    that it seeks to add additional language to the last sentence of 
    section 2 of the bill. Section 2 of the bill and the sentence to 
    which it is proposed to add language deals with the boundaries of 
    the new State of Hawaii to be admitted under this bill, and the 
    language of the proposed amendment likewise deals with the 
    boundaries of the State to be admitted. As to paragraph B of the 
    proposed amendment, the Chair would point out that this language 
    would grant to the new State of Hawaii a right over land not 
    included within the boundaries proposed in this bill but land 
    outside of the boundaries, so that it would be granting to the new 
    State of Hawaii a right over those lands which she does not now 
    possess and would be one of the conditions on which she is 
    admitted.
        The Chair is constrained to hold that the amendment is germane 
    to the bill and overrules the point of order.

Bill Relating to Administration of Parkway Lands--Amendment Authorizing 
    Secretary of Interior to Permit Certain Uses of Lands

Sec. 3.60 To a bill relating to maintenance and administration of 
    certain parkway lands, an amendment authorizing the Secretary of 
    the Interior to permit such use of the parkway lands as he may 
    determine to be consistent with the use of the lands for parkway 
    purposes, was held germane.

    In the 75th Congress, the Natchez Trace Parkway Bill (7) 
was under consideration, stating in part: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 6652 (Committee on Public Lands).
 8. 83 Cong. Rec. 1433, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 2, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That all lands and easements . . . 
    conveyed to the United States by the States of Mississippi, 
    Alabama, and Tennessee for the right-of-way for the projected 
    parkway between Natchez, Miss., and Nashville, Tenn., together with 
    sites acquired . . . for recreational areas in connection therewith 
    . . . shall be administered and maintained by the Secretary of the 
    Interior through the National Park Service. . . .

    The following amendment was offered to the bill:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Aaron L.] Ford of Mississippi: Page 
    2, after section 1, insert:
        Sec. 2. In the administration of the Natchez Trace Parkway the 
    Secretary of the Interior may lease or authorize the use of parkway 
    lands for such purposes and under such terms and conditions as he 
    may determine to be not inconsistent with the use of such lands for 
    parkway purposes.

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

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is not germane to the bill. 
    There is noth

[[Page 7541]]

    ing in the bill with reference to leasing lands or anything of that 
    character. This is an entirely new feature and it is not germane to 
    the bill.

    The Chairman,(9) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Harold G. Mosier (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that the bill deals with lands and easements 
    that have been conveyed to the United States by the State of 
    Mississippi, the State of Alabama, and the State of Tennessee for a 
    right-of-way for a parkway. The amendment merely authorizes the 
    Secretary of the Interior to lease or authorize the use of these 
    parkway lands, which have been conveyed to the United States by 
    these States. In other words, the amendment simply authorizes the 
    Secretary of the Interior to deal in some way with the title to 
    that property. The Chair, therefore, feels that the amendment is 
    germane and overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Prior to the above ruling, Mr. Ford had 
offered a similar amendment which he conceded not to be germane; the 
amendment had made reference to the administration of the ``Blue 
Ridge'' Parkway as well as that of the Natchez Trace Parkway.

Bill Providing for Tunnel Under Potomac--Amendment Relating to Cost of 
    Approach Roads

Sec. 3.61 To a bill providing for a tunnel under the Potomac River, an 
    amendment requiring the District of Columbia and the State of 
    Virginia to pay costs of approach roads was held to be germane.

    In the 85th Congress, a bill (10) was under 
consideration to amend legislation authorizing the construction of 
bridges over the Potomac River. The following amendment was offered to 
the bill: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 6763 (Committee on the District of Columbia).
11. 103 Cong. Rec. 13497, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 2, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: On page 4, 
    strike out all of lines 4 through 15 and insert the following:
        Sec. 105. The cost of construction, reconstruction . . . and 
    repair of all facilities and related works, including streets, if 
    any, and roads, which are changed or made necessary incident to the 
    construction of said tunnel, approach ramps and connecting roads, 
    shall be paid out of funds made available for the construction of 
    said tunnel, approach ramps and connecting roads for all of which 
    the State of Virginia shall pay the full costs on the Virginia side 
    of the Potomac River and the District of Columbia shall pay the 
    full costs on the District of Columbia side of the Potomac River. . 
    . .

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

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point

[[Page 7542]]

    of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa 
    on the ground it is not germane to the bill. I do not know anyone 
    in this body who happens to be a member of the General Assembly of 
    Virginia and therefore can tell the Virginia Assembly how much 
    money it can appropriate for anything.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated:

        Mr. Chairman, the amendment deals with language contained in 
    the bill, section 101, on page 2, wherein there are designated 
    certain duties and responsibilities on the part of the State of 
    Virginia on the Virginia side of the Potomac River and so forth.

    The Chairman (12) overruled the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard W. Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Designating Wilderness Areas--Amendment Giving Employment Benefits 
    to Those Affected

Sec. 3.62 To a bill reported from the Committee on Interior and Insular 
    Affairs designating certain wilderness areas in Oregon, an 
    amendment adding a new title to provide a program of unemployment 
    benefits to persons affected by such wilderness designations was 
    held to be not germane as addressing a subject not contained in the 
    bill and one within the jurisdiction of other committees of the 
    House.

    On Mar. 21, 1983,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 1149 (Oregon wilderness designations), a 
point of order was raised and sustained as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 129 Cong. Rec. 6339, 6341, 6344, 6346, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 2. (a) In furtherance of the purposes of the Wilderness 
    Act, the following lands, as generally depicted on maps, 
    appropriately referenced, dated December 1982 (except as otherwise 
    dated), are hereby designated as wilderness and therefore, as 
    components of the National Wilderness Preservation System--
        (1) certain lands in the Mount Hood National Forest, which 
    comprise approximately forty thousand nine hundred acres, are 
    generally depicted on a map entitled ``Columbia Gorge Wilderness--
    Proposed'', and shall be known as the Columbia Gorge Wilderness . . 
    .
        Sec. 6. (a) The Congress finds that--
        (1) the Department of Agriculture has completed the second 
    roadless area review and evaluation program (RARE II); and
        (2) the Congress has made its own review and examination of 
    national forest system roadless areas in the State of Oregon and of 
    the environmental impacts associated with alternative allocations 
    of such areas.
        (b) On the basis of such review, the Congress hereby determines 
    and directs that--

[[Page 7543]]

        (1) without passing on the question of the legal and factual 
    sufficiency of the RARE II final environmental statement (dated 
    January 1979) with respect to national forest system lands in 
    States other than Oregon, such statement shall not be subject to 
    judicial review with respect to national forest system lands in the 
    State of Oregon. . . .

    An amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Alaska: Insert before section 
    2 the heading ``TITLE I--DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS''.

            Sec. 2. Add after section 6 the following:

                            ``title ii--definitions

            ``Sec. 20. As used in this title, the term--
            ``(1) `Secretary' unless otherwise indicated, means the 
        Secretary of the Department of Labor;
            ``(2) `expansion area' means the Mount Hood, Willamette, 
        Siuslaw, Umpqua, Rogue River, Siskiyou, Deschutes, Winema, 
        Fremont, Ochoco, Wallowa-Whitman, Malheur, and Umatilla 
        National Forests, and the Salem District of the Bureau of Land 
        Management;
            ``(3) `employee' means a person employed by an affected 
        employer and, with such exceptions as the Secretary may 
        determine, in an occupation not described by section 13(a)(1) 
        of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 213(a)(1)); . . .
            ``Sec. 22. The total or partial layoff of a covered 
        employee employed by an affected employer during the period 
        beginning the date of enactment and ending September 30, 1986, 
        other than for a cause that would disqualify an employee for 
        unemployment compensation, except as provided in section 24, is 
        conclusively presumed to be attributable to the expansion of 
        the Oregon portion of the National Wilderness preservation 
        system. . . .
            ``Sec. 23. (a) The Secretary shall provide, to the maximum 
        extent feasible, for retention and accrual of all rights and 
        benefits which affected employees would have had in an 
        employment with affected employers during the period in which 
        they are affected employees. The Secretary is authorized and 
        shall seek to enter into such agreements as he may deem to be 
        appropriate with affected employees and employers, labor 
        organizations representing covered employees, and trustees of 
        applicable pension and welfare funds, or to take such other 
        actions as he deems appropriate to provide for affected 
        employees (including the benefits provided for in section 
        26(d)) the following rights and benefits:
            ``(1) retention and accrual of seniority rights, including 
        recall rights (or, in the case of employees not covered by 
        collective-bargaining agreements, application of the same 
        preferences and privileges based upon length of continuous 
        service as are applied under the affected employer's usual 
        practices) under conditions no more burdensome to said 
        employees than to those actively employed; and
            ``(2) continuing entitlement to health and welfare benefits 
        and accrual of pension rights and credits based upon length of 
        employment and/or amounts of earnings to the same extent as and 
        at no greater cost to said employees than would have been 
        applicable had they been actively employed. . . .
            ``Sec. 31. (a) A relocation allowance shall be paid upon 
        application by an affected employee during the applicable 
        period of protection if--
            ``(1) the Secretary determines that said employee cannot 
        reasonably be expected to obtain suitable work in

[[Page 7544]]

        the commuting area in which said employee resides; and
            ``(2) the employee has obtained--
            ``(A) suitable employment affording a reasonable 
        expectation of long-term duration in the area in which said 
        employee wishes to relocate. . . .

        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane, and also that it 
    violates the provisions of the Budget Act. . . .
        Mr. [Don] Young [of Alaska]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I argue that 
    the amendment is germane. It has been heard before and has passed 
    on previous actions of this body. I want to state that if the 
    Parliamentarian will go back to the history of the House, this 
    House has acted on the same exact amendment on a similar type bill 
    in previous years. . . .
        So my argument is that the amendment is germane to the bill, 
    and it is relevant to the subject and the topic we are discussing 
    today. We should give an opportunity to this body to decide, if the 
    eastern establishment is going to have this wilderness, they are 
    going to pay for it through their tax dollars to those who will be 
    unemployed. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James L. Oberstar (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has reviewed the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Alaska.
        H.R. 1149 does not relate to the question of unemployment 
    relief to employees impacted by the wilderness designations in the 
    bill.
        The amendment contains matter not addressed on the bill and 
    within the jurisdiction of other committees of the House and, 
    therefore, is not germane to H.R. 1149.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Since the Chair sustained the point of 
order under the germaneness rule, he was not obliged to rule on the 
point of order under the Budget Act. The amendment provided new 
entitlement authority effective in fiscal year 1984 and thus violated 
sec. 303(a)(4) of the Budget Act, no budget resolution for that year 
having yet been adopted.

Bill Authorizing Activities in Department of Agriculture Previously 
    Carried in Appropriation Bills--Amendment To Refund Certain 
    Payments Under Agricultural Adjustment Act

Sec. 3.63 To a bill authorizing certain activities in the Department of 
    Agriculture that had previously been carried in annual 
    appropriation bills without specific authorization, an amendment 
    seeking to refund certain payments under the Agricultural 
    Adjustment Act of 1938 was held to be not germane.

[[Page 7545]]

    In the 78th Congress, a bill (15) was under 
consideration relating to control and eradication of certain animal and 
plant pests and diseases. The following amendment was offered to the 
bill: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 4278 (Committee on Agriculture).
16. 90 Cong. Rec. 2334, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 7, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Ross] Rizley [of Oklahoma]: At the 
    end of the bill add a new section to be known as section 713 to 
    read as follows:
        ``That all penalties collected by the United States under the 
    Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 . . . or under the joint 
    resolution entitled `Joint resolution relating to wheat marketing 
    quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended' . 
    . . with respect to the marketing of any wheat from the 1941 or 
    1942 crops of wheat shall be refunded to the persons who bore the 
    burden of the payment of such penalties. . . .''

    In discussing the amendment, the proponent stated: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 2335.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In my opinion, my amendment will not require any new 
    appropriation if it is accepted as a part of this bill. All we need 
    is an authorization, and this is an authorization bill, so that the 
    Appropriations Committee can authorize the Secretary of Agriculture 
    to reappropriate this identical fund. . . .
        If my amendment is agreed to, I take the position that all that 
    will then be necessary will be an authorization. It will be an 
    authorization to the Appropriations Committee to reappropriate 
    funds that are already on hand. . . .

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

        Mr. [Stephen] Pace [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane 
    to the bill. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the pending legislation is to set 
    up legislative authority for numerous items heretofore carried in 
    the agriculture appropriations bill which have not heretofore been 
    authorized by law.
        In the first place, there is no provision in the agriculture 
    appropriations bill having to do or treating with the subject of 
    refunding penalties that might have been invoked on any particular 
    crop. This amendment seeks solely to authorize the refund of 
    penalties on the wheat crop for 2 years.
        Secondly, Mr. Chairman, as was pointed out on yesterday, this 
    bill is for the purpose of setting up organic law for the 
    Department of Agriculture. Certainly there is no provision in this 
    amendment and nothing organic in this amendment, as it relates to 
    only one crop and for a period of only 2 years. It does not seek--
    if it did seek, I think the situation would be different--it does 
    not seek to establish as permanent law that all penalties on all 
    crops under certain conditions shall be refunded, but the amendment 
    simply seeks to refund the penalties on a particular crop for a 
    particular year. . . .

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated:

        . . . It is true that this is a bill which within its strictest 
    construction

[[Page 7546]]

    is an authorization bill authorizing appropriations that have 
    heretofore not been authorized by law, as I understand, for various 
    and sundry matters pertaining to the Department of Agriculture. . . 
    .
        As stated, this bill refers to the Domestic Allotment Act of 
    1938, part of which is included under the terms of my amendment. 
    What this will do will be to authorize the Appropriations Committee 
    not to make a new appropriation but to reappropriate this fund 
    which has been collected as a penalty under the provisions of the 
    Wheat Penalty Act. . . .

    The Chairman, Alfred L. Bulwinkle, of North Carolina, in ruling on 
the point of order, stated: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 2336.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma seeks to 
    refund certain payments under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 
    1938. The pending bill merely authorizes certain activities that 
    have heretofore been carried in annual appropriation bills without 
    specific authority or authorization at all.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma does not 
    come within that category and, therefore, the Chair holds that it 
    is not germane to the bill.

    A subsequent exchange concerned a parliamentary inquiry.

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: The inquiry I should 
    like to propound, Mr. Chairman, is whether or not if the amendment 
    were offered as a new title to the bill . . . would it then not be 
    in order? . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair calls the attention of the gentleman to 
    the fact that merely making it another title in the bill would not 
    make it in order because it still would not be germane to the 
    pending bill.

Bill Amending Commodity Exchange Act--Senate Amendments Relating to 
    Forest Lands; Wheat Program

Sec. 3.64 To a House passed bill amending the Commodity Exchange Act to 
    authorize appropriations and to make technical improvements 
    therein, a Senate amendment authorizing the transfer of certain 
    national forest lands is not germane, nor is a Senate amendment 
    amending another law changing the wheat program.

    The proceedings of Oct. 15, 1986, relating to H.R. 4613, the 
Futures Trading Act of 1986, are discussed in Sec. 26.31, infra.

Bill Concerning Application of Freight Rates--Amendment Relating to 
    Notice Required Prior to Rate Increase

Sec.  3.65 Where a bill prescribed conditions relative to the 
    application to common carriers of certain provisions of law

[[Page 7547]]

    governing freight rates, an amendment which concerned the posting 
    of notices in connection with the establishment of rates was held 
    to be germane.

    In the 75th Congress, a bill (19) was under 
consideration which stated in part: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 1668 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
20. See 81 Cong. Rec. 3480, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 14, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That paragraph (1) of section 4 of the 
    Interstate Commerce Act, as amended February 28, 1920 (U.S.C., 
    title 49, sec. 4), be and it is hereby, amended to read as follows:
        (1) That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to 
    the provisions of this act to charge or receive any greater 
    compensation as a through rate than the aggregate of the 
    intermediate rates subject to the provisions of this act: Provided, 
    That the Commission may from time to time prescribe the extent to 
    which common carriers may be relieved from the operation of this 
    section: And provided further, That rates . . . existing at the 
    time of the passage of this amendatory act by virtue of orders of 
    the Commission . . . shall not be required to be changed by reason 
    of the provisions of this section until the further order of . . . 
    the Commission. . . .

    To this bill an amendment was offered, as follows: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 3484.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Schuyler O.] Bland [of Virginia]: 
    Page 2, line 17, insert a new paragraph, as follows:
        No application for any increase in rates . . . or charges shall 
    be . . . considered by the Interstate Commerce Commission unless 
    and until the applicant . . . shall show to the Commission that at 
    least 30 days prior to making said application the applicant has 
    filed with the Governor of each State in which said increase will 
    apply a copy of the tariff schedule showing all increases sought . 
    . . with a memorandum . . . explaining each . . . increase 
    requested. . . .

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

        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment that it is not germane to the 
    paragraph under consideration. This amendment applies to all fares 
    and rates. The bill relates only to the long-and-short-haul clause.

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

        Mr. Bland: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is in accord with the 
    Interstate Commerce Act and with the particular section under 
    consideration. The amendment relates to any rates, fares, or 
    charges that may involve a greater or shorter distance. It is not 
    limited to any particular point. It is rates, fares, and charges 
    generally, and the amendment deals with the procedure for the 
    protection of the public, so that they shall know that increases 
    are sought.

    The Chairman,(2) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. James M. Wilcox (Fla.).

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

[[Page 7548]]

        The bill now before the Committee, in line 10, page 1, provides 
    that the Commission may from time to time prescribe the extent to 
    which common carriers may be relieved from the operation of this 
    section; that is, relative to compensation, freight rates, or 
    freight charges.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia deals with 
    the establishment of rates and the posting of notice in connection 
    therewith, and, in the opinion of the Chair, is germane. The point 
    of order is therefore overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Bland explained the ``long-and-short 
haul'' provision and the effect of the bill as follows:

        The long-and-short haul provision is the simple, equitable 
    provision that you shall not charge less for the haul from terminus 
    to terminus than the aggregate of the charges for the intermediate 
    hauls. This bill would do away with this provision.

Bill Amending Act Relating to Apportionment--Amendment Changing Total 
    Number of Representatives

Sec. 3.66 To a bill proposing to amend an act in several particulars, 
    an amendment proposing to modify the act in a respect not related 
    to the terms of the bill is not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (3) was under consideration 
relating to the time for transmission of a census report to Congress 
under an act providing for apportionment of 
Representatives.(4) An amendment was offered by Mr. James W. 
Mott, of Oregon, for purposes of reducing the total number of 
Representatives. A point of order was raised against the amendment, as 
follows: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. S. 2505 (Committee on the Census).
 4. See 86 Cong. Rec. 4382, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Apr. 11, 1940.
 5. Id. at p. 4383.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Lindsay C.] Warren [of North Carolina]: . . . [S]ection 1 
    merely provides for the time that the President shall report to 
    Congress. The act of 1929, which this bill today seeks to amend, 
    provides for an apportionment based on a House membership of 435. 
    The amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Mott], of 
    course, would change the entire procedure of the act of 1929, and 
    it is certainly not germane to this bill. . . .

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

        Mr. Mott: . . . The act of June 18, 1929, sets up the formula 
    and the machinery for apportionment. It provides in that connection 
    that the President within 1 week thereafter of the second regular 
    session, and so forth, shall file a statement showing the whole 
    number of persons in each State, as ascertained under the fifteenth 
    and each subsequent decennial census of the population, and the 
    number of Representatives to which each State would be entitled 
    under an apportionment of the then existing number of 
    Representatives.

[[Page 7549]]

        The act provides that the representation shall be apportioned 
    on a basis of the then existing number of 435 Members. This 
    amendment simply changes that basis from 435 to 300. This is 
    offered as an amendment to the act of 1929. The bill the committee 
    now has under consideration is also offered as an amendment to the 
    act of 1929. They are both amendments to the same act, and both 
    amendments relate to the same subject. I feel, therefore, that an 
    amendment along this line would be perfectly germane. . . .

    The Chairman, John M. Jones, of Texas, in ruling on the point of 
order, stated: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at pp. 4383, 4384.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The precedents . . . seem to be very definite on the 
    proposition that when a bill proposes to amend an act in several 
    particulars an amendment proposing to modify the act but not 
    related to the bill is not germane. . . .
        The pending section of the bill does not in any way affect the 
    total number of Members of the House but only proposes to change 
    the time when the statement of the President must be transmitted to 
    Congress. The Chair is of the opinion therefore that the amendment 
    is not germane and sustains the point of order.

Resolution to Reform Structure and Procedures of Committees--Amendment 
    Affecting Procedures in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 3.67 To a proposition reorganizing House committees and dealing 
    with the committee stage of the legislative process, amended to 
    delete reference to consideration of legislation in Committee of 
    the Whole, an amendment relating to voting procedures in the 
    Committee of the Whole was held to be not germane.

    On Oct. 8, 1974,(7) the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration House Resolution 988, to reform the structure, 
jurisdiction and procedures of House committees. Pending was an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute amending Rules X and XI and 
making conforming changes in other rules to reform the structure, 
jurisdiction and procedures of committees, and containing miscellaneous 
provisions reorganizing certain institutional facilities of the House. 
The amendment had been perfected by amendment to eliminate a revision 
of Rule XVI which had proposed changes in Committee of the Whole 
procedure. Pursuant to a point of order, the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute was held not to be sufficiently broad in scope to admit as 
germane an amendment to Rule VIII to permit

[[Page 7550]]

pairs on recorded votes in Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.  120 Cong. Rec. 34415, 34416, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jonathan B.] Bingham [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bingham to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Hansen of Washington: On 
        page 53, after line 2, insert the following:

                       ``pairs in committee of the whole

            ``Sec. 209. The first sentence of clause 2 of rule VIII of 
        the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by 
        inserting `by the House or Committee of the Whole' immediately 
        before the first comma.'' . . .

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the amendment for the reason that it is an amendment to 
    rule VIII, whereas the principal resolution under consideration 
    here, House Resolution 988, attempts to amend rules X and XI only. 
    Therefore, the amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Bingham: . . . This would amend title II of the resolution, 
    which is headed, ``Miscellaneous and Conforming Provisions.'' That 
    title of the resolution is not limited to changes in rules X and 
    XI. It affects other rules, section 207, for example, amendment to 
    rule XVI, and under the heading of ``Miscellaneous and Conforming 
    Provisions,'' it would seem to me that a simple amendment to rule 
    VIII would clearly be in order.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On hearing the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Smith) and the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Bingham), the Chair is of the opinion 
    that there is nothing in the Hansen amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, as perfected, relating to voting procedures in the 
    Committee of the Whole. The miscellaneous provisions in the Hansen 
    amendment, as perfected by the Waggonner amendment, do not broaden 
    the Hansen amendment to the extent suggested by the gentleman from 
    New York.
        Therefore, the point of order must be sustained, and the point 
    of order is sustained.

--Amendment Relating to Committee Reports on Appropriation Bills 
    Offered to Amendment in Nature of Substitute Addressing Content of 
    Committee Reports

Sec. 3.68 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute amending Rules 
    X and XI and making conforming and miscellaneous changes in other 
    rules to reorganize House committees, and including requirements as 
    to content and filing of committee reports, an amendment to Rule 
    XXI (which relates to appropriation bills and reports) to require 
    the committee report accompanying any bill containing an 
    appropriation to state the direct or indirect changes in

[[Page 7551]]

    law made by the bill and to prohibit such report from containing 
    any directive or limitation affecting the appropriation that was 
    not also contained in the bill was held germane, since the issue of 
    the content of committee reports was within the purview of the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.

    During consideration of House Resolution 988 (to reform the 
structure, jurisdiction and procedures of House committees) it was held 
that to a proposition amending two House rules relating to the 
interrelation of House committees and imposing requirements for filing 
and content of committee reports, an amendment to another House rule 
but dealing with the content of reports from the Committee on 
Appropriations and having as a fundamental purpose a separation of 
jurisdictional responsibility between that committee and legislative 
committees was germane. The proceedings of Oct. 8, 1974,(9) 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 120 Cong. Rec. 34416, 34417, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dingell to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Hansen of Washington: 
        Page 37, immediately following line 20, insert the following 
        new section and redesignate ensuing sections accordingly:

                             ``appropriations bills

            ``Sec. 201. Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
        Representatives is amended by inserting the following new 
        Clause, and renumbering ensuing Clauses accordingly:
            `` `3. A committee report accompanying any bill making an 
        appropriation for any purpose--
            `` `(a) shall not contain any directive or limitation with 
        respect to such appropriation unless such directive or 
        limitation is set forth in the accompanying bill, and
            `` `(b) shall contain a concise statement describing fully 
        the effect of any provision of the accompanying bill which 
        directly or indirectly changes the application of existing 
        law.' ''. . .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: . . . Mr. Chairman, 
    the resolution before us amends rules X and XI. I am told the 
    Hansen provision by a special rule was permitted to include a 
    provision that would affect rule XVI. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) goes, according to its 
    wording, to rule XXI and I respectfully submit that it is not 
    germane to the matter before us. There are many, many reasons why 
    this should be, Mr. Chairman, because a reading of the gentleman's 
    amendment would mean that no longer would there be any reports 
    submitted by any committee in connection with any bill because of 
    having to be included in the bill there would be no need for the 
    report.
        For example, in the case of the Subcommittee on Defense 
    Appropriations I

[[Page 7552]]

    suspect the bill would be about as thick as three Sears Roebuck 
    catalogs, and that of the public works would be probably as big a 
    one.
        The fact is that the matter before us which limits it to rules 
    X and XI, with the special exception of rule XVI, which was 
    stricken, but which was included by reason of a special rule, so 
    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Dingell) directed as the gentleman would in that amendment to rule 
    No. XXI, is nongermane to the matter before us, the subject matter, 
    and therefore should be ruled out of order. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: . . . Mr. Chairman, I have before me House 
    Resolution 988, and House Resolution 1248. The question before the 
    body is whether or not the amendment would be germane either to 
    House Resolution 1248 or House Resolution 988. The question which 
    must be considered in establishing the germaneness of the amendment 
    is . . . whether [the] amendment [is] germane either to the 
    amendment, or to the resolution?
        The question of germaneness is not related simply to the 
    particular rules to which either House Resolution 988 would address 
    itself, or House Resolution 1248 would address itself, but rather 
    to whether on a fair reading of the entirety of the two proposals 
    that the proposal would be germane to the amendment to House 
    Resolution 988 and House Resolution 1248, which is at this moment 
    before the House. . . .
        If the Chair will look at the language of the amendment it 
    first of all deals with appropriation bills, the work product of 
    the Committee on Appropriations, and the powers and prerogatives of 
    the Committee on Appropriations under the rules. If the Chair will 
    consult both House Resolution 988 and House Resolution 1248 the 
    Chair will find that there is a miscellaneous section there too. 
    This amendment is directed at the miscellaneous section. I would 
    inform the Chair that word ``miscellaneous'' means broad, diverse, 
    and manyfold.
        I would point out that not only do the provisions of both the 
    miscellaneous section and the rest of the bill deal not only 
    specifically with rules X and XI, and with other portions of the 
    rule not enumerated or named, but treated in a general fashion, but 
    that the miscellaneous section deals with a large number of items 
    within the rules of the House.
        More specifically, both of the resolutions deal with the powers 
    and prerogatives of the Committee on Appropriations as well as the 
    duties and the responsibilities. And so a section to be added 
    relating to the powers and the prerogatives of the Committee on 
    Appropriations would at least in my view, therefore, be fully 
    appropriate and germane, because the function of the amendment as 
    offered is to deal with the powers and prerogatives of the 
    Committee on Appropriations and, Mr. Chairman, in contrast to what 
    my good friend, the gentleman from Mississippi said, not just the 
    powers of all the committees, but only the powers of the Committee 
    on Appropriations since the amendment relates to the question of 
    how appropriation bills shall be reported to the House, and the 
    main rule is the one relating to the powers of the Committee on 
    Appropriations in legislating.
        So I think it ought to be clearly ascertained that we put, 
    through the

[[Page 7553]]

    proposed amendment--or the proposed amendment would put--further 
    restrictions on the powers of the Committee on Appropriations to 
    legislate. I would address myself to that in the appropriate 
    fashion when the Chair has disposed of the point of order. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: . . . Rule XXI is a rule which 
    prevents the circumventing of jurisdiction of all the committees. 
    Rule XXI cannot be divorced from the general question of assignment 
    of jurisdictional responsibility to the major committees of this 
    House. If it were not for rule XXI, the Committee on Appropriations 
    would be in a position, because it deals with so many bills from so 
    many committees, to insert new material at the appropriations 
    level. All of the bills before us deal with the Committee on 
    Appropriations, but, more importantly, all of the bills before us 
    deal with the question of protecting and establishing jurisdiction 
    of the major committees of the House. In addition to that, all of 
    the bills before us deal with the assignment of jurisdictional 
    authority by the Speaker and in the case of the Bolling bill, by 
    the Committee on Rules--and ultimately by the House--of bills to 
    committees.
        It is utterly impossible to separate this web of provisions, 
    including the rules covered by these three bills and rule XXI.
        Therefore, it would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that the 
    amendment is germane. Most of the arguments made against it seem to 
    me to be arguments on the merits. . . .
        Mr. [David T.] Martin of Nebraska: . . . I should like to point 
    out that in the original resolution, House Resolution 132, which 
    was adopted by the House on January 31, 1973, the second paragraph 
    stated as follows:

            The Select Committee is authorized and directed to conduct 
        a thorough and complete study with respect to the operation and 
        implementation of Rules X and XI of the Rules of the House.

        This amendment is directed to rule XXI. The select committee 
    was not instructed to make any changes in rule XXI. Therefore, I 
    raise a point of order also in regard to the gentleman's amendment.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Dingell) is drafted to the miscellaneous portion of the amendment 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Hansen). That 
    portion of the amendment refers to several rules of the House, even 
    though the Waggonner amendment deleted all reference to rule XVI. 
    The amendment as offered, relates to the content of reports filed 
    by the standing Committee on Appropriations, a matter within the 
    scope of the Hansen amendment in the nature of a substitute. The 
    Chair has carefully considered the point of order and the arguments 
    of those who have spoken on the point of order, and it is the 
    opinion of the Chair that the point of order must be overruled, and 
    that the amendment is in order to the Hansen amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.

[[Page 7554]]

--Proposal to Study Needs for Facilities for Congress; Amendment 
    Directing Speaker To Set Aside Office Space in New Library Building

Sec. 3.69 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute proposing 
    changes in the structure, jurisdiction and procedures of House 
    committees, and containing miscellaneous provisions to improve the 
    institutional operations of the House, including a Commission to 
    study facility and space requirements of Members and committees, an 
    amendment directing the Speaker to ensure that a portion of a newly 
    constructed Library of Congress building would be utilized for 
    House office space until other additional space could be provided 
    was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of House Resolution 988 in the Committee of 
the Whole, it was held that to a proposition establishing a commission 
to study a matter, an amendment directing an official to undertake and 
accomplish that matter is not germane. The proceedings of Oct. 8, 
1974,(11) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 11. 120 Cong. Rec. 34458, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gibbons to the amendment offered 
        as a substitute by Mr. Martin of Nebraska: On page 92 after 
        line 5, insert the following:
            Sec. --. The Speaker of the House of Representatives is 
        authorized and directed to take whatever steps necessary to 
        insure that a portion of the James Madison Memorial Library 
        Building that is now under construction be utilized by the 
        House of Representatives for additional office space until the 
        House can acquire sufficient additional space for its orderly 
        function.

        Mr. [Lloyd] Meeds [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        The point of order is based on the fact that none of the 
    resolutions deal with the acquisition of space in any buildings but 
    only the study of the needs of the House of Representatives for 
    space. Therefore, it is not germane. . . .
        Mr. [Sam M.] Gibbons [of Florida]: . . . Mr. Chairman, we are 
    amending the rules of the House to provide for the procedures of 
    the House and for the operation of the House. All three of the 
    amendments that have been offered are proposals, of course, that 
    are very broad. They go to staffing and to allowances and to 
    travel, and they go to the entire operation of the House. This 
    amendment is just directed toward that purpose. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
    Gibbons) directs the Speaker to take action toward

[[Page 7555]]

    the acquisition of committee and office space. The substitute 
    before this Committee at this time does not contain any provision 
    allocating office space although it establishes a commission to 
    study the problem. There is no provision in any of the amendments 
    directing the allocation of space for committees or space for 
    offices. Therefore, the amendment is not germane, and the Chair 
    will have to sustain the point of order.
        The point of order is sustained.

--Provision To Restrict Use of Funds for Committee Expenses Outside 
    U.S.; Amendment To Restrict Use of Funds for Travel Expenses of 
    Retiring Members

Sec. 3.70 To a portion of an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    providing that use of the contingent fund for committee 
    investigations be confined to travel in the United States and that 
    no appropriated funds be expended for committee expenses outside 
    the United States where local currencies are available, an 
    amendment providing that ``notwithstanding any other provision of 
    law, no part of any appropriation and no local currency . . .'' 
    shall be available to pay any expenses in connection with travel 
    outside the United States of retiring Members was held to be not 
    germane, since it waived provisions of law not necessarily related 
    to House committee travel.

    On Oct. 8, 1974,(13) during consideration of House 
Resolution 988 (to reform the structure, jurisdiction and procedures of 
House committees) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a 
point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 120 Cong. Rec. 34463, 34464, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Duncan to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Hansen of Washington:
            Page 28, line 20, strike out ``committee''.
            Page 28, line 21, insert ``(1)'' after ``(n)''.
            Page 29, line 7, strike out ``(1)'' and insert ``(A)''.
            Page 29, line 11, strike out ``(2)'' and insert ``(B)''.
            Page 29, after line 21, insert the following new 
        subparagraph:
            ``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no part 
        of any appropriation and no local currency owned by the United 
        States shall be available for payment of any expenses, nor 
        shall transportation be provided by the United States, in 
        connection with travel outside the fifty States (including the 
        District of Columbia) of the United States of--

            ``(A) any Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Member of the 
        House after he has been defeated as a candidate for nomination, 
        or election, to a seat in the House in any primary

[[Page 7556]]

        or regular election until such time as he shall thereafter 
        again become a Member; or
            ``(B) any Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Member of the 
        House after the adjournment sine die of the last session of a 
        Congress if he is not a candidate for reelection in the next 
        Congress. . . .

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the amendment. . . .
        As I heard the amendment, I believe it is directed at some 
    general laws of the United States, not just at the Rules of the 
    House of Representatives. . . .
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I think the 
    point of order should be sustained, because it goes far beyond the 
    Rules of the House and it deals with appropriations. It puts 
    jurisdictions on agencies. It puts additional duties on the 
    Department of State. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has carefully examined the second amendment read by 
    the Clerk. At the bottom of the page the paragraph starts out:

            Notwithstanding any other provision of law . . . no part of 
        any appropriation shall be available--
    and so forth.

        This prefatory provision itself makes the amendment subject to 
    a point of order. Therefore, the point of order is sustained, and 
    the amendment is not in order.

Sec. 3.71 To a provision in an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    restricting the use of the House contingent fund for committee 
    expenses to travel in the United States and providing that no 
    appropriated funds be used for committee expenses outside the 
    country, where local currencies are available, an amendment 
    prohibiting the use of funds ``authorized for a committee'' for 
    expenses of retiring Members was held germane as a further 
    restriction on the availability of committee funds.

    During consideration of House Resolution 988 (to reform the 
structure, jurisdiction and procedures of House committees) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order in the 
circumstances described above. The proceedings of Oct. 8, 
1974,(15) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 120 Cong. Rec. 34465, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Duncan [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Duncan to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Hansen of Washington: 
        Page 28, line 20, strike out ``committee''. . . .
            Page 29, after line 21, insert the following new 
        subparagraph:

[[Page 7557]]

            ``(2) No funds authorized for a committee shall be 
        available for payment of any expenses, nor shall transportation 
        be provided by the United States, in connection with travel 
        outside the fifty States (including the District of Columbia) 
        of the United States of--
            ``(A) any Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Member of the 
        House after he has been defeated as a candidate for nomination, 
        or election, to a seat in the House in any primary or regular 
        election until such time as he shall thereafter again become a 
        Member; or
            ``(B) any Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Member of the 
        House after the adjournment sine die of the last session of a 
        Congress if he is not a candidate for reelection in the next 
        Congress. . . .

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment. It changes the Constitution of the 
    United States wherein it reduces the term of office of a Member and 
    takes away some of his prerogatives and privileges that he has for 
    a 2-year term equal to other Members, and it in effect makes a 
    second-class citizen of a Member who may decide to retire. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair cannot pass upon constitutional questions. The Chair 
    can only pass upon the germaneness of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Tennessee.
        The Chair notes that the amendment is directed to the portion 
    of the Hansen amendment relating to funds for committee travel and 
    unlike the language in the prior amendment against which the point 
    of order was sustained, does not appear to be broader in effect 
    than the language in the Hansen amendment. The Chair holds the 
    amendment germane and overrules the point of order.

General Rule as to Germaneness of Amendment Expressing Sense of 
    Congress

Sec. 3.72 An amendment expressing the sense of Congress on a subject 
    must relate to the subject matter of the bill under consideration 
    to the same extent as a substantive amendment on that subject.

    The proceedings of Aug. 1, 1990, relating to H.R. 1180, the Housing 
and Community Development Act, are discussed in Sec. 4.59, infra.

Bill Addressing Intelligence Activities--Amendment Addressing 
    Relationship Between Executive and Congress With Respect to Such 
    Activities

Sec. 3.73 To a bill addressing diverse subjects relating to 
    intelligence activities of the government (including congressional 
    oversight of certain intelligence activities), an amendment 
    addressing the relationship between the Executive branch and the 
    Congress with respect to in

[[Page 7558]]

    telligence activities is germane.

    The proceedings of Oct. 17, 1990, relating to H.R. 5422, the 
Intelligence Authorization Act of 1991, are discussed in Sec. 35.102, 
infra.

Proposition To Require Disclosure by Lobbyists--Amendment To Require 
    Reference to Committee of Information on Contributions

Sec. 3.74 To a proposition having as its fundamental purpose 
    registration and public disclosure by lobbyists of their activities 
    and affiliations, but not the regulation or prohibition of those 
    activities, an amendment requiring the Comptroller General to refer 
    to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct information on 
    contributions by lobbyists to House Members and employees for 
    possible investigation by that committee, but not requiring an 
    investigation and not regulating such contributions, was held 
    germane as a further disclosure requirement.

    During consideration of the Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 
1976 (17) in the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 28, 
1976,(18) Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, overruled a 
point of order against an amendment to the pending amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 15.
18. 122 Cong. Rec. 33085, 33086, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Abner J.] Mikva [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mikva to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Bennett: On page 10, 
        lines 8 and 9, strike out ``, but not including' and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following: '': Provided, That the Comptroller 
        General shall refer to the Committee on Standards of Official 
        Conduct for investigation of any expenditures by an 
        organization reportable under this subsection to or for the 
        benefit of any federal officer or employee (under the 
        jurisdiction of said Committee) that exceed $100 in value in 
        the aggregate in any calendar year to determine if the receipt 
        of such expenditure is acceptance of a gift of substantial 
        value, directly or indirectly, from an organization having a 
        direct interest in legislation before the Congress as 
        prohibited under the Rules of the House of Representatives; but 
        such expenditures shall not include'''. . . .

        Mr. [Walter] Flowers [of Alabama]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I should 
    like to interpose a point of order on this amendment . . . . I 
    think that the point of order would lie, Mr. Chairman, in that 
    there are duties here that are

[[Page 7559]]

    not contemplated in the purposes of the legislation, in that the 
    gentleman from Illinois would require additional duties of the 
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, to which there are none 
    within the purview of the legislation of either the Committee on 
    the Judiciary or the Standards Committee. . . .
        Mr. Mikva: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that this 
    amendment that I have just offered imposes no prohibitions or 
    anything else. The statute has been referred to over and over again 
    by the distinguished gentleman from Alabama as a disclosure 
    statute. It seems to me that the people are entitled to know why we 
    are disclosing these things. We have rules in the House. One of the 
    rules of the House says that no Member or other employee shall 
    receive a gift of substantial value.
        All this amendment suggests is that where gifts of substantial 
    value are given, they ought to be referred to the appropriate 
    committee for investigation. If we are not doing that, I think the 
    people are entitled to inquire just what it is we propose to do 
    with all of this information.
        This does not impose any prohibitions or any criminal sanctions 
    on anybody. It does not add to the breadth of the bill in any 
    manner, shape, or form. It merely says any gifts over a certain 
    amount which are required to be reported under the bill should be 
    referred to the committee to see whether they violate the rule. If 
    they do not, there is no requirement that they do anything except 
    to look to see if the rules of the House of Representatives are 
    being enforced.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        For the reasons stated by the gentleman from Illinois, the 
    Chair believes that the point of order is not good and therefore 
    overrules the point of order.

--Amendment To Require Wearing of Name Tags

Sec. 3.75 To a proposition having as its fundamental purpose 
    registration and public disclosure by lobbyists but not the 
    regulation of their activities, an amendment requiring lobbyists 
    within a certain distance of the House and Senate Chambers to wear 
    tags displaying their names and affiliations was construed as a 
    further information disclosure requirement and was held germane.

    On Sept. 28, 1976,(19) during consideration of the 
Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1976 (H.R. 15) in the Committee of 
the Whole, the following amendment to the pending amendment in the 
nature of a substitute was held germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 122 Cong. Rec. 33082, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Garry] Brown of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Michigan to the amendment 
        in the

[[Page 7560]]

        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Bennett: On page 5 line 
        20 strike the period and insert a colon. On page 5 following 
        line 20, insert the following: Provided however, That any 
        officer, agent or employee of an organization regulated as a 
        lobbyist by this Act who influences, or attempts to influence, 
        any Member of Congress with respect to any legislative matter, 
        shall prominently display on his or her person an 
        identification name tag, stating in clearly discernible print, 
        his or her full name and the organization he or she represents; 
        said name tag shall be printed in not less than 24 point type; 
        Provided further however, This requirement shall only be 
        applicable to those persons who influence, or attempt to 
        influence, Members within 50 feet of any entrance to either 
        Chamber of the Congress while such is in session. . . .

        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment because I do not think it has 
    any relevancy to the bill.
        The distance of how far away one is or whether he or she is 
    wearing a badge of 24-point type has nothing to do with the bill. 
    There are a lot of things it is pertinent to, but not that. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Michigan: . . . I respectfully disagree with the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett).
        This is a disclosure bill. We require people to register and to 
    identify themselves. It seems to me that if we are going to have a 
    piece of disclosure legislation that is effective, we ought to be 
    able to associate names and faces; and that is all that this 
    amendment does. It just implements the disclosure requirements of 
    this legislation. . . .
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined this amendment, and it is not the same 
    as the one on which the Chair ruled before.
        The Chair would have to say that this amendment would seem to 
    have as its purpose the disclosure of information by lobbyists and 
    to come within the fundamental purposes of the amendment to which 
    it has been offered.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

--Amendment Placing Ceiling on Contributions

Sec. 3.76 To an amendment requiring registration and public disclosure 
    by lobbyists but not regulating or prohibiting their activities, an 
    amendment placing a ceiling on their monetary contributions to 
    federal officials is not germane.

    On Sept. 28, 1976,(1) during consideration of the Public 
Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1976 (2) in the Committee of 
the Whole, it was demonstrated that the fundamental purpose of an 
amendment must relate to the fundamental purpose of the proposition to 
which it is offered when a point of order against the following 
amendment was sustained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 122 Cong. Rec. 33085, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. H.R. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Abner J.] Mikva [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 7561]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mikva to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Bennett: On page 20, 
        immediately after line 13, insert the following new subsection:
            ``(e)(1) No organization shall make expenditures reportable 
        under section 6 to or for the benefit of any Federal officer or 
        employee that exceed $100 in value in the aggregate in any 
        calendar year: Provided That, for the purposes of this 
        limitation all reimbursed expenditures made by persons employed 
        or retained by the organization shall be considered to have 
        been made by the organization: Provided further, That this 
        limitation shall not apply to any loan of money in the ordinary 
        course of business on terms and conditions that are no more 
        favorable than are generally available or to any honorarium 
        within the meaning of section 328 of the Federal Election 
        Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441(i)).
            ``(2) Any organization which knowingly and willfully 
        violates this subsection shall be fined not more than $10,000 
        for each such violation.''. . .

        Mr. [Walter] Flowers [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, my point of 
    order against the amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman 
    from Illinois (Mr. Mikva), lies, I think, because the gentleman's 
    amendment violates the central purpose of the proposed legislation 
    and that is to provide a method of lobbying disclosure and not in 
    any wise, Mr. Chairman, regulating amounts or providing any ceiling 
    or floor or anything else but disclosure.
        The amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Mikva), clearly violates the intent of the statute in that it 
    imposes duties upon the Comptroller General that would not 
    otherwise be imposed by this statute, or duties of a different 
    kind.
        It imposes a different penalty that would be imposed than 
    otherwise in this statute. It is not clear whether it is a civil or 
    a criminal penalty.
        For all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Mikva: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure what my distinguished 
    colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary is referring to, but 
    there is nothing in this amendment that talks about the Comptroller 
    General. He may be a little precipitous about something else. What 
    this says, very simply, is that there ought to be a $100 limitation 
    on the amount lobbyists can give as gifts. It excludes honoraria; 
    it excludes political contributions; it excludes all of the 
    nonreportable items. The rules now existing in this House of 
    Representatives--already the Rules of this House--make it clear 
    that no gifts of any substantial value shall be given by a lobbyist 
    to a Member. What this does is define that substantial interest in 
    terms of $100. It is put in the sanctions section, and it deals 
    with the other sanctions that are already in the bill. . . .
        Mr. Flowers: Mr. Chairman, might I be heard one moment further 
    here on the point of order?
        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman extends the bill much further than 
    it is already intended, in that he says:

            That, for the purposes of this limitation--
            And again a limitation which is not a part of the purpose 
        of the bill--
            --all reimbursed expenditures made by persons employed or 
        retained by the organization shall be considered to have been 
        made by the organization.

[[Page 7562]]

        This is a concept not within the proposed legislation, and we 
    think, Mr. Chairman, clearly that this does extend the purpose of 
    the legislation far beyond that of the substitute or H.R. 15, as 
    amended. We feel that the point of order ought to be sustained.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the reason first stated by the gentleman from Alabama and 
    by the Chair in an earlier ruling on the Ashbrook amendment, the 
    point of order is sustained.

Bill Authorizing President to Allocate Funds Among Agencies--Amendment 
    Allocating Funds to Specific Agency

Sec. 3.77 To a bill appropriating a sum of money and authorizing the 
    President to make allocations therefrom among certain agencies of 
    the government, an amendment proposing that a certain part of such 
    sum be allocated to another agency of the government was held to be 
    germane.

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of a relief 
appropriations bill (4) as described above, the following 
amendment was offered: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.J. Res. 361 (Committee on Appropriations).
 5. 81 Cong. Rec. 5012, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., May 25, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Millard F.] Caldwell [of Florida]: On 
    page 2, line 20, after the semicolon, add: ``Provided, That from 
    the amount specified for the foregoing classes $300,000,000 shall 
    be allocated to the Federal Emergency Administration of Public 
    Works.''

    Mr. John Taber, of New York, having raised a point of order against 
the amendment, the Chairman (6) ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In this bill it is provided that the President may make 
    allocations to certain agencies of the Government.
        The amendment . . . 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.

Grants for Purchase of Photographic and Fingerprint Equipment--
    Amendment Adding Funds To Purchase Bulletproof Vests

Sec. 3.78 To an amendment authorizing law enforcement administration 
    grants to states and localities for the purchase of photographic 
    and fingerprint equipment for law enforcement purposes, an 
    amendment including assistance for the purchase of bulletproof 
    vests

[[Page 7563]]

    was held to be directed toward a different category of law 
    enforcement equipment concerned with physical protection rather 
    than information-gathering and was therefore beyond the scope of 
    the amendment and not germane; the decision of the Chairman on the 
    germaneness of the amendment was upheld on appeal by a voice vote.

    On Oct. 12, 1979,(7) during consideration of the Justice 
System Improvement Act of 1979 (8) in the Committee of the 
Whole, Chairman Mike McCormack, of Washington, held that to an 
amendment providing financial assistance for a certain class of law 
enforcement equipment (for informational purposes), the following 
amendment adding financial assistance for another class (for protection 
of law enforcement officers) was not germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 125 Cong. Rec. 28123, 28124, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. H.R. 2061.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Volkmer: Page 164, lines 24 and 
        25, amend the bill by adding the following after the word 
        ``project,'' ``including photographic equipment, and 
        fingerprint equipment, for law enforcement purposes.''.

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Volkmer: Insert after the word ``including'' ``bullet-
        proof vests,''. . .

        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: . . . When we previously 
    discussed this with the Parliamentarian the point was made that it 
    could not be amended on the other side by having the bulletproof 
    vest amendment amended by adding cameras and other equipment. It is 
    not a germane fact to this issue and the type of equipment we are 
    dealing with and discussing, and for that reason it should be ruled 
    out of order. . . .
        Mr. Volkmer: . . . I would like to speak on the point of order. 
    As to the question of germaneness, as I understand it my amendment 
    says, ``including photographic equipment, fingerprint equipment,'' 
    and then the words ``for law enforcement purposes.''
        Therefore, in my opinion anything that would be in there for 
    law enforcement purposes would be germane. In other words, if 
    somebody would offer an amendment for pistols, or offer an 
    amendment for bullets, or offer an amendment for police caps or 
    cars or anything else for law enforcement purposes, it is germane. 
    This is not restricted just to a certain type of equipment. We have 
    photographic equipment and fingerprint equipment. They are not 
    related at all. Bulletproof vests are for law enforcement purposes.

[[Page 7564]]

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The question really comes down to how to define and segregate 
    categories of law enforcement equipment. The Chair is persuaded 
    that the term, ``photographic equipment and fingerprint equipment'' 
    is a generic category that deals with information rather than 
    protection of law enforcement officers.
        Bulletproof vests are within the different category of 
    equipment for the protection of law enforcement officers. The Chair 
    recognizes that this is a fine line, but rules that under the 
    precedents the amendment is not germane to the pending amendment 
    and the point of order is sustained. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
        The Chairman: The question is, Shall the Chair's ruling stand 
    as the judgment of the Committee?
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
    pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not 
    present.
        The Chairman: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXIII, the Chair 
    announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period 
    of time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will 
    be taken on the pending question following the quorum call. Members 
    will record their presence by electronic device.

        The call was taken by electronic device. . . .
        The Chairman: Three hundred and twelve Members have answered to 
    their names, a quorum is present, and the Committee will resume its 
    business.
        The pending business is the demand of the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Ashbrook) for a recorded vote appealing the decision of the 
    Chair.
        Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) insist upon his 
    demand for a recorded vote?
        Mr. Ashbrook: I do not, Mr. Chairman.

Bill Restricting Antitrust Remedies Against Local Governments--Senate 
    Amendment Relating to Funds for Antitrust Activities of Federal 
    Agency

Sec. 3.79 To a House bill restricting remedies under existing antitrust 
    law against local governments, but not addressing authority of a 
    federal agency to prosecute antitrust actions or the availability 
    of appropriated funds to that agency for that purpose, a Senate 
    amendment included in a conference report repealing a limitation in 
    an appropriation law for that year on the use of funds by that 
    agency to conduct antitrust actions against local governments was 
    held not germane, since the amendment related to agency ac

[[Page 7565]]

    tivities and funds not addressed in the House bill.

    The proceedings of Oct. 11, 1984, relating to the conference report 
on H.R. 6027, to clarify the application of the federal antitrust laws 
to the official conduct of local governments, are discussed in 
Sec. 26.25, infra.

Imposition of Different Classes of Penalties

Sec. 3.80 To a bill relating to the imposition of penalties of a 
    certain class, all falling within the jurisdiction of one 
    committee, an amendment relating to another class of penalties 
    falling within the jurisdiction of another committee is not 
    germane.

    The proceedings of Sept. 29, 1983, relating to H.R. 3231, the 
Export Administration Amendments Act of 1983, are discussed in 
Sec. 4.55, infra.

Bill Relating to Acquisition of Buildings by Federal Government--
    Amendment To Provide Grants to Public and Private Agencies for 
    Hospital Facilities

Sec. 3.81 To a bill relating to acquisition of buildings for use by the 
    federal government, an amendment relating to grants to public and 
    private agencies for hospital facilities was held not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (9) was under consideration 
granting certain powers to the Federal Works Administration. The 
following amendment was offered: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 5407 (Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds).
10. 92 Cong. Rec. 2373, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 18, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Committee amendment offered by Mr. [Fritz G.] Lanham [of 
    Texas]: At the end of the bill add the following new section:
        Sec. 13. In order to alleviate the acute shortage of hospital 
    facilities outside the District of Columbia, the Federal Works 
    Administrator is hereby authorized to make grants to public and 
    private agencies for hospital facilities. . . .

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

        Mr. [James W.] Wadsworth [Jr., of New York]: . . . It is 
    apparent that this bill as reported by the Committee on Public 
    Buildings and Grounds relates solely to the acquisition of 
    buildings or facilities needed by the Federal Government, and for 
    the use of the Federal Government alone. . . . This amendment, 
    however, goes far beyond the field occupied by the bill and 
    proposes that the Federal Government embark upon the building of 
    hospitals by grants to the States . . . .

[[Page 7566]]

        The Chairman, William F. Cravens, of Arkansas, in ruling on the 
    point of order, stated: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 2374.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The original bill deals solely with Federal Government 
    construction for exclusive Government uses. The amendment is a 
    departure and would bring in new matter not covered by the original 
    bill.
        Therefore, in the opinion of the Chair, it is not germane. The 
    point of order is sustained.

Bill Authorizing Military Assistance for Israel and Funds for UN 
    Forces--Amendment Expressing Sense of Congress With Respect to 
    Peace Negotiations in Middle East

Sec. 3.82 To a bill authorizing military assistance for Israel and 
    funds for the United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East, an 
    amendment was held to be not germane which sought to express the 
    sense of Congress that the President should make every effort to 
    bring about negotiations leading to a treaty of peace in the Middle 
    East and to a resumption of diplomatic and trade relations between 
    Israel and the Arab countries, and between the United States and 
    the Arab countries.

    During consideration of H.R. 11088 (12) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Dec. 11, 1973,(13) a point of order was 
sustained against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. A bill providing for emergency military assistance to Israel and 
        Cambodia.
13. 119 Cong. Rec. 40842, 40843, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert L. F.] Sikes [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Sikes: On page 4, after line 10, 
        add a new Section 7:
            It is the sense of Congress that every reasonable effort be 
        made by the President to bring about meaningful negotiations 
        between Israel and the Arab states directly concerned leading 
        to a treaty of peace in the Middle East and to a resumption of 
        diplomatic and trade relations between the United States and 
        the Arab countries, and between Israel and the Arab 
        countries.''

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of 
    order on the amendment.
        The Chairman: (14) Does the gentleman from Iowa 
    insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: I do, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is window 
    dressing. It calls upon the President to resume diplomatic and 
    trade relations between certain nations and clearly goes beyond the 
    scope of this bill.
        Mr. Sikes: Mr. Chairman, this amendment expresses the hope and

[[Page 7567]]

    asks the President to move to bring to the Middle East. It 
    expresses the hope that we will be able to resume normal trade 
    relations with all nations, and that other nations, the Arabs and 
    the Israelis, will be able to resume diplomatic and normal trade 
    relations. I feel that it does not impose additional requirements. 
    I feel that it adds to and supplements the language of the bill, 
    and that the point of order should not be sustained.
        The Chairman: The Chair has studied the amendment and will 
    state that the amendment goes to the question of negotiations 
    involving Arab and United States trade and diplomatic relations and 
    is not within the purview of this legislation. The Chair sustains 
    the point of order of the gentleman from Iowa. Are there further 
    amendments? If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.

Bill Establishing Price Supports for Agricultural Commodities--
    Amendment Relating to Acreage Allotments and Marketing Quotas

Sec. 3.83 To a bill establishing one year price support levels for 
    several agricultural commodities, an amendment relating to acreage 
    allotments and marketing quotas, as well as price supports, of 
    another commodity for that year was held to go beyond the scope of 
    the bill and was held to be not germane.

    On Mar. 20, 1975,(15) during consideration of a bill 
concerning emergency price supports for 1975 crops,(16) a 
point of order was sustained against the following amendment offered in 
the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 7666, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. H.R. 4296.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Peyser: Page 3, immediately after 
        line 16, insert the following new section:
            ``Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, there 
        shall be no acreage allotment, marketing quota or price support 
        for rice effective with the 1975 crop of such commodity.'' . . 
        .

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: . . . The amendment is 
    not germane to the bill, and violates rule XVI, clause 7.
        H.R. 4296 deals with price supports, established prices, and 
    loan rates for wheat, feed grains, cotton, and milk under sections 
    103, 105, 107, and 201 of the Agricultural Act of 1949.
        The bill does not relate to acreage allotments, or marketing 
    quotas on any commodity. The amendment offered would affect the 
    provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.
        Accordingly, the amendment is not germane to the bill, and I 
    therefore press my point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Peyser: . . . The reason I offered the amendment was 
    because of

[[Page 7568]]

    the ruling of the Chair dealing with the Conte amendment some hour 
    or so ago, where we were discussing it, and the Chair ruled in 
    favor of nuts and fruits, and some other items, and I therefore 
    felt that introducing the question of rice would be substantially 
    within the germaneness of this bill as the other items that have 
    been offered, and that the Chair had ruled in favor of.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has heard the point of order made by the gentleman 
    from Washington (Mr. Foley), and has listened to the response made 
    by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Peyser).
        The Chair would observe in respect of its earlier ruling on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts that the 
    earlier amendment was a price support amendment. The purpose of the 
    bill under consideration, as the gentleman from Washington has 
    already pointed out, runs to price supports. Acreage and allotments 
    and marketing quotas are not within the scope of the bill, and the 
    Chair rules, therefore, that the amendment is not germane, and 
    sustains the point of order.

Bill Prohibiting Certain Kinds of Interference With Elections--
    Amendment To Prohibit Poll Taxes

Sec. 3.84 To a bill seeking to prevent pernicious political activities 
    by making it unlawful for certain individuals to use their 
    authority for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the 
    election or nomination of any candidate for certain public offices, 
    an amendment making it unlawful to require the payment of state 
    poll taxes as a prerequisite for voting was held not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (18) was under 
consideration which sought to prevent ``pernicious political 
activities.'' The bill included a committee amendment (19) 
making it unlawful for certain federal and state employees to use their 
official authority for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the 
election or nomination of candidates for designated public offices. The 
following amendment was offered to the bill: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. S. 3046 (Committee on the Judiciary).
19. See 86 Cong. Rec. 9446, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., July 10, 1940.
20. Id. at p. 9455. The amendment was offered by Mr. Lee E. Geyer 
        (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 1. (a) It is unlawful for any person, whether or not 
    acting under the authority of the laws of a State or subdivision 
    thereof, to require the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite for 
    voting or registering to vote at any election for a President or 
    Vice President or Presidential elector or Member of the Senate or 
    Member of the House of Representatives of the United States.

[[Page 7569]]

    With respect to such amendment, the following proceedings took 
place: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at pp. 9455, 9456.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sam] Hobbs [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment that it is not germane to that section 
    of the bill or those sections of the bill to which it is addressed 
    nor to any section of the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) . . . The Chair is of the opinion 
    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from California is in 
    no way related to the provisions of the pending bill; that is, in 
    no way related so as to make the amendment germane in accordance 
    with and under the rules of the House. The amendment relates to the 
    franchise of the voters in the several States, and the bill under 
    consideration so far as the Chair can observe, and the Chair has 
    read it carefully, in no way enters that field. For the reasons 
    stated, and principally and wholly upon the ground that the 
    amendment is not related to the bill under consideration, and 
    wholly eliminating the constitutional question or any other 
    question, the Chair holds that the amendment is not germane, and 
    sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------