[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§ 4. Committee Jurisdiction of Subject Matter as Test]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 7569-7752]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 4. Committee Jurisdiction of Subject Matter as Test

    In ruling on the germaneness of amendments to bills, the Chair has 
frequently considered whether the subject matter of the amendment falls 
within the jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill. Thus, in 
some cases, lack of such committee jurisdiction may at the outset cause 
the Chair to uphold a point of order against the amendment. On the 
other hand, in other cases, even the fact that a subject has in fact 
been considered by a committee during its markup of a particular bill 
does not determine the germaneness of an amendment concerning such 
subject when offered on the House floor.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 8.16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fact that an amendment is offered in conjunction with a motion 
to recommit the bill with instructions does not affect the requirement 
that the subject matter of the amendment be within the jurisdiction of 
the committee reporting the bill.(4)) Committee jurisdiction 
of a subject is not necessarily determinative on questions of 
germaneness, however; the modern tendency seems to be to view such 
jurisdiction as but one factor in the determination of the germaneness 
of amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. 23.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, Committee jurisdiction is not determinative as a 
test of germaneness of an amendment, where the text to which it is

[[Page 7570]]

offered already contains matter that overlaps the jurisdiction of 
several committees, particularly where the amendment does not 
demonstrably affect a law within another committee's 
jurisdiction.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Sec. 4.18, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Besides the germaneness rule, amendments on the House floor may 
    be precluded by Rule XXI, clauses 5(a) and 5(b). The first of these 
    clauses prohibits the offering of appropriations to bills reported 
    by committees other than the Committee on Appropriations. Rule XXI, 
    clause 5(b), as added in the 98th Congress, prohibits a tax or 
    tariff measure from being offered as an amendment to a bill 
    reported from a committee not having jurisdiction over those 
    measures.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.  See Sec. 4.61, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may determine the 
    germaneness of an amendment based upon the discernible committee 
    jurisdictions over the subject of the bill and amendment without 
    infringing upon the Speaker's prerogatives under Rule X to 
    determine committee jurisdiction over introduced 
    legislation.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See the remarks of Chairman McHugh, of New York, during proceedings 
        relating to H.R. 3603, the Food and Agriculture Act of 1981, 
        discussed in Sec. 4.71, infra. A point of order arising from 
        apparent lack of committee jurisdiction over the subject matter 
        of the provisions in question should be based explicitly on the 
        issue of germaneness, rather than on the mere existence of the 
        possible jurisdictional defect, which without more may be 
        deemed not to state a proper point of order. See Sec. 43.8, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Authorizing Environmental Research and Development by 
    Environmental Protection Agency--Amendment Granting Permanent 
    Regulatory Authority to Agency

Sec. 4.1 To a bill authorizing environmental research and development 
    by an agency for two years, an amendment granting permanent 
    regulatory authority to that agency by amending a law not being 
    amended by the bill and not within the jurisdiction of the 
    committee reporting the bill is not germane.

    On June 4, 1987,(8) the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration H.R. 2355, the Environmental Research and Development 
Authorization for fiscal 1988 and 1989, reported from the Committee on 
Science, Space and Technology. The bill had as its purpose the 
authorization of environmental research and development programs. An 
amendment was offered which sought to amend the Clean Air Act, a law 
not amended by the bill and one

[[Page 7571]]

that was within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce. The amendment, moreover, sought to provide new regulatory 
authority for the agency that was to conduct the research and 
development programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 133 Cong. Rec. 14739, 14753-55, 14757, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H.R. 2355

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled,
        section 1. short title.

            This Act may be cited as the ``Environmental Research, 
        Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1987''.
        sec. 2. general authorizations.

            (a) Environmental Research, Development, and 
        Demonstration.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Environmental Protection Agency for environmental research, 
        development and demonstration activities, the following sums: . 
        . .
            (9) $55,866,600 for fiscal year 1988 for energy activities 
        of which not more than $52,331,100 shall be for acid deposition 
        research, and $56,216,900 for fiscal year 1989 for energy 
        activities of which not more than $56,611,900 shall be for acid 
        deposition research. . . .

        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jeffords: Page 12, after line 22, 
        insert the following new section:
        sec. 8. acid deposition control.

            Title I of the Clean Air Act is amended by adding the 
        following new part at the end thereof:

                        ``Part E--Acid Deposition Control
        ``sec. 181. emissions from utility boilers.

            ``(a) State Plans to Control Emissions.--Not later than one 
        year after the enactment of this section, the Governor of each 
        State shall submit to the Administrator a plan establishing 
        emission limitations and compliance schedules for controlling 
        emissions of sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen from fossil 
        fuel fired electric utility steam generating units in the 
        State. The plan shall meet the requirements of subsections (b) 
        and (c). . . .
        ``sec. 185. fees.

            ``(a) Imposition.--Under regulations promulgated by the 
        Administrator, the Administrator may impose a fee on the 
        generation and importation of electric energy. Such fee shall 
        be established by the Administrator at such level (and adjusted 
        from time to time) as will ensure that adequate funds are 
        available to make interest subsidy payments in the amount 
        authorized under section 187. . . .
        sec. 102. revisions of new source performance standards for 
        control of nitrogen oxide emissions.

            Section 111 of the Clean Air Act is amended by adding the 
        following new subsections at the end thereof:
            ``(k) . . . The Administrator shall revise the standards of 
        performance for emissions of nitrogen oxides from electric 
        utility steam generating units which burn bituminous or 
        subbituminous coal. . . .

    Mr. Robert A. Roe, of New Jersey, made a point of order:

[[Page 7572]]

        Mr. Roe: . . . On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, the 
    committee feels that the amendment as drafted by the gentleman from 
    Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] has a regulatory purpose which goes beyond 
    the R&D programs authorized by this bill. And for this reason the 
    amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Jeffords: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that 
    section 2 of this bill states as follows, the first sentence after 
    the title of section A: ``There are authorized to be appropriated 
    to the Environmental Protection Agency for environmental research, 
    development and demonstration activities the following sums'' and 
    it delineates the amounts of those sums. Some of those are for 
    activities which are authorized under the Clean Air Act. So we have 
    money authorized here. The amendment I have will use little or no 
    funds of those. There is nothing in here that says it is prohibited 
    from using those funds. The amendment that I offered and as I say 
    has no budgetary impact in addition to what is already authorized 
    under this bill, it provides for the development of State plans to 
    take care of the problems of acid rain. It authorizes studies which 
    are research programs. It also authorizes development programs to 
    control the emissions consistent with the Clean Air Act by amending 
    the Clean Air Act to do that, both for stationary sources and 
    mobile sources and also authorizes certain field experiments.
        I believe it is well within the authority that is gathered and 
    given by this bill which is a bill of general nature within the 
    areas being authorized. So I feel it is well within the 
    jurisdiction of the committee, there is no question about that and 
    I believe it is germane.
        The Chairman: (9) . . . [T]he Chair is prepared to 
    rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Nick J. Rahall, II (W. Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ruling that the gentleman's amendment, the 
    gentleman from Vermont, amends a law that does not come within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. In 
    addition, the pending bill is research and development legislation 
    and the gentleman concedes that he not only addresses a research 
    issue, but addresses regulation regarding acid rain that is outside 
    the jurisdiction of the committee reporting the pending bill.
        The gentleman from New Jersey's point of order is sustained.

Bill Authorizing Environmental Research by Agency--Amendment Expressing 
    Sense of Congress as to Agency's Enforcement Activities

Sec. 4.2 To a bill reported from the Committee on Science and 
    Technology authorizing environmental research and development 
    activities of an agency for two years, an amendment expressing the 
    sense of Congress with respect to that agency's regulatory and 
    enforcement activity--a matter within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Energy and Commerce--was held not germane.

[[Page 7573]]

    On Feb. 9, 1984,(10) during consideration of H.R. 2899, 
the Chair sustained a point of order against an amendment as not being 
germane to the bill. The section of the bill, the amendment which was 
offered and the proceedings attendant thereto were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 130 Cong. Rec. 2421, 2427, 2428, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 2 (a) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
    Environmental Protection Agency for environmental research, 
    development, and demonstration activities:
        (1) $61,380,000 for fiscal year 1984 and $64,449,000 for fiscal 
    year 1985 for activities authorized under the Clean Air Act . . .
        (g) No funds authorized for appropriation pursuant to this Act 
    may be used for any activities other than those authorized by this 
    Act. . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: On page 7, after line 15, 
        insert the following new subsection:
            Sec.  It is the sense of the Congress that, in the process 
        of selecting hazardous waste sites and the placement of 
        hazardous waste materials, the Environmental Protection Agency 
        shall give priority to full cooperation with local citizens 
        groups who are trying to protect and preserve the environmental 
        quality of their communities.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: . . . The amendment is a 
    sense-of-Congress resolution, in a sense, that the Environmental 
    Protection Agency will give priority to full cooperation with local 
    citizen groups who are trying to protect and preserve the 
    environmental quality of their communities.
        Now, this is an unexceptionable section. . . .
        But I observe that it does not belong in this particular 
    legislation, nor does it belong in the particular place where it is 
    offered.
        Provisions relative to Superfund research were just stricken, 
    but those were provisions relative to Superfund research and not 
    with regard to any sense of Congress or sense of Congress 
    instruction to the Environmental Protection Agency.
        The rules of the House require that the language of the 
    amendment must be germane to the bill and germane to the portion of 
    the bill to which it is offered. It must seek to do the same thing 
    by the same purposes.
        One of the tests of the amendment for germaneness, but only 
    one, is that the rules of the House require or, rather, have as a 
    test that the jurisdiction to which the measure would be referred 
    is one of the criterion that is used by the Chairman in determining 
    whether or not the matter is germane. . . .
        I observe that the fundamental purposes of the bill are 
    different than the fundamental purposes of the amendment, as are 
    the fundamental purposes of the sections immediately before or 
    immediately after that.
        It is clear that were this language offered to the bill it 
    might conceivably go to quite a different committee than that which 
    is now handling the legisla

[[Page 7574]]

    tion on the floor. And for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I do insist 
    on my point of order. . . .
        Mr. Walker: . . . The gentleman from Pennsylvania would be 
    loath to interfere in the jurisdictional areas of the gentleman 
    from Michigan, but I would suggest to the Chair that this amendment 
    does not at all. This amendment is, in fact, directed at the 
    Environmental Protection Agency, the exact agency which is covered 
    by this bill.
        It is merely a sense of Congress resolution. It requires no new 
    duties of the Environmental Protection Agency. It has no 
    obligations upon this Congress or upon the House.
        It is strictly a matter of expressing our will with regard to a 
    matter of some importance in the whole matter of hazardous waste, 
    and I suggest to the Chair that the matter is entirely germane in 
    this bill that speaks purely to the agency to which the amendment 
    is directed.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair has heard both the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Carroll Hubbard, Jr. (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        However, the Chair is going to rule that because this bill, 
    although open to amendment at any point, is limited to authorizing 
    appropriations to environmental research, development, and 
    demonstration for the fiscal years 1984 and 1985 regarding the 
    Environmental Protection Agency, that the particular amendment 
    introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Walker) has to do with the selection of hazardous waste sites and 
    their regulation, indicating that it is the sense of Congress that 
    in the process of selecting hazardous waste sites and the placement 
    of hazardous waste waters, the EPA shall give certain priorities. 
    The Chair does sustain the point of order of the gentleman from 
    Michigan that the particular amendment by the distinguished 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania is not indeed germane to this bill.

Bill Amending Federal Water Pollution Control Act--Amendment To Amend 
    Clean Air Act

Sec. 4.3 To a bill reported from the Committee on Public Works and 
    Transportation amending the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, an 
    amendment amending the Clean Air Act (a statute within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce) to regulate 
    ``acid rain'' by controlling emissions into the air was held not 
    germane as amending a law and dealing with a subject within the 
    jurisdiction of another committee.

    On July 23, 1985,(12) during consideration of the Water 
Quality Renewal Act of 1985,(13) the Chair sustained a point 
of order against

[[Page 7575]]

the amendment described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 131 Cong. Rec. 20041, 20050-52, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H.R. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conte: Page 113, after line 13, 
        insert the following new title:

                       TITLE II--ACID DEPOSITION CONTROL
        section 1. short title.

            This title may be cited as the ``Water Quality Improvement 
        and Acid Deposition Reduction Act of 1985''.
        sec. 2. purpose.

            The purpose of this Act is to improve water quality, 
        protect human health and preserve aquatic resources in the 
        United States by reducing the threat of acid deposition.

           Subtitle I--Acid Deposition Control and Assistance Program
        sec. 101. amendment of clean air act.

            Title I of the Clean Air Act is amended by adding the 
        following new part at the end thereof:

                       ``Part E--Acid Deposition Control

                        ``Subpart 1--General Provisions
        ``sec. 181. purpose of part.

            ``The purpose of this part is to decrease sulfur dioxide 
        emissions in the 48 contiguous States by requiring certain 
        electric utility plants and other sources to reduce their rates 
        of sulfur dioxide emissions. The reduced rates shall be rates 
        which (if achieved by those sources in the emissions baseline 
        year) would have resulted in total emissions from such sources 
        12,000,000 tons below the actual total of sulfur dioxide which 
        those sources emitted in the emissions baseline year. The 
        reduction is to be achieved within 10 years after the date of 
        the enactment of this part. Such reduction shall be achieved 
        through--
            ``(1) a program under subpart 2 consisting of direct 
        federally mandated emission limitations for 50 of the largest 
        emitters of sulfur dioxide. . . .

        Mr. [M.G.] Snyder [of Kentucky]: . . . The amendment which the 
    gentleman offers is not germane. It is, with minor changes, 
    substantially that embodied in H.R. 1030, which the gentleman 
    introduced on February 7, 1985. The purpose of that bill was to 
    decrease sulphur dioxide emissions by requiring certain electric 
    utilities plants and other sources to reduce their rates of 
    emissions. Since the bill made extensive amendments to the Clean 
    Air Act, it was referred solely to the Committee on Energy and 
    Commerce, who have jurisdiction of this matter.
        Today we have almost identical provisions before us embodied in 
    Mr. Conte's amendment which are far beyond the scope of the bill we 
    are now considering, H.R. 8, and deal with the subject properly 
    within the jurisdiction of another committee, that is, the 
    Committee on Energy and Commerce.
        The scope of H.R. 8 is limited to the Clean Water Act and does 
    not include extensive amendments to the Clean Air Act as the 
    gentleman has proposed. . . .
        Mr. Conte: . . . Mr. Chairman, the amendment I feel is germane 
    to the committee amendment. It deals with the same subject matter 
    as contained in the bill.

[[Page 7576]]

        For example, the committee amendment includes a program to 
    address the acidification of this Nation's lakes. If implemented, 
    this amendment would accomplish the same goal by controlling the 
    source of this acidity. Also, the bill, as a whole, is concerned 
    with the protection and improvement of water quality in this 
    country. And this amendment directly addresses the protection of 
    water quality by controlling acid rain.

        For these reasons, the amendment is in order and germane to the 
    bill. . . .
        Mr. [Howard C.] Nielson of Utah: . . . The Public Works and 
    Transportation Committee does have water pollution, but they do not 
    have air pollution; they do not have air quality in their 
    committee.
        As the gentleman from Kentucky appropriately stated, this is 
    the exclusive province of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and 
    the Health and Environment Subcommittee of that committee. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) It is the ruling of the Chair 
    that the amendment changes a law not amended in the pending bill 
    and outside the jurisdiction of the reporting committee, and deals 
    with the regulation of emissions not within the scope of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Harry M. Reid (Nev.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For that reason, the amendment is not german.

Bill Authorizing National Standards for Drinking Water--Amendment To 
    Require International Agreements Relating to Drinking Water

Sec. 4.4 To a bill reported from the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce, authorizing the promulgation of national drinking 
    water standards to protect public health from contaminants, an 
    amendment requiring the negotiation and enforcement of 
    international agreements to accomplish that purpose was held to be 
    not germane, since it proposed a method not closely related to that 
    prescribed in the bill and involved a subject within the 
    jurisdiction of another committee.

    The proceedings of Nov. 19, 1974, relating to H.R. 13002, the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, are discussed in Sec. 6.25, infra.

Provisions Temporarily Suspending Requirements of Clean Air Act--
    Amendment Prohibiting Federal Assistance Under Water Pollution 
    Control Act

Sec. 4.5 To a proposition temporarily suspending certain requirements 
    of the Clean Air Act, an amendment prohibiting federal assistance 
    under that Act or under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
    (within the jurisdiction of a different House committee) where 
    there has been failure to comply with

[[Page 7577]]

    standards imposed by the amendment was held to be not germane.

    On May 1, 1974,(15) during proceedings relating to H.R. 
14368, the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974, 
the Committee of the Whole was considering an Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute amending 
several sections of the Clean Air Act to permit limited variances from 
environmental requirements, including the temporary suspension of 
certain emission standards imposed upon automobile manufacturers. An 
amendment was offered which sought to impose restrictions on emissions, 
only for new automobiles, in designated geographical areas, through 
requirements affecting the manufacture, purchase, and registration of 
automobiles. The amendment also sought to withdraw state entitlements 
to federal assistance under the Clean Air Act or under the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act. The latter act was within the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Public Works. The amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, and the proposed amendment thereto, stated in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 120 Cong. Rec. 12520, 12522-24, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec. 4. Motor Vehicle Emissions.

        (a) Section 202(b)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act is amended by 
    striking out ``1975'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``1977''; and 
    by inserting after ``(A)'' the following: ``The regulations under 
    subsection (a) applicable to emissions of carbon monoxide and 
    hydrocarbons from light-duty vehicles and engines manufactured 
    during model years 1975 and 1976 shall contain standards which are 
    identical to the interim standards which were prescribed (as for 
    December 1, 1973) under paragraph (5)(A) of this subsection for 
    light-duty vehicles and engines manufactured during model year 
    1975.''
        (b) Section 202(b)(1)(B) of such Act is amended by striking out 
    ``1976'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``1978''; and by inserting 
    after ``(B)'' the following . . . . The regulations under 
    subsection (a) applicable to emissions of oxides of nitrogen from 
    light-duty vehicles and engines manufactured during model year 1977 
    shall contain standards which provide that emissions of such 
    vehicles and engines may not exceed 2.0 grams per vehicle mile.''
        (c) Section 202(b)(5)(A) of such Act is amended to read as 
    follows:
        ``(5)(A) At any time after January 1, 1975, any manufacturer 
    may file with the Administrator an application requesting the 
    suspension for one year only of the effective date of any emission 
    standard required by paragraph (1)(A) with respect to such 
    manufacturer for light-duty vehicles and engines manufactured in 
    model year 1977. The Administrator shall make his determination 
    with respect to any such application within sixty days. . . .
        Mr. [Louis C.] Wyman [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.

[[Page 7578]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wyman: On page 59 insert 
        immediately after line 13 the following: i. temporary 
        suspension in designated areas
            (a) Section 203 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857f-2) is 
        amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        subsection:
            ``(d)(1) During and after the period of partial suspension 
        of emission standards (as defined in paragraph (3)(A)--
            ``(A) it shall be unlawful for any person to register 
        within an area designated in paragraph (3)(B) a new motor 
        vehicle or new motor vehicle engine which is manufactured 
        during the period of partial suspension of emission standards 
        and which is not labeled or tagged as covered by a certificate 
        of conformity under this part; and
            ``(B) no State shall permit any person to register a motor 
        vehicle in violation of subparagraph (A).
            ``(2) During the period of partial suspension of emission 
        standards . . .
            ``(B) it shall be unlawful for any manufacturer to sell . . 
        . any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine which is 
        labeled or tagged as covered by a certificate of conformity 
        unless such new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine is 
        covered by a certificate of conformity issued (and in effect) 
        under this part, or unless such new motor vehicle or new motor 
        vehicle engine was manufactured prior to the period of partial 
        suspension. . . .
            ``(E) it shall be unlawful for any dealer to sell any new 
        motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine which is not labeled 
        or tagged as covered by a certificate of conformity to an 
        ultimate purchaser unless such purchaser provides such dealer 
        with a signed statement that such purchaser will not register 
        such vehicle in an area designated under paragraph (3)(B) . . . 
        .
            ``(B) Within sixty days after the date of enactment of this 
        subsection and annually thereafter, the Administrator shall 
        designate, subject to the limitations set forth in this 
        subparagraph, geographic areas of the United States in which 
        there is significant auto emissions related air pollution. The 
        Administrator shall not designate as such area without 
        subsequent legislative authorization, any part of the United 
        States outside the following air quality control regions as 
        defined by the Administrator as of the date of enactment of 
        this paragraph:
            ``(i) Phoenix-Tucson, intrastate.
            ``(ii) Metropolitan Los Angeles, intrastate.
            ``(iii) San Francisco Bay Area, intrastate. . . .
            ``(C) For purposes of this subsection and section 209(c) a 
        motor vehicle shall be considered to be registered in a 
        geographic area--
            ``(i) in the case of a motor vehicle registered by an 
        individual if the individual's principal place of abode is in 
        that area, or
            ``(ii) in the case of a motor vehicle registered by a 
        person other than an individual, if the State of registration 
        determines that such vehicle will be principally operated in 
        such area.
            ``(D) Each State shall not later than sixty days following 
        enactment of this Act, submit to the Administrator a plan for 
        implementing subsection (d)(1)(B) of this section. Such plan 
        shall contain provisions which give assurance that such State 
        has one or more adequately financed agencies with sufficient 
        legal authority to enforce such subsection (d)(1)(B) as 
        determined in accordance with regulations of the 
        Administrator.''. . .
            ``(b) If a State fails to submit a plan under section 
        203(d) or if the Administrator determines (after no

[[Page 7579]]

        tice and opportunity for hearing) that such State is not 
        adequately enforcing such a plan, then such State (including 
        any political subdivision thereof) shall lose its entitlement 
        to and may not thereafter receive any Federal grant or loan 
        assistance under this Act or under the Federal Water Pollution 
        Control Act.''

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order against the amendment. . . . The amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Wyman) is not 
    germane because:
        First, it amends sections 203, 204, 205, 206, and 209 of the 
    Clean Air Act, provisions which are nowhere else amended by this 
    bill (H.R. 14368).
        Second, it, in effect, amends the Federal Water Pollution 
    Control Act, by providing for termination of State grant 
    eligibility under that act, if the State fails to take certain 
    actions under this amendment. Clearly this is not germane. 
    Moreover, it discusses a subject matter clearly within the 
    jurisdiction of the Public Works Committee.
        Third, the bill would limit State authority to register motor 
    vehicles, a subject which is not addressed in this bill in any way. 
    It also deals with Federal and State authority to adopt and enforce 
    provisions relating to in-use vehicles, a subject which is not 
    addressed in this bill in any way. It also deals with grant 
    provisions which are not amended in any way by H.R. 14368. It 
    subjects ultimate purchasers to regulation for the first time under 
    the Clean Air Act and no provision of this bill refers to ultimate 
    purchasers of motor vehicles.
        Mr. Wyman: The gentleman is essentially trying to say that an 
    amendment that relates to the standards or emissions controls on 
    automobiles in a time and under a title that relates to clean air 
    is not germane. I think it is so obvious that it is germane that 
    the point of order should be overruled.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William Jennings Bryan Dorn (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers) makes the point 
    of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    Hampshire (Mr. Wyman) is not germane to the committee substitute 
    for H.R. 14368.
        The Chair has examined the amendment and is aware that it 
    provides that States shall lose their entitlements to Federal 
    grants under the Clean Air Act and under the Water Pollution 
    Control Act for failure to comply with the provisions of the 
    amendment.
        While the committee substitute does amend several sections of 
    the Clean Air Act to permit defined and limited variances from 
    certain diverse provisions of that act, in order to coordinate the 
    questions of energy supplies and environmental protection, the 
    committee substitute does not affect entitlements under the Water 
    Pollution Control Act, a matter within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Public Works.
        As recently as December 14, 1973, when the Committee of the 
    Whole was considering the Energy Emergency Act, Chairman Bolling 
    ruled that to a proposition temporarily suspending certain 
    requirements of the Clean Air Act, an amendment suspending other 
    provisions of all other environmental protection laws was not 
    germane.

[[Page 7580]]

        For these reasons, the Chair feels that the amendment is not 
    germane to the committee substitute and sustains the point of order 
    made by the gentleman from West Virginia. .

Bill Authorizing Secretary of Interior To Investigate Water 
    Conservation Projects--Amendments Substituting Corps of Army 
    Engineers as Investigating Agency

Sec. 4.6 To a bill authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to 
    investigate projects for the conservation and utilization of the 
    water resources of Alaska, an amendment proposing that such 
    investigations be made by the Corps of Army Engineers was held to 
    be not germane.

    In the 84th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(17) concerned with conservation, development and 
utilization of the water resources of Alaska, an amendment was offered 
(18) as described above. A point of order was raised against 
the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 3990 (Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs).
16. 101 Cong. Rec. 7403, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., June 1, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clair] Engle [of California]: The point of order is that 
    the amendment is not in order inasmuch as it seeks to insert an 
    entirely different agency into this legislation which deals 
    exclusively with the Department of the Interior.

    In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Hamer H. Budge, of 
Idaho, stated:

        Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that the amendment is germane. . 
    . . It carries out the stated purposes of the legislation simply by 
    a substitution of the agency to do the things which are called for 
    in the legislation.

    The Chairman,(19) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman's amendment substitutes a department of the 
    Government which does not come under the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and therefore the Chair 
    must rule that it is out of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: There are many rulings to the effect that 
the substitution of one agency for another, to administer the terms of 
a bill, may be germane, depending on whether the actual methods 
prescribed in the amendment for achieving the intended purpose are 
closely related to those contemplated by the bill. See Sec. 7, infra, 
for further discussion.

[[Page 7581]]

Effect of Incidental Provisions Within Jurisdiction of Another 
    Committee--Bill Authorizing Alaska Pipeline; Judicial Review of 
    Specified Claims Related to Construction as Permitted or Prohibited

Sec. 4.7 Committee jurisdiction is not the exclusive or absolute test 
    of germaneness but is only one of the factors considered by the 
    Chair when ruling on a point of order that an amendment is not 
    germane; thus, the germaneness of an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a bill depends on its relationship to the bill as a 
    whole, and is not necessarily determined by the content of an 
    incidental portion of the amendment which, if considered 
    separately, might be within the jurisdiction of another committee.

    On Aug. 2, 1973,(20) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 9130, a bill authorizing the construction of a 
trans-Alaska oil and gas pipeline under the authority of the Secretary 
of the Interior, and pursuant to procedural safeguards promulgated by 
the Secretary. The bill included a prohibition against judicial review 
on environmental impact grounds of any right-of-way or permit which 
might be granted. A committee in the nature of a substitute was 
reported as an original bill for purposes
of amendment. The committee amendment contained procedures and 
safeguards similar to those in the bill, and included an exception from 
the prohibition against judicial review, to provide a mechanism for 
expediting other types of actions challenging pipeline permits. The 
amendment also included the condition that all persons participating in 
construction or use of the pipeline be assured rights against 
discrimination as set forth in the Civil Rights Act. Points of order 
were raised against the amendment on the grounds that its provisions 
were not germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 27673-5, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (1) Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk 
    will now read by title the substitute committee amendment printed 
    in the reported bill as an original bill for the purpose of 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I wish 
    to reserve a point of order to the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

                                    Title I

            Section 1. Section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 
        (41 Stat.

[[Page 7582]]

        449), as amended (30 U.S.C. 185), is further amended by 
        striking out the following: ``, to the extent of the ground 
        occupied by the said pipeline and twenty-five feet on each side 
        of the same under such regulations and conditions as to survey, 
        location, application, and use as may be prescribed by the 
        Secretary of the Interior and upon,'' and by inserting in lieu 
        thereof the following ``: Provided, That--
            ``(a) the width of a right-of-way shall not exceed fifty 
        feet plus the ground occupied by the pipeline (that is, the 
        pipe and its related facilities) unless the Secretary finds, 
        and records the reasons for his finding, that in limited areas 
        a wider right-of-way is necessary for operation and maintenance 
        after construction, or to protect the environment or public 
        safety. . . .
            Sec. 4. (a) Pipelines on public lands subject to this Act 
        are subject to the provisions of the Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 
        1968. . . .
            (c) The Secretary of the Interior shall report annually to 
        the President, the Congress, the Secretary of Transportation 
        and the Interstate Commerce Commission any potential dangers of 
        or actual explosions or potential or actual spillage on public 
        lands and shall include in such report a statement of 
        corrective action taken to prevent such explosion or spillage.

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order 
    against the committee amendment just read.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman on his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I note first that the rule did not 
    waive points of order.
        Mr. Chairman, I cite now rule XVI, clause 7, and I note 
    particularly section 794 relating to germaneness which reads as 
    follows:

            And no motion or proposition on a subject different from 
        that under consideration shall be admitted under color of 
        amendment.

        I note as follows, Mr. Chairman, that the committee amendment 
    provides for the establishment of a three-judge court and 
    establishes certain conditions with regard to review which are not 
    found in the original bill.
        I note for the assistance of the Chair, that that language is 
    not only not found in the bill, but that language, in my view, at 
    least under the Rules of the House of Representatives, had it been 
    introduced as a separate piece of legislation, would have been 
    referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
        I note further, Mr. Chairman, that the committee amendment as 
    presented to us today provides also language relating to conditions 
    of employment and civil rights of persons, and the duty of the 
    pipeline company to hire without discrimination as to race or creed 
    or color.
        I note, Mr. Chairman, that legislation relating to that matter, 
    were it introduced as separate legislation, would have properly 
    under the Rules of the House of Representatives have been referred 
    to the Committee on the Judiciary.
        I make the further comment with regard to the point of order 
    just raised, Mr. Chairman, citing now Cannon's Precedents, page 203 
    2(b), and I quote:

            A specific subject may not be amended by a general 
        provision even when of the same class.

        Section 203 of the bill addresses itself to the relationship of 
    NEPA to the bill and judicial review of the Sec

[[Page 7583]]

    retary of the Interior's actions for compliance with NEPA. 
    Specifically 203(d) of the bill limits judicial review on the basis 
    of NEPA noncompliance.
        Section 203(f) which was added by amendment, referred to 
    earlier, is far broader in scope than section 203 as contained in 
    the original bill.
        Section 203(f) sets forth a unique procedure for judicial 
    review of non-NEPA-related challenges.
        Keeping in mind the fact that section 203(d) is itself part of 
    an amendment and section 203(f) is a new provision as part of the 
    same amendment it becomes clear that judicial review dealt with by 
    section 203 of the original bill was limited to judicial review on 
    the basis of NEPA.
        The amendment, by incorporating the provisions found in section 
    203(f), deals with all forms of judicial review. Thus NEPA-related 
    review is handled by the specific provision of section 203(d) and 
    all other judicial review by section 203(f).
        Therefore, the amendment is a general provision; that is, it 
    deals with all forms of judicial review and is not germane to the 
    specific provision found in the original bill which deals solely 
    with judicial review on the basis of the National Environmental 
    Policy Act.
        I cite again Cannon's Precedents at page 203. I cite further 
    with regard to the germaneness, now referring to page 202 in 
    Cannon's Precedents that--

            One individual proposition may not be amended by another 
        individual proposition even though the two may belong to the 
        same class.

        The individual proposition in the original bill was that the 
    Secretary of the Interior's actions were exempted from judicial 
    review under NEPA.

        The individual proposition contained in the amendment goes on 
    to add that any other challenge to the right-of-way to which the 
    United States is a party must be brought, according to subsection 
    (f), to a three-judge district court referred to in the amendment.
        These propositions are of the same class because both relate to 
    judicial review.
        The first proposition may be viewed as a negative proposition 
    in that it exempts certain action from Judicial review on the basis 
    of NEPA.
        The second is a positive proposition; it establishes a special 
    tribunal and special procedures for non-NEPA-based court 
    challenges.
        I again refer the Chair to Cannon's Precedents on page 202.
        I cite further, Mr. Chairman--

            If a portion of an amendment is out of order because not 
        germane, then all must be ruled out.

        I would cite Cannon's Precedents at page 201. I would point out 
    that--

            The burden of proof as to the germaneness of a proposition 
        has been held to rest upon its proponents. . . .

        Mr. [John] Melcher [of Montana]: . . . The gentleman from 
    Michigan is raising a point of order on the basis of the 
    germaneness of . . . the entire committee amendment, but he refers 
    to specific sections and his point of order should be limited to 
    his reference to those sections. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) makes the point of 
    order the

[[Page 7584]]

    amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs printed in the bill is 
    not germane to the original bill on several grounds, one of which 
    is that 203(f) of the committee amendment provides a procedure for 
    expediting litigation of right-of-way, permit, or other 
    authorization disputes in Federal courts which is not contained in 
    the original bill.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the original bill 
    and the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, and 
    notes that the original bill and the committee amendment both 
    provide comprehensive schemes for the construction of the Alaska 
    pipeline under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior. Both 
    the bill and the committee amendment provide a series of safeguards 
    to be followed by the Secretary in the issuance of permits and 
    grants of rights-of-way. Included in the original bill--in section 
    203, is the prohibition against judicial review of any 
    authorization granted by any Federal agency with respect to rights-
    of-way, construction, public land use, or highway or airfield 
    construction on the basis of the National Environmental Policy Act 
    of 1969.
        This restriction against judicial review on the basis of 
    environmental impact is also contained in section 203(d) of the 
    committee amendment in a more limited form. Section 203(f) of the 
    committee amendment then provides, in litigation not barred by 
    section 203(d), a mechanism for expediting other actions 
    challenging pipeline permits or authorizations.
        On March 8, 1932, Chairman O'Connor ruled that to a bill 
    restricting Federal court jurisdiction in certain cases, an 
    amendment providing an exception from that prohibition was 
    germane--Cannon's volume VIII, section 3024.
        The Chair has also examined the decision of the present 
    occupant of the Chair on October 20, 1971 (Congressional Record, 
    page H37079) on the Alaska Native land claims bill, where, to a 
    committee amendment seeking to accomplish a broad purpose by a 
    method less detailed in its provisions, an amendment more 
    definitive but relating to the same purpose implicit in the 
    committee's approach was held germane.
        For these reasons, and because committee jurisdiction is not 
    the exclusive or absolute test of germaneness, the Chair is of the 
    opinion that the provision in the committee amendment relating to 
    the expediting of litigation involving the pipeline permits or 
    authorizations is merely incidental to the purpose of the original 
    bill and is indeed directly related to the concept of judicial 
    review contained in the bill. With respect to the other provisions 
    of the committee amendment to which the gentleman from Michigan has 
    made reference, the Chair is of the opinion that they, too, are 
    incidental to the overall purpose of the bill. The Chair holds that 
    the committee amendment is germane and overrules the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a further point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, citing again the language used by 
    myself with regard to the earlier point of order, I would point now 
    to the specific language of the committee amendment

[[Page 7585]]

    at page 15, line 23(e), and all that follows through page 16, line 
    11, at the conclusion of the words ``the Civil Rights Act of 
    1964.''
        Mr. Chairman, I would point out again the same arguments are 
    available to me with regard to the first jurisdiction of 
    committees. Second, with regard to the other matters cited by me 
    earlier under the rules of germaneness as embodied in the rules and 
    the precedents of this body, I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that 
    where the language referred to in the amendment is part of a 
    separate piece of legislation, it would have been referred again to 
    the Judiciary Committee and not to the Committee on Interior.
        I would point out further, Mr. Chairman, that this language is 
    not found in the original bill, although it is found in the 
    amendment. I would point out that again the failure of the 
    committee to have that language in both the original bill and in 
    the committee amendment renders the committee amendment subject to 
    a point of order.
        I would call particular attention of the Chair to the fact that 
    the rule of germaneness was established by the wise men of this 
    body throughout the years, that all Members of this body might have 
    full notice of matters coming to the floor of the House and would 
    not be surprised by matters which might be irrelevant to the 
    jurisdiction of the committee which authored the legislation.
        The rule of germaneness applies, Mr. Chairman, with equal 
    validity to proceedings on the floor as well as to proceedings 
    within the committee.
        I again reiterate my point of order on the basis not only of 
    matters cited by me now but cited by me in connection with the 
    earlier point of order made by me. . . .
        Mr. Melcher: . . . The title and section of the committee's 
    amendment which the gentleman from Michigan refers to deals with 
    construction of the Alaskan pipeline. Employment of people for that 
    purpose is, indeed, part and parcel of the construction of the 
    pipeline. The incidental feature of our committee handling and 
    including such language in our amendment is only incidental to the 
    bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has just ruled that the committee amendment is 
    germane, and the ruling that was given by the Chair is broad enough 
    to now cover the point of order just made by the gentleman from 
    Michigan.
        Therefore, the Chair for the reasons previously stated 
    overrules the point of order.

Bill Designating Wilderness Areas--Amendment Providing Unemployment 
    Benefits to Persons Affected by Bill

Sec. 4.8 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

[[Page 7586]]

    subject not contained in the bill and one within the jurisdiction 
    of other committees of the House.

    On Mar. 21, 1983,(2) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 129 Cong Rec. 6339, 6340, 6341, 6343, 6344, 6346, 6347, 98th Cong. 
        1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill was read as follows:

        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--
        (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. . . .

    The Clerk read as follows:

        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 af

[[Page 7587]]

    fected 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 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: (3) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. James L. Oberstar (Minn.).

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

[[Page 7588]]

        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 Appropriations for Nuclear Regulatory Commission--
    Amendment Prohibiting Use of Funds To Process Exports of Uranium

Sec. 4.9 Where a bill authorizing appropriations for an agency is 
    reported from committees having jurisdiction over that agency, an 
    amendment is germane which prohibits the use of such funds for any 
    specified purpose to which the funds could otherwise be applied by 
    that agency, notwithstanding an argument that the activities for 
    which the use of funds is sought to be prohibited impinge on the 
    jurisdiction of another committee; thus, to a bill reported from 
    the Committees on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and Interior and 
    Insular Affairs authorizing appropriations for all the annual 
    activities of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, including review 
    and approval of exports of uranium, an amendment prohibiting the 
    use of funds authorized in the bill to review, process or approve 
    exports of certain uranium was held germane.

    The proceedings of Nov. 5, 1981, relating to H.R. 4255, the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission authorization for fiscal years 1982 and 1983, are 
discussed in Sec. 34.31, infra.

Bill Containing Diverse Titles Relating to Hazardous Waste Disposal--
    Amendment Creating Cause of Action for Victims of Improper 
    Hazardous Waste Disposal

Sec. 4.10 Committee jurisdiction over the subject of an

[[Page 7589]]

    amendment is not the exclusive test of germaneness where the 
    proposition being amended contains provisions so comprehensive as 
    to overlap several committees' jurisdictions; thus, where a bill 
    contained diverse titles relating to hazardous waste cleanup, 
    including provisions relating to new uses of a trust fund to 
    finance removal and remedial actions, compensatory relief through 
    private suits, relocation costs, replacement of drinking water 
    supplies and other disaster relief, and had been amended to include 
    a provision relating to deed covenants in government surplus 
    property conveyances (several of such provisions containing subject 
    matter within the jurisdiction of committees other than the 
    reporting Committee on Energy and Commerce), an amendment in the 
    form of a new title creating a new federal cause of action for 
    victims of improper disposal of hazardous waste, with amounts 
    recovered from the liable private parties to go toward 
    reimbursement of the trust fund for remedial expenses was held 
    germane as within the general diverse class of remedies covered by 
    the bill as a whole, where some of those remedies already were 
    within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, which had 
    jurisdiction over the subject of the amendment.

    On Aug. 10, 1984,(4) during consideration of H.R. 5640 
(superfund authorization), it was demonstrated that the test of 
germaneness of an amendment adding a new title to a bill is its 
relationship to the portion of the bill read, as perfected by 
amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 130 Cong. Rec. 23958, 23967, 23968, 23974-78, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

             TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS (OF THE BILL)

                                 citizens suits

        Sec. 301. Title I is amended by adding the following new 
    section at the end thereof:

                                ``citizens suits

        ``Sec. 116. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) or (c) of 
    this section, any person may commence a civil action on his own 
    behalf . . .
        Sec. 402, (a)(1) Whenever any person has (during the applicable 
    period) supplied any hazardous substance to 100 or more sites at 
    which there is located an underground storage tank which is, or has 
    been used for the storage of any

[[Page 7590]]

    hazardous substance, the person supplying such hazardous substance 
    shall notify the State or local agency or department designated 
    pursuant to subsection (b)(1) of the existence of any tank located 
    at such site which is, or has been used for the storage of any 
    hazardous substance. For purposes of this paragraph, the applicable 
    period shall be the calendar year immediately preceding the 
    calendar year in which this title was enacted.
        (2) The Administrator shall promulgate regulations not later 
    than 8 months after the date of the enactment of this title 
    regarding the providing of notice under this section which is 
    sufficient to obtain information concerning underground storage 
    tanks which are, or have been, used for the storage of any 
    hazardous substance and which are not located at a site referred to 
    in paragraph (1). . . .
        Mr. [Guy V.] Molinari [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Molinari: Page 50, after line 5, 
        insert:

                           notice by federal agencies

            Sec. 303. Section 107(g) is amended by inserting ``(1)'' 
        after ``(g)'' and by adding the following new paragraph at the 
        end thereof:
            ``(2)(A) After the effective date of regulations under this 
        paragraph, whenever any agency or instrumentality of the United 
        States enters into any contract for the sale of real property 
        which is owned by the United States and on which any Federally 
        regulated hazardous waste was disposed of or stored for one 
        year or more, the head of such agency or instrumentality shall 
        include in such contract notice of the type and quantity of 
        such hazardous waste and notice of the time at which such 
        storage, or disposal took place. . . .
            ``(B) In the case of any real property owned by the United 
        States on which any hazardous waste was stored for one year or 
        more or disposed of, each deed entered into for the transfer of 
        such property by the United States to any other person or 
        entity shall contain a convenant warranting that all remedial 
        action necessary to protect human health and the environment 
        with respect to any such waste remaining on the property has 
        been taken prior to the date of such transfer. . . .

        The Chairman: (5) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Molinari].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Joseph G. Minish (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was agreed to. . . .

    Following consideration of Title IV, an amendment was offered:

        Mr. [Bruce A.] Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Morrison of Connecticut: page 66, 
        after line 9, insert:

                         liability for certain damages

            Sec. 501. (a) If an individual is exposed to a hazardous 
        substance from a facility where disposal of such hazardous 
        substance occurred, the following persons shall be liable to 
        such individual (or his dependent) for damages which are 
        compensable under this section and which are caused by such 
        exposure.
            (1) any person who owned or operated the facility at the 
        time of such disposal or thereafter (other than a person who 
        owned or operated the facility only after termination of such 
        exposure);

[[Page 7591]]

            (2) any person who generated the hazardous substance to 
        which the injury individual was exposed . . .
            (i) If a plaintiff who recovers any amount in an action 
        under this section by reason of exposure to a hazardous 
        substance has obtained any emergency relief under section 
        104(l) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
        Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 by reason of the same 
        exposure . . . the plaintiff shall be required to reimburse the 
        Hazardous Substance Superfund for any amount reflecting the 
        costs of such relief, relocation, or drinking water supplies 
        which the plaintiff recovered in the action under this section. 
        . . .

        Mr. [Harold S.] Sawyer [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order on the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment which is now being offered is not 
    germane to the purpose of the bill as it now stands, and under 
    Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 1.2, it is the bill, as 
    amended.
        The amendment and the bill which it is amending is aimed at 
    cleaning up dumpsites, and this, on the other hand, attempts to 
    create an entirely new Federal action on behalf of persons seeking 
    damages and create various Federal tort liabilities for individuals 
    seeking damages.
        Also in considering the point of germaneness of this amendment, 
    the jurisdiction of committees should also be one of the 
    considerations, and obviously this section is exclusively within 
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. Under section 
    1.4 of chapter 28 of Deschler's Procedure, that is another 
    consideration. . . .
        Mr. Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds 
    a new title to the bill. The amendment is designed to do several 
    things. First, it is designed to protect human health and the 
    environment by establishing liability where improper disposal of 
    hazardous waste has injured an individual. When there is liability, 
    those who are in charge of disposal will do so properly to avoid 
    the liability.
        Second, the amendment is designed to provide actual relief 
    where people are harmed by hazardous waste. The amendment builds on 
    the cleanup program we have in place, which is designed to force 
    private parties to pay for the cleanup, and forces the same private 
    parties to pay for the injuries they have caused.
        Third, the amendment is designed to recover amounts that have 
    been paid out from Superfund. . . .
        The test of germaneness of a new title is whether the amendment 
    is germane to the bill as a whole. The bill in this case has many 
    provisions which accomplish the same purpose as this amendment by 
    the same method.
        There is no question that this amendment relates to the subject 
    under consideration. The subject of this bill is hazardous waste, 
    how we deal with it, and the liability of those who have improperly 
    disposed of it. The whole purpose of the Superfund is to clean up 
    hazardous waste sites to eliminate the threat they pose to people 
    and the environment. The bill contains provisions giving 
    individuals the right to go against private parties to ensure safe 
    disposal of waste. Where people are harmed under Superfund, they 
    have a right to get money from the fund to eliminate the harm.
        The amendment clearly relates to the same subject. People are 
    being

[[Page 7592]]

    harmed by hazardous waste and we are providing a recourse in this 
    amendment.
        The clearest test of germaneness is whether the fundamental 
    purpose of an amendment relates to the fundamental purpose of the 
    bill to which it is offered. Under the precedents, in ruling on 
    this question the Chair must compare the stated purpose of the bill 
    with the purpose of the amendment. (106 Cong. Rec. 5655, 86th Cong. 
    2d Sess., Mar. 15, 1960.)
        Section 3 of the bill, the findings and objectives section, 
    states very clearly what the fundamental purpose of the bill is. It 
    says in subsection (5), ``establish new Federal liability standards 
    for injuries suffered by exposed individuals.'' This explicit 
    statement of purpose is demonstrated throughout the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The test of germaneness of an amendment adding a separate or 
    new title to the bill is its relationship to the portion of the 
    bill read, as perfected by amendments.
        The bill title I provides several new uses of the Superfund for 
    removal and remedial actions and titles I and III of the bill 
    together contemplate in more general terms compensatory forms of 
    relief, either through private suits or under section 101 of CERCLA 
    through a broad definition of remedial actions which under existing 
    law cover potential compensation for relocation cost, to replace 
    drinking water supplies and any emergency assistance under the 
    Disaster Relief Act of 1974.
        Title III of the bill has already been broadened by the 
    amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Molinari] which 
    relates to deed covenants in surplus property conveyances. Other 
    aspects of the text before the Committee relate to the jurisdiction 
    of other committees.
        The Chair might say that even as modified, there are provisions 
    in title 3 that deal with other committee jurisdiction including 
    the Judiciary Committee. As amended there are other provisions in 
    the text before us that deal with other than cleanup issues.
        Both the proponents and the opponents of the point of order 
    have made some valid points, but the Chair feels the bill is still 
    broad enough to support the germaneness of the amendment.
        The Chair rules that the point of order will be overruled.

Bill Prescribing Functions of New Federal Energy Administration, 
    Limited in Their Exercise in Accordance With Other Sections of Bill 
    or Existing Law--Amendment Modifying Emergency Petroleum Allocation 
    Act by Establishing Ceiling Prices for Petroleum Products

Sec. 4.11 To a section of a bill reported from the Committee on 
    Government Operations prescribing the functions of a new Federal 
    Energy Administration in meeting the energy needs of the nation, 
    amended to limit exercise of those functions ``to the extent 
    expressly authorized by

[[Page 7593]]

    other sections of the bill or any other provisions of law,'' an 
    amendment to the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act (an Act 
    reported from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and 
    not otherwise amended by the bill) establishing specific ceiling 
    prices for petroleum products was held not germane.

    On Mar. 5, 1974,(6) during consideration of the Federal 
Energy Administration Act (7) in the Committee of the Whole, 
the Chair sustained a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 120 Cong. Rec. 5306-09, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. H.R. 11793.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Benjamin S.] Rosenthal [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rosenthal: On page 18, line 11 
        change Sec. 5 to Sec. 5(a).
            On page 20, after the period on line 2, add the following 
        new subsection:
            ``(b) Section 4 of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act 
        of 1973, as amended by this title, is further amended to 
        prevent inequitable prices with respect to sales of crude oil, 
        residual fuel oil, and refined petroleum products, by adding at 
        the end thereof the following new subsection:
            ``(j)(1) The President shall exercise his authority under 
        this Act and the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, as 
        amended, so as to specify (or prescribe a manner for 
        determining) prices for all sales of domestic crude oil, 
        residual fuel oil, and refined petroleum products in accordance 
        with this subsection. . . .
            ``(5)(A) The President may, in accordance with the 
        procedures and standards provided in this paragraph, amend the 
        regulation under subsection (a) of this section to specify a 
        different price for domestic crude oil, residual fuel oil, or 
        refined petroleum products, or a different manner for 
        determining the price, other than that provided in paragraph 
        (2) or (3) of this subsection, if he finds that such different 
        price or such different manner for determining such price is 
        necessary to permit the attainment of the objectives of this 
        Act. . . .
            ``(10) The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all 
        crude oil notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (e)(2) 
        of this section and section 406 of Public Law 93-153 (87 Stat. 
        590). . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a 
    point of order against the amendment. My point of order is that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rosenthal) is 
    nongermane under rule XVI, clause 7. . . .
        I do not wish to imply a position for or against the amendment 
    by making this point of order, but I do feel constrained to block 
    it because of the importance of getting this bill through under 
    regular procedure. We must not allow this bill to be tied up in a 
    thousand controversies as have been other energy bills.
        The germaneness rule is one of the distinctive features of the 
    procedures of this House. It dates back to our very beginning. 
    There have been occasions

[[Page 7594]]

    where this House has acted as though this rule was not applicable, 
    and the legislation has been poorer as a result. I think the rule 
    of germaneness should be strictly applied to H.R. 11793. It is a 
    soundly conceived organization bill and we should consider it as 
    such.
        I realize there has been some question as to whether this bill 
    does, in fact, grant policy and program authority. I have 
    maintained from the beginning that this bill does not do so; and 
    for that reason I was willing to support the amendment, recently 
    adopted, which provides that nothing in the functions section of 
    the bill shall be considered to set policy or grant program 
    authority. The acceptance of this amendment underscores the lack of 
    policy and program authority in the bill; and, of course, the Chair 
    will have to take into account the significance of the adoption of 
    this amendment because, to quote from Cannon, volume VIII, section 
    2910:

            (T)he Chair considers the relation of the amendment to the 
        bill as modified by the Committee of the Whole at the time at 
        which it is offered.

        Let me explain exactly what the bill does. As it states in the 
    ``declaration of purpose'' section:

            (I)t is necessary to reorganize certain agencies and 
        functions of the executive branch and to establish a Federal 
        Energy Administration.

        The bill then proceeds to establish the administration. Section 
    5 sets out the general areas of interest of the new Federal Energy 
    Administration. Section 6 transfers to the Agency authority from 
    other offices and departments in the executive branch. In no way 
    does this bill affect any of these substantive laws other than to 
    change the location of responsibility for their execution. My 
    committee did not amend the substance of these transferred laws, 
    because their substance is within the jurisdiction of other 
    committees. The remaining sections of the bill deal with typical 
    administrative authorities granted to departments and agencies and 
    the necessary arrangements for the transition to the new Agency. . 
    . .
        I would like to point out that this amendment cannot be held 
    germane simply because it relates to laws being amended by this 
    bill. Let me again quote Cannon, volume VIII, section 2909:

            (T)he rule of germaneness applies to the relation between 
        the proposed amendment and the pending bill to which [it is] 
        offered, and not to the relation between such amendment and an 
        existing law of which the pending bill is amendatory.

        There are, of course, numerous other precedents along the same 
    lines, such as Cannon, volume VIII, section 3045, 2948, and 2946. 
    The reason for this is that the House needs a way to protect itself 
    from amendments which have not been properly considered.

            While the committee may report a bill embracing different 
        subjects, it is not in order during consideration in the House 
        to introduce a new subject by way of amendment. (Hinds, Vol. V, 
        sec. 5825).

        Also, as is to be found in Cannon, volume VIII, section 2912, 
    one of the functions of the rule requires that germaneness is to 
    preclude consideration of legislation which has not been considered 
    in committee. Other committees have considered or are considering

[[Page 7595]]

    the subject of this amendment, and this amendment is germane to 
    their legislation. The Chair has in the past stated that amendments 
    dealing with subject matter in the jurisdiction of another 
    committee are not germane--Record, June 7, 1972, at page H5347; 
    April 20, 1972, at page H3377; May 22, 1972, at page H4764-65. 
    While I can sympathize with those who feel obliged to respond to 
    the energy crisis by offering substantive energy policy and program 
    amendments, these amendments are not appropriate to this 
    organizational bill.

        H.R. 11793 is a reorganization bill; it is not a policy or 
    program bill. The House has long recognized the distinction between 
    policy bills and organizational bills. The very fact that we have 
    established a Government Operations Committee with responsibility 
    for, and I quote from rule XI, clause 8: ``Reorganizations in the 
    executive branch,'' is evidence of the long appreciation of this 
    House for the distinct legislative area of reorganization. If we 
    begin to allow policy and program authority to be added to 
    reorganization bills, an important barrier between the work of my 
    committee and the work of other legislative committees will have 
    been ruptured. . . .
        Mr. Rosenthal: . . . The subject matter of H.R. 11793 is the 
    establishment of a new Federal Energy Agency whose Administrator is 
    authorized to regulate energy prices and is admonished, in section 
    5, to ``promote stability in energy prices.'' The subject matter of 
    my amendment is the achievement of stability in energy prices, 
    clearly the same as the subject matter of a major portion of the 
    legislation itself.
        House interpretations of the germaneness rule hold that ``the 
    fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to the 
    fundamental purpose of the bill'' and ``an amendment should be 
    germane to the particular paragraph or section to which it is 
    offered,'' House rule XVI, section 794.
        My amendment goes to a fundamental purpose of the bill--
    bringing about stability in energy prices--and it appears as a part 
    of the ``functions'' section which requires such stability.
        My price rollback amendment is germane for additional reasons:
        No House rule or precedent prohibits the Government Operations 
    Committee from granting new power or creating new policy in a bill 
    of this kind--so long as the power or policy is directly related to 
    the purpose for which the agency is being created. In fact numerous 
    provisions already in H.R. 11793 and in other Government 
    Operations' bills to reorganize and consolidate, create new powers 
    and set new policy.
        For example, the committee, in the Federal Energy Act, has 
    already expressly established new policies and created new powers 
    not elsewhere authorized by law:
        Section 4(i) amends and revises a Federal conflict of interest 
    statute--section 208 of title 18, United States Code--technically 
    within the jurisdiction of the Post Office and Civil Service 
    Committee.
        Another provision, section 17, authorizes a study of and report 
    on oil and gas reserves not now required by law--probably a subject 
    within the jurisdiction of the Interior or Commerce Committee.
        The point here is that the committee has already seen fit, in 
    H.R. 11793, to

[[Page 7596]]

    create new policies the subject matter of which might properly be 
    said to belong in other committees.
        Moreover, the Government Operations Committee has a long 
    history of establishing new policies and creating new powers that 
    technically infringe on the jurisdiction of other committees.
    For example:

        The Department of Transportation Act, reported by the committee 
    in 1966, dealt with: First, the safety compliance records of 
    applicants seeking operating authority from the Interstate Commerce 
    Commission--technically, Commerce Committee jurisdiction; second, 
    authority over the formulation and economic evaluation of proposals 
    for the investment of Federal funds in transportation facilities or 
    equipment--technically, Banking and Currency jurisdiction; third, 
    standards for economic evaluation of waste resource projects--
    technically, Public Works Committee jurisdiction.
        It is simply impossible as well as unwise to attempt to 
    separate organizational provisions on the one hand, from so-called 
    policy provisions, on the other. In the past, the committee has 
    never hesitated to legislate policy when those provisions were 
    directly relevant to the functions of the agency created. It should 
    not now attempt to do so. Organization and policy are inextricably 
    bound together.
        When the House entrusted to the Government Operations Committee 
    the power to legislate the existence of new agencies, it also gave 
    to the committee, of necessity, leeway to establish new policies 
    and powers essential to the purposes of an agency. Examples of what 
    might be characterized as policy as opposed to organizational 
    provisions can be found in many other agency bills reported out of 
    the Government Operations Committee.
        The committee, in section 2 of the present bill--H.R. 11973--
    establishes as a purpose of the Federal Energy Administration the 
    establishment of ``fair and reasonable consumer prices'' for energy 
    supplies. Section 5, paragraph 5, establishes as a function of the 
    Administrator, the promotion of ``stability in energy prices to 
    consumers.'' My amendment merely provides a mechanism by which this 
    purpose and function can be carried out.
        It is also relevant to the parliamentary challenge that section 
    6 of the bill transfers to the Federal Energy Administrator all 
    functions of the Cost of Living Council over energy prices. A 
    concomitant of the Government Operations Committee's authority to 
    transfer functions from one agency to another is its right to 
    condition that transfer. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: . . . Mr. Chairman, though I 
    agree with the commendable restraint of the Chairman of this 
    Committee in not entering into functional areas of the bill, that 
    it came beyond the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 
    nevertheless I cannot fail to agree with the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Rosenthal), that it is utterly impossible in a bill this 
    complex to separate procedural operations and functions from a 
    subject matter with respect to which that official is designed to 
    control.
        This bill by the very amendment that was passed a minute ago by 
    an overwhelming vote, referred to other sections of this act as 
    giving sub

[[Page 7597]]

    stantive authority to the agency, so that the bill now reads: ``To 
    meet the energy needs of the Nation for the foreseeable future, the 
    Administrator, to the extent expressly authorized by other sections 
    of this act or any other provisions of law,'' and then it says what 
    he shall do.
        Mr. Chairman, there are other sections of this bill which give 
    substantive authority for transfer. This agency has no authority, 
    as the gentleman from New York stated before, to deal with the 
    question of prices except by virtue of the section on transfer on 
    page 20 whereby transfers provide for this agency to exercise a 
    broad area of authority.
        Now, why may not this House choose, in determining what 
    authorities are granted to the agency, whether this House desires 
    to limit this authority to transferred authorities or to new ones? 
    . . .
        Further, the provisions of the act provide administrative 
    procedures which have considerable influence on substance. The act 
    in section 15 provides for information gathering power, which of 
    course leads to the question of whether or not that information 
    gathering power would ultimately be utilized for the purpose of 
    extending or contracting the authority of the agency. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) has made a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that the amendment is not 
    germane to the bill under consideration.
        The gentleman has made the further point of order that the 
    amendment covers a subject matter not within the jurisdiction of 
    the Committee on Government Operations, but within the legislative 
    jurisdiction of another Committee of the House of Representatives.
        The gentleman from New York, in urging the Chair to overrule 
    the point of order, has cited many reasons. Part of the gentleman's 
    statement deals with another section of the bill which has not been 
    read at this time. Part of his remarks deal with the policy of the 
    amendment, not with the parliamentary situation.
        The Chair would not want to rule in this instance in such a 
    manner that every law of the United States dealing with the energy 
    question would be open to amendment in the pending bill.
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rosenthal) referred during his 
    argument to a bill in the 89th Congress creating a new Department 
    of Transportation and delineating the duties of its Secretary. The 
    Chair has examined the Congressional Record for the period when 
    that bill was under consideration. An amendment was offered on that 
    occasion directing the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a 
    study of ``labor laws as they relate to transportation,'' a matter 
    within the jurisdiction of another committee, and to recommend 
    procedures for settlement of labor disputes. A point of order was 
    made against that amendment, and the Chairman at that time (the 
    Honorable Mel Price of Illinois) ruled such an amendment out of 
    order as not being germane to the bill under consideration.
        The Chair would point out that the question of committee 
    jurisdiction is

[[Page 7598]]

    not the sole test of germaneness. The primary test is always the 
    relationship of the amendment to the text of the bill to which it 
    is offered.
        But this amendment clearly seeks to amend another law, the 
    Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973, which is not sought to 
    be amended in the bill under consideration.
        Therefore, the Chair refers to a ruling made by Mr. Speaker 
    Carlisle on March 17, 1880:

            When it is objected that a proposed amendment is not in 
        order because it is not germane, the meaning of the objection 
        is simply that the proposed amendment is a motion or 
        proposition upon a subject matter different from that under 
        consideration.

        The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House, John J. 
    Fitzgerald of New York, on September 27, 1914, ruled that:

            For an amendment to be germane means that it must be akin 
        to or relevant to the subject matter of the bill. It must be an 
        amendment which would appropriately be considered in connection 
        with the bill. The object of the rule requiring amendments to 
        be germane . . . is in the interest of orderly legislation.

        In passing on the germaneness of an amendment, the Chair 
    considers the relation of the amendment to the bill as modified by 
    the Committee of the Whole at the time it is offered and not as 
    originally referred to the committee. And it has been held that an 
    amendment which might have been in order, if offered when the bill 
    was first taken up, may be held not germane to the bill as modified 
    by prior amendments.
        The Chair, therefore, rules that the amendment seeks to amend a 
    separate piece of legislation, namely, the Emergency Petroleum 
    Allocation Act of 1973, which is not amended in the bill under 
    consideration and sustains the point of order.

Overlapping Jurisdiction--Bill To Extend Federal Energy Administration; 
    Amendment Terminating Agency and Transferring Functions to Other 
    Agencies

Sec. 4.12 While committee jurisdiction over the subject of an amendment 
    is a relevant test of germaneness, it is not the exclusive test 
    where there is an overlap in jurisdiction between the committee 
    reporting the bill and another committee.

    On June 1, 1976,(9) during consideration of a bill (H.R. 
12169) to extend the existence of the Federal Energy Administration 
(which would otherwise terminate), an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute abolishing the agency and some of its functions and 
transferring other functions to existing agencies was held germane as 
another reorganization proposal closely related to that contained in 
the law being amended. The amendment provided in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 122 Cong. Rec. 16021-25, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 7599]]

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. 
        Schroeder: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert 
        in lieu thereof the following:

            That the Federal Energy Administration is abolished.

                             abolition of functions

            Sec. 2. The functions of the following offices of the 
        Federal Energy Administration shall be abolished: the functions 
        of the Office of Management and Administration (other than the 
        Office of Private Grievances and Redress); the functions of the 
        Office of Intergovernmental, Regional, and Special Programs; 
        the functions of the Office of Congressional Affairs; the 
        functions of the Office of Communications and Public Affairs. . 
        . .
            Sec. 3. (a) The functions of the following offices of the 
        Federal Energy Administration shall be transferred to other 
        agencies as directed in this section:
            (1) The functions of the Offices of Energy Policy and 
        Analysis, Energy Conservation and Environment, and 
        International Energy Affairs shall be transferred to the Energy 
        Research and Development Administration.
            (2) The functions of the Office of Energy Resource 
        Development (including the Office of Strategic Petroleum 
        Reserve) shall be transferred to the Department of the 
        Interior. . . .
            Sec. 4. (a) The Director of the Office of Management and 
        Budget shall take such action as may be necessary to insure the 
        abolition of functions under section 2(a), in accordance with 
        applicable laws and regulations relating to the abolition of 
        functions.
            (b) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is 
        hereby directed to take such action as may be necessary to 
        insure that the transfer of functions does not result in any 
        unnecessary duplication. . . .

    Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan, having reserved a point of order 
against the amendment, the following exchange occurred:

        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from Michigan 
    insist upon his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dingell: I do insist upon my point of order, Mr. Chairman. 
    . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the rules of the House require that the amendment 
    be germane to the bill which is before the House both as to the 
    place in the bill to which the germaneness question arises, and the 
    amendment is offered, and also as to the bill as a whole.
        The first grounds for the point of order are that the amendment 
    goes beyond the requirements of the place in the bill to which the 
    amendment is offered; the second is that it fails to meet the test 
    of germaneness in several particulars. First, that it is a matter 
    which would have been referred to a diversity of committees other 
    than the committee which presently has the responsibility therefor.
        If you will read the amendment, you will find that it transfers 
    functions to the Energy Research and Development Administration, 
    the Department of the Interior, and the Federal Power Commission. 
    Nowhere in the bill before us or in the basic FEA statute are any 
    of these agencies referred to. Furthermore, the amendment sets up a 
    whole series of other responsibilities. It, first of all, transfers 
    jurisdiction over litigation and has a lengthy savings clause which 
    should have properly been referred to the Committee on the Judici

[[Page 7600]]

    ary. As the Chairman will note, that is the committee which has 
    general jurisdiction over those areas of the Federal Constitution, 
    both in the Constitution, and so forth. Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, 
    the amendment imposes upon the Director of the Office of Management 
    and Budget in at least two places certain responsibilities. For 
    example, in the case of oversight responsibility under section 
    4(a), to insuring the abolition of the functions under section 
    2(a), something which is not in the original FEA statute and 
    something which is not in the bill before us.
        I would point out that the Director of the Office of Management 
    and Budget is not here mentioned.
        In addition to this, the Director of the Office of Management 
    and Budget is required to make lengthy reports to special 
    committees of the Congress which are not mentioned either in the 
    bill, Government operation committees of the House and Senate, or 
    in the basic FEA statute.
        Mr. Chairman, I would point out that there are several tests of 
    germaneness, the first being the test of committee jurisdiction. 
    Obviously, none of the matters referred to in the amendment are 
    properly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce.
        The second test is that they must be pertinent to the matters 
    before the House. It is clearly obvious that such broad transfer of 
    responsibilities to diverse agencies and also the imposition of 
    responsibilities on the Director of the Office of Management and 
    Budget, are far beyond the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and that the responsibility for 
    the establishing of a savings clause with respect to litigation is 
    not within the jurisdiction of that committee.
        Another test of germaneness is the fact that the amendment 
    should give notice to the Members as to what they could reasonably 
    anticipate in the sense of amendments which might be presented to 
    them. It is clearly obvious that no Member might have anticipated 
    the removal of the FEA responsibilities to the Interior Department, 
    the Federal Power Commission, or to ERDA, under the rules of the 
    House or the language of the legislation which is brought to the 
    floor; nor could any Member anticipate savings clauses with regard 
    to litigation, or that there should be the transfer of matters 
    relating to oversight to the Director of the Office of Management 
    and Budget.
        Lastly, to meet the test of germaneness, it is required that 
    the subject matter relate to the subject matter of the bill, and 
    the amendment which is before us clearly seeks to transfer these 
    responsibilities broadly throughout the Federal Government; the 
    establishment of savings clauses and the oversight responsibilities 
    which are imposed go far beyond the requirements of the rules of 
    the House. So that for all of these reasons I respectfully insist 
    upon my point of order. . . .
        Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: . . . There are equal 
    precedents pro and con on the germaneness of my substitute. It is a 
    unique question.
        I therefore believe that the policy must come into play. 
    Upholding this point of order will create the following problems 
    down the road.
        First, the Senate, which has a bill, S. 2872, soon to be before 
    it, is consid

[[Page 7601]]

    ering an entirely different FEA bill than H.R. 12169. This bill 
    comes from its Government Operations Committee. It contains 
    sections which parcel out the FEA like my amendment. So, if my 
    substitute is found non-germane, then considering the usual 
    conference committee procedures, the conference report on the FEA 
    bill will probably also later be found non-germane--since it will 
    still parcel out the FEA and thus be non-germane to what the House 
    has passed.
        Second, rule XVI, clause 7 of germaneness is of high value to 
    the House. But, should it defeat a proposition which is merely an 
    innovation on what would happen if the bill to be amended by it is 
    defeated. Is the value of the rule of germaneness great when it 
    negates for the House a chance to consider a sound alternative to a 
    likely possibility?
        Third, much ado has been made of the proposal for sunset 
    legislation for Federal agencies. The Federal Energy Administration 
    Act of 1974 contains, for all intent and purposes, a variety of 
    this legislation unique to itself. Indeed, this is why the problem 
    we are today facing even exists. Therefore, if my amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute is rejected on a point of order, we in the 
    House will have a tremendously counterproductive precedent to work 
    with if and when sunset legislation for Federal agencies is 
    enacted.

                                jurisdiction

        Committee jurisdiction over the subject of an amendment and the 
    original bill is not the exclusive test of germaneness--August 2, 
    1973.
        The bill H.R. 12169 incorporates by reference the entire 
    Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, a bill which was 
    reported by the House Government Operations Committee. It does so 
    by, in essence, reenacting the entire act.
        Amendments to the entire act are in order and therefore the 
    substitute, which, if outside of Interstate and Foreign Commerce 
    Committee jurisdiction, strays no farther than into Government 
    Operations Committee jurisdiction, is undeniably germane. And the 
    germaneness of an amendment in the nature of a substitute is its 
    relationship to the bill as a whole, and is not necessarily 
    determined by the content of an incidental portion of the amendment 
    which, if considered separately, might be within the jurisdiction 
    of another committee--August 2, 1973. Furthermore, to a bill 
    continuing and reenacting an existing law an amendment germane to 
    the existing act sought to be continued was held to be germane to 
    the pending bill--VIII, 2940, 2941, 2950, 3028; October 31, 1963. 
    To a bill extending an existing law in modified form, an amendment 
    proposing further modifications of that law may be germane--April 
    23, 1969; February 19, 1975.

                                  purpose

        The fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to the 
    fundamental purpose of the bill--VIII, 2911--the purposes of both 
    H.R. 12169 and the substitute are to continue the functions of the 
    Federal Energy Administration. The differences are simply: First, 
    to what extent the functions will be continued; and second, what 
    bodies of Government will be responsible for continuing the 
    functions.
        If a larger interpretation is placed on the bill--or the 
    substitute--then defeat

[[Page 7602]]

    itself of it would certainly be contrary to the rules and not 
    permitted by the rules.
        Other precedents to this point are numerous.
        In order to be germane, an amendment must not only have the 
    same end as the matter sought to be amended, but must contemplate a 
    method of achieving that end that is closely allied to the method 
    encompassed in the bill--August 2, 1973. Both H.R. 12169 and the 
    substitute propose to continue the functions of the FEA by Federal 
    agencies. See very particularly the precedents of December 15, 
    1937, June 9, 1941, December 19, 1973. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        Several days ago the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Schroeder) 
    placed her amendment in the Record. The attention of the Chair was 
    called to the amendment at that time.
        Generally speaking, as far as germaneness is concerned, since 
    the committee proposal before the Committee at this time extends 
    the term of the original act, amendments that would be considered 
    as germane to the original act being reenacted would be considered 
    as germane at this time.
        This principle, in part, was the basis of the decision in 
    Cannon's Precedents, volume VIII, section 2941, that a bill 
    continuing and reenacting the present law is subject to an 
    amendment modifying the provisions of the law carried in that bill.
        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) makes the point of 
    order that the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Schroeder) is not germane to 
    the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for H.R. 
    12169.
        The committee amendment extends the term of the Federal Energy 
    Administration Act until September 30, 1979, and provides specific 
    authorizations for appropriations for that agency through fiscal 
    year 1977.
        The amendment in the nature of a substitute would abolish the 
    Federal Energy Administration and some of its functions, and would 
    transfer other functions currently performed by the agency to other 
    Departments and agencies in the executive branch, and would 
    authorize appropriations for the next fiscal year for the 
    performance of those functions transferred by the amendment.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the committee bill, 
    the law--Public Law 93-275--being continued and reenacted by the 
    bill, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute against which 
    the point of order has been raised. While it is true that the basic 
    law which created the Federal Energy Administration was reported as 
    a reorganization proposal from the Committee on Government 
    Operations in the last Congress, and while it is also true that a 
    bill containing the substance of the amendment has been jointly 
    referred to that committee and to the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce in this Congress, the Chair would point out that 
    committee jurisdiction is not the sole or exclusive test of 
    germaneness.
        The Chair would call the attention of the Committee to 
    extensive precedent contained in Cannon's volume VIII,

[[Page 7603]]

    section 2941, which the Chair has already cited, where an amendment 
    germane to an existing law was held germane to a bill proposing its 
    reenactment. The Chair feels that this precedent is especially 
    pertinent in the limited context where, as here, the pending bill 
    proposes to extend the existence of an organizational entity which 
    would otherwise be terminated by failure to reenact the law.
        In such a situation, the proper test of germaneness is the 
    relationship between the basic law being reenacted and the 
    amendment, and not merely the relationship between the pending bill 
    and the amendment.

        It is important to note that the law being extended was itself 
    an extensive reorganization of various executive branch energy-
    related functions. Not only did Public Law 93-275 transfer several 
    functions from the Interior Department and the Cost of Living 
    Council to the FEA, but that law also authorized the Administrator 
    of FEA to perform all functions subsequently delegated to him by 
    Congress or by the President pursuant to other law. Section 28 of 
    that law provides that upon its termination, which would result if 
    the pending bill is not enacted, all functions exercised by FEA 
    would revert to the department or agency from which they were 
    originally transferred.
        It appears to the Chair from an examination of the committee 
    report, that all of the functions which the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute proposes to abolish or to transfer are being 
    extended and authorized by the committee bill.
        Since the basic law which created the FEA is before the 
    committee for germane modification, since changes in that law 
    relating to the delegation of authority to perform functions from 
    or to the FEA are germane to that law, and since the pending 
    committee bill authorizes the FEA to perform all of the functions 
    which the amendment in the nature of a substitute would abolish or 
    transfer, the Chair holds that the amendment is germane to the 
    committee proposal and overrules the point of order.

Provisions To Regulate Production and Allocation of Energy Resources--
    Amendment To Reduce Energy Consumption by Reducing Federal Workweek

Sec. 4.13 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill 
    reported from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce to 
    conserve energy resources by regulating the production, allocation 
    and use of those resources, an amendment to reduce energy 
    consumption by the federal government through the implementation of 
    a reduced workweek for federal civilian employees was held to go 
    beyond the scope of the bill and to contain matters within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, and 
    was held to be not germane.

[[Page 7604]]

    During consideration of the Energy Emergency Act (11) in 
the Committee of the Whole on Dec. 14, 1973,(12) the Chair 
sustained a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 11450.
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 41756, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: 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. Conte to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: On page 44, 
        immediately below line 21, insert the following:
            (c) In order to assist the effective implementation of the 
        purposes of this Act by the Federal Government in the area of 
        Federal employment, the President, through such authority or 
        authorities in the executive branch as he considers 
        appropriate, shall prepare and submit to the Congress within 
        ninety days after the date of enactment of this act a detailed 
        and comprehensive plan for the establishment and institution, 
        to the extent practicable, of a new basic administrative 
        workweek of forty hours for Federal civilian employees in the 
        executive branch . . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment offered by my good friend from 
    Massachusetts is not germane. The reasons, I think, are apparent to 
    the Chair.
        The amendment offered by my good friend would set up a 4-day 
    workweek. I would be, I think, as surprised as the Chair if he were 
    to find elsewhere in the bill and, indeed, on the basis referred to 
    any reference to a 4-day, 40-hour workweek.
        Obviously this matter is not within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, but rather in the 
    rules of Congress under the hands of the Committee on Post Office 
    and Civil Service, if that committee has not voted away that power. 
    I am not sure they did that some time back.
        In any event, the amendment seeks to go far beyond the purpose 
    and scope of the bill and deals with a whole new question, the 
    workweek of Federal employees lying within the jurisdiction of a 
    totally different committee. . . .
        Mr. Conte: . . . Mr. Chairman, I think that the amendment is 
    germane. If we look at section 122, which is the Employment Impact 
    and Worker Assistance section, the first point of that section, (a) 
    says that carrying out his responsibilities under this act, the 
    President shall take into consideration and shall minimize, to the 
    fullest extent practicable, any adverse impact of actions taken 
    pursuant to this act upon employment.
        I certainly feel this is germane. It takes that into 
    consideration. It provides for a 40-hour workweek, 10 hours a day, 
    keeping in mind the Civil Service laws and the overtime laws. If it 
    does not go into effect and there is a shortage of energy, it is 
    very, very possible, that a lot of Federal employees will be out of 
    work much less than 40 hours a week.
        Therefore, I hope the Chair will rule in my favor.

[[Page 7605]]

        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is prepared to rule. 
    Despite the eloquent argument of the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
    the fact of the matter is that the amendment goes well beyond the 
    purposes of the section of the bill and the bill itself and the 
    matter contained in the amendment surely comes within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Therefore, the point of order of the gentleman from Michigan is 
    sustained.

Provisions Authorizing Secretary of Interior To Establish Petroleum 
    Reserves--Amendment Giving President Authority Over Reserves 
    Conditional Upon Subsequent Congressional Authorization

Sec. 4.14 To a proposition reported from the Committee on Interior and 
    Insular Affairs authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to 
    establish national petroleum reserves, including naval petroleum 
    reserves, on certain public lands, an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute containing similar provisions and authorizing the 
    president to place petroleum reserves in strategic storage 
    facilities ``pursuant to any program subsequently authorized by 
    Congress'' was held germane, as not itself establishing a strategic 
    storage facility (a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
    on Armed Services) but as merely conditioning the president's 
    authority upon separate enactment of such program.

    During consideration of H.R. 49 (relating to national petroleum 
reserves on public lands) in the Committee of the Whole on July 8, 
1975,(14) Chairman Neal Smith, of Iowa, overruled a point of 
order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 21631-33, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Melcher [of Montana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Melcher: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

        That in order to develop petroleum reserves of the United 
    States which need to be regulated in a manner to meet the total 
    energy needs of the Nation, including but not limited to national 
    defense, the Secretary of the Interior, with the approval of the 
    President, is authorized to establish national petroleum reserves 
    on any reserved or unreserved public lands of the United States . . 
    . .

            Sec. 2. No national petroleum reserve that includes all or 
        part of an existing naval petroleum reserve shall be 
        established without prior

[[Page 7606]]

        consultation with the Secretary of Defense, and when so 
        established, the portion of such naval reserve included shall 
        be deemed to be excluded from the naval petroleum reserve. . . 
        .
            (d) Pursuant to any program hereafter authorized by the 
        Congress, the President may, in his discretion, direct that not 
        more than 25 percentum of the oil produced from such national 
        petroleum reserves shall be placed in strategic storage 
        facilities or exchanged for oil and gas products of equal value 
        which shall be placed in such strategic storage facilities. . . 
        .

        Mr. [F. Edward] Hebert [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order against the amendment on the basis that the 
    amendment offered includes a sentence relating to strategic 
    defense. The original bill, H.R. 49, had no such reference.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman specify the language he refers 
    to?
        Mr. Hebert: The language which I read, from section (d):

            Pursuant to any program hereafter authorized by the 
        Congress, the President may, in his discretion, direct that no 
        more than 25 percentum of the oil produced from such national 
        petroleum reserves shall be placed in strategic storage 
        facilities or exchanged for oil and gas products of equal value 
        which shall be placed in such strategic storage facilities.

        I point out, Mr. Chairman, that the original bill, as presented 
    to the Committee on Rules, did not contain any such reference at 
    all. Therefore, it is not germane. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on this point of 
    order.
        The Chair would note that the language of the Melcher amendment 
    referred to states ``pursuant to any program hereafter authorized 
    by the Congress.''
        The Melcher amendment does not set up a program nor authorize a 
    program for strategic storage of petroleum; it merely refers to a 
    program which may hereafter be authorized. If it did attempt to 
    authorize a program not related to the committee amendment, then 
    the decision on the point of order would be different.
        However, since it does not, the point of order is overruled.

Provisions For Allocation of Petroleum Products and Coal--Amendment 
    Waiving Provisions of Law in Order To Encourage Coal Production

Sec. 4.15 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute seeking to 
    allocate petroleum products in order to stimulate exploration for 
    and production of essential energy minerals, and containing a 
    section intended to encourage the conversion to coal as an energy 
    source and to require the proper allocation of coal to users 
    thereof, an amendment proposing to expand domestic coal production 
    by waiving certain provisions of law, not within the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee which had reported the bill, which inhibit coal 
    production was held germane.

[[Page 7607]]

    During consideration of the Energy Emergency Act (H.R. 11450) in 
the Committee of the Whole on Dec. 14, 1973, (15) the Chair 
held that to an amendment in the nature of a substitute, the following 
amendment was germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 41748, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [LaMar] Baker [of Tennessee]: 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. Baker to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: On page 15, 
        strike lines 13 and 14 and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following:
            ``(d) Coal Production Authority.--The Administrator may 
        take such actions as are necessary to assure an adequate supply 
        of coal to attain the objectives of this section, including, 
        but not limited to, the granting of exemptions from provisions 
        of the Economic Stabilization Act which inhibit the ability of 
        coal producers to obtain the necessary equipment and personnel 
        for production and distribution of coal; and the granting of 
        exemptions, on a case-by-case basis, from provisions of the 
        Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, in such cases as mines 
        located above the water table or in which methane has not been 
        detected as prescribed in section 303(h) of such Act, where it 
        has been determined (1) that such provisions substantially 
        reduce the ability of the producer to provide necessary 
        supplies of coal in an economical manner, and (2) that the 
        exemption will not materially affect the health and safety of 
        employees of that producer.''. . .

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of 
    order against the amendment on these grounds. The amendment is not 
    germane in that it deals with the subject matter of another 
    committee, the Committee on Education and Labor; in that it 
    purports to amend the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act under 
    the exclusive jurisdiction of that committee; and it proposes to 
    assign to the Administrator the ability to grant exemptions under 
    that act, which is in no wise amended or altered by this provision. 
    . . .
        Mr. Baker: Mr. Chairman, on page 5 of the bill under 
    consideration, line 22, the President is urged to take such action 
    consistent with the provisions of this act and is authorized to 
    take under this act and any other act action to encourage full 
    production by the domestic energy industry at levels which make 
    possible the expansion of facilities required to insure against a 
    protraction in any such increased levels of unemployment. The 
    amendment would increase employment in its implementation.
        On page 7, line 22, and on to page 8, the act calls for the 
    production and extraction of minerals essential to the requirements 
    of the United States. This would further enhance employment in the 
    Nation.
        Then on page 14 it says nothing in the paragraph should be 
    interpreted as requiring such source to use a particular grade of 
    coal of any particular type, grade, or pollution characteristic if 
    such coal is available to such source. Many of the small mines here 
    would come under the provisions of this amendment.
        I ask that the point of order be overruled.

[[Page 7608]]

        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The language that appears on page 7, beginning at line 22, 
    cited by the gentleman from Tennessee, says:

            (b) Section 4(b)(1)(G) of the Emergency Petroleum 
        Allocation Act of 1973 is amended to read as follows:
            ``(G) allocation of residual fuel oil and refined petroleum 
        products in such amounts and in such manner as may be necessary 
        for the maintenance of exploration for, and production or 
        extraction of--
            ``(1) fuels, and
            ``(2) minerals essential to the requirements of the United 
        States,
        and for required transportation related thereto;'.

        The Chair believes that that language, together with the 
    language cited on page 5 urging full production by the domestic 
    energy industry, justifies the offering of this amendment which 
    deals with coal production despite the point made by the gentleman 
    from Texas with regard to the narrow construction of the section to 
    which it is offered and, therefore, overrules the point of order.
        The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 minutes in 
    support of his amendment under clause 6 of rule XXIII.

Authorization to President To Ration Gasoline--Amendment Imposing User 
    Charge as Part of Rationing Plan

Sec. 4.16 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, (17) the Chair 
ruled that an amendment to an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
was not germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 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

[[Page 7609]]

    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 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 free 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: (18) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tidelands Bill--Substitute Relating to Lease of Off-shore Lands

Sec. 4.17 To a bill relating to oil leases and seeking to estab

[[Page 7610]]

    lish the title of the states to lands beneath navigable waters 
    within state boundaries, a substitute authorizing the Secretary of 
    the Interior to lease off-shore lands, and establishing an agency 
    to advise on the disposition of revenues from such leases was held 
    to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of the tidelands 
bill,(19) the following amendment was offered: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 4484 (Committee on the Judiciary).
20. 97 Cong. Rec. 9193, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., July 30, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Michael J.] Mansfield [of Montana]: 
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof 
    the following: . . .
        Sec. 2. All moneys received by the Secretary of the Interior 
    from leases issued pursuant to this act shall be held in a special 
    account. . . .
        Sec. 3. There is hereby created a National Advisory Council on 
    Grants-in-Aid of Education. . . . It shall be the function of the 
    Council to formulate . . . a plan for the equitable allocation of 
    the moneys available under section 2 for use as grants-in-aid of 
    primary, secondary, and higher education.

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

        Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill 
    under consideration. It provides a system of aid to education, 
    which is not within the contemplation or purview of this bill.

    The Chairman, (1) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana not only 
    deals with oil leases, but undertakes to set up a new agency of 
    Government and to divert the fund for educational grants and 
    educational purposes, a subject which is within the exclusive 
    jurisdiction of another committee of the House, namely the 
    Committee on Education and Labor. In view of that fact the Chair is 
    constrained to sustain the point of order.

Bill Relating to Development of Outer Continental Shelf Energy 
    Resources--``Buy-American'' Amendment Affecting Equipment Used

Sec. 4.18 To a title of a proposition reported from the Select Ad Hoc 
    Committee on the Outer Continental Shelf comprehensively amending 
    the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to impose diverse 
    restrictions and conditions on the management and development of 
    energy resources on the outer continental shelf, an amendment to 
    require that vessels, rigs

[[Page 7611]]

    and platforms used in such development be built and operated by 
    domestic concerns was held germane as a further restriction similar 
    in nature to those already contained in the title.

    On July 21, 1976,(2) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 6218, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 
Amendments, which contained restrictions and conditions on the 
management and development of energy resources on the outer continental 
shelf, including safety regulations pertaining to the design and use of 
all equipment on the shelf, requirements for the federal purchase of 
resources extracted from the shelf, and limitations on export of such 
resources. An amendment was offered, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 122 Cong. Rec. 23167, 23168, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Murphy of New York: Page 123, line 
        9, strike out the quotation marks and the period following such 
        quotation marks and insert immediately after line 9 the 
        following new section:
            ``Sec. 29. Domestic Construction and Operation.--(a) Within 
        six months of the date of the enactment of this section, the 
        Secretary shall by regulation require that any vessel, rig, 
        platform, or other vehicle or structure used more than one year 
        after such date of enactment in the exploration, development, 
        or production of the mineral resources located on or under the 
        seabed and subsoil of the outer Continental Shelf be manned or 
        crewed by citizens of the United States, unless specific 
        contractual provisions or national registry manning 
        requirements in effect on such date of enactment provide to the 
        contrary. The Secretary shall also by regulation require that 
        any vessel, rig, platform, or other vehicle or structure used 
        more than one year after such date of enactment in the 
        exploration, development, or production of the mineral 
        resources located on or under the seabed and subsoil of the 
        outer Continental Shelf and built or rebuilt more than one year 
        after such date of enactment (1) be built or rebuilt in the 
        United States, (2) be owned by citizens of the United States, 
        (3) be operated by citizens of the United States, (4) be manned 
        or crewed by citizens of the United States, and (5) when 
        required to be documented, be documented under the laws of the 
        United States. . . .

        The Chairman: (3) Does the gentleman from Florida 
    (Mr. Gibbons) insist upon his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sam] Gibbons [of Florida]: Yes, sir, I do. . . .
        This amendment is not germane to that. This amendment is a 
    naked buy national requirement. This bill deals with the production 
    of oil and resources of the Outer Continental Shelf. This amendment 
    restricts where people can buy the material that goes into it for 
    its ordinary production.
        Another important reason why this amendment is out of order is 
    that the

[[Page 7612]]

    jurisdiction of this ad hoc committee is severely limited by the 
    rules of the House and by the resolution establishing the 
    committee.
        The rules of the House, rule X, clause 3, authorizes the 
    Speaker to refer matters to a special ad hoc committee, such as 
    this, with the approval of the House membership. An ad hoc 
    committee is to be made up of members of the legislative committees 
    that have jurisdiction over the matter.
        This amendment is wholly within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means. It is not within the jurisdiction of 
    any of the three subcommittees that deal with this matter. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the Murphy amendment. The basis for my point of 
    order is that the amendment violates rule XVI because it is not 
    germane.
        Cannon's Precedents--VII--states that committees are all 
    creatures of the House and exercise no authority or jurisdiction 
    beyond that specifically conferred by the rules or by the special 
    delegation of the House itself. House Resolution 412, passed last 
    year, which created the select committee strictly limited its 
    jurisdiction to that of the Committees on Interior, Judiciary, and 
    Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
        The Murphy amendment is a so-called Buy American provision 
    requiring vessels, rigs, and platforms be built in the United 
    States. These protectionist restrictions of trade clearly fall 
    within the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee and 
    obviously exceeds the jurisdiction given to the select committee 
    under House Resolution 412.
        Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 33.1 covers the 
    example of an Education and Labor bill in the 90th Congress 
    amending the Fair Labor Standards Act. An amendment proposing to 
    modify the Tariff Act of 1930 which was within the jurisdiction of 
    the Committee on Ways and Means was held to be nongermane. The same 
    chapter, section 4.8 cites another bill amending the Fair Labor 
    Standards Act. An amendment modifying provisions with respect to 
    the importation of merchandise was ruled nongermane.
        Mr. Chairman, Deschler, chapter 28, section 4.16 states that 
    committee jurisdiction over the subject of the amendment and of the 
    original bill is not the exclusive test of germaneness, but in this 
    case the amendment clearly invades another jurisdiction and is not 
    integral to the purpose or effect of the bill according to our 
    rules. The fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to 
    the fundamental purpose of the bill. The fundamental purpose of 
    this bill is not protectionism or restriction of trade. . . .
        Mr. Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is clearly 
    germane. One major purpose of the bill H.R. 6218 is to establish a 
    policy for the management of oil and natural gas development in the 
    Outer Continental Shelf. This goal is accomplished through numerous 
    provisions which direct Secretary of the Interior and other Federal 
    officials to assert regulatory authority over the individuals and 
    mechanical equipment and devices involved in the exploration, 
    development, and production of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas. 
    . . .
        Simply put, the subject before the House is the broad issue of 
    policy to

[[Page 7613]]

    regulate the development of OCS oil and gas. The subject before the 
    House is who will develop OCS resources, under what environmental, 
    social, and economic controls. My amendment addresses this subject 
    and is thus germane. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I primarily rise 
    because I think it is extremely important that we not establish a 
    precedent respecting any jurisdiction which is too narrow in an ad 
    hoc committee of this nature.
        The very reason for appointing ad hoc committees is to give a 
    certain flexibility and a certain scope to deal with the specific 
    problem.
        Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy) has 
    very well pointed out, his amendment is a restriction on terms and 
    conditions provided for in this bill which has been designated to 
    this ad hoc committee.
        It would seem to me that this is a ruling of vast importance 
    because there may well be a time in this body when a number of ad 
    hoc committees may be appointed as a necessary instrument for 
    putting into effect the will of this body; and a narrow 
    construction with respect to germaneness on the basis of the 
    delegation of the jurisdiction of those committees would, in my 
    opinion, be a very, very bad thing from the standpoint of future 
    precedent.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons) makes a point of order 
    against the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York on the 
    grounds that it is not germane to title II of the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The amendment would add a new section to the Outer Continental 
    Shelf Lands Act to require that vessels, rigs and platforms used 
    for the exploration and production of resources on the Outer 
    Continental Shelf be built in the United States, operated by United 
    States citizens, and documented under the laws of the United 
    States. Section 208 of the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute to H.R. 6218 adds a variety of new sections to the Outer 
    Continental Shelf Lands Act to impose requirements on and to offer 
    guidelines for the development and production of the resources on 
    the shelf. The committee amendment requires management of the shelf 
    to consider all economic, social, and environmental values of such 
    resources, imposes safety regulations on the design and use of all 
    equipment on the shelf, requires leasing plans, subject to the 
    approval of the Secretary, to detail the equipment and facilities 
    to be used in development, and provides for the gathering of all 
    information relative to the facilities and equipment to be used in 
    such development. Additionally, section 208 adds sections to the 
    existing act to insure the availability of domestic energy from 
    shelf development by providing for Federal purchase of the 
    resources and limiting export of such resources. The amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York would add a further 
    direction and restriction to those contained in section 208 of the 
    committee amendment. For the reasons stated, the Chair feels that 
    the amendment in this context is germane to the portion of the bill 
    to which it is offered and therefore overrules the point of order.

[[Page 7614]]

Energy Conservation--Import Quotas

Sec. 4.19 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.

    On Sept. 17, 1975,(4) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 
1975,(5) a point of order against an amendment to a title of 
the bill was sustained. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 28905, 28924, 28925, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. H.R. 7014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   TITLE IV--ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES

      Part A--Allocation Act Amendments and Other Energy Conservation 
                                  Measures

        Sec. 401. Restructuring of Allocation Act.
        Sec. 402. Conversion to standby authorities.
        Sec. 403. Definitions in Allocation Act.
        Sec. 404. Amendments to section 4 of the Allocation Act.

        Sec. 405. Mandatory gasoline allocation savings program.
        Sec. 406. Retail distribution control measures.
        Sec. 407. Direct controls on refinery operations.
        Sec. 408. Inventory controls.
        Sec. 409. Hoarding prohibitions. . . .
        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez: Page 282, after line 16 
        insert the following:

        Import Quotas on Petroleum Products From Certain OPEC Countries

            Sec. 456. During calendar year 1976, and each calendar year 
        thereafter, the aggregate quantity of petroleum products which 
        may be imported into the United States from each country which 
        is a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting 
        Countries (other than Venezuela, Iran, Ecuador, Indonesia, 
        Nigeria and any other member who did not participate in the 
        petroleum products boycott of 1973) may not exceed an amount 
        equal to the daily average of petroleum products imported into 
        the United States from that country during the first six months 
        of calendar year 1975, multiplied by 365.
            Redesignate the succeeding sections of title IV 
        accordingly.

    Mr. John D. Dingell, Jr., of Michigan, made a point of order 
against the amendment:

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, the title of the amendment is 
    ``Import

[[Page 7615]]

    Quotas on Petroleum Products From Certain OPEC Countries.'' The 
    bill does not provide import quotas. The bill does direct the 
    President to use, however, certain authorities which he has in 
    connection with other statutes under subparagraph (b) in line 17 of 
    page 249, but, as the Chair will observe, that is only a direction 
    to the President to use certain powers which he has in connection 
    with controlling domestic consumption of petroleum products. . . .
        First of all, (the amendment) is offered I believe at the wrong 
    place in the bill and, second of all, it is a proposal which is not 
    properly in the bill since the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce has no jurisdiction to impose import quotas, that lying 
    under the rules of the House in the Ways and Means Committee.
        Also, since this is an amendment of which the Members could not 
    reasonably and logically have been apprised as required by the 
    rules of the House from the title of the legislation now before the 
    House and although I have some sympathy for the purposes and goals 
    of the gentleman, I have to point out, nevertheless, the question 
    is not a question which could or should properly be decided by the 
    Committee at this time under the rules of the House. . . .
        Mr. Gonzalez: . . . I would like to call the attention of the 
    Chair to Deschler's Procedure, on page 374, citation 5.17, in which 
    it is held very clearly and most emphatically:

            To a text seeking to accomplish a broad purpose by a method 
        less detailed in its provisions, an amendment more definitive 
        but relating to the same purpose implicit in the committee's 
        approach was held germane.

        The purpose of the bill is to increase domestic supply, 
    conserving and managing energy demand, and to establish standby 
    programs for minimizing this Nation's vulnerability to major 
    interruptions in the supply of petroleum imports.
        My amendment is more definitive in that it provides through 
    import quotas a means to encourage conservation, which is directly 
    related to the broad purpose of this bill.
        Now, in addition, the gentleman is arguing what I think is 
    improper in his point of order. The gentleman is raising the point 
    of committee jurisdiction. The gentleman says that this is not a 
    matter within the jurisdiction of the gentleman's committee that 
    has this bill here.
        Well, I want to refer the Chair to page 369 of Deschler's 
    Procedures, citation 416, which states that committee jurisdiction 
    is not the exclusive or the absolute test of germaneness.
        So I feel that based on Deschler's bible of procedure in our 
    House, my amendment is not only germane, it is timely. It is proper 
    and it is in order with what we are debating as the general scope 
    and purpose of the legislation pending.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Ohio have made 
    points of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Texas on the ground that it is not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas replies with two citations from 
    Deschler's Pro

[[Page 7616]]

    cedures, which appear to be to the point, but in the opinion of the 
    Chair are not precisely on the specific point. There is not in this 
    title of the bill, at least the Chair is unable to find a specific 
    imposition of general import quotas on all petroleum products. 
    There is not any specific imposition of general import quotas.
        Furthermore, the Chair is of the opinion that in this 
    particular case it is pertinent that the matter in the gentleman's 
    amendment would properly be within the purview of the Committee on 
    Ways and Means, rather than the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce.
        Therefore, on these grounds, relatively narrow grounds, the 
    Chair rules that the points of order are valid and rules that the 
    amendment is not in order.

Provisions Conferring Discretionary Authority To Restrict Exports of 
    Energy Resources--Amendment To Prohibit Exportation of Petroleum 
    Products for Particular Uses

Sec. 4.20 To a proposition conferring broad discretionary authority on 
    an executive official, an amendment directing that official to take 
    certain actions in the exercise of that authority is germane; thus, 
    to an amendment in the nature of a substitute authorizing the 
    Federal Energy Administrator to restrict exports of certain energy 
    resources, an amendment directing that official to prohibit the 
    exportation of petroleum products for use in military operations in 
    Indochina was held germane as a delineation of the broad authority 
    conferred by that substitute.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(7) during consideration of H.R. 11450 
(the Energy Emergency Act), the Chair held the following amendment to 
be germane to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to which it 
was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 119 Cong. Rec. 41753, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: 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 Ms. Holtzman to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: Page 45, insert 
        after line 9:
        ``sec. 124. prohibition of petroleum exports for military 
        operations in indochina.

            ``In the exercise of his jurisdiction under the preceding 
        section, and in order to conserve petroleum products for use in 
        the United States, the Administrator shall prohibit the 
        exportation of petroleum products for use, directly or 
        indirectly, in military operations in South Vietnam, Cambodia 
        or Laos.''. . .

[[Page 7617]]

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that this amendment is not germane to the bill 
    since it deals with a subject matter that is under the jurisdiction 
    of other committees of the House of Representatives, the Committee 
    on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs, as an 
    example. . . .
        Ms. Holtzman: Mr. Chairman, I do desire to be heard on the 
    point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, certainly the subject of petroleum products seems 
    to be within the jurisdiction of this committee since we have been 
    debating this matter for at least 3 days. So I would urge that that 
    subject is germane, and that my amendment is germane to the bill.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The language of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    which appears at the bottom of page 44 reads in part as follows:

            To the extent necessary to carry out the purpose of this 
        Act, the Administrator may under authority of this Act, by 
        rule, restrict exports of coal, petroleum products. . . .

        The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
    Holtzman) is a further delineation of that type of authority. 
    Therefore the Chair overrules the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill).

Bill Providing for Tax Incentives To Conserve Energy--Amendment 
    Prohibiting Purchase of Fuel Inefficient Automobiles by Federal 
    Government

Sec. 4.21 To a bill reported from the Committee on Ways and Means 
    providing for taxes and tax incentives to conserve energy, an 
    amendment prohibiting the purchase or leasing of fuel inefficient 
    autos by the federal government was held to be not germane, as 
    being beyond the scope of the bill and as dealing with a subject 
    (that of government purchases) properly within the jurisdiction of 
    another committee.

    During consideration of the Energy Conservation and Conversion Act 
of 1975 (9) in the Committee of the Whole on June 13, 1975, 
(10) the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 6860.
10. 121Cong. Rec. 18816, 18817, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Tsongas: Page 71 insert after line 20 
    the following:
    Sec. 312. Prohibition of Purchase of Fuel Inefficient Automobiles 
    by the Federal Government.

[[Page 7618]]

        (a) Prohibition of Purchase of Fuel Inefficient Automobiles.--
    No agency of the Federal Government may purchase or lease any 1977 
    or later model year automobile if the fuel mileage rating of such 
    automobile is less than the minimum fuel mileage standard 
    applicable to such automobile.
        (b) Minimum Fuel Mileage Standard.--For purposes of subsection 
    (a)--the fuel mileage standard for a 1977 model year automobile 
    shall be 17; for a 1978 automobile, 18; for a 1979 automobile, 19; 
    for a 1980 or later model year automobile, 20.
        (4) Fuel Mileage Rating.--The fuel mileage rating of any 
    automobile shall be the fuel mileage rating determined for such 
    automobile under section 4084(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
    1954 or, if such section does not apply with respect to such 
    automobile, the fuel mileage rating of such automobile shall be 
    determined under such section as if such section did apply to such 
    automobile. . . .
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: . . . I make the point of order 
    that this amendment is not germane to the bill, on two counts.
        First, there is nothing in either this title or the bill 
    relating to Government purchases. Second, the matter contained in 
    the amendment is not properly under the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means. It is not a tax matter, and therefore, 
    it is nongermane to the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Paul E.] Tsongas [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to make three points in response to the point of order.
        First, quite obviously, the thrust of my amendment is fuel 
    efficiency. It refers to the same standards that we discussed on 
    the floor and voted on with respect to the Sharp amendment, the 
    Fisher amendment, and the Ottinger amendment among others.
        My amendment applies to the standards of the U.S. Government as 
    those amendments applied to the U.S. public and to automobile 
    manufacturers, but the thrust of my amendment is fuel efficiency. 
    That, indeed, is what this bill is all about.
        Second, it does not authorize the Government purchase of 
    automobiles, which would be the proper jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Government Operations. It simply sets standards of 
    efficiency for Government vehicles as an aid to encourage 
    conservation, which is the function of this bill and the function 
    of the Committee on Ways and Means.
        Third, it is, in a sense, a revenue amendment in that it refers 
    to savings, both in terms of the purchase of automobiles and of 
    gasoline by the U.S. Government, and thus does come properly under 
    the domain of the Committee on Ways and Means and in that 
    committee's jurisdiction. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Tsongas) provides in part as follows:

            Prohibition of Purchase of Fuel Inefficient Automobiles.--
        No agency of the Federal Government may purchase or lease any 
        1977 or later model year automobile if the fuel mileage rating 
        of such automobile is less than the minimum fuel mileage 
        standard application to such automobile.

[[Page 7619]]

        There is nothing in the bill that deals with purchasing and 
    leasing authority, the Chair would have to advise the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts (Mr. Tsongas); and in addition, the subject 
    matter of Government purchases is not within the jurisdiction of 
    the committee in charge of the bill on the floor, the Committee on 
    Ways and Means.
        Therefore, the point of order must be sustained.

Energy Conservation--Fusion Research

Sec. 4.22 To a title of a bill reported from the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce entitled ``Conversion from Oil or 
    Gas to other fuels,'' but referring only to industrial conversion 
    from oil or gas to coal, an amendment adding a new section 
    increasing the authorization of the Energy Research and Development 
    Administration to promote the practical application of fusion 
    energy (a matter within the jurisdiction of the Joint Committee on 
    Atomic Energy and not within the scope of the title of the bill), 
    was held to be not germane.

    On Sept. 18, 1975,(12) during consideration of the 
Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975 (13) 13 in 
the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
sustained a point of order against an amendment to the pending title of 
the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 121 Cong. Rec. 29333-35, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H.R. 7014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            title vi--conversion from oil or gas to other fuels

        Sec. 601. Extension of authority to issue orders.
        Sec. 602. Extension of enforcement authority. . . .
        Sec. 606. Incentives to open new underground mines producing 
    low sulfur coal. . . .
        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez: On page 338, after line 
        25, insert a new section.
            ``Sec. 607. An additional $100,000,000 is authorized for 
        the Energy Research and Development Administration for a high 
        priority program exclusively geared to the practical 
        application of fusion energy.''

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    to reserve a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan reserves a point of 
    order.
        Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    reserve a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Washington reserves a point of 
    order. . . .

[[Page 7620]]

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that the 
    amendment comes to the wrong bill and to the wrong committee. The 
    authorization for nuclear research should come to the Joint 
    Committee on Atomic Energy and the Energy Research and Development 
    Administration. . . .
        I make my point of order, Mr. Chairman, on the ground that this 
    amendment is out of order because the jurisdiction falls 
    exclusively with the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy and the 
    Energy Research and Development Administration.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) also 
    reserved a point of order against the amendment.
        Does the gentleman wish to be heard on his point of order?
        Mr. Dingell: . . . I would like to commend my good friend, the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) for offering what I think is a 
    very well written amendment. Unfortunately, no hearings have been 
    held on it, and it has not been considered.
        I would point out to the body that the germaneness rule 
    requires that the character of the amendment be such that the 
    membership would have reasonably been apprised that amendments of 
    that sort might be placed before the body. Unfortunately, the 
    character of the amendment is such that it provides certain 
    authorities for ERDA, the Energy Research and Development Agency.
        Unfortunately, I do not think there is any way that anyone here 
    could have anticipated amendments dealing with adding authorities 
    or changing authorities within ERDA. . . .
        Mr. Gonzalez: . . . In arguing the point of germaneness, I will 
    address myself first to the remarks of the gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. McCormack). . . .
        If we are going to debate on a point of order the merits of the 
    amendment, it is contrary to the clear indication in Deschler's 
    Procedure, one of which decisions I quoted yesterday, on page 73, 
    which says that one does not look to the material content of the 
    general purposes of the bill to determine the specificity--there is 
    a good Watergate word--the specificity of the pending amendment.
        The gentleman says, ``This is the wrong church, the wrong pew. 
    It ought to go over here into another bill.''. . .
        Facetiously, let me say that we can make that comment about the 
    last 6 months and say that this bill before the committee has been 
    in the wrong committee and in the wrong place for the last 6 
    months.
        Let me say, however, that in Deschler's Procedure, both cases 
    that I cited yesterday in the Record clearly control the situation 
    here.
        I cannot think of anything more germane than this amendment to 
    the section of the bill that is talking about research and 
    development. It is actually authorizing moneys for that purpose. . 
    . .
        As to the point of the second gentleman, the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Dingell), his contention again comes repetitiously as 
    yesterday. He talks about the sanctity of committee jurisdiction. 
    Deschler's Procedure and particularly that citation I quoted 
    yesterday clearly says that that shall not be a governing factor in 
    determining whether or not an amendment is germane to a pending 
    bill. The jurisdic

[[Page 7621]]

    tion of a committee is not the controlling factor with respect to 
    germaneness. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The title of title VI is exceptionally broad, in the opinion of 
    the Chair.
        If the content of title VI were as broad as the title, the 
    Chair believes that the arguments of the eloquent gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) might bear more weight. But it is the content 
    of the pending title and not its heading against which the 
    germaneness of the amendment must be weighed.
        The Chair has had the opportunity to examine with some care all 
    of title VI and also language on pages 17 and 18 of the committee 
    report which deals with title VI. The Chair will not read from 
    those words except to say that the Chair only refers to those words 
    in that they support his view that title VI actually deals with the 
    conversion from oil or gas to coal and thus the scope of the title 
    is quite narrow. The amendment therefore does not fit the rule of 
    germaneness despite the eloquence of the gentleman from Texas and 
    the Chair feels compelled to rule that the amendment is not germane 
    to title VI and therefore sustains the various points of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As the Chair indicates above, the scope of 
a title of a bill is determined by the provisions contained therein, 
not by the phraseology of the formal heading of the title.

Provisions Establishing Procedures for Designating Priority Projects 
    Within Synthetic Fuels Program--Amendment Authorizing Temporary 
    Waivers of Laws Inconsistent With Projects

Sec. 4.23 For an amendment establishing procedures for designating 
    priority projects within a federally financed synthetic fuels 
    program and expediting procedural decision-making deadlines, but 
    not waiving substantive laws that might affect completion of those 
    projects, a substitute amendment authorizing the president to waive 
    any provision of law (if not disapproved by Congress) inconsistent 
    with the approval, construction and operation of synthetic fuel 
    projects was held not germane as a prospective temporary repeal of 
    those substantive laws within the jurisdiction of other committees 
    and beyond the narrow class of procedural waivers in the original 
    amendment.

    On June 26, 1979,(14) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration an amendment to

[[Page 7622]]

the Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979 (H.R. 3930) when the 
following substitute for the amendment was offered and, a point of 
order having been raised, was held to be not germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 125 Cong. Rec. 16683-86, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio as a substitute for 
        the amendment offered by Mr. Udall: Page 8, after line 13, 
        insert the following new subsection:
            ``(g)(1) Each Federal officer and agency having authority 
        to issue any permit for, or to otherwise approve or authorize, 
        the construction or operation of any facility which is to 
        produce any synthetic fuel or synthetic chemical feedstock for 
        which the President has contracted (or entered into a 
        commitment to contract) under this section shall, to the 
        maximum extent practicable--
            ``(A) expedite all actions necessary for the issuance of 
        such permit, approval, or authorization, and
            ``(B) take final action thereon not later than 12 months 
        after the date application for such permit, approval, or 
        authorization is made.
            After taking final action on any such permit, approval, or 
        authorization, such officer or agency shall publish 
        notification thereof in the Federal Register.
            ``(2)(A) Within 6 months after the date of the enactment of 
        this section, and from time-to-time thereafter, the President 
        shall--
            ``(i) identify those provisions of Federal law or 
        regulations (including any law or regulation affecting the 
        environment or land leasing policy) which the President 
        determines should be waived in whole or in part to facilitate 
        the construction and operation of any facility which is to 
        produce any synthetic fuel or synthetic chemical feedstock for 
        which the President has contracted (or entered into a 
        commitment to contract) under this section; and
            ``(ii) submit any such proposed waiver to both Houses of 
        the Congress.
            ``(B) The provisions of law so identified shall be waived 
        with respect to the construction and operation of such facility 
        to the extent provided for in such proposed waiver if 60 days 
        of continuous session of Congress have expired after the date 
        such notice was transmitted and neither House of the Congress 
        has adopted during that period of continuous session a 
        resolution stating in substance that such House disapproves of 
        that waiver. The term `continuous session of Congress' shall 
        have the same meaning as given it in section 301 of this 
        Act.''.
            Redesignate the following provisions accordingly. . . .

        The Chairman: (15) Does the gentleman from Oregon 
    (Mr. Weaver) insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Weaver: Mr. Chairman, the amendment says the President 
    shall identify provisions of Federal law or regulations. They are 
    unidentified law or regulations, other than to say they deal with 
    the environment and land use policy.
        If these provisions of law so identified are submitted to the 
    Congress, they will be waived. In other words, it affects law 
    outside the bill we have before us. It amends unidentified law. . . 
    .

[[Page 7623]]

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: . . . Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
    the point of order raised against my amendment.
        My amendment is clearly germane not only to the bill before us 
    but also to the Defense Production Act which the bill amends. On 
    page 5 of this very bill, lines 17 through 21, language similar to 
    that contained in my amendment can be found, and I quote:

            (c) Purchases, commitments to purchase, and resales under 
        subsection (b) may be made without regard to the limitations of 
        existing law, for such quantities, and on such terms and 
        conditions, including advance payments, and for such periods as 
        the President deems necessary . . .

        And then it goes on, and the quotation is ended.
        That relates to what I offer in my amendment with reference to 
    the President and his opportunity to waive existing law.
        Similar language to that in my amendment providing for waiver 
    of existing laws can be found in title 3 of the Defense Production 
    Act which section 3 of H.R. 3930 would amend.
        Mr. Chairman, the Defense Production Act is a very broad bill 
    inasmuch as it deals with our national defense. Title 50, United 
    States Code, section 2091, says, and I quote:

            Without regard to the provisions of law relating to the 
        making, performance, amendment, or modification of contracts.

        My amendment is a broad waiver provision, but it is no broader 
    than those waiver provisions found in the Defense Production Act 
    and in section 3 of H.R. 3930, which again is designed to amend the 
    Defense Production Act.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would argue to the Chair that my 
    amendment is germane. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The waivers of existing law found both in the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall) and in the bill and 
    statute itself are, in the judgment of the Chair, waivers with 
    respect to a very narrow class of existing law. The statute itself 
    makes reference to provisions of law relating to the ``making, 
    performance, amendment, or modification of contracts,'' a specific 
    reference to a narrow phase of law.

        The Chair would cite Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 
    33:

            To a bill temporarily amending for one year an existing law 
        establishing price supports for several agricultural 
        commodities, an amendment waiving the provisions of another law 
        relating to price supports for another agricultural commodity 
        was construed to directly change a law not amended by the 
        pending bill and thus to include a commodity outside the class 
        of those covered by the bill and was ruled not germane.

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall) 
    does not purport to waive all inconsistent Federal statutes. The 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) would 
    permit waiver of all provisions of law within the jurisdiction of 
    other committees and is, in the opinion of the Chair, therefore, in 
    effect a temporary prospective repeal of any other law which 
    otherwise would interfere with the construction of any facility 
    financed by this bill, and the Chair sustains the point of order.

[[Page 7624]]

Bill Providing for Synthetic Fuel Program for Defense Purposes--
    Amendment Requiring Commercial Fuels To Contain Certain Percentage 
    of Synthetic Fuel

Sec. 4.24 Where a bill pending before the Committee of the Whole 
    amended the Defense Production Act to direct the President to 
    achieve a national production goal of synthetic fuels to meet 
    defense purposes, and there was pending an amendment only to 
    increase the amount of that goal and to provide funding to meet 
    that goal, a substitute for the amendment requiring that any fuel 
    sold in commerce contain a certain percentage of synthetic fuel, 
    and requiring the Secretary of Energy to promulgate regulations 
    setting such percentage, was held not germane as going beyond the 
    scope of the amendment and containing matter not within the 
    jurisdiction of the reporting committee (Banking, Finance and Urban 
    Affairs).

    During consideration of the Defense Production Act Amendments of 
1979 (H.R. 3930) in the Committee of the Whole on June 26, 
1979,(16) amendments offered as a substitute for pending 
amendments were ruled out as going beyond the scope of the pending 
amendment and therefore not germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 16663, 16668, 16673, 16674, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                  expansion of productive capacity and supply

            Sec. 3. (a) Section 301(a) of the Defense Production Act of 
        1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2091) . . . .
            (e) Title III of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 
        U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
        thereof the following new section:
            ``Sec. 305. (a) The President, utilizing the provisions of 
        this Act and any other applicable provision of law, shall 
        attempt to achieve a national production goal of at least 
        500,000 barrels per day crude oil equivalent of synthetic fuels 
        and synthetic chemical feedstocks not later than five years 
        after the effective date of this section. The President is 
        authorized and directed to require fuel and chemical feedstock 
        suppliers to provide synthetic fuels and synthetic chemical 
        feedstocks in any case in which the President deems it 
        practicable and necessary to meet the national defense needs of 
        the United States. . . .
            (c) Not later than July 1, 1981, the Secretary shall 
        prescribe, by rule, the minimum percentage replacement fuel, by 
        volume, required to be contained in the total quantity of 
        gasoline and diesel fuel sold each year in commerce in the 
        United

[[Page 7625]]

        States in calendar years 1982 through 1986 by any refiner for 
        use as a motor fuel. Such percentage shall apply to each 
        refiner, and shall be set for each such calendar year at a 
        level which the Secretary determines--
            (1) is technically and economically feasible, and
            (2) will result in steady progress toward meeting the 
        requirements under this section for calendar year 1987. . . .

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Wright: Page 5, line 2, strike 
        out the period after ``section'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``and at least 2,000,000 barrels per day crude oil equivalent 
        of synthetic fuels and synthetic chemical feedstocks not later 
        than ten years after the effective date of this section.''
            Page 10, line 23, strike ``appropriated $2,000,000,000'' 
        and insert in lieu thereof ``appropriated from general funds of 
        the Treasury not otherwise appropriated or from any fund 
        hereafter established by Congress after the date of enactment 
        of this sentence not to exceed $3,000,000,000''. . . .

        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments as a substitute for the amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Jeffords as a substitute for the 
        amendments offered by Mr. Wright: Page 5, line 8, add new 
        subsections ``(b)'' through ``(f)''.
            (b) Of the total quantity of gasoline and diesel fuel sold 
        in commerce during any of the following years by any refiner 
        (including sales to the Federal Government), replacement fuel 
        shall constitute the minimum percentage determined in 
        accordance with the following table: . . .
            [In calendar years 1982 through 1986, the percentage 
        determined by the Secretary under subsection (b) of this 
        section; 1987, 1988, and 1989, 10 per cent (etc.)]

        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, as 
    much as I support the concept of the substitute of the gentleman 
    from Vermont--I believe I am a cosponsor of his bill--I do not 
    believe it is a proper part of this legislation in that it is not 
    germane.
        First, it is not germane to the Wright amendment which is a 
    production amendment and a defense production amendment.
        This amendment is a regulatory amendment dealing with 
    ``replacement fuels sold in commerce.'' It is not a production 
    bill.
        The same language is contained further down. It regulates the 
    amount of synthetic fuel and diesel fuel sold each year in commerce 
    in the United States and the guts of the bill are regulatory, 
    rather than production aimed. Therefore, this amendment is not 
    germane to the Wright amendment or to the bill. . . .
        Mr. Jeffords: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that once the Wright 
    amendment has been agreed to as being part of the bill, then a 
    substitute which goes well beyond the original concept of the bill 
    is also germane and in order.
        I would point out that the Wright amendment, as I have said 
    before, takes us totally out of just the needs for the Federal 
    Government and goes

[[Page 7626]]

    out into the area of sales in commerce. I think because the Wright 
    amendment is being considered as germane, the substitute should 
    also.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas goes to goals 
    for defense production of synthetic fuels and to the funds to 
    achieve those goals. The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Vermont, for reasons stated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, is 
    not solely related to defense production but rather goes to all 
    diesel fuel and gasoline sold in commerce whether defense related 
    or not and does not speak solely to the production of synthetic 
    fuels for defense purposes. It is therefore beyond the scope of the 
    Wright amendment and is not germane, and the Chair is also 
    constrained to point out the subject matter of the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Vermont does not lie within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban 
    Affairs.
        For the foregoing reasons the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Bill To Provide Financial Assistance for Synthetic Fuel Development for 
    Defense Needs--Amendment Providing for Expedited Approval of 
    Designated Projects Under Bill

Sec. 4.25 To a section of a bill amending the Defense Production Act 
    providing financial assistance for synthetic fuel development to 
    meet national defense needs, an amendment providing expedited 
    review and approval of certain designated priority projects to be 
    financed by the bill, thereby affecting time periods for procedural 
    review specified in other laws, but not waiving provisions of 
    substantive law which might prohibit completion of such projects, 
    was held germane as not affecting substantive environmental or 
    energy laws within the jurisdiction of other committees.

    On June 26, 1979,(18) during consideration of the 
Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979 (19) in the 
Committee of the Whole, Chairman Gerry E. Studds, of Massachusetts, 
overruled a point of order and held the following amendment to be 
germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 125 Cong. Rec. 16681-83, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. H.R. 3930.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: Page 8, after line 13 add the 
    following new subsection and renumber the subsequent sections 
    accordingly:
        (g)(1)) The Secretary of Energy is hereby authorized to 
    designate a pro

[[Page 7627]]

    posed synthetic fuel or feedstock facility as a priority synthetic 
    project pursuant to the procedures and criteria provided in this 
    section. . . .
        (h)(1) Any person planning or proposing a synthetic fuel or 
    feedstock facility may apply to the Secretary of Energy for an 
    order designating such facility as a priority synthetic project. . 
    . .
        (i) Not later than forty-five days after receipt of an 
    application authorized under the previous section, the Secretary 
    shall determine whether the proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock 
    facility is of sufficient national interest to be designated a 
    priority synthetic project. Upon reaching a determination the 
    Secretary shall publish his decision in the Federal Register and 
    shall notify the applicant and the agencies identified in 
    subsection (h)(3). In making such a determination the Secretary 
    shall consider--
        (1) the extent to which the facility would reduce the Nation's 
    dependence upon imported oil;
        (2) the magnitude of any adverse environmental impacts 
    associated with the facility and the existence of alternatives that 
    would have fewer adverse impacts; . . .
        (7) the extent to which the applicant is prepared to complete 
    or has already completed the significant actions which the 
    applicant in consultation with the Deputy Secretary anticipate will 
    be identified under subsection (l) as required from the applicant; 
    and
        (8) the public comments received concerning such facility. . . 
    .
        (l) Not later than thirty days after notice appears in the 
    Federal Register of an order designating a proposed synthetic fuel 
    or feedstock facility as a priority synthetic project, any Federal 
    agency with authority to grant or deny any approval or to perform 
    any action necessary to the completion of such project or any part 
    thereof, shall transmit to the Secretary of Energy and to the 
    priority energy project--
        (1) a compilation of all significant actions required by such 
    agency before a final decision or any necessary approval(s) can be 
    rendered;
        (2) a compilation of all significant actions and information 
    required of the applicant before a final decision by such agency 
    can be made;
        (3) a tentative schedule for completing actions and obtaining 
    the information listed in subsections (1) and (2) of this 
    subsection;
        (4) all necessary application forms that must be completed by 
    the priority energy project before such approval can be granted; 
    and
        (5) the amounts of funds and personnel available to such agency 
    to conduct such actions and the impact of such schedule on other 
    applications pending before such agency.
        (m)(1) Not later than sixty days after notice appears in the 
    Federal Register of an order designating a synthetic fuel or 
    feedstock facility as a priority synthetic project, the Secretary, 
    in consultation with the appropriate Federal, State and local 
    agencies shall publish in the Federal Register a Project Decision 
    Schedule containing deadlines for all Federal actions relating to 
    such project. . . .
        (3) All deadlines in the Project Decision Schedule shall be 
    consistent with the statutory obligations of Federal agencies 
    governed by such Schedule.

[[Page 7628]]

        (4) Except as provided in subparagraph (3) above and in 
    subsection (p) no deadline established under this section or 
    extension granted under subparagraph (5) of the section may result 
    in the total time for agency action exceeding nine months beginning 
    from the date on which notice appears in the Federal Register of an 
    order designating the proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock facility 
    as a priority synthetic project.
        (5) Notwithstanding any deadline or other provision of Federal 
    law, the deadlines imposed by the Project Decision Schedule shall 
    constitute the lawful decisionmaking deadlines for reviewing 
    applications filed by the priority synthetic project. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment offered by my good friend from 
    Arizona is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, it is well settled the amendment must be germane 
    not only to the section but also to the bill.

        Mr. Chairman, the bill relates to the Defense Production Act.
        Mr. Chairman, under the amendment, a lengthy process is 
    established whereunder the Secretary of Energy, who is not 
    mentioned elsewhere in the bill, is authorized to designate 
    synthetic fuel or feedstocks facilities as priority synthetic 
    projects, pursuant to lengthy criteria which are set forth at the 
    first and second pages and following.
        So, Mr. Chairman, there is a whole range of broad new 
    responsibilities imposed on the Secretary of Energy not found 
    elsewhere, either in the Defense Production Act or in the bill 
    before us, which are quite complex, very obvious, and which involve 
    a lengthy amount of work and which involve amendment either 
    directly or indirectly of a large number of Federal, State, and 
    local statutes dealing with the project and permitting the project.
        There is also an extensive procedural responsibility on both 
    the Secretary and one which is imposed on the Governor of the State 
    in which the action would occur.
        For that reason, Mr. Chairman, a Member of this body could not 
    very well anticipate as would be required by the rules of 
    germaneness that an amendment of this sweep and breadth could be 
    visited upon us. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, a further 
    point of order. . . .
        I make a point of order against the amendment for the following 
    reasons: The bill before us, H.R. 3930, amends the Defense 
    Production Act of 1950 and it does so by extending the authority of 
    the act and also providing for the purchase of synthetic fuels and 
    synthetic chemical feed stock and for other purposes. An 
    examination of the other purposes reveals nothing akin to the 
    amendment before us. The amendment before us in effect seeks to 
    apply the National Environmental and Policy Act of 1969, 
    specifically on page 5 in subparagraph (d) to the facilities that 
    would contract with the Government.
        It appears to me that by attempting to do this, this is beyond 
    the scope of the jurisdiction of this committee. It is within the 
    scope of other committees' jurisdictions and certainly beyond the 
    scope of the bill, which simply deals with contracts and purchases 
    and not

[[Page 7629]]

    the environmental qualities or activities of the people who seek to 
    contract with the Government.
        Therefore, the amendment is not germane and beyond the scope of 
    the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: . . . The pending bill 
    creates authority to finance directly and indirectly synthetic fuel 
    and chemical feed stocks, feedstock projects. . . .
        What my amendment does is not to change any of the existing 
    laws. It does not change any environmental protection laws or 
    anything else, but it says we are going to have decisions. Within 
    nine months after this is put on the fast track, we are going to 
    get a yes or no decision on it. . . .
        This amendment simply supplements the existing statutory 
    procedures to achieve expedited approval or disapproval of various 
    authorities necessary for the completion of synfuel projects 
    created under the authority of the legislation; so the subject 
    matter of the amendment is germane to the subject of the pending 
    legislation. The point of order ought to be rejected, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The bill before the committee bestows authority for loan 
    guarantees to finance synthetic fuel or feedstock facility 
    construction. The amendment of the gentleman from Arizona 
    establishes a complex mechanism for expediting procedures for 
    projects financed by loan guarantees under the bill.
        The Chair is unable in response to the gentleman from Maryland 
    to find any respect in which the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Arizona would amend the National Environmental Protection Act, but 
    merely provides that determinations made as to priority of 
    synthetic projects eligible for expeditious review shall not be 
    considered major Federal actions under that law.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the totality of the Udall 
    amendment constitutes essentially an expediting of procedures under 
    authorities provided for in the bill and is, therefore, germane.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill Relating to Military and National Defense Policy--Amendment 
    Directing President To Submit Reports on Soviet Union's Compliance 
    With Arms Control Agreements

Sec. 4.26 To a title of a bill containing matters within the 
    jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill, an amendment 
    dealing solely with a matter within the jurisdiction of another 
    committee is not germane; thus, to a title of a bill reported from 
    the Committee on Armed Services, containing diverse provisions 
    relating to national defense policy, military procurement and 
    personnel, and amended to include conditions and restrictions on 
    procurement funds in the bill that had reference to certain

[[Page 7630]]

    considerations of foreign policy, an amendment directing the 
    President to submit reports on the Soviet Union's compliance with 
    its arms control commitments, a matter exclusively within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, was held not 
    germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 1872 (the Defense Authorization, 
fiscal 1986) in the Committee of the Whole on June 27, 
1985,(20) the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
amendment described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 131 Cong. Rec. 17810, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Courter: At the end of part C of 
        title X (page 176, after line 8) insert the following new 
        section:
        sec. 1024. annual report on soviet compliance with arms control 
        commitments.

            Not later than December 1, 1985, and not later than 
        December 1 of each year thereafter, the President shall submit 
        to the Congress a report containing an update (since the most 
        recent report to the Congress on the subject) of the 
        President's findings regarding the Soviet Union's compliance 
        with its arms control commitments, together with such 
        additional information regarding the Soviet Union's compliance 
        with its arms control commitments as may be necessary to keep 
        the Congress currently informed on such matter. The President 
        shall submit classified and unclassified versions of such 
        report to the Congress each year. . . .

        Mr. [Norman D.] Dicks [of Washington]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    think this amendment is not germane to this particular piece of 
    legislation and falls within the purview of the Foreign Affairs 
    Committee.
        Therefore, I would make my point of order and ask that it be 
    sustained. . . .
        Mr. Courter: There was, Mr. Chairman, an amendment by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta] that was passed by this 
    body. That amendment was concerning strategic defense initiatives. 
    The last couple lines of that amendment, which is now part of the 
    bill that we are considering says: ``in a manner inconsistent with 
    the Limited Test Ban Treaty, the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, the 
    Outer Space Treaty, or the ABM Treaty.''
        Therefore, since the bill has been opened up with regard to 
    treaties, I think that my amendment is valid and no point of order 
    lies. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (1) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will state that the gentleman's amendment directs 
    that the President make findings on the Soviet Union's compliance 
    with its arms control commitments. That is not within the 
    jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee. It is solely within 
    the jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Com

[[Page 7631]]

    mittee, and the Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman 
    from Washington. . . .

    After the ruling, the Chair responded to parliamentary inquiries:

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will entertain a 
    parliamentary inquiry from the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
    Courter].
        Mr. Courter: I thank the Chair.
        The parliamentary inquiry is whether this has been now 
    broadened to include arms control agreements because an amendment 
    has been adopted that in fact refers to arms control agreements, 
    thus making my amendment permissible.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman 
    from New Jersey [Mr. Courter] that the Foglietta amendment to title 
    II did not legislate on another country's commitment to its 
    treaties; it merely made a linkage between funding for certain 
    weapons systems in space in a manner consistent with U.S. treaty 
    obligations and, therefore, the Chair felt that the Courter 
    Amendment did not deal with the issues within the jurisdiction of 
    the Armed Services Committee and sustained the point of order.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, as the Chair knows, the bill was 
    broadened to include areas within the jurisdiction of the Foreign 
    Affairs Committee several amendments ago when we had an amendment 
    passed relating to Afghanistan. Given the fact that the bill has 
    already been broadened, would that not also play a role in making 
    the gentleman's particular amendment germane?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state to the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] the Chair is not aware of the fact 
    that title X of the bill has been broadened to such an extent. That 
    amendment referred to Defense Department equipment and its 
    availability to Afghan refugees.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The amendment to title II, which was the 
subject of Mr. Courter's inquiry, technically had no bearing on the 
germaneness of amendments to title X, but in any event none of the 
amendments cited contained matters exclusively within the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, but were conditions on military 
funding.

Bill Requiring Information on Weapons Systems From Director of Arms 
    Control Disarmament Agency--Amendment Prohibiting Agreements for 
    Export of Any Nuclear Material Prior to Report to Congress

Sec. 4.27 To a section of a bill reported from the Committee on 
    International Relations directing the Director of the Arms Control 
    Disarmament

[[Page 7632]]

    Agency to collect and transmit to Congress information on weapons 
    systems, including certain military uses of nuclear material, an 
    amendment prohibiting agreements for export of any nuclear material 
    prior to a report to Congress on the impact of such transfers on 
    arms control and disarmament policies was held to be a matter 
    within the jurisdiction of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy and 
    to go beyond the scope of the section by including material with 
    nonmilitary uses, and was held to be not germane.

    On July 9, 1975,(2) during consideration of the Arms 
Control and Disarmament Act Amendments of 1975 (3) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order in the 
circumstances described above. The pending section of the bill and the 
amendment offered thereto were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 121 Cong. Rec. 21853, 21854, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. H.R. 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               arms control and disarmament impact statement

        Sec. 103. Title III of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act (22 
    U.S.C. 2571-2575) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
    following:

                arms control impact information and analysis

        ``Sec. 36. (a) In order to assist the Director in the 
    performance of his duties with respect to arms control and 
    disarmament policy and negotiations, any Government agency 
    preparing any legislative or budgetary proposal for--
        ``(1) any program of research, development, testing, 
    engineering, construction, deployment, or modernization with 
    respect to armaments, ammunition, implements of war, or military 
    facilities, having--
        ``(A) an estimated total program cost in excess of 
    $250,000,000, or
        ``(B) an estimated annual program cost in excess of 
    $50,000,000, or
        ``(2) any other program involving weapons systems or technology 
    which such Government agency or the Director believes may have a 
    significant impact on arms control and disarmament policy or 
    negotiations, shall, on a continuing basis, provide the Director 
    with full and timely access to detailed information, in accordance 
    with the procedures established pursuant to section 35 of this Act, 
    with respect to the nature, scope, and purpose of such proposal.

        ``(b)(1) The Director, as he deems appropriate, shall assess 
    and analyze each program described in subsection (a) with respect 
    to its impact on arms control and disarmament policy and 
    negotiations, and shall advise and make recommendations, on the 
    basis of such assessment and analysis, to the National Security 
    Council, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Government 
    agency proposing such program.
        ``(2) Any request to the Congress for authorization or 
    appropriations for--

[[Page 7633]]

        ``(A) any program described in subsection (a)(1), or
        ``(B) any program described in subsection (a)(2) and found by 
    the National Security Council, on the basis of the advice and 
    recommendations received from the Director, to have a significant 
    impact on arms control and disarmament policy or negotiations, 
    shall include a complete statement analyzing the impact of such 
    program on arms control and disarmament policy and negotiations.
        ``(3) Upon the request of any appropriate committee of either 
    House of Congress, the Director shall, after informing the 
    Secretary of State, advise the Congress on the arms control and 
    disarmament implications of any program with respect to which a 
    statement has been submitted to the Congress pursuant to paragraph 
    (2). . . .
        Mr. [Paul] Simon [of Illinois]: Madam Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Simon: Page 4, strike out the 
        close quotation mark and the final period at the end of line 18 
        and insert immediately after such line the following:

          ``reports on sales to foreign countries of nuclear materials

            ``Sec. 37. No agreement between the United States and any 
        foreign country providing for the sale or other transfer to 
        such country of any nuclear material may be entered into, and 
        no license for the sale or other transfer to any foreign 
        country of any nuclear material may be issued, unless the 
        Director had submitted a report analyzing the impact of such 
        sale or other transfer on arms control and disarmament policies 
        and negotiations to the National Security Council, and the 
        Congress.''. . . .

        Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Madam Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. The amendment deals with 
    agreements that provide for the transfer of nuclear materials to 
    foreign countries. This subject is under the jurisdiction of the 
    Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. In terms of legislation, such 
    transfers come within the purview of the Atomic Energy Act.
        H.R. 7567 deals with the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 
    whose main purpose is to authorize appropriations for that agency 
    for the fiscal years 1976 and 1977.
        In addition, the bill deals with the functions of the Director 
    of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, requires various 
    executive agencies to submit information about weapons systems to 
    the Director, and requires the Director to submit certain 
    information to the Congress.
        The bill, H.R. 7567, which is now before us, does not deal with 
    nuclear energy or the transfer of nuclear materials to other 
    countries.
        The words ``nuclear materials,'' Madam Chairman, includes not 
    only weapons material, it includes all isotopes, all pacing 
    materials for people's hearts, and military and research material, 
    all industrial and agricultural isotopes, all fuel for nuclear 
    reactors of the Western European countries, and Japan.
        Thus the amendment is much broader in scope than the bill.
        Finally, section 123(d) of the Atomic Energy Act requires that 
    all major agreements made by ERDA go to the

[[Page 7634]]

    State Department and to the President, and then come to the 
    Congress for 60 days for approval. They come directly to the Joint 
    Committee on Atomic Energy. They lay on the House table for 30 
    days, and there is an automatic vote required on them within the 
    last 5 days of that 30-day period. . . .
        Mr. Simon: . . . This bill sets forth certain responsibilities 
    for the Director of this Agency. In any bill setting forth 
    responsibilities there will be overlaps, and there are overlaps 
    with other agencies, as in section 36(a) in this bill. But clearly, 
    we are defining the responsibilities of the Director of this 
    agency. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois goes to an 
    issue which is peculiarly and specifically within the jurisdiction 
    of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. The question of agreements 
    on export sales of nuclear material is not within the purview of 
    this bill and is not germane to section 103 of this bill. Section 
    103 merely requires the furnishing of information regarding the 
    development of defense systems, and it does not extend in any 
    manner to a prohibition of exportation of all nuclear materials.
        Some nuclear materials may be in different classes, as was 
    pointed out by the gentleman from Washington. There may be some 
    nuclear material exported for peaceful purposes. In that regard the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois is not germane to 
    section 103, is much too all inclusive in its effect, and the point 
    of order is sustained.

Bill Authorizing Funds for Weapons Development--Amendment Prohibiting 
    Use of Funds Until President Resumes Arms Control Initiatives

Sec. 4.28 It is not germane to make the effectiveness of an 
    authorization contingent upon an unrelated determination involving 
    issues within the jurisdiction of agencies and committees outside 
    the purview of the pending bill; thus, to a title of a bill 
    authorizing appropriations for research on and development of 
    military weapons, an amendment prohibiting the use of those funds 
    for development of a certain weapon until the President resumes 
    treaty initiatives toward arms control was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of the Department of Defense Authorization for 
fiscal year 1982 (5) in the Committee of the Whole on July 
9, 1981,(6) the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 3519.
 6. 127 Cong. Rec. 15218, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Bedell: After section 203 insert the 
    following new section:

[[Page 7635]]

                     limitation on funds for mx missile

        Sec. 204. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by 
    section 201 may be obligated or expended for the full-scale 
    development of an operational basing mode for the MX missile until 
    the President--
        (1) has completed his review of previous strategic arms 
    limitation (SALT) negotiations;
        (2) is prepared to resume strategic arms limitation 
    negotiations with the Soviet Union, one of the principal aims of 
    such negotiations being to establish a limit on the number of 
    intercontinental ballistic missile launchers and deployable 
    warheads available to both sides; and
        (3) formally transmitted to the Soviet Union his desire to 
    resume such negotiations.
        Mr. Melvin Price (of Illinois): Madam Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        It is a violation of House rule 16 regarding germaneness. That 
    rule requires instructions, qualifications, and limitations to be 
    germane to the provisions of the bill.
        It is my contention that the condition here is totally 
    unrelated to the provisions of the bill and in fact lies within the 
    jurisdiction of another committee. . . .
        Mr. [Berkley] Bedell [of Iowa]: . . . Madam Chairman, I am not 
    a specialist on rules, but it would appear to me very clearly that 
    for us to say that we are not going to spend money on a system 
    which would not be of value unless something else happens is 
    perfectly germane and perfectly proper for us to do.
        We do it in our small business disaster loans when we say small 
    business disaster loans will not be made unless the Governor of the 
    State declares there has been a disaster therein.
        We do the same thing in regard to disaster payments for 
    agriculture when we say that the people will not be eligible unless 
    Federal crop insurance is there.
        It appears to me that we have clearly pointed out in the debate 
    that we have had that without SALT II it is at least questionable 
    as to whether MX makes any sense at all, and if we do have rules in 
    the House which say that we cannot have amendments which say that 
    we will not spend money on something that is going to be valueless 
    unless something occurs, if we have amendments that say that we 
    cannot make the spending contingent upon that action which would be 
    necessary to make the expenditure of any value, then I submit that 
    we had better look at the rules of the House. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (7) . . . [T]he Chair is 
    prepared to rule on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Marilyn Lloyd Bouquard (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment makes use of funds for the MX missile dependent 
    upon certain actions by the President relative to the SALT 
    negotiations. Since arms control issues are within the jurisdiction 
    of the Foreign Affairs Committee and not the Armed Services 
    Committee, and for same reasons stated by the Chair yesterday, in 
    sustaining a point of order against the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Washington, the Chair sustains the point of order of 
    the gentleman from Illinois.

[[Page 7636]]

Bill Amending Laws on Military Procurement--Amendment Relating to 
    Contracts Entered Into by Defense Department and Other Agencies

Sec. 4.29 To a title of a bill reported from the Committee on Armed 
    Services amending several laws within the jurisdiction of that 
    committee on the subject of military procurement and military 
    departments, an amendment amending and extending the Renegotiation 
    Act, a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking, 
    Finance and Urban Affairs and covering not only the Department of 
    Defense procurement contract profits but also contracts entered 
    into by other agencies not within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
    on Armed Services was held to be not germane.

    On June 26, 1985,(8) during consideration of the Defense 
Department Authorization, fiscal 1986,(9) in the Committee 
of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 131 Cong. Rec. 17417-19, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. H.R. 1872.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez: At the end of Title VIII 
        (page 143, after line 19), add the following new section:
        sec. 802. war profiteering prohibition act.

            (a) Section 102 of the Renegotiation Act of 1951 (50 U.S.C. 
        App. 1212) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following:
            ``(f) Certain Amounts Received After October 1, 1985.--
        Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), the 
        provisions of this title shall not apply to contracts with 
        Departments, or related subcontracts, to the extent of the 
        amounts received or accrued by a contractor or subcontractor 
        during the period beginning on October 1, 1985, and ending on 
        the date of the enactment of this subsection.''.
            (b) The last sentence of section 102(c)(1) of the 
        Renegotiation Act of 1951 (50 U.S.C. App. 1212(c)(1)) is 
        amended to read as follows: ``For purposes of this title, the 
        term `termination date' means September 30, 1988.''. . . .

        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: . . . I make a point 
    of order on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas, in 
    that it is nongermane under the rule. The subject matter falls 
    principally outside the jurisdiction of this committee, and the 
    Renegotiation Act to which the amendment applies includes a variety 
    of departments in the executive branch over which this committee 
    has no jurisdiction or oversight or authority, and nothing in this 
    bill pertains to it or would give rise to the amendment.

[[Page 7637]]

        So I would insist, reluctantly, on my point of order. The 
    amendment is well intended, and I cannot argue with the thrust of 
    that either, but I do think at this point (it) is not germane, and 
    I do insist upon my point of order. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (10) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule on the gentleman's point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment would make certain changes in, and extend the 
    provisions of, the Renegotiation Act of 1951. That act was 
    originally in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
    but the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 transferred specific 
    jurisdiction over renegotiation to the Committee on Banking, 
    Finance and Urban Affairs. The act covers contracts for procurement 
    and construction necessary for the national defense, but the act 
    covers not only the Department of Defense and the military 
    departments, but also the Maritime Administration, the General 
    Services Administration, the Atomic Energy Commission, the National 
    Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Federal Aviation Agency, 
    and such other agencies having a connection with the national 
    defense as the President may designate. The title of the bill under 
    consideration deals with procurement for the Department of Defense 
    and the military departments, and not with other agencies outside 
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services.
        Since the subject matter of the amendment goes beyond the 
    coverage of the title and bill under consideration, and since it 
    falls squarely within the jurisdiction of another committee, the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

Defense Production Act--Amendment Establishing Committee To Consult 
    With President on Administration of Act

Sec. 4.30 To the Defense Production Act of 1950, establishing a system 
    of priorities and allocations for materials and facilities, an 
    amendment proposing the establishment of a joint committee to 
    consult with the President with respect to the administration of 
    the act, was held not germane.

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of the Defense 
Production Act of 1950,(11) the following amendment was 
offered: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 9176 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
12. 96 Cong. Rec. 11740, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 3, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mrs. [Katharine P. C.] St. George [of New 
    York] to the amendment offered by Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: 
    On page 48, line 20, of the Spence amendment, add the following new 
    section:
        Sec. --. (a) There is hereby established a Joint Economic 
    Security Committee. . . .
        (b) The joint committee is authorized and directed to make a 
    continuing study and investigation of, and advise and consult with 
    the President with respect to, the administration of this act. . . 
    .

[[Page 7638]]

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 11741.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: . . . This is an attempt to set 
    up in this bill a joint committee. I do not believe the amendment 
    is germane or that it is in order.
        The Chairman,(14) in ruling on the point of order, 
    stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
    undertakes to set up a joint committee of the two Houses of 
    Congress, which is a subject that is not within the jurisdiction of 
    the Committee on Banking and Currency.
        The Chair holds that the amendment is not germane, and, 
    therefore, sustains the point of order.

Bill To Amend Defense Production Act--Amendment To Amend Internal 
    Revenue Code

Sec. 4.31 To a bill to amend the Defense Production Act of 1950, a 
    committee amendment which would amend the Internal Revenue Code was 
    held to be not germane. The rule of germaneness applies to 
    committee amendments.

    In the 82d Congress, a bill (15) was under consideration 
amending the Defense Production Act of 1950. The following committee 
amendment was read by the Clerk: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 3871 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
16. 97 Cong. Rec. 7978, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., July 11, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Committee amendment: Page 12, line 7, insert:
        (e) Title III of the Defense Production Act of 1950 is amended 
    by adding at the end thereof the following new section:
        Sec. 305. (a) No construction or expansion of plants, 
    factories, or other facilities shall be (1) undertaken, or assisted 
    by means of loans . . . by the United States under this or any 
    other act, or (2) certified under section 124A of the Internal 
    Revenue Code (relating to amortization for tax purposes) . . . 
    unless the President shall have determined that the proposed 
    location of such construction . . . is consistent . . . with a 
    sound policy of (1) utilizing fully the . . . resources of the 
    Nation. . . .

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

        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane to the subject matter of the bill. It has to do with an 
    amendment to the Internal Revenue Code, in respect to the 
    acceleration of appreciation for tax purposes.

    In support of the point of order, Mr. Foster Furcolo, of 
Massachusetts, stated:

[[Page 7639]]

        . . . There is nothing in the Defense Production Act of 1950 
    relating to amortization for tax purposes.

    The following exchange (17) related to the point of 
order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at pp. 7978, 7979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, of 
    course a committee amendment occupies no different status than an 
    amendment offered by a Member from the floor. This amendment 
    undertakes to add to this bill a provision which has no relation at 
    all to the Defense Production Act of 1950. It relates to 
    amortization for taxation purposes, the so-called 5-year 
    amortization program. . . .
        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Supplementing what the 
    gentleman has said with regard to the certification under this 
    section of the Internal Revenue Code any legislation in that 
    respect, of course, would have to come from the Committee on Ways 
    and Means. . . .
        The very fact that in this amendment are included matters which 
    are properly under the cognizance of other committees of the House, 
    in my judgment, makes it not germane to this bill.
        Mr. [Albert M.] Rains [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, this 
    amendment in this particular act has reference to defense plants or 
    to plants engaged in the defense effort. It is true that in this 
    particular amendment reference is made to the Internal Revenue Act 
    and to tax amortization certificates. . . .

    The Chairman,(18) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        To [the committee] amendment the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
    Wolcott], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Furcolo], and 
    several others raise a point of order and have advised the Chair as 
    to why the point of order should be sustained.
        The Chair . . . desires to read one paragraph from Cannon's 
    Procedure in the House of Representatives:

            . . . It is not in order during consideration of the bill 
        to introduce a new subject and the rule applies to amendments 
        offered by the Committee as well as to amendments offered from 
        the floor.

        The amendment offered by the committee goes beyond the purview 
    of the bill, House bill 3871, and beyond the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Banking and Currency in attempting to amend other 
    statutes in connection with this bill.
        The amendment refers not only to the bill under consideration 
    but to other acts. It also refers to section 124(a) of the Internal 
    Revenue Code, invading the jurisdiction of another standing 
    committee of the House.
        The Chair is therefore constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

Bill Authorizing Military Expenditures--Amendment Prohibiting Use of 
    Funds Except in Accordance With Congressional Policy Declaration

Sec. 4.32 To a bill authorizing military expenditures, an amendment 
    providing that ``none of the funds authorized herein'' be used 
    except

[[Page 7640]]

    in accordance with certain congressional declarations as to our 
    foreign policy with respect to Southeast Asia was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of supplemental military 
authorizations for fiscal 1967,(19) the following amendment 
was offered: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 4515 (Committee on Armed Services).
20. 113 Cong. Rec. 5139, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 2, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: On 
    page 4, line 10, after ``$624,500,000'', insert:

              Title IV--Statement of Congressional Policy

        Sec. 401. None of the funds authorized by this Act shall be 
    used except in accordance with the following declaration by 
    Congress. . . .
        . . . (2) its support of efforts being made by the President of 
    the United States and other men of good will throughout the world 
    to prevent an expansion of the war in Vietnam. . . .
        . . . (3) its support of the Geneva accords of 1954 and 1962. . 
    . .

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

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    rise to a point of order on the ground that the amendment is not 
    germane to the bill. The bill before the House is a supplemental 
    authorization bill. The amendment contains no limitation. It 
    declares a matter of policy which obviously is under the 
    jurisdiction of another committee. . . .

    In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Reuss, stated: 
(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 5140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        By stating the circumstances under which the authorization may 
    be pursued, [the amendment] is well within the precedents of this 
    body, and the mere fact that a portion of the language relates to 
    the foreign policy specialty of the House Committee on Foreign 
    Affairs is entirely irrelevant.

    The Chairman, Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of Illinois, in ruling on the 
point of order, stated: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 5141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that the subject matter of the 
    amendment comes within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign 
    Affairs, and not the Committee on Armed Services which reported the 
    bill now before the Committee. . . .
        The Chair, applying one of the accepted tests for germaneness, 
    is of the opinion that the amendment is essentially on a ``subject 
    other than that under consideration'' and is not germane to the 
    bill under consideration.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Substantially the same amendment was later ruled out of order when 
        sought to be offered by Mr. Reuss as part of a motion to 
        recommit the bill with instructions. See Sec. 23.3, infra.
            For another amendment in the form of a statement of 
        congressional policy, held to be germane because placing 
        certain restrictions on the use of funds authorized in the 
        bill, see Sec. 32.1, infra.

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

[[Page 7641]]

    A similar ruling was subsequently made with respect to an amendment 
offered by Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 113 Cong. Rec. 5141, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 2, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Authorizing President To Arm Vessels--Amendment Relating to 
    Insurance for Men Serving on Vessels

Sec. 4.33 To a bill authorizing the President to arm American vessels, 
    an amendment relating to insurance for men of the armed forces who 
    might serve on such vessels was held to be not germane.

    In the 77th Congress, a joint resolution (5) was under 
consideration which stated in part: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.J. Res. 237 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 6. See 87 Cong. Rec. 8026, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 17, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That section 6 of the Neutrality Act of 1939 
    (relating to the arming of American vessels) is hereby repealed; 
    and, during the unlimited national emergency proclaimed by the 
    President on May 27, 1941, the President is authorized, through 
    such agency as he may designate, to arm, or to permit or cause to 
    be armed, any American vessel as defined in such act. The 
    provisions of section 16 of the Criminal Code (relating to bonds 
    from armed vessels on clearing), shall not apply to any such 
    vessel.

    The following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Edouard V. M.] Izac [of California]: 
    In line 11, after period, add the following: ``For life insurance 
    protection to the families of armed guard detachment detailed as 
    guns' crews on American vessels so armed, all personnel on active 
    duty in the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard on the date of 
    enactment of this joint resolution, shall be granted insurance 
    under sections 602 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of the National Service 
    Life Insurance Act of 1940, without further medical examination if 
    application therefor is filed within 120 days after the date of 
    enactment of this joint resolution.''

    Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York, having made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane, the Chairman, Clifton A. Woodrum, of 
Virginia, ruled as follows: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 8027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [The amendment] relates to a provision for insurance for men 
    who arm these vessels, a provision fairly within the jurisdiction 
    of committees other than the Foreign Affairs Committee. 
    Unquestionably the amendment is not germane to this resolution and 
    the Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

[[Page 7642]]

Bill Authorizing Construction of Ships for Navy--Amendment Requiring 
    Information to Taxpayers as to Proportion of Tax Spent on Military

Sec. 4.34 To that section of a bill authorizing an appropriation for 
    the construction of ships for the Navy, an amendment requiring the 
    Secretary of the Treasury annually to inform each federal taxpayer 
    what proportion of his tax payment is spent in military and naval 
    expenditures was held not germane.

    In the 75th Congress, a naval authorization bill (8) was 
under consideration which stated in part: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 9218 (Committee on Naval Affairs).
 9. 83 Cong. Rec. 3672, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 18, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 5. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated out of 
    any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise 
    appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to effectuate the 
    purposes of this act.

    A committee amendment was read as follows:

        Page 3, line 20, after the word ``act'', insert the following: 
    ``which purposes shall include essential equipment and facilities 
    at navy yards for building any ship or ships herein or heretofore 
    authorized.''

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 3674.

        Amendment by Mr. [Herman P.] Kopplemann [of Connecticut]: Page 
    3, line 22, at the end of section 5, strike out the period, insert 
    a comma and the following: ``and each Federal income-tax payer 
    shall be informed annually by the Treasury of the United States of 
    the proportion of every dollar of his tax which is spent on all 
    military and naval expenditures including disbursements of every 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    nature resulting from past wars, military and naval engagements.''

    The Chairman,(11) ruling on a point of order raised by 
Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia, stated:

11. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman's amendment introduces an entirely new subject 
    and refers more to taxes or revenues, over which another committee 
    of the House has jurisdiction, so that the matter would not be 
    within the jurisdiction of the Naval Affairs Committee at all. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman is not germane to the section, 
    and the Chair sustains the point of order.

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

Sec. 4.35 To a title of a bill containing diverse provisions re

[[Page 7643]]

    lating 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 bill and was related to national security issues.

    The proceedings of May 30, 1984, relating to H.R. 5167, the Defense 
Department authorization for fiscal 1985, are discussed in Sec. 3.45, 
supra.

Bill Authorizing Appropriations for Armed Forces--Amendment Imposing 
    Permanent Restrictions on Withdrawals of Troops From Korea

Sec. 4.36 Where a bill reported from the Committee on Armed Services 
    authorized appropriations and personnel strengths for the armed 
    forces for one fiscal year and contained minor conforming changes 
    to existing law, a section of an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute imposing permanent restrictions on troop withdrawals 
    from the Republic of Korea, in part making reduction of troop 
    strength contingent upon conclusion of a peace agreement on the 
    Korean peninsula, was held to be not germane (pursuant to a special 
    order allowing such a point of order) since proposing permanent law 
    to a one-year authorization and containing statements of policy 
    contingent on the enactment and administration of laws within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations.

    On May 24, 1978,(12) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration a bill (H.R. 10929) reported from the Committee on 
Armed Services authorizing appropriations and personnel strength for 
the armed forces for one fiscal year and containing minor conforming 
changes to existing law. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
was, pursuant to a special rule, to be read as original text for 
amendment. A section of the amendment imposed permanent restrictions on 
troop withdrawals from the Republic of

[[Page 7644]]

Korea, in part making reductions in troop strength contingent upon the 
conclusion of a peace agreement with North Korea. The terms of the 
special rule permitted a point of order based on the germaneness rule 
to be made against that section of the amendment. The special rule (H. 
Res. 1188) stated: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 15293-95, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. See 124 Cong. Rec. 15094, 15095, 95th Cong. 2d Sess., May 23, 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 10929) to authorize appropriations during the 
    fiscal year 1979, for procurement of aircraft, missiles . . . and 
    other weapons . . . and to prescribe the authorized personnel 
    strength for each active duty component . . . of the Armed Forces 
    and of civilian personnel of the Department of Defense . . . and 
    for other purposes. After general debate . . . the bill shall be 
    read for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order 
    to consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
    by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill as an 
    original bill for the purposes of amendment, said substitute shall 
    be read for amendment by titles instead of by sections and all 
    points of order against said substitute for failure to comply with 
    the provisions of clause 5, rule XXI and clause 7, rule XVI, are 
    hereby waived, except that it shall be in order when consideration 
    of said substitute begins to make a point of order that section 805 
    of said substitute would be in violation of clause 7, rule XVI if 
    offered as a separate amendment to H.R. 10929 as introduced. If 
    such point of order is sustained, it shall be in order to consider 
    said substitute without section 805 included therein as an original 
    bill for the purpose of amendment, said substitute shall be read 
    for amendment by titles instead of by sections and all points of 
    order against said substitute for failure to comply with the 
    provisions of clause 7, rule XVI and clause 5, rule XXI are hereby 
    waived. . . .

    The proceedings of May 24, 1978, were as follows:

        The Chairman: (14) When the Committee rose on 
    Tuesday, May 23, 1978, all time for general debate on the bill had 
    expired. Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk will now read by titles 
    the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
    by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the reported bill 
    as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be cited as the ``Department of Defense Appropriation 
        Authorization Act, 1979''.

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, in 
    accordance with the rule, House Resolution 1188, I make a point of 
    order that section 805 of the committee amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute, if offered as

[[Page 7645]]

    a separate amendment to H.R. 10929 as introduced, would be in 
    violation of clause 7 of House Rule XVI regarding germaneness. This 
    provision which deals with the withdrawal of troops from Korea, and 
    section 805 which deals with the withdrawal of troops from Korea, 
    is not germane to the Department of Defense authorization bill.
        Mr. Chairman, a key criterion in determining germaneness is a 
    committee's jurisdiction over a matter. The Korean troop withdrawal 
    issue falls clearly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    International Relations. Both sections 805(a) and 805(b) fall 
    clearly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on International 
    Relations, pursuant to clause 1, subparagraph (k) of House Rule X.
        Compelling evidence of the primary jurisdiction of the 
    International Relations Committee over the issue of troop 
    withdrawal from Korea is found in the fact that all legislation, 
    the President's arms transfer request, and related reports have 
    been referred solely to the International Relations Committee.
        Thus, there can be no doubt that the issue of the Korean troop 
    withdrawal lies within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    International Relations, and accordingly section 805 is not germane 
    to this bill.
        In addition, the issue of U.S. troop withdrawal from Korea is 
    not relevant to either the subject matter or to the purpose of H.R. 
    10929, as introduced. As introduced, H.R. 10929 consists entirely 
    of provisions relating to the annual authorizations for the 
    Department of Defense. It contains no general policy provisions for 
    the Department of Defense. It contains no general policy provisions 
    of any type, let alone any policy provisions relevant to the 
    withdrawal of U.S. troops from Korea. It is well established that 
    an amendment of a general and permanent nature is not germane to a 
    bill containing only temporary authorizations.
        Thus, by what ever test of germaneness one examines, section 
    805 is not germane to H.R. 10929. . . .
        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki), makes the point of order 
    that section 805 is not germane on the ground that it deals with a 
    matter that is related to something that has been before his 
    committee. As he indicated before the Committee on Rules, if this 
    had been introduced as an original bill, it would have been 
    referred sequentially to the Committee on International Relations 
    as well as to the Committee on Armed Services.
        I submit, Mr. Chairman, that, first of all, the question of 
    germaneness does not depend on what committee it might be referred 
    to sequentially. In fact, the whole idea of sequential referral is 
    a relatively new concept. I believe, in fact, that it has only been 
    practiced in this House during this present Congress, and perhaps a 
    few times previously.
        H.R. 10929, is the annual authorization bill for the Department 
    of Defense. It traditionally covers a wide variety of topics 
    relating to defense. I would point out that the title of the bill 
    after it lists the various items that the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    has already referred to concludes, ``and for other purposes.''
        Traditionally, matters related to the defense of our country 
    which the Com

[[Page 7646]]

    mittee on Armed Services has regarded as being of importance have 
    been included in this annual legislation year after year. Section 
    805 is no different from any of the other matters we have 
    traditionally handled under ``general provisions.''
        It is true that the gentleman's committee has had legislation 
    before it regarding the transfer of American equipment to Korean 
    forces; but section 805 refers to the stationing and positioning of 
    U.S. ground forces; ``no ground combat units of the 2d Infantry 
    Division,'' and so on and so forth. It makes no reference to any 
    transfer of equipment to Korean forces. We are providing here for 
    the stationing of troops in an area that is of great importance to 
    our national security. If that is not something which is within the 
    concern of the Committee on Armed Services, then I do not know what 
    our proper area of responsibility is.
        Subsection (b) of section 805 spells out the recommendations of 
    the committee as to what the minimum ground combat strength of our 
    Armed Forces stationed in the Republic of Korea should be based on 
    information we gleaned in an on-the-spot visit to Korea in January; 
    so it is clearly within the province of the Committee on Armed 
    Services. The gentleman from Wisconsin does not dispute that. The 
    gentleman could not dispute it; but to suggest that because if it 
    were introduced as a bill under today's procedures it might have 
    been referred sequentially to the gentleman's committee or to some 
    other committee, completely misses the point. If the size and 
    location of Armed Forces of the United States are not a 
    responsibility of the Committee on Armed Services, and are instead 
    the responsibility of the Committee on International Relations, 
    then something is very drastically wrong in this House.
        Further, Mr. Chairman, the authority to determine where 
    American Forces shall be stationed is clearly within the province 
    of the Congress. The Constitution provides that Congress shall not 
    only ``raise and support armies,'' but that we shall provide for 
    the ``regulation and governing of the land and naval forces,'' in 
    section 8 of article I.
        Congress has previously enacted the war powers bill, which 
    limits the authority of the President as far as the stationing of 
    troops abroad is concerned. The Constitution does not give a broad 
    grant of power to the Commander in Chief alone in stationing troops 
    abroad. He has no constitutional power to put troops wherever he 
    wants to, because Congress has determined that he cannot put troops 
    abroad under certain conditions without the expressed approval of 
    the Congress of the United States.
        Well, if we can limit the President's ability to send troops 
    overseas, it follows that we can also limit his ability to bring 
    those troops back home, if in the opinion of the Congress, we 
    determine that that withdrawal action, which certainly is the case 
    of Korea, would increase the risks of war.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I urge that the point of order be overruled. 
    Section 805 is clearly within the authority of the committee. It is 
    clearly germane to the broad purposes of the bill and the House 
    should have the right to vote on this important question.

[[Page 7647]]

        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from 
    Wisconsin makes a point of order against section 805 of the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
    the Committee on Armed Services, on the grounds that section 805 of 
    said amendment would not have been germane if offered to the bill 
    H.R. 10929, as introduced.
        As indicated by the gentleman from Wisconsin, the special order 
    providing for consideration of this measure, House Resolution 1188, 
    allows the Chair to entertain a point of order on the basis stated 
    by the gentleman, that section 805 of the committee amendment would 
    not have been germane as a separate amendment to H.R. 10929 in its 
    introduced form.
        The bill as introduced and referred to the Committee on Armed 
    Services contains authorizations of appropriations and personnel 
    strengths of the Armed Services for fiscal year 1979. It contains 
    no permanent changes in law or statements of policy except for 
    minor conforming changes to existing law relating to troop and 
    personnel strengths.
        Section 805 of the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute prohibits: First the withdrawal of ground combat units 
    from the Republic of Korea until the enactment of legislation 
    allowing the retention in Korea of the equipment of such units, and 
    second, the reduction of combat units below a certain level in the 
    Republic of Korea until a peace settlement is reached between said 
    Republic and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea ending the 
    state of war on the Korean peninsula.
        The subject matter of section 805 of the committee amendment is 
    unrelated to H.R. 10929 as introduced. The strength levels 
    prescribed in the bill are for 1 fiscal year only and deal with the 
    overall strength of the Armed Forces, not with the location of 
    Armed Forces personnel. As indicated in the argument of the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin, the withdrawal of American Forces 
    stationed abroad pursuant to an international agreement, and the 
    relationship of that withdrawal to peace agreements between foreign 
    nations and to the transfer of American military equipment to 
    foreign powers, are issues not only beyond the scope of the bill 
    but also within the jurisdiction of the Committee on International 
    Relations. Although committee jurisdiction over an amendment is not 
    the sole test of germaneness, the Chair feels that it is a 
    convincing argument in a case such as the present one where the 
    test of germaneness is between a limited 1-year authorization bill 
    and a permanent statement of policy contingent upon the 
    administration of laws within the jurisdiction of another 
    committee.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, the Chair may have just stated a 
    novel concept which has never before been heard in a ruling. That 
    is that the sequential referral rule somehow serves as the basis 
    for jurisdiction, and thus can support a point of order dealing 
    with a section in a bill such as the one before us.
        The parliamentary inquiry I have is this: Simply because under 
    the new

[[Page 7648]]

    procedure adopted for the first time in this Congress the rules 
    allow sequential referral at the discretion of the Speaker, does 
    that mean that a committee that has primary jurisdiction, such as 
    the Committee on Armed Services, may be challenged on the floor and 
    have a point of order sustained removing a provision that might be 
    partially under the jurisdiction of another committee on a 
    sequential referral?
        The Chairman: The ruling of the Chair does not stand for that 
    proposition.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maryland 
    understood the Chair to say that the argument of the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin was persuasive to the Chair regarding jurisdiction. If 
    that is the case, it seems to me every committee of this House is 
    somehow going to be challenged on the floor henceforth if its 
    jurisdiction is shared to the slightest degree by another 
    committee.
        The Chairman: All the Chair has stated is that section 805 is 
    not germane to the introduced bill, and the rule provides that the 
    point of order would lie on that ground.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I have this further parliamentary 
    inquiry:
        Then the ruling of the Chair is based on germaneness of this 
    amendment to this bill and does not go to any effect the sequential 
    jurisdiction would have on the provision?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

    The point of order having been sustained against the nongermane 
portion of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, the 
Chair directed the Clerk to read the substitute without the nongermane 
portion as original text for amendment, pursuant to the special rule.

Bill Increasing Armed Forces--Amendment Creating Committee To Study 
    Military Policy

Sec. 4.37 To a bill to provide for the common defense by increasing the 
    strength of the armed forces, an amendment proposing the creation 
    of a joint congressional committee to make a study of the military 
    policy of the United States, was held to be not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of the Selective Service 
Act of 1948,(15) the following amendment was offered: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 6401 (Committee on Armed Services).
16. 94 Cong. Rec. 8710, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jacob K.] Javits [of New York]: Page 
    48, line 24, insert the following new section and renumber the 
    succeeding sections accordingly:
        Sec. 21. (a) There is hereby established a joint congressional 
    committee to be known as the Joint Committee on Military Policy. . 
    . .

[[Page 7649]]

        (b) It shall be the function of the committee to make a 
    continuous study of the military policy of the United States with 
    respect to (1) its capability to enable the United States to 
    discharge its international responsibilities; (2) the dominance of 
    civilian control in the military policy; (3) the training and 
    orientation in citizenship of the personnel of the armed forces; 
    and (4) the participation of personnel of the armed forces in the 
    foreign and domestic affairs of the United States. . . .

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

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane and not in order 
    on this bill.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated:

        Mr. Javits: . . . It is germane . . . because it seeks to 
    provide for the coordination of the military and the foreign policy 
    of the United States, and for the training of selectees not alone 
    in military matters, but in citizenship and the purposes for which 
    they are being called upon to serve.

    The Chairman, (17) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair has examined the 
    amendment proposed by the gentleman from New York. The subject 
    matter of the gentleman's amendment proposing the creation of a 
    special congressional committee comes under the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Rules which, of course, makes the amendment not 
    germane and not in order.

Bill Increasing Armed Forces--Amendment to Internal Revenue Code

Sec. 4.38 To a bill to provide for the common defense by increasing the 
    strength of the armed forces, an amendment seeking to amend the 
    Internal Revenue Code is not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of the Selective Service 
Act of 1948,(18) the following amendment was offered: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 6401 (Committee on Armed Services).
19. 94 Cong. Rec. 8701, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of 
    Pennsylvania]: Amend H.R. 6401, on page 43, line 1, by inserting 
    after the period the following: ``Section 22 (b) (relating to 
    exclusions from gross income) of the Internal Revenue Code is 
    hereby amended by striking out `January 1, 1949' wherever occurring 
    therein, and inserting in lieu thereof `January 1, 1951'. . . .''

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

        Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, it is with 
    great

[[Page 7650]]

    reluctance that I make a point of order against the amendment. It 
    has to do with the revenue laws and should be considered by the 
    Ways and Means Committee. The amendment may be very meritorious but 
    it is clearly out of order on this legislation.

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

        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard for a 
    minute or two on the point of order.
        Section 14 of the bill provides for the pay and allowances of 
    the members who will be inducted under this bill. My amendment has 
    reference to their pay and allowances and merely seeks to maintain 
    the same rate of pay as is now in existence for the men in the 
    armed services whose rate of pay will be changed in January next.

    The Chairman,(20) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the text of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Eberharter]. Clearly the amendment 
    proposes to legislate on the Internal Revenue Code which is 
    legislation that would be within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
    on Ways and Means. Therefore the Chair is constrained to sustain 
    the point of order.

Provision To Subject Retired Military Officers Who Sell Products to 
    Defense Department to Court Martial--Amendment Making Conduct 
    Federal Penal Offense

Sec. 4.39 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute, providing in 
    part that retired military officers who engage in selling products 
    to the Department of Defense within two years after their 
    retirement should be subject to court martial, a substitute 
    amendment making such conduct a penal offense under a federal 
    statute was held to be not germane.

    On Apr. 7, 1960, a bill was under consideration relating to the 
employment of retired officers by defense contractors.(1) 
The following amendment was offered: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 106 Cong. Rec. 7679-82, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 10959 (Committee on Armed Services).
 2. 106 Cong. Rec. 7680, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 7, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . It shall be unlawful for a commissioned officer . . . 
    within two years after release from active duty . . . to engage in 
    any transaction, the purpose of which is to sell or to aid or 
    assist in the selling of anything to the Department of Defense . . 
    . and such officer shall not be entitled to receive any retired pay 
    . . . for a two-year period from the date he engages in any such 
    transaction. . . .
        . . . Any retired commissioned officer subject to the Uniform 
    Code of Military Justice who violates any provision of this Act 
    shall be tried by a court-martial and shall, upon conviction be 
    punished as a court-martial shall direct.

[[Page 7651]]

    A substitute amendment, subsequently offered, stated: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 7681.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That chapter 15 of title 18, United States Code is amended by 
    adding at the end thereof the following new section: . . .
        Whoever violates any provision of this section shall be fined 
    not more than $10,000.00 or imprisoned for not more than one year, 
    or both.

    The following point of order was made against the substitute 
amendment: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul J.] Kilday [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that (the substitute amendment) is not germane to the 
    amendment or the pending bill; that [it] attempts to create a new 
    penal offense, whereas the amendment and the pending bill do not 
    create any criminal offenses. I make the additional point of order 
    that the committee reporting the bill does not have jurisdiction to 
    consider the matter contained in this substitute.

    The proponent of the substitute amendment, Mr. F. Edward Hebert, of 
Louisiana, defended the amendment as follows: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [The amendment] is relevant to the subject matter. It proposes 
    to deal with the subject matter, which is the relationship between 
    retired officers and defense contractors. . . .

    The Chairman (6) ruled that the substitute amendment was 
not germane, stating the reasons for such ruling as follows: 
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
 7. 106 Cong. Rec. 7682, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 7, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [The] Kilday amendment deals with retired officers of the Armed 
    Forces, whereas the Hebert substitute goes much further and deals 
    with criminal penalties; deals with the Criminal Code and which, if 
    offered as a separate bill would have to be referred to the 
    Committee on the Judiciary. It is clearly outside the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on Armed Services.
        For those reasons, the Chair sustains the point of order.

--Amendment To Prohibit Contractors From Hiring Retired Officers

Sec. 4.40 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute prohibiting 
    retired military officers from engaging in selling any product to 
    the Department of Defense within two years after their retirement, 
    and making violations of this restriction punishable by court 
    martial, an amendment making it unlawful for contractors to hire 
    retired officers within the two-year period and providing a fine 
    for violations of this provision was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of a proposition, discussed 
above,(8) making

[[Page 7652]]

retired military officers subject to court martial, in certain 
circumstances, for participating in the sale of products to the 
Department of Defense,(9) the following amendment was 
offered to such proposition: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 4.39, supra.
 9. 106 Cong. Rec. 7680, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 7, 1960. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 10959 (Committee on Armed Services).
10. 106 Cong. Rec. 7682, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 7, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . It shall be unlawful for any person to employ such a 
    retired commissioned officer . . . for the purpose of . . . 
    assisting in the selling of anything of value to the Department of 
    Defense. . . .
        Whoever violates any provision of this section shall be fined 
    not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or 
    both.

    The Chairman,(11) in ruling that the proposed amendment 
was not germane, referred to a previous ruling (12) and 
stated: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
12. See Sec. 4.39, supra.
13. 106 Cong. Rec. 7682, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 7, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The same basis for the ruling that was made previously would 
    apply here, in view of the fact that criminal penalties are 
    involved.

Bill Amending Universal Military Training and Service Act--Amendment 
    Providing for Right of Those Covered To Vote Regardless of Age

Sec. 4.41 To a bill amending the Universal Military Training and 
    Service Act, an amendment providing that all persons included 
    within the scope of the bill be entitled to vote regardless of age, 
    was held to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a bill (14) was under consideration 
which amended the Universal Military Training and Service Act. The 
following amendment was offered to the bill: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. S. 1-1951 (Committee on Armed Services).
15. 97 Cong. Rec. 3780, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 12, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Edwin Arthur Hall [of New York] to the 
    amendment offered by Mr. [Graham A.] Barden [of North Carolina]: On 
    page 19, line 25, insert a new section to read as follows:
        Sec. 2. All persons included within the scope of this act shall 
    be entitled to vote regardless of age.

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

        Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that the amendment is not germane.

[[Page 7653]]

    The Chair (16) sustained the point of order and said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair invites attention to the fact that the 
    amendment . . . deals with a subject matter which is not dealt with 
    in the pending bill nor by the act which the pending bill seeks to 
    amend. The amendment . . . embraces a subject matter coming under 
    the jurisdiction of another standing committee of the House and 
    would seek to affect legislation which has been enacted, having 
    been reported by another standing committee of the House and which 
    does not come under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed 
    Services which has reported the pending bill.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

    The following exchange then occurred, concerning a unanimous-
consent request that the amendment be voted upon:

        Mr. [William S.] Cole of New York: Mr. Chairman, in connection 
    with the amendment which the Chair has just ruled out of order, in 
    the discussion with reference to it, a possible inference has been 
    created involving the integrity of every Member of the House. I ask 
    unanimous consent that the committee may pass upon the amendment 
    irrespective of the fact that it is not germane. . . .
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New York?
        There was no objection.

Bill To Provide Allowances for Military Dependents--Amendment To Amend 
    National Service Life Insurance Act To Grant Further Benefits

Sec. 4.42 To a bill to provide family allowances for dependents of 
    enlisted men of the Army, Navy and Coast Guard, an amendment 
    proposing to amend the National Service Life Insurance Act to grant 
    further benefits to such enlisted men, was held to be not germane.

    In the 77th Congress, a bill (17) was under 
consideration to provide family allowances for dependents of enlisted 
men of the armed forces. An amendment was offered (18) as 
described above. Mr. Robert E. Thomason, of Texas, made the point of 
order that the amendment was not germane. The bill under consideration 
had been reported by the Committee on Military Affairs. The 
Chairman,(19) in sustaining the point of order, noted that, 
``The amendment . . . deals with national service life insurance, which 
is a

[[Page 7654]]

creature of the Ways and Means Committee. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 7119 (Committee on Military Affairs).
18. 88 Cong. Rec. 5029, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., June 8, 1942.
19. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Increasing Veterans' Home Loan Guarantees--Amendment Requiring 
    Federal Reserve Banks To Purchase Loans at Par

Sec. 4.43 To a bill to increase the amount that the Veterans' 
    Administration might guarantee on a home loan, an amendment 
    requiring the Federal Reserve banks to purchase all such loans at 
    par from the Administrator was held to be not germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(20) relating to veterans' housing loans, the following 
amendment was offered: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 10477 (Committee on Veterans' Affairs).
 1. 114 Cong. Rec. 7628, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 26, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: On page 2, 
    immediately after line 5, insert: . . .
        (4) The Federal Reserve bank within whose district the property 
    securing any loan made under this section is located shall, at the 
    request of the Administrator, purchase such loan at par from the 
    Administrator.

    Mr. Edwin R. Adair, of Indiana, made a point of order against the 
amendment on the ground that it was not germane.
    The Chairman, Charles E. Bennett, of Florida, in ruling on the 
point of order, stated: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 7629.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There is no reference in this bill to the Federal Reserve 
    Board. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs has no jurisdiction over 
    the Federal Reserve Board. Therefore the Chair rules that the 
    amendment is not germane to this bill and sustains the point of 
    order.

Bill Providing Federal Aid to Returning Veterans--Amendment To Amend 
    Servicemen's Dependents Allowance Act

Sec. 4.44 To a bill providing federal aid to returning war veterans to 
    facilitate readjustment to civilian life, an amendment seeking to 
    amend the Servicemen's Dependents Allowance Act was held not 
    germane.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of a bill (3) 
providing aid to veterans as described above, an amendment was offered 
(3) which sought to amend the Servicemen's Dependents 
Allowance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. S. 1767 (World War Veterans' Legislation).
 4. 90 Cong. Rec. 4535, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., May 16, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In ruling on a point of order raised by Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, against the amend

[[Page 7655]]

ment, the Chairman, Mr. Fritz G. Lanham, of Texas, stated: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 4536.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the present occupant of the chair, there is 
    one very definite criterion with reference to determining whether 
    or not an amendment is germane to a pending measure. It inheres in 
    the jurisdiction of the committees of the House of Representatives. 
    Its purpose is to prevent the House or the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the state of the Union from being taken by surprise by 
    amendments which could not have been anticipated by the committee 
    reporting the bill within the borders of its jurisdiction.
        The measure to which the particular amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Missouri relates emanated from the Committee on 
    Military Affairs and deals with allowances and allotments. That 
    could not well have been anticipated by the Committee on World War 
    Veterans' Legislation in its consideration of the pending measure. 
    . . . The Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Increasing Maximum for Veterans' Housing Loans--Amendment 
    Excluding Certain Interest From Gross Income

Sec. 4.45 To a bill to encourage new residential construction for 
    veterans' housing by increasing the authorized maximum for direct 
    loans, an amendment to exclude interest on certain guaranteed loans 
    from gross income was held to be not germane.

    In the 85th Congress, during consideration of a bill (6) 
to encourage new residential construction for veterans' housing, the 
following amendment was offered: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.R. 4602 (Committee on Veterans' Affairs).
 7. 103 Cong. Rec. 4311, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 25, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: On 
    page 9 after line 20 insert a new section as follows:
        Interest on veterans' loans: Interest upon any loan which bears 
    interest at a rate not exceeding 3\1/2\ percent per annum, and any 
    part of which is guaranteed under title 3 of the Servicemen's 
    Readjustment Act of 1944, as amended, shall not be considered gross 
    income for purposes of taxation.

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

        Mr. [Jere] Cooper [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane 
    to the pending bill. It seeks to amend the Internal Revenue Code, a 
    subject matter not covered by the pending bill, a subject matter 
    under the jurisdiction of another standing committee of the House, 
    the Committee on Ways and Means.

    The Chairman, Robert L. F. Sikes, of Florida, sustained the point 
of order.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at pp. 4311, 4312.

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

[[Page 7656]]

Bill Authorizing Activities of Coast Guard--Amendment Urging 
    Consultation Between Secretary of State and Coast Guard Respecting 
    Joint International Effort

Sec. 4.46 To a bill reported from the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
    Fisheries authorizing various activities of the Coast Guard, an 
    amendment urging the Secretary of State in consultation with the 
    Coast Guard to elicit cooperation from other nations in an area 
    where there were Coast Guard and other military operations, a 
    matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
    was held not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 2342 (Coast Guard authorization for 
fiscal 1988) in the Committee of the Whole on July 8, 
1987,(9) the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 133 Cong. Rec. 19011-13, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Ms. Snowe: Page 22, after line 11, add the 
    following new section:

                         international cooperation

        Sec. 26. (a) The Congress finds that--
        (1) the President, at the June 1987 Venice economic summit and 
    in other international forums, has requested and is continuing to 
    request additional support of United States allies in the Persian 
    Gulf . . .
        (3) attacks on neutral shipping in the Persian Gulf threaten to 
    limit the access of the United States and its allies to oil 
    supplies from the region . . .
        (7) there have been reports, which the Congress notes with 
    approval, that some allied governments are giving serious 
    consideration to possible actions in support of Western interests 
    in the Gulf;
        (8) a Western multilateral effort can best protect the 
    interests of the United States and its friends and allies in the 
    Persian Gulf;
        (9) an international effort can best sustain a long-term 
    diplomatic commitment in support of a negotiated settlement to the 
    Iran-Iraq war;
        (10) those United States allies whose military forces are 
    constitutionally restricted to self-defense should share in the 
    financial burden of protecting their interests in the Persian Gulf 
    . . .
        (b) The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary 
    of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, shall urge 
    our European allies and Japan to join the United States in 
    intensifying efforts to bring about a speedy and just solution to 
    the Iran-Iraq war and in defending our mutual interests in the 
    Persian Gulf. . . .
        Mr. [Earl] Hutto [of Florida]: . . . I make a point of order on 
    this amendment. . . . I say this is not a foreign affairs bill. It 
    is not made in order by the rule, it is not germane so I made a 
    point of order. . . .

[[Page 7657]]

        Ms. [Olympia J.] Snowe [of Maine]: . . . I think the subsequent 
    amendment that would be offered will expand the scope of this 
    initiative. This amendment is similar and comparable to the 
    attempts that will be made by similar amendments. So although the 
    other amendments were not germane they were made in order by the 
    Rules Committee. Therefore, given the fact that we are expanding 
    ultimately the scope of this legislation, it seems to me only 
    practical that we would include allied support in terms of the 
    policy that might be developed by the House in the next few hours.

    The Chairman: (10) If there are no further arguments on 
the point of order, the Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Robert W. Kastenmeier (Wis.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The primary purpose of the bill as amended is to authorize 
    funds for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 1988 as well as to 
    address other provisions within the purview of the Coast Guard and 
    its operations. As the Chair reads the amendment of the gentlewoman 
    from Maine, the operative purpose is to have the Secretary of State 
    urge our European allies and Japan to join the United States in 
    intensifying efforts to bring about a speedy and just solution to 
    the Iran-Iraq war and defending our mutual interests in the Persian 
    Gulf. Those are purposes outside the purview of this bill and the 
    Chair would further state that the linkage to possible amendments 
    which may hereinafter be adopted with reference to reflagging does 
    not support the germaneness of this amendment. Those amendments are 
    not yet adopted and do not prospectively justify an amendment of 
    this sort. The Chair is constrained to sustain the point of order 
    and rule the amendment of the gentlewoman from Maine out of order.

Bill Amending Mutual Security Act--Amendment To Provide Submarine 
    Patrols in Caribbean

Sec. 4.47 To a bill authorizing appropriations for military assistance 
    under the Mutual Security Act, an amendment authorizing and 
    directing the transfer of ships and supplies for purposes of 
    providing submarine patrols in certain Caribbean areas was held to 
    be not germane.

    In the 85th Congress, a bill (11) was under 
consideration to amend the Mutual Security Act of 1954. The following 
amendment was offered to the bill: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 12181 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
12. 104 Cong. Rec. 8620, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., May 13, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Gardner R.] Withrow [of Wisconsin]: 
    On page 2, line 7, add the following new section:
        There is hereby authorized and directed the transfer of such 
    ships, arms, and supplies as may be necessary to provide adequate 
    and comprehensive submarine patrols in the Caribbean areas embraced 
    by bilateral agree

[[Page 7658]]

    ments between the United States and the Republics of Dominican 
    Republic, Haiti, and Cuba in furtherance of military assistance 
    agreements, but not limited to such agreements. . . .

    The Chairman, Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, ruling on the point of 
order raised by Mr. Thomas E. Morgan, of Pennsylvania, that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill, stated:(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 8621.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment is obviously not germane. It comes within the 
    exclusive purview of the Committee on Armed Services. Without 
    elaboration the Chair will sustain the point of order.

Bill Amending Mutual Security Act--Amendment Establishing Joint 
    Committee on Mutual Security

Sec. 4.48 To a bill amending the Mutual Security Act of 1954, an 
    amendment to establish a joint committee on mutual security was 
    held to be not germane.

    In the 86th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(14) to amend the Mutual Security Act, the following 
amendment was offered: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 11510 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
15. 106 Cong. Rec. 8536, 8537, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 21, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mrs. [Marguerite S.] Church: On page 14, 
    after line 23, insert the following:
        . . . Sec. 701. (a) There is hereby established the Joint 
    Committee on Mutual Security. . . .
        (b) The committee shall conduct a full and complete 
    investigation and study of the policies and purpose of, and 
    operations under, the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended. . . 
    .

    Mr. Clement J. Zablocki, of Wisconsin, made a point of order on the 
grounds that the amendment ``provides . . . for the creation of a Joint 
Committee on Mutual Security and such a proposal, under the rules of 
this House, should receive appropriate consideration by the Committee 
on Rules.'' (16) Mrs. Church having conceded the point of 
order, the Chairman (17) stated, ``The point of order is 
sustained.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 8537.
17. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill To Control Subversive Activities--Amendment To Modify Immigration 
    Laws

Sec. 4.49 To a bill comprising measures to control subversive 
    activities, an amendment proposing modification of the immigration 
    and naturalization laws was held not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of a bill(18) 
as described above, an amendment was

[[Page 7659]]

offered(19) which related to deportation proceedings and 
which proposed an amendment to the Immigration Act of 1917. Mr. Karl E. 
Mundt, of South Dakota, having raised a point of order against the 
amendment, the Chairman (20) ruled as follows: 
(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 5852 (Committee on Un-American Activities).
19. 94 Cong. Rec. 6139, 6140, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., May 19, 1948.
20. James W. Wadsworth, Jr. (N.Y.).
 1. 94 Cong. Rec. 6140, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., May 19, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [The bill] comes from the Committee on Un-American Activities. 
    That committee has no jurisdiction over legislation having to do 
    with immigration and naturalization laws. Therefore, the Chair 
    holds that the amendment is not germane.

Bill Regarding Payment of Claims Against Enemy Governments and 
    Nationals--Amendment Regarding Court Jurisdiction and Procedures in 
    Respect of Such Claims

Sec. 4.50 To a bill relating to the payment of claims against enemy 
    governments and their nationals and to the disposition of property 
    from which such claims were to be satisfied, an amendment was held 
    to be not germane which related to the jurisdiction of courts over 
    such claims and to procedures for adjudication.

    In the 80th Congress, a bill (2) was under consideration 
which provided: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 4044 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
 3. See 94 Cong. Rec. 567, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 26, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc.--

                                  Title I

        Section 1. The Trading With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917 
    (40 Stat. 411), as amended, is hereby amended by adding at the end 
    thereof the following new section:
        Sec. 39. No property or interest therein of Germany, Japan, or 
    any national of either such country vested in or transferred to any 
    officer or agency of the Government at any time after December 17, 
    1941, pursuant to the provisions of this act, shall be returned to 
    former owners thereof. . . .
        With the following committee amendment:
        On page 2, line 13, insert as follows:
        Sec. 2. No property or interest therein shall be applied to the 
    payment of debts, under the provisions of section 34 of the Trading 
    With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. 411), as amended 
    during the period . . . ending 6 months after the date on which the 
    report of the War Claims Commission . . . is received by the 
    Congress.

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 568.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. (Bertrand W.) Gearhart [of California] 
    as a substitute for the committee

[[Page 7660]]

    amendment in the bill: Insert a new section . . . as follows:
        Sec. 2. (A) No property . . . shall be applied to the payment 
    of debts, under the provisions of section 34 of the Trading With 
    the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. 411) as amended, nor 
    shall any part or any portion of the proceeds from the sale . . . 
    of property . . . of Germany or Japan or any national of either of 
    such countries . . . be applied to the satisfaction . . . of any 
    claims of American nationals . . . except pursuant to a judgment . 
    . . obtained in the manner . . . as in this title provided.
        (B) The United States district court for the district wherein 
    the claimant is resident . . . shall have exclusive jurisdiction to 
    . . . render judgment on claims of American nationals . . . in 
    respect of damage . . . inflicted . . . by measures of enemy 
    governments. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 569.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Hale [of Maine]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is 
    not germane to the subject matter of the bill.
        . . . Neither the title of the bill nor the language of title 
    II purports to make any provision at all for the adjudication of 
    claims.

    The Chairman,(6) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Thomas A. Jenkins (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If the substance of the matter set forth in the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Gearhart] were 
    introduced as a separate bill in the House of Representatives, it 
    would . . . be immediately referred by the proper authority to the 
    Judiciary Committee for consideration. . . . The gentleman seeks to 
    place the material of this bill under the jurisdiction of the 
    Federal courts, which would be a matter not within the jurisdiction 
    of the committee having charge of this bill.

Foreign Aid Bill Provisions Establishing Committee To Advise on 
    Inflation Control--Amendment Affecting Postage on Packages Sent 
    Abroad

Sec. 4.51 To that section of a foreign aid bill establishing a 
    committee to advise, in part, on means of avoiding inflationary 
    pressures, an amendment seeking to amend the postal laws with 
    respect to postage on packages sent abroad was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 80th Congress, a bill (7) was under consideration 
to promote world peace and the foreign policy of the United States by 
providing aid to certain foreign countries. The bill stated in part: 
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 4604 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 8. See 93 Cong. Rec. 11258, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 10, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 11. There shall be established and maintained, out of the 
    funds au

[[Page 7661]]

    thorized under this act, a National Food Conservation Committee . . 
    . for the purpose of advising on ways and means to conserve foods 
    and foodstuffs, to avoid inflationary pressures on domestic food 
    prices and food supplies, and generally to facilitate the purposes 
    and objectives of this act.

    An amendment was offered by Mr. George G. Sadowski, of Michigan, 
who stated in the course of ensuing discussion:

        [The amendment] has to do with relief. It provides that a 
    certain amount of this money that is being appropriated in this 
    bill will be set aside to pay the postage on some of these relief 
    packages that are going to Europe, being sent by private 
    individuals. . . .

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

        Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    which has been added either as a new section or as an amendment to 
    section 11, which has just been read, is not germane to this bill, 
    in that it has to do with the postal rates and the Post Office 
    Department.

    The Chairman, Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, in ruling on the point 
of order, stated: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 11259.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [T]he gentleman's amendment is in effect an amendment to the 
    postal laws of the United States and has had no committee 
    consideration. The Committee on Foreign Affairs has no jurisdiction 
    over the post office. Again, the section to which the amendment is 
    offered deals with the establishment and maintenance of the funds 
    authorized under the act, and so forth.
        The Chair feels that the amendment is not germane to the 
    particular section to which offered. . . .

Bill Relating to Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance out of South 
    Vietnam--Amendment Providing for Costs of Settlement of Evacuees in 
    United States

Sec. 4.52 To a bill reported from the Committee on International 
    Relations dealing with humanitarian and evacuation assistance out 
    of South Vietnam, an amendment providing for payment of costs of 
    immigration and settlement of evacuees in the United States was 
    held to raise issues within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary 
    Committee and was held to be not germane.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(10) during consideration of H.R. 6096 
in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order 
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 11534, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Glenn M.] Anderson of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 7662]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Anderson of California: On page 2, 
        after line 2, insert the following new section:
            ``Sec. 3. The Federal Government shall provide funds for 
        all necessary expenses incurred in the immigration and 
        settlement of Vietnamese nationals in the United States of 
        America, and all necessary costs incurred thereof, for a period 
        of not less than five years under the provisions of Public Law 
        87-510, Sec. 2(b)(2).''
            And renumber subsequents accordingly.

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not germane. It deals mostly 
    with matters completely outside the scope of the bill.
        The bill deals only with humanitarian aid and evacuation from 
    South Vietnam. It does not deal with U.S. domestic programs or 
    agencies or conditions. It is far more subject to a point of order 
    than the previous amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California.
        The amendment imposes duties on the Secretary of State, of HEW 
    and the Attorney General, which are not contemplated in the bill. . 
    . .
        Mr. Anderson of California: . . . My amendment really adds 
    nothing new to what we are talking about here today. It says that 
    the Federal Government shall provide funds for all necessary 
    expenses incurred in the immigration and settlement of Vietnamese 
    nationals in the United States. That is what we are talking about 
    here today.
        Now, most of us feel or hope, at least, that it is covered 
    already in Public Law 87-510, section 2(b)(2), which is the 
    Migration Refugee Act of 1962; but we are not sure about that. We 
    are not clear about that.
        What my amendment does is make clear what we are going to do 
    with these refugees, that it is the responsibility of the Federal 
    Government and not of State and local government.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is ready to rule. In 
    the opinion of the Chair the legislation before us pertains to 
    evacuation and humanitarian aid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment of the gentleman from California does go beyond 
    that into the question of immigration and settlement. It is not 
    within the purview of the Committee on International Relations. In 
    the opinion of the Chair it is not germane and the Chair sustains 
    the point of order.

Humanitarian Aid--Military Assistance

Sec. 4.53 To a bill reported from the Committee on International 
    Relations authorizing funds to provide humanitarian and evacuation 
    assistance and authorizing the use of United States troops to 
    provide that assistance, an amendment authorizing funds for 
    military aid to a foreign country (generally a subject within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services) to be used by that 
    country to fur

[[Page 7663]]

    ther the fundamental purpose of the bill was held germane.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(12) during consideration of the 
Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act (13) in 
the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order 
against an amendment as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 121 Cong. Rec. 11509, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H.R. 6096.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: 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. Stratton to the substitute 
        amendment offered by Mr. Eckhardt for the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar:
            Page 1, line 6; strike out ``$150,000,000'' and insert 
        ``$300,000,000''.
            Page 2, line 2; delete the period at the end of the line, 
        insert a semicolon and add the following: ``Provided that 
        $150,000,000 of such sum shall be available to the President 
        solely for military aid to South Vietnam to provide such 
        protection as he may deem necessary to insure the delivery of 
        the humanitarian assistance and evacuation programs authorized 
        in this section.''

        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, military aid to Vietnam is not included in the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. It is under the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services. It is under the 
    MACV account and DAV account, and the attempt has been made in the 
    past to vest this jurisdiction in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 
    The committee does not have jurisdiction over this subject matter 
    and cannot give military aid. As a result, the amendment is not 
    germane, and I make that point of order. . . .
        Mr. Stratton: . . . This amendment is perfectly in order. This 
    would provide additional funds to the President to use, in his 
    discretion, to provide protection for the humanitarian assistance 
    and evacuation provided in the bill.
        I would invite the Chair's attention to the fact that section 3 
    of the amendment refers in considerable detail to the military 
    appropriations and to military actions, and that section 2 of the 
    substitute provides funds to the President to be used 
    notwithstanding any other provision of law on such terms and 
    conditions as the President may deem appropriate.
        The basic legislation and the Eckhardt substitute both refer to 
    legislation that deals with military assistance to Vietnam, and 
    therefore, this amendment is in order.
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There is within the bill the provision for humanitarian 
    assistance and evacuation assistance. The amendment proposed by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton) goes to aid, to provide for 
    the delivery of military aid, to be sure, but it is to insure the 
    delivery

[[Page 7664]]

    of humanitarian assistance and the evacuation programs, and in that 
    form the amendment is germane to the substitute, and the point of 
    order is overruled.

Bill Providing Foreign Assistance Authorizations, Amended to Include 
    Import Restrictions--Amendment Adding Further Import Restrictions

Sec. 4.54 While committee jurisdiction may be an appropriate test of 
    germaneness where the bill as reported contains matter only within 
    the jurisdiction of the reporting committee, where the bill is 
    amended in Committee of the Whole to include matters within the 
    jurisdiction of another committee, further similar amendments may 
    be germane; thus, where a bill reported from the Committee on 
    Foreign Affairs providing foreign assistance authorizations had 
    been amended in Committee of the Whole to include diverse import 
    restrictions (a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Ways and Means), a further amendment adding a new title to provide 
    a similar import prohibition against products from another 
    designated country was held germane to the bill in its amended 
    form.

    On July 11, 1985,(15) during consideration of the 
International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1985 
(16) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Les AuCoin, of 
Oregon, in overruling a point of order held the following amendment to 
be germane to the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 131 Cong. Rec. 18601, 18602, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. H.R. 1555.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William B.] Richardson [of New Mexico]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment that would create a new title, title XIV. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Richardson: Page 154, after line 
        24, insert the following new section: . . .

           title xiii.--ban on importing uranium and coal from south 
                               africa and namibia

            (a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        law, the following products of South Africa and Namibia may not 
        be imported into the customs territory of the United States: 
        coal, uranium ore, and uranium oxide.
            (b) Effective Date.--The prohibition contained in 
        subsection (a) shall not apply to a contract or agreement 
        entered into before the date of the enactment of this Act. . . 
        .

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    Mexico [Mr. Richardson] on the ground that it violates

[[Page 7665]]

    clause 7 of rule XVI of the rules of the House and is not germane 
    to the bill. Clause 7 of rule XVI provides that no motion or 
    proposition on a subject different from that under consideration 
    shall be considered under color of amendment. One test of 
    germaneness is whether the fundamental purpose of the amendment is 
    germane to the fundamental purpose of the bill or title.
        Another test of germaneness (is) whether the amendment is 
    within the jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill.
        The sole purpose of the amendment is to prohibit the 
    importation of uranium and coal from South Africa. Clearly this is 
    a measure within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and 
    Means.
        The bill as reported amends various acts within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The fundamental 
    purpose of the bill is to authorize appropriations for foreign 
    development and security assistance programs for the fiscal year 
    1986.
        The bill as reported contains no provisions to impose import 
    prohibitions or other restrictions or sanctions on any product from 
    South Africa or from any other country.
        There were two amendments added yesterday which have already 
    been referenced.
        The only limitations in the bill as reported, however, relate 
    to the use of foreign aid funds.
        The amendment clearly does not relate to the subject matter or 
    to the fundamental purpose of the bill or the title, since there is 
    no fundamental purpose of the title pending.
        The subject matter of the amendment, or rather the current 
    title, now includes a matter relating to Mozambique, not to any 
    import restrictions.
        The subject matter of the amendment is also not within the 
    jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, in my judgment, for all these reasons, the 
    amendment fails every test of germaneness and I urge that the point 
    of order be sustained. . . .
        Mr. Richardson: . . . First of all, let me state that this is 
    an issue of foreign relations between the Governments of the United 
    States and South Africa.
        Second, in this bill there have been import restrictions 
    imposed on terrorist countries; Libya, Ethiopia, the Gilman 
    amendment, the Hunter amendment.
        Let me also make the case that this bill does not affect any 
    tariffs, any duties or import fees, according to the tariff 
    schedules of the United States for 1985.
        This is a foreign relations matter. It is an important foreign 
    policy statement between the United States and South Africa and it 
    does not affect the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The pending amendment is not an amendment to the Mozambique 
    amendment which just inserted a new title XIII, but rather a new 
    title XIV. As a new title to the bill at the end of the bill, the 
    test of germaneness is whether it is germane to the bill as a 
    whole.
        Title IV of the bill has been amended to include several import 
    restrictions, specifically the Hunter amendment re

[[Page 7666]]

    garding imports from countries which harbor terrorists, and the 
    Gilman amendment to the Miller amendment relating to imports from 
    Libya.
        Therefore, the Chair finds that the amendment is germane to the 
    bill as a whole in its amended form and the point of order is 
    overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: It might be argued that a point of order 
could be made under Rule XXI, clause 5(b), that the amendment was a 
tariff amendment, as a total prohibition on imports. But as Mr. 
Richardson observed, there was no tariff under existing tariff law 
against uranium and coal imported from South Africa, so that a 
restriction on imports would not have affected the tariff schedules or 
revenue levels under existing law. Probably, an import prohibition 
amendment could only be considered a tariff measure within the meaning 
of Rule XXI, clause 5(b), where an effect on tariff schedules could be 
shown.

Different Classes of Penalties for Violation of Export Controls

Sec. 4.55 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; thus, to a title of a bill reported from the Committee on 
    Foreign Affairs comprehensively amending the Export Administration 
    Act, and addressing penalties for violating export controls within 
    that committee's jurisdiction, such as revocation of export 
    licenses and forfeiture of property interests and proceeds related 
    to exports, an amendment authorizing the President to control 
    imports by persons violating export controls was held non-germane, 
    as a penalty not within the class covered by the title and by the 
    Export Administration Act, and as a matter within the jurisdiction 
    of another committee (Ways and Means).

    During consideration of the Export Administration Amendments Act of 
1983 (17) in the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 29, 
1983,(18) the Chair sustained a point of order in the 
circumstances described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 3231.
18. 129 Cong. Rec. 26467, 26484, 26485, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of title I reads as follows:

[[Page 7667]]

          TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1979

                              reference to the act

            Sec. 101. For purposes of this title, the Export 
        Administration Act of 1979 shall be referred to as ``the Act''.

                                   violations

            Sec. 102. (a) Section 11(b) of the Act (50 U.S.C. App. 
        2410(b)) is amended by inserting after paragraph (2) the 
        following new paragraphs:
            ``(3) Any person who conspires or attempts to export 
        anything contrary to any provision of this Act or any 
        regulation, order, or license issued under this Act shall be 
        subject to the penalties set forth in subsection (a), except 
        that in the case of a violation of an export control imposed 
        under section 5 of this Act, such person shall be subject to 
        the penalties set forth in paragraph (1) of this subsection. . 
        . .
            (b) Section 11(c) of the Act is amended by adding at the 
        end thereof the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) An exception to any order issued under this Act which 
        revokes the authority of a United States person to export goods 
        or technology may not be made unless the Committee on Foreign 
        Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
        Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate are first 
        consulted concerning the exception.''. . . .
            ``(f) Forfeiture of Property Interest and Proceeds.--Any 
        person who is convicted of a violation of an export control 
        imposed under section 5 of this Act shall, in addition to any 
        other penalty, forfeit to the United States (1) any property 
        interest that person has in the goods or technology that were 
        the subject of the violation or that were used to facilitate 
        the commission of the violation, and (2) any proceeds derived 
        directly or indirectly by that person from the transaction from 
        which the violation arose.''. . . .

        Ms. [Olympia J.] Snowe [of Maine]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Ms. Snowe: . . . Page 3, insert the 
        following after line 21:
            ``(4) Any individual or business concern that violates any 
        national security control imposed under section 5 of this Act 
        which the United States maintains cooperatively with other 
        countries, or any regulation, order, or license related 
        thereto, may be subject to such controls on the importing of 
        its goods or technology into the United States or its 
        territories and possessions as the President may prescribe.''. 
        . . .

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order that the amendment is in violation of clause 7, rule XVI, 
    and is not germane to the bill.
        The tests of germaneness include whether the fundamental 
    purpose of an amendment is germane to the fundamental purpose of 
    the bill or title and whether an amendment contemplates a method of 
    achieving that end that is closely allied to the method encompassed 
    in the bill.
        Another test of germaneness is whether an amendment, when 
    considered as a whole, is within the jurisdiction of the committee 
    reporting the bill and whether the amendment demonstrably affects a 
    law within another committee's jurisdiction.
        The Ways and Means Committee is the committee with jurisdiction 
    over

[[Page 7668]]

    restrictions on the importation of goods and services. Also, 
    section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 governs the control 
    of imports that have an effect on national security. The 
    gentlewoman's amendment clearly seeks to establish a separate 
    mechanism and authority for controlling imports if the effect on 
    the national security is related to high technology exports and, 
    therefore, demonstrably affects a law within the jurisdiction of 
    the Committee on Ways and Means.
        Mr. Chairman, because I believe the amendment violates both of 
    those tests of germaneness, I make a point of order that the 
    amendment violates clause 7, rule XVI. . . .
        Ms. Snowe: . . . First of all, let me indicate that the 
    amendment I have offered meets the test of germaneness, I believe, 
    as outlined in rule XVI, clause 7:

            No motion or proposition on a subject different from that 
        under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.

        The subject that we have under consideration is a bill that 
    modifies the Export Administration Act. This act deals with the 
    flow of goods between the United States and foreign countries, and 
    with an organization we maintain cooperatively with other countries 
    to regulate the flow of goods and technology between all countries 
    of the world. Specifically, the report of the Foreign Affairs 
    Committee states as the purpose of the act:

            The Export Administration Act of 1979 provides broad 
        authority for controlling the export from the United States to 
        potential adversary nations of civilian goods and technology.

        The report goes on to state:

            The broad policy provision of the act allows considerable 
        latitude to the executive branch to implement national security 
        and trade policies.

        The subject of my amendment, similarly, deals with the flow of 
    goods between the United States and foreign countries. My amendment 
    allows the executive branch authority to protect national security 
    and to conduct a coherent trade policy.
        My amendment provides the President certain powers, namely, the 
    imposition of import controls, as a means of enforcing the 
    cooperative agreements we maintain with other countries.
        The amendment is offered to the violations section of the bill 
    and, as such, merely extends the already existing powers available 
    to punish violations under the Export Administration Act.
        My amendment also meets the fundamental purpose test of 
    germaneness. The Rules of the House under rule 16 indicate that the 
    fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to the 
    fundamental purpose of the bill. In this instance, the fundamental 
    purpose of both the bill and the amendment is to allow the United 
    States to effectively regulate the flow of goods between countries. 
    Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section A6.1 indicates:

            In order to be germane, an amendment must not only have the 
        same end as the matter sought to be amended, but must 
        contemplate a method of achieving that end that is closely 
        allied to the method encompassed in the bill . . .

        I would point out to the Chair that the bill we are considering 
    contains language in section 322 of title III pro

[[Page 7669]]

    hibiting the import into the United States of South African 
    Krugerrands or other gold coins minted in South Africa. Thus, the 
    bill already contains specific language imposing import 
    restrictions. The import control language in my amendment follows 
    the purpose of the bill as reported by the Foreign Affairs 
    Committee--that of controlling sensitive technology which is vital 
    to our national security.
        The House rules further indicate that a general subject may be 
    amended by specific propositions of the same class. As elaboration, 
    I cite section A9.21 of chapter 28 of Deschler's Procedure:

            Where a bill seeks to accomplish a general purpose by 
        diverse methods, an amendment which adds a specific method to 
        accomplish that result may be germane.

        In this instance, the general purpose of the bill is to 
    authorize U.S. participation in Cocom and to regulate the flow of 
    sensitive technology between countries. My amendment sets forth a 
    specific method, that of import control authority, as a means to 
    accomplish the general purpose of the bill.
        Deschler's Procedure further states in chapter 28, section 
    A5.1:

            In determining the fundamental purpose of a bill and of an 
        amendment offered thereto, the Chair may examine the broad 
        scope of the bill and the stated purpose of the amendment and 
        need not be bound by ancillary purposes that are merely 
        suggested by the amendment.

        I would point out to the Chair that my amendment has as its 
    broad purpose the strengthening of our export policy and our 
    relationship with our Cocom partners. That, as well, is what is 
    addressed in the scope of the bill before us.
        My amendment also meets the test of committee jurisdiction in 
    determining germaneness. The Foreign Affairs Committee, under rule 
    X, is given jurisdiction over:

            (1) Relations of the United States with foreign nations 
        generally,
            (2) Measures to foster commercial intercourse with foreign 
        nations and to safeguard American business interests abroad, 
        and
            (3) Measures relating to international economic policy.

        My amendment falls generally under these jurisdictional grants, 
    and specifically is covered by the authority of the Foreign Affairs 
    Committee ``to foster commercial intercourse with foreign nations 
    and to safeguard American business interests abroad.'' . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John F. Seiberling (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the sanctions contained in the Export 
    Administration Act and is satisfied that the act as amended by the 
    pending bill does not contain authority to impose import sanctions, 
    that the matter is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways 
    and Means.

        The gentlewoman has cited a general jurisdictional claim of the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs; however, the specific jurisdiction 
    over imports is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways 
    and Means.
        The Chair would cite the precedent appearing at chapter 28, 
    subsection 4.34 of Deschler's Procedure:

            To a title of a bill reported from the Committee on 
        Interstate and

[[Page 7670]]

        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.

        The Chair would also cite chapter 28, subsection 4.30 of 
    Deschler's Procedure wherein:

            To a section of a bill reported from the Committee on 
        Agriculture providing a 1-year price support for milk, an 
        amendment expressing the sense of the Congress that the 
        President shall impose certain tariff duties on imported dairy 
        products was held to go beyond the purview of the pending 
        section and to involve a matter within the jurisdiction of the 
        Committee on Ways and Means, and was ruled out as not germane.

        There are other similar precedents, but it seems to the Chair 
    those are sufficient for purposes of supporting this ruling.
        Accordingly, the Chair rules that the amendment of the 
    gentlewoman is not germane to title I and, therefore, it is ruled 
    out of order. The point of order is sustained.

Bill Imposing Penalties for Desecration of Flag--Amendment Placing 
    Restrictions on Exporting Flag

Sec. 4.56 To a bill establishing penalties for desecration of the 
    American flag, an amendment establishing certain restrictions upon 
    exporting the flag was held to be not germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(20) to prohibit desecration of the flag, the following 
amendment was offered: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 10480 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 16495, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., June 20, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. (John M.) Murphy of New York: On 
        page 3, after line 19, insert the following new sections: . . .
            Sec. 5. (a) The President of the United States shall 
        prohibit the exportation from the United States of the flag of 
        the United States in any case in which he determines that the 
        use for which such flag is intended after such exportation is 
        inconsistent with the respect which should be accorded the flag 
        of the United States.

    Mr. Byron G. Rogers, of Colorado, contended that the amendment was 
not germane.
    The bill, it may be noted, had been reported by the Committee on 
the Judiciary, while the amendment relating to the exportation of the 
flag was a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs.
    The Chairman,(2) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. William M. Colmer (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The pending bill deals with the desecration of the flag. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York is not germane 
    because it deals with the question of the issuance of orders by the 
    President relative to the exportation of goods, et cetera. The 
    Chair

[[Page 7671]]

    holds that the amendment is not germane, and sustains the point of 
    order.

Bill Relating to Elections in Puerto Rico--Amendment Affecting Tax Laws 
    Applicable to Puerto Rico

Sec. 4.57 To a bill relating to election of the Governor and members of 
    the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, an amendment relating to tax laws 
    applicable to Puerto Rico was held not germane.

    On June 16, 1947, a bill as described above was being considered 
under consent calendar procedure. The following amendment was offered 
to the bill: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 93 Cong. Rec. 7079, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Fred L.] Crawford [of Michigan] 
        to the committee amendment:
            On page 7, line 20, after section 6, insert:
            Sec. 7. Section 3360(c) of the Internal Revenue Code is 
        amended to read as follows:
            (c) Deposit of internal-revenue collections: Not to exceed 
        75 percent of all taxes collected under internal-revenue laws 
        of the United States on articles produced in Puerto Rico . . . 
        shall be deposited in a special fund . . . to be available for 
        appropriation by Congress for the construction of public works 
        . . . and for public relief and other public purposes in Puerto 
        Rico.

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

        Mr. [Antonio M.] Fernandez [of New Mexico]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane. The amendment 
    is with respect to the collection of customs. The bill is limited 
    solely to the political aspects of Puerto Rico and solely for the 
    election of a governor and members of the Supreme Court. 
    Furthermore, this amendment is one another committee of the House 
    has jurisdiction over and our committee has not had anything to do 
    with this amendment.

    The Speaker,(4) in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Unquestionably the amendment proposed is a matter that comes 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means; 
    therefore not germane to the pending amendment or to the bill. The 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Amending Law To Reauthorize Rural Housing Loan and Grant 
    Programs--Amendment Authorizing Pooling of Guaranteed Rural Housing 
    Loans Under Another Law

Sec. 4.58 Committee jurisdiction is a relevant test of germaneness 
    where the pending portion of the bill amends a law entirely within 
    one committee's jurisdiction and the proposed amendment amends a 
    law within another

[[Page 7672]]

    committee's jurisdiction; thus, to a title of an omnibus housing 
    bill amending a law within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs to reauthorize rural housing 
    loan and grant programs, an amendment to another law within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture authorizing the 
    pooling of federally guaranteed rural housing loans was held not 
    germane as amending a law not amended by the pending title and 
    within the jurisdiction of another committee.

    On July 31, 1990,(5) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration title VI of the Housing and Community Development 
Act (6) when the amendment described above was offered. A 
point of order against the amendment was sustained, demonstrating that 
the test of germaneness to a pending title of a bill is the 
relationship of the amendment to the law being amended by that title, 
and not to other portions of the bill not then pending for amendment. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 136 Cong. Rec. p. --, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. H.R. 1180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of title VI is as follows:

                            TITLE VI--RURAL HOUSING
        sec. 601. program authorizations.

            (a) Insurance and Guarantee Authority.--Section 513(a)(1) 
        of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1483(a)(1) is amended to 
        read as follows:
            ``(a)(1) The Secretary may, to the extent approved in 
        appropriation Acts, insure and guarantee loans under this title 
        during fiscal years 1990 and 1991 in aggregate amounts not to 
        exceed $1,906,220,000 and $2,091,200,000, respectively, as 
        follows: . . .

        Mr. [Doug] Bereuter [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter: Page 358, lines 12 and 
        13, strike ``this section'' and insert ``subsections (b) and 
        (c)''. . . .
            Page 359, after line 18, insert the following new 
        subsection:
            (e) Agricultural Mortgage Secondary Market.--
            (1) Expansion of Secondary Market Authority.--Section 8.0 
        of the Farm Credit Act of 1971 (12 U.S.C. 2279a) is amended--
            (A) in paragraph (1)--
            (i) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``or'' at the end;
            (ii) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking the period at the 
        end and inserting ``; or''; and
            (iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
            ``(C) a principle residence eligible for a loan that is 
        guaranteed pursuant to or meets the requirements of subsection 
        (f) of section 502 of the Housing Act 1949.'';
            (B) in paragraph (3), by inserting after the period at the 
        end the following new sentence: ``With respect to qualified 
        loans described in the last sentence of paragraph (9), the

[[Page 7673]]

        term includes the Corporation and any affiliate of the 
        Corporation.''; and
            (C) in paragraph (9), by inserting after the period at the 
        end the following new undesignated paragraph:
            ``With respect to loans on agricultural real estate 
        described in paragraph (1)(C), the term means the portion of a 
        loan guaranteed by the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to 
        section 502(f) of the Housing Act of 1949, except that (A) 
        subsections (b) through (f) of section 8.6 and sections 8.7, 
        8.8, and 8.9 shall not apply to the portion of a loan 
        guaranteed by the Secretary. . . .

        Mr. [Glenn] English [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I object to the amendment on the grounds that it 
    is nongermane to the bill under rule 16, clause 7 of the rules of 
    the House, because the amendment seeks to make substantial and 
    fundamental changes in a statute and subject matter not 
    contemplated by the underlying bill, and because the amendment 
    addresses a subject matter different from that under consideration 
    by the House.
        The amendment is nongermane because it proposes to amend a 
    subject matter outside the scope of the underlying bill by altering 
    the fundamental purpose of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage 
    Corporation. The Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation was 
    established under the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 to act as a 
    guarantor of certain agricultural real estate mortgage loans. The 
    amendment would alter the fundamental purpose of the Corporation to 
    allow it to act as a pooler of housing loans guaranteed by the 
    Federal Government.
        The amendment proposes to amend the Farm Credit Act of 1971, a 
    statute not addressed in the underlying bill. The Farm Credit Act 
    has as its fundamental purpose the governance of the extension of 
    credit to farmers and ranchers. By contrast, H.R. 1108 has as its 
    fundamental purpose the authorization of Federal housing programs.
        Finally, the amendment addresses a subject matter within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture, the amendment has not 
    been considered by this committee, and relevant precedents of the 
    House hold that committee jurisdiction is a relevant test of 
    germaneness when the pending text of the bill is entirely in one 
    committee's jurisdiction and the amendment falls within another 
    committee's purview. . . .
        Mr. Bereuter: . . . Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the 
    rural housing and housing generally is in the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs.
        Title VII is a rural housing title. The amendment offered by 
    this gentleman would enhance credit opportunities for rural 
    housing.
        Second, title VI, specifically section 608 of the bill, 
    requires that the Agricultural Secretary consult with Farmer Mac 
    when promulgating regulations to implement the Farmers Home 
    Administration guarantee program.
        Third, title VII, section 741, already discusses secondary 
    markets in that it reauthorizes Ginnie Mae for 1 year.
        Fourth, title VII, section 754, includes other secondary-market 
    entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regarding mortgage 
    servicing transfer disclosures.
        Finally, title I would create a housing trust. The title also 
    requires estab

[[Page 7674]]

    lishment of a board to include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to 
    oversee the trust.
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John P. Muntha (Pa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair concedes that there is some relationship between the 
    housing and credit jurisdiction of the two committees, but title VI 
    of the bill does not amend the Farm Credit Act, and the amendment 
    amends that law which is within the primary jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Agriculture. Therefore, the Chair sustains the point 
    of order that the amendment is not germane to title VI.

--Amendment Offered as New Title Expressing Sense of Congress That 
    Congress Should Enact Legislation Providing for Enterprise Zone 
    Program and Tax Incentives Affecting Housing

Sec. 4.59 To a bill broadly addressing the subjects of housing and 
    community development within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, an amendment expressing the 
    sense of the Congress that certain legislation, including an 
    extension of the low-income housing tax credit, should be enacted, 
    is not germane since the amendment deals with tax policy, a matter 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.

    During consideration of the Housing and Community Development Act 
(8) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 1, 
1990,(9) the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 1180.
 9. 136 Cong. Rec. p.--, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bartlett: Page 594, after line 2, 
        insert the following new title (and conform the table of 
        contents, accordingly):

                          TITLE IX--GENERAL PROVISIONS
        sec. 901. sense of congress regarding housing tax policy.

            (a) Congressional Findings.--The Congress finds that tax 
        policy is an integral component of effective housing and 
        neighborhood revitalization policy.
            (b) Sense of Congress.--It is, therefore, the sense of the 
        Congress that the Congress should enact legislation during the 
        101st Congress providing a viable enterprise zone program, an 
        individual retirement account program for homeownership, and an 
        extension of the low-income housing tax credit. . . .

        Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman . . . I make 
    the point of order on the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane to the legislation and is in violation of clause 7 of House 
    rule XVI.

[[Page 7675]]

        This amendment, like the previous amendment, would express the 
    sense of the Congress on matters not within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs. I therefore make a 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill. . . .
        Mr. Bartlett: Mr. Chairman, as I said on the last point of 
    order on the sense of Congress, housing policy is germane to a 
    housing bill, and it is within the jurisdiction of the Committee of 
    the Whole, which is the Committee that is considering this bill.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        An expression of the sense of Congress that there should be 
    enacted in this Congress a viable enterprise zone program, 
    individual retirement accounts, and extension of low income housing 
    tax credits addresses matter of tax policy under the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on Ways and Means, and, therefore, the Chair 
    sustains the point of order based on the prior ruling. The 
    germaneness rule applies in the Committee of the Whole.

Bill Providing for Grant and Credit Programs for Housing and Community 
    Development--Amendment Expressing Sense of Congress as to Tax 
    Policies Affecting Housing

Sec. 4.60 The Committee of the Whole may not consider amendments 
    expressing the sense of Congress on a subject unrelated to the 
    pending bill and within the jurisdiction of a committee other than 
    that reporting the bill; thus, to a bill dealing with housing and 
    community development grant and credit programs (a matter within 
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban 
    Affairs), an amendment expressing the sense of Congress that other 
    federal law should reflect a stated tax policy with respect to 
    housing was held not germane as within the jurisdiction of another 
    House committee (the Committee on Ways and Means) and dealing with 
    the subject of housing by an unrelated method.

    On Aug. 1, 1990,(11) during consideration of the Housing 
and Community Development Act (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. 136 Cong. Rec. p. --, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
12. H.R. 1180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 7676]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bartlett:
            Page 594, after line 2, insert the following new section 
        (and conform the table of contents, accordingly):
        sec. 902. sense of congress regarding mortgage interest 
        deduction.

            (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
            (1) homeownership is a fundamental American ideal, which 
        promotes social and economic benefits beyond the benefits that 
        accrue to the occupant of the home . . .
            (3) it is proper that the policy of the Federal Government 
        is, and should continue to be, to encourage homeownership . . .
            (6) the current Federal income tax deduction for interest 
        paid on debt secured by first and second homes is of crucial 
        importance to the economies of many communities; and
            (7) the continued deductibility of interest paid on debt 
        secured by a first or second home has particular importance in 
        promoting other desirable social goals, such as education of 
        young people.
            (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress, 
        therefore, that the current Federal income tax deduction for 
        interest paid on debt secured by a first or second home should 
        be preserved. . . .

        Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order against the amendment on the ground that it 
    is not germane to the legislation and is in violation of clause 7 
    of House rule XVI. This amendment would express the sense of 
    Congress on matters not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, and I therefore make the point 
    of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill. . . .
        Mr. Bartlett: . . . First, this amendment, a sense of the 
    Congress with regard to housing, is clearly germane to a housing 
    bill. It is germane under clause 6, rule XVI in that the housing 
    bill itself would seek to extend and amend certain laws related to 
    housing, community and neighborhood development and preservation 
    and related programs. . . .
        The home mortgage deduction relates to housing. It is clearly 
    germane to the bill.
        It is clearly within the jurisdiction of the full House to 
    consider a sense of the Congress on virtually any subject. It is 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee of the Whole to consider a 
    sense of the Congress amendment as an amendment to a housing bill 
    if the amendment relates to housing.
        So first, it is germane. It does not direct another committee 
    to do anything at all. It states that this Committee of the Whole 
    believes that a mortgage interest deduction is an essential part of 
    housing, and this is a housing bill.
        Second, while an argument was made at the committee level in 
    the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs that it was not 
    germane to it, that it was not within the jurisdiction of the 
    Banking Committee, and I think that at least has some validity to 
    it, although I do not think it is correct with regard to a sense of 
    the Congress. The fact is that this is not the Banking Committee. 
    Mr. Chairman, we are convened as a Committee of the Whole House. 
    Four hundred thirty-five Members of this Committee of the Whole 
    House has jurisdiction over a sense of the Congress with regard to 
    this particular housing policy.

[[Page 7677]]

        This is not the Committee on Ways and Means and it is not the 
    Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs. It is the 
    Committee of the Whole House.
        Third, the bill, this sense of Congress does not provide for a 
    tax or tariff measure. It is a sense of Congress. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment which has just been raised by the gentleman from Texas is 
    a sense-of-Congress resolution which relates to material under 
    jurisdiction of another committee. It expresses a pious hope which 
    many of us may share, but it has nothing to do with the bill in 
    question. It is as if the House should make a resolution or a 
    sense-of-Congress resolution that would say the Agriculture 
    Department should plant more trees. That too would relate to 
    housing, but in a very--in a manner such as is not acceptable under 
    our rules. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) . . . The Chair is prepared to 
    rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Illinois makes the point of order that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas is not germane to the 
    bill. The bill comprehensively addresses the general subject of 
    public housing and community development. The amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas adds to the bill an expression of the 
    sense of Congress concerning tax deductions.
        Although the topic is conceptually related to the topic of 
    public housing, it addresses questions of tax policy, matters 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
        The Chair is guided by the precedent of February 9, 1984, cited 
    in Deschler-Brown Procedure, Chapter 28, section 4.47 to a bill 
    reported from the Committee on Science and Technology, authorizing 
    environmental research and development activities of an agency, an 
    amendment expressing the sense of Congress with respect to that 
    agency's regulatory and enforcement authority, matters within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce was held not 
    germane.
        Likewise to the pending bill addressing public housing and 
    community development within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, an amendment expressing the 
    sense of Congress on matters of tax policy is not germane. The 
    point of order is, therefore, sustained.

Bill To Provide Employment Opportunities Through Proj-
    ects To Renovate Community Facilities--Amendment Providing Tax 
    Incentives for Enterprise Zones

Sec. 4.61 To a bill reported from the Committee on Education and Labor 
    authorizing a program of financial assistance to provide employment 
    opportunities to unemployed individuals in areas of high 
    unemployment, in projects to repair and renovate community 
    facilities, an amendment in the nature of a substitute proposed in 
    a motion to recommit providing instead for

[[Page 7678]]

    federal income tax incentives for enterprise zones through 
    amendments to the Internal Revenue Code (and for other forms of 
    special treatment for enterprise zones through amendment of other 
    acts), was held not germane as unrelated to the subject matter of 
    the bill and beyond the jurisdiction of the reporting committee, 
    and was held to be a tax measure offered to a bill not reported by 
    a committee with jurisdiction over tax measures, in violation of 
    clause 5(b) of Rule XXI.

    During consideration of the Community Renewal Employment Act 
(14) in the House on Sept. 21, 1983,(15) Speaker 
Thomas P. O'Neill, of Massachusetts, sustained a point of order against 
a motion to recommit with instructions to re-report the bill with an 
amendment. The text of the bill provided in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 1036.
15. 129 Cong. Rec. 25111, 25138-45, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 201. (a) Eligible participants shall be employed in 
    community improvement projects under this title in one or more of 
    the following activities:
        (1) activities to repair, rehabilitate, or improve public 
    facilities, including (A) road and street repair, (B) bridge 
    painting and repair, (C) repair and rehabilitation of public 
    buildings and other community facilities, including public 
    libraries, (D) repair, modernization, and moderate rehabilitation 
    of public housing units, (E) repair and rehabilitation of water 
    systems and water development projects, (F) repair and 
    rehabilitation of public mass transportation systems, (G) erecting 
    or replacing traffic control signs and removing road sign 
    obstructions . . .
        (2) activities to conserve, rehabilitate, or improve public 
    lands, including (A) erosion, flood, drought, and storm damage 
    assistance and control . . .
        (3) public safety, health, social service, and other activities 
    necessary to the public welfare, including (A) repairing or 
    replacing fire hydrants and assisting in fire hazard inspections . 
    . . (R) rodent and insect control activities, (S) hazardous 
    materials surveys, and (T) employment counseling and placement 
    services. . . .
        (d) Projects to be carried out under subsection (a)(2) shall be 
    limited to projects on public lands or Indian lands except where a 
    project involving other lands will provide a documented public 
    benefit and reimbursement will be provided to the recipient for 
    that portion of the total costs of the project which does not 
    provide a public benefit. . . .
        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit. . . .
        The Speaker: The Clerk will read the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Erlenborn moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 1036, to the 
        Committee on Education and Labor with instructions that the 
        Committee re-re

[[Page 7679]]

        port the bill back to the House forthwith with the following 
        amendment:
            Strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
        section 1. short title; amendments of 1954 code.

            (a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the 
        ``Enterprise Zone Act of 1983''.
            (b) Amendment of 1954 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly 
        provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
        expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section 
        or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be 
        made to a section or other provision of the Internal Revenue 
        Code of 1954.
        sec. 2. purposes.

            It is the purpose of this Act to provide for the 
        establishment of enterprise zones in order to stimulate the 
        creation of new jobs, particularly for disadvantaged workers 
        and long-term unemployed individuals, and to promote 
        revitalization of economically distressed areas primarily by 
        providing or encouraging--
            (a) tax relief at the Federal, State, and local levels;
            (b) regulatory relief at the Federal, State, and local 
        levels; and
            (c) improved local services and an increase in the economic 
        stake of enterprise zone residents in their own community and 
        its development, particularly through the increased involvement 
        of private, local, and neighborhood organizations. . . .

                    TITLE II--FEDERAL INCOME TAX INCENTIVES

                Subtitle A--Credits for Employers and Employees
        sec. 201. credit for enterprise zone employers.

            (a) Credit for Increased Enterprise Zone Employment and 
        Employment of Disadvantaged Workers.--Subpart A of part IV of 
        subchapter A of chapter 1 (relating to credits allowable) is 
        amended by inserting immediately before section 45 the 
        following new section:
        ``sec. 44h. credit for enterprise zone employment.

            ``(a) In General.--There shall be allowed as a credit 
        against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year an 
        amount equal to the sum of--
            ``(1) 10 percent of the qualified increased employment 
        expenditures of the taxpayer for the taxable year, and
            ``(2) the economically disadvantaged credit amount of the 
        taxpayer for such taxable year. . . .

         TITLE IV--ESTABLISHMENT OF FOREIGN-TRADE ZONES IN ENTERPRISE 
                                     ZONES
        sec. 401. foreign-trade zone preferences.

            (a) Preference in Establishment of Foreign-Trade Zones in 
        Revitalization Areas.--In processing applications for the 
        establishment of foreign-trade zones pursuant to an Act 
        entitled ``To provide for the establishment, operation, and 
        maintenance of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the 
        United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and 
        for other purposes,'' approved June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 998), 
        the Foreign-Trade Zone Board shall consider on a priority basis 
        and expedite, to the maximum extent possible, the processing of 
        any application involving the establishment of a foreign-trade 
        zone within an enterprise zone designated pursuant to section 
        7871 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
            (b) Application Procedure.--In processing applications for 
        the establishment of ports of entry pursuant to an Act entitled 
        ``An Act making

[[Page 7680]]

        appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for 
        the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and 
        fifteen, and for other purposes,'' approved August 1, 1914 (38 
        Stat. 609), the Secretary of the Treasury shall consider on a 
        priority basis and expedite, to the maximum extent possible, 
        the processing of any application involving the establishment 
        of a port of entry which is necessary to permit the 
        establishment of a foreign-trade zone within an enterprise 
        zone.
            (c) Application Evaluation.--In evaluating applications for 
        the establishment of foreign-trade zones and ports of entry in 
        connection with enterprise zones, the Foreign-Trade Zone Board 
        and the Secretary of Treasury shall approve the applications to 
        the maximum extent practicable, consistent with their 
        respective statutory responsibilities. . . .

        Mr. [Augustus F.] Hawkins [of California]: Mr. Speaker, my 
    point of order is on the grounds that the motion to recommit 
    contains language of a tax bill which cannot be put on a nontax 
    bill; and, second, the amendment is not germane to the bill under 
    consideration. . . .
        Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Hawkins) is correct in that there is language relative to tax law 
    in the motion to recommit. I submit that the purpose of the motion 
    to recommit and the purpose of the amendment would be to enact the 
    enterprise zone proposal that has been supported very broadly in 
    both Houses of the Congress, and that it would reduce unemployment 
    in the communities across the country where we have high levels of 
    unemployment, though I admit it would do so in a somewhat different 
    manner. It would do so through tax incentives and the creation of 
    real meaningful jobs in the private sector rather than public 
    service type jobs.
        Mr. Speaker, I hope it would be considered germane since the 
    purposes are the same. We just have a better way of doing it.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        It is very obvious to the Chair that the motion to recommit 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Erlenborn) is not 
    germane. This is a tax amendment, and the Committee on Education 
    and Labor has no jurisdiction over it.
        So the point of order is well taken under clause 7 rule XVI and 
    under clause 5(b) rule XXI, and the point of order is sustained.

Conference Report on House Bill Authorizing Funds for Public Works 
    Jobs--Senate Amendment Mandating Already Appropriated Funds for 
    Public Works and Reclamation

Sec. 4.62 In a conference report on a House bill (originally reported 
    from the Committee on Public Works and Transportation) authorizing 
    funds for state and local governments to create new public works 
    jobs, a Senate amendment adding a new title to mandate the 
    expenditure of already appropriated funds for public works and rec

[[Page 7681]]

    lamation (as a purported disapproval of the deferral of such funds 
    under the Impoundment Control Act) and to set a discount rate for 
    reclamation and public works projects--matters within the 
    respective jurisdictions of the Committees on Appropriations and 
    Interior and Insular Affairs--was conceded to be nongermane and 
    subject to a point of order under clause 4 of Rule XXVIII and to a 
    motion to reject that portion.

    On May 3, 1977,(16) the House had under consideration 
the conference report on H.R. 11 when the situation described above 
occurred; the proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 123 Cong. Rec. 13242, 13243, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert A.] Roe [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the bill (H.R. 11) to increase the 
    authorization for the Local Public Works Capital Development and 
    Investment Act of 1976, and ask unanimous consent that the 
    statement of the managers be read in lieu of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [Robert A.] Young of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order against the conference report.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) The gentleman will 
    state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Young of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, the inclusion of title II 
    of the conference report on H.R. 11 is in violation of clause 4 of 
    rule XXVIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
        Mr. Speaker, it should be obvious to my colleagues that this 
    bill--H.R. 11--has come back from conference with an unrelated, 
    nongermane amendment.
        Title 1 of this bill authorizes $4 billion to be channeled to 
    State and local governments throughout the country to create new 
    public works jobs. The goal is to reduce the Nation's high 
    unemployment rate.
        In contrast, title 2 concerns previously approved water 
    projects, with a principal goal of providing new flood control, 
    water management and recreational benefits.
        The jurisdiction over title 2 currently rests with the 
    Appropriations Committee, and no longer involves the Public Works 
    Committee. Therefore, title 2 should be excluded from consideration 
    now and allowed to be handled by the appropriate committee.
        My argument of nongermaneness is based on several precedents 
    cited in Deschler's Procedure. May I call your attention to 4.25 of 
    Deschler's chapter 28 which reads:

            To a bill reported by the Committee on Public Works 
        authorizing funds for highway construction and for mass 
        transportation systems which use motor vehicles on highways, an 
        amendment relating to urban mass transit (a subject within the 
        jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and Currency) and to 
        rapid rail transportation and assistance to the railroad 
        industry (within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
        Interstate and Foreign Commerce) was ruled out as not germane. 
        118 Con

[[Page 7682]]

        gressional Record 34111, 34115, 92d Congress, 2nd Session, Oct. 
        5, 1972.

        I would also like to cite [4.9] reading:

            An amendment relating to railroads generally, which was 
        offered to a bill pertaining solely to urban transportation, 
        was ruled out as not germane. 116 Congressional Record 34191, 
        91st Congress, 1st Session, Sept. 29, 1970.

        Finally I ask you to refer to 4.12 which reads:

            To a bill establishing penalties for desecration of the 
        American flag, an amendment establishing certain restrictions 
        upon exporting the flag was ruled out as not germane. 113 
        Congressional Record 16495, 90th Congress, 1st Session, June 
        20, 1967.

        These precedents form the basis of my point of order--that 
    title 2 is simply not germane to the local public works bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from New Jersey 
    (Mr. Roe) wish to be heard in debate on the point of order?
        Mr. Roe: No, Mr. Speaker. We concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
    Roe) concedes the point of order. The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Young of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move, in conformity with 
    the matter involved in the point of order, that the House reject 
    title II of the conference report.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Young) is recognized for 20 minutes on his motion.

Bill Amending Laws Relating to Housing and Urban Renewal--Amendment 
    Delaying Effectiveness Pending Revenue Legislation

Sec. 4.63 To a bill extending and amending laws relating to housing and 
    the renewal of urban communities, an amendment providing that no 
    funds could be appropriated or withdrawn from the Treasury for the 
    purposes of the bill until enactment of legislation raising 
    additional revenue, was held to be not germane.

    The proceedings of May 21, 1959, relating to the Housing Act of 
1959, are discussed in Sec. 31.11, infra.

Housing Bill Authorizing Urban Property Insurance--Amendment 
    Inaugurating Urban Insurance for District of Columbia

Sec. 4.64 To an omnibus housing bill, in part authorizing urban 
    property protection and reinsurance and establishing a National 
    Insurance Development Corporation, an amendment which sought to 
    inaugurate a new program of urban insurance for the

[[Page 7683]]

    District of Columbia was held to be germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of the Housing and Urban 
Development Act of 1968,(18) the following amendment was 
offered: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 17989 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 20526, 20527, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 10, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Edward J.] Patten [of New Jersey]: On 
    page 211, immediately after line 14, insert the following:

           Title XI--District of Columbia Insurance Placement Act

                           declaration of purpose

        Sec. 1102. The purposes of this title are--
        (1) to assure stability in the property insurance market for 
    property located in the District of Columbia;
        (2) to assure the availability of basic property insurance as 
    defined by this title. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 20528.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William E.] Brock [III, of Tennessee]: I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane, 
    it would create a special class of beneficiary, and it would invade 
    the jurisdiction of another committee.

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

        Mr. Chairman, as far as our having a right to amend this bill 
    at this point without referring it to the District of Columbia 
    Committee, I am pretty sure our rules permit such action. . . .

    The Chairman,(1) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair has examined title X closely. The name of title 
    X is ``Urban Property Protection and Reinsurance''. On page 189, 
    under ``Definitions,'' it is stated that--

            (11) ``State'' means the several States, the District of 
        Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American 
        Samoa, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific;

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey deals 
    with a matter of insurance, which the Chair feels is within the 
    scope of the pending bill. The District of Columbia is included in 
    the pending bill. Therefore, the Chair holds that the amendment is 
    germane and overrules the point of order.

Bill Relating to Urban Mass Transportation--Amendment Relating to 
    Railroads

Sec. 4.65 An amendment relating to railroads generally, which was 
    offered to a bill pertaining solely to urban mass transportation, 
    was held to be not germane.

    In the 91st Congress, a bill(2) was under consideration 
which

[[Page 7684]]

had been reported by the Committee on Banking and Currency and which 
sought in part to direct the Secretary of Transportation to study the 
feasibility of federal assistance to defray operating costs of urban 
mass transportation companies. An amendment was offered(3) 
directing the Secretary of Transportation to study the feasibility of 
federal acquisition and maintenance of all fixed railroad facilities, a 
subject within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce. A point of order was raised against the amendment, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 18125 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 34191, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 29, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: The amendment relates to a type 
    of transportation that is not under the Secretary of 
    Transportation. The railroads are not under the Secretary of 
    Transportation. They are not included in the bill. Therefore the 
    amendment is not germane.

    The Chairman(4) noted that the amendment contained 
matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce. Stating further that, ``The amendment does go beyond 
the scope of the pending bill and is not germane,'' the Chairman 
sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill To Reorganize Amtrak--Amendment Providing for Tax Incentives To 
    Improve Amtrak

Sec. 4.66 While committee jurisdiction is not the sole test of the 
    germaneness of an amendment, it is an appropriate test where the 
    pending text is entirely within one committee's jurisdiction and 
    the amendment falls entirely within that of another committee; 
    thus, to a bill within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce reorganizing Amtrak through 
    financial assistance and other methods, to improve rail passenger 
    services, an amendment to achieve track improvements solely through 
    tax incentives by amending the Internal Revenue Code, is not a 
    related method and is not germane, since it would fall within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.

    On July 25, 1979,(5) a point of order was sustained 
against an amendment to the Amtrak Reorganization Act of 
1979(6) during

[[Page 7685]]

consideration in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Leon E. Panetta, 
of California, holding that the amendment was not germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 125 Cong. Rec. 20601, 20602, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. H.R. 3996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Madigan: Page 102, after line 8, 
    insert the following new title:

                          TITLE V--TAX INCENTIVES

                      certification of qualified track

        Sec. 501. (a) Application.--Any rail carrier which makes 
    improvements in railroad track which it owns and which is used by 
    the National Railroad Passenger Corporation pursuant to an 
    agreement entered into under section 402 of the Rail Passenger 
    Service Act may apply to the Secretary of Transportation for 
    certification of such track as qualified track for purposes of 
    section 48 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Any such 
    application shall be submitted in such form and contain such 
    information as the Secretary may by regulation require. . . .
        Sec. 502. (a) Additional 10-Percent Credit for Railroad Energy 
    Property.--(1) Subparagraph (A) of section 46(a)(2) of the Internal 
    Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to amount of investment tax credit) 
    is amended by striking out ``and'' at the end of clause (ii), by 
    striking out the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting in 
    lieu thereof ``, and'', and by adding at the end thereof the 
    following new clause:
        ``(iv) in the case of railroad energy property, the railroad 
    energy percentage.''
        (2) Paragraph (2) of section 46(a) of such Code is amended by 
    adding at the end thereof the following new subparagraphs:
        ``(F) Railroad Energy Percentage.--For purposes of this 
    paragraph, the railroad energy percentage is--
        ``(i) 10 percent with respect to the period beginning on 
    January 1, 1980, and ending on December 31, 1984, or
        ``(ii) zero with respect to any other period. . . .
        (c) Credits With Respect to Railroad Energy Property To Be 
    Refundable.--(1) Subsection (a) of section 46 of such Code is 
    amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
        ``(11) Refundable Credits for Railroad Energy Property.--
        ``(A) In General.--Under regulations prescribed by the 
    Secretary, in the case of so much of the credit allowed by section 
    38 as is described in subparagraph (B)--
        ``(i) paragraph (3) shall not apply, and
        ``(ii) for purposes of this title (other than section 38, this 
    subpart, and chapter 63), such credit shall be treated as if it 
    were allowed by section 39 and not by section 38. . . .
        Mr. [Edgar L.] Jenkins [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against this amendment.
        The bill that is now under consideration, H.R. 3996, is a bill 
    which restructures the Nation's rail passenger system. The 
    amendment which is being offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Madigan) very expressly amends the Internal Revenue Code. The 
    amendment is clearly an income tax provision. It adds to the 
    Internal Revenue Code, if I understand the amendment correctly, an 
    additional income tax credit for investment in railway energy 
    property.

        The amendment is clearly not germane to the subject matter of 
    the bill

[[Page 7686]]

    before us which revises the Amtrak system. It is plainly 
    inconsistent with the germaneness rule of the House.
        I am going to also say, Mr. Chairman, that this new tax credit, 
    which would be provided by the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Madigan), is refundable. It would be available 
    despite the taxpayers' lack of tax liability. This is a concept 
    which the jurisdictional committee, the Committee on Ways and 
    Means, should consider and review very carefully before enactment. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    gentleman from Georgia argues that my amendment is not consistent 
    with the purpose of the bill and, therefore, for that reason not in 
    order. As a matter of fact, my amendment is in order because it is 
    consistent with the fundamental purpose of this bill. It is 
    compatible and closely allied with the method of assisting Amtrak 
    as provided in the bill and it does not become disqualified by the 
    application of a committee jurisdiction test.
        A basic test of germaneness is that the fundamental purpose of 
    an amendment must be germane to the fundamental purpose of the bill 
    (VIII 2911; Deschler's Procedure 28.5). In determining this 
    purpose, one must look to the text of the bill as the principal 
    tool in determining purpose. The fundamental purpose of both the 
    bill and the amendment is to provide Amtrak with the ability to 
    provide safe, reliable, and comfortable intercity rail passenger 
    service. . . .
        While the purpose to be accomplished by my amendment is through 
    a method not specifically contemplated by the bill in its present 
    form, the result that is desired and the method to achieve that 
    result are compatible and closely allied. The basic method set 
    forth in the bill to strengthen Amtrak and the method set forth in 
    my amendment are similar. . . .
        Finally, it could be argued that committee jurisdiction is an 
    obstacle to my amendment being considered. A parliamentary note in 
    Deschler's Procedure (28:4.16) applies to this situation:

            The fact that the subject matter of an amendment lies 
        within the jurisdiction of a committee other than that having 
        jurisdiction over the bill does not necessarily dictate the 
        conclusion that the amendment is not germane; for committee 
        jurisdiction is but one of the tests of germaneness and in 
        ruling on the question, the Chair must take into consideration 
        other factors.

        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I submit that my amendment is in 
    order because it has as its fundamental purpose a purpose which is 
    identical to that contained in the bill; the method proposed in the 
    amendment uses a method of achieving the end result of better 
    Amtrak performance in a way that is closely allied to the other 
    methods used in the bill and, finally, the purpose of the amendment 
    and the purpose of the bill are not only identical but use such 
    closely allied methods that any objection based on committee 
    jurisdiction is clearly outweighed when considering the germaneness 
    of my amendment. I ask the Chair to find the amendment to be 
    germane to H.R. 3996 and its consideration to be in order. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair is prepared to rule.

[[Page 7687]]

        The Chair agrees with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Madigan) 
    that there are several tests of germaneness. All of the tests which 
    may be relevant to the particular amendment must be satisfied. The 
    fact is that committee jurisdiction is one of those tests. Since 
    the amendment deals with taxing policy and falls within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, that appears to be 
    a relevant test of germaneness in this instance.
        Quoting in support of that ruling is rule XVI, section 798c of 
    the Rules of the House of Representatives, page 497, which states:

            Committee jurisdiction is not the sole test of germaneness 
        where the proposition to which the amendment is offered is so 
        comprehensive (overlapping several committees' jurisdictions) 
        as to diminish the pertinency of that test and the amendment as 
        offered does not demonstrably affect a law within another 
        committee's jurisdiction, or where the portion of the bill also 
        contains language, related to the amendment, not within the 
        jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill--
        But the text continues:
        But committee jurisdiction is a relevant test where the pending 
        text is entirely within one committee's jurisdiction and where 
        the amendment falls within another committee's purview.

        In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Illinois does fall within the purview of the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Omnibus Agriculture Bill Amended To Include Provisions Within 
    Jurisdiction of Other Committees--Amendment To Make Eligibility for 
    Price Support Programs Conditional on Compliance With Labor 
    Standards

Sec. 4.67 To an omnibus agricultural bill authorizing a variety of 
    commodity price support and payment programs within the 
    jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee, but amended to include 
    provisions on subjects within the jurisdiction of other committees, 
    such as ethanol (within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy 
    and Commerce) and cargo preference (the Committees on Merchant 
    Marine and Fisheries and Foreign Affairs), an amendment 
    conditioning eligibility in such price support and payment programs 
    upon the furnishing by agricultural employers of specified labor 
    protection (normally within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Education and Labor) was held germane, as the bill had been amended 
    to include matter beyond the exclusive jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Agriculture.

[[Page 7688]]

    On Oct. 8, 1985,(7) during consideration of the Food 
Security Act of 1985 (8) in the Committee of the Whole, the 
Chair, in overruling points of order against an amendment, reiterated 
the principle that committee jurisdiction is not the exclusive test of 
germaneness where the proposition being amended contains provisions so 
comprehensive as to overlap several committee's jurisdictions. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 131 Cong. Rec. 26548-51, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. H.R. 2100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of California: At the end of 
    the bill add a new Title XXI.

    LIMITATION ON PARTICIPATION IN CERTAIN COMMODITY PRICE SUPPORT AND 
                              PAYMENT PROGRAMS

        Sec. 21. (a) Any person who violates subsection (b), (c), or 
    (d) shall be ineligible, as to any commodity produced by that 
    person during the crop year which follows the crop year in which 
    such violation occurs, for any type of price support, payment or 
    any other program or activity described in any of paragraphs 1 
    through 5 of section 1202(a).
        (b) Any agricultural employer shall provide the following to 
    agricultural employees engaged in hand-labor operations in the 
    field, without cost to such employees:
        (1) Potable drinking water. . . .
        (2) With respect to toilets and handwashing facilities--
        (A) one toilet and one handwashing facility provided for each 
    group of 20 employees, or any fraction thereof;
        (B) toilet facilities with doors which can be closed and 
    latched from the inside and constructed to ensure privacy. . . .
        Mr. [Arlen] Stangeland [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the Miller amendment is not germane to H.R. 
    2100. . . .
        One underlying rationale for the rule of germaneness is to 
    preclude the consideration of subjects that were not considered by 
    the appropriate committee when the bill was being considered by the 
    Agricultural Committee; this is H.R. 2100. No such hearings were 
    held by the Committee on Agriculture.
        The primary jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Miller 
    amendment is with the Committee on Education and Labor. A bill 
    similar to the Miller amendment, H.R. 3295, was cosponsored by my 
    colleague from California on September 12, 1985, and was only 
    referred to the Committee on Education and Labor.
        This amendment is an attempt to circumvent the rules of the 
    House in the consideration of legislation by a major committee and 
    to introduce a new subject, labor standards, into the agricultural 
    legislation. . . .
        Mr. [George] Miller of California: . . . Clearly, the amendment 
    is germane, because the amendment provides the conditions upon 
    which the benefits under this program shall be derived by farm 
    owners throughout

[[Page 7689]]

    this country. It is the conditions upon which the agricultural 
    benefits that are put together, the billions of dollars in this 
    program, shall be distributed.
        It is also germane because it does not expand the jurisdiction 
    of American labor law; it does not expand any existing law; it is 
    clearly stated and it is well-ordered point of law that the OSHA 
    Act, under which the Secretary of Labor has the ability to extend 
    the protection for health and safety benefits is well settled that 
    it already applies to the agricultural field.
        There are a number of provisions of OSHA which are already 
    settled in the law as provided to them, and this is one of them. 
    This is one of them. So clearly we have the ability to take already 
    existing law, with no extension of authority, and condition the 
    distribution of agricultural benefits and participations in this 
    program on that already-existing law. . . .
        This amendment simply says that those standards, which have 
    already been promulgated, which have already been settled, which 
    have already been published, shall be one of the conditioning of 
    the reasons for which there will be distribution of the benefits of 
    this program. . . .
        Mr. [Richard] Armey [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's 
    amendment imposes field sanitation regulations on certain 
    agricultural employers; mandates that the head of the Federal 
    Department, Secretary of Agriculture, delegate the making of 
    further rules and the investigation of violations to the head of 
    another Federal Department, the Secretary of Labor, and renders 
    violations of the regulations ineligible for the commodity price 
    support.
        First, the amendment does not meet the fundamental purpose of 
    germaneness. The general rule is that the fundamental purpose of an 
    amendment must be germane to the fundamental purpose of the bill.
        The basic purpose of this bill is to reauthorize the Commodity 
    and Farm Credit Programs and the Food Stamp Programs. Regarding the 
    commodity price supports, the bill's objective is to bring crop 
    price supports closer to market prices in order to make U.S. crops 
    more competitive in the world market and additionally, as a result, 
    to continue to protect farm income in certain ways.
        There is no logical connection between the fundamental purpose 
    of this bill and the basic purpose behind the gentleman's 
    amendment. . . .
        In effect, his amendment's real purpose is to establish a new, 
    special occupational health and safety statute applicable to a 
    limited class of agricultural workplaces. His amendment does not 
    seek to further the legislative end of the matter sought to be 
    amended but, rather, he is using the vehicle of the Commodity Price 
    Support Program to simply enact his new agricultural field 
    sanitation law and to create a penalty device to enforce it. . . .
        Mr. Miller of California: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order 
    raised, let us talk about whether or not this amendment is 
    fundamental to this legislation that was raised by the gentleman 
    from Texas. The fact of the matter is, this is absolutely 
    fundamental to this legislation. The purposes of this legislation 
    are to determine the conditions and the basis on which the benefits 
    under this program,

[[Page 7690]]

    whether it is an allotment program that we just determined here or 
    whether it is the Commodity Program, whether it is support crisis, 
    crop insurance, loans that are made to the agricultural community, 
    the terms and conditions upon which these benefits will be made. . 
    . .
        This bill is riddled with conditions upon which those benefits 
    will be addressed or which those benefits will be distributed.
        So this adds nothing new in terms of new law. It simply 
    provides an additional benefit. If you read through this 
    legislation, throughout the legislation, there are conditions 
    placed upon the size of the farm, the wealth of the farmers, the 
    kind of land they till, the kind of land they set aside, whether or 
    not they participate, whether or not they ship their crops overseas 
    on American bottoms or not. All of those are conditions because we 
    do not allow billions and billions of dollars to be distributed 
    without some say so. So I suggest to you that is absolutely 
    germane, Mr. Chairman, to have this condition be made a part of 
    this legislation and a condition under the existing programs on 
    which the benefits are distributed. . . .
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the points of order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentlemen from Minnesota and Texas make a point of order 
    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Miller] is not germane to the bill. Since the amendment is in the 
    form of a new title to be inserted at the end of the bill, the 
    Chair must consider the relationship of the amendment to the bill 
    as a whole and as modified by the Committee of the Whole. The 
    amendment would condition the availability of price support and 
    payment programs authorized by the bill upon the furnishing by 
    certain agricultural employers of specified labor protections. 
    While it is true that jurisdiction over labor standards for 
    agricultural employees is a matter within the purview of the 
    Committee on Education and Labor and while the bill contains 
    subject matter primarily within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
    on Agriculture, the bill, as amended, also includes provisions 
    within the jurisdiction of other committees including the Committee 
    on Energy and Commerce, on ethanol, the amendment of Mr. Leach, the 
    Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries which had the question 
    of cargo preference and also the Committees on Ways and Means and 
    Foreign Affairs. As indicated in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, 
    section 4.1, committee jurisdiction over the subject of an 
    amendment is not the exclusive test of germaneness where the 
    proposition being amended contains provisions so comprehensive as 
    to overlap several committees' jurisdictions.

        The Chair is also aware that regulations have been ordered to 
    be promulgated by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to existing law 
    to accomplish the purpose of the amendment. This situation is 
    similar to the precedent cited in Deschler's chapter 28, section 
    23.6, where, to an omnibus agricultural bill, an amendment 
    prohibiting any price support payments under the bill unless such 
    producers are certified by the Secretary of Labor to be in 
    compliance with applicable health and safety laws

[[Page 7691]]

    was held to be germane. For these reasons the question that was 
    raised by the gentlemen from Minnesota and Texas on germaneness 
    will not be sustained.

Provisions Amending Agriculture Act--Amendment Repealing Regulations 
    Under Occupational Safety and Health Act

Sec. 4.68 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute amending 
    several Acts within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Agriculture, an amendment directing the Secretary of Agriculture to 
    establish emergency temporary work standards for agricultural 
    workers exposed to pesticide chemicals, notwithstanding provisions 
    of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (a matter within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor), and 
    repealing certain work regulations promulgated under that Act, was 
    held to be not germane, despite inclusion of a similar provision in 
    the bill to which the amendment in the nature of a substitute had 
    been offered.

    On July 19, 1973,(10) during consideration of a bill to 
amend and extend the Agriculture Act of 1970 (11) in the 
Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that the test of 
germaneness is the relationship between an amendment and the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute to which it is offered, and not between 
the amendment and the bill for which the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute has been offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 24962, 24963, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
11. H.R. 8860.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wilmer] Mizell [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mizell to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Foley: On page 53, line 
        3, insert the following:
            Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding section 6(c) of the 
        Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 654(c)) 
        or any other provision of law, the Secretary of Agriculture 
        shall provide, without regard to the requirements of chapter 5, 
        title 5, United States Code, for an emergency temporary 
        standard prohibiting agricultural workers from entering areas 
        where crops are produced or grown (such emergency standard to 
        take immediate effect upon publication in the Federal Register) 
        if he determines (1) that such agricultural workers are exposed 
        to grave danger from exposure to pesticide chemicals, as 
        defined in section 201(q) of the Federal Food, Drug and 
        Cosmetic

[[Page 7692]]

        Act (21 U.S.C. 321(q)), and (2) that such emergency standard is 
        necessary to protect such agricultural workers from such 
        danger.
            (b) Such temporary standard shall be effective until 
        superseded by a standard prescribed by the Secretary of 
        Agriculture by rule, no later than six months after publication 
        of such temporary standard. . . .

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of 
    order against the amendment in that it is not germane because it 
    would have the effect of amending the Occupational Safety and 
    Health Act which is under the jurisdiction of the Education and 
    Labor Committee. . . .
        Mr. Mizell: Mr. Chairman, this language was in the committee 
    bill that was reported to the House, and the Foley substitute 
    eliminated this section of the bill, and so for that reason, I 
    offer the amendment at this time, and I think it is germane to the 
    bill since this bill does cover a number of subjects. . . .
        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, the rule 
    under which this legislation came to us precluded a point of order 
    being raised against the Mizell amendment, the one that was 
    contained in the original Agriculture Committee bill since this 
    bill was a clean bill reported by the Committee on Agriculture.
        What we are now dealing with is a situation in which this is an 
    amendment to a substitute.
        The subject matter covered by the amendment is clearly not 
    germane to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture, since 
    it is covered by the Committee on Education and Labor, and thus I 
    believe the point of order ought to be sustained by the Chair. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair advises the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
    Mizell) that as far as the rule is concerned, it has no relevance 
    concerning the point of order at this time. It is true that the 
    content is the amendment as offered by the gentleman from North 
    Carolina (Mr. Mizell) on the original bill, but the amendment 
    before the House at this time is in the nature of a substitute.
        Therefore, the Chair rules that the point of order must be 
    sustained.

Appropriation To Supply Farm Labor--Amendment Changing Selective 
    Training and Service Act Relating To Induction of Farm Labor

Sec. 4.69 To a joint resolution providing an appropriation for 
    supplying and distributing farm labor, an amendment seeking to 
    amend provisions of the Selective Training and Service Act relating 
    to induction of farm labor was held to be not germane.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(13) providing an appropriation as above described, an 
amendment was of

[[Page 7693]]

fered (14) relating to induction of farm labor. Mr. John 
Taber, of New York, made the point of order against the amendment that 
it was not germane to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.J. Res. 96 (Committee on Appropriations).
14. 89 Cong. Rec. 2165, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 17, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chairman,(15) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Robert L. F. Sikes (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        House Joint Resolution 96 provides an appropriation for 
    supplying and distributing farm labor. The amendment . . . in 
    effect amends the Selective Training and Service Act by providing 
    for certain deferments. Legislation affecting the Draft Act 
    automatically comes under the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Military Affairs, not the Committee on Appropriations or the 
    Committee on Agriculture. Therefore, in the opinion of the Chair, 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
    Fulmer] is not germane to the pending resolution, and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.

Bill Providing for Loans to Farmers--Amendment To Provide for Loans to 
    Commercial Fishermen

Sec. 4.70 To a bill providing financial relief for one class 
    (agricultural producers), an amendment extending such relief to 
    another class (commercial fishermen), particularly where relief to 
    the latter class is within the jurisdiction of another committee, 
    is not germane.

    During consideration of the Agriculture Credit Act of 1978 
(16) in the Committee of the Whole on Apr. 24, 
1978,(17) Chairman Don Fuqua, of Florida, sustained a point 
of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 11504.
17. 124 Cong. Rec. 11080, 11081, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be 
    considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Oregon?
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Weaver: Page 20, line 7, insert 
        ``and Commercial Fishing'' after ``Agricultural.''
            Section 202:
            Page 20, line 11, strike out ``and ranchers'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``, ranchers, or commercial fishermen''.
            Page 20, line 12, strike out the comma and insert ``or 
        commercial fishing''.
            Page 20, line 14, insert ``or fishing'' before 
        ``cooperatives''. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order the amendment is not germane to title II of the 
    bill. I cite the title of title II which is ``Emergency 
    Agricultural Credit Adjustment Act of 1978.'' The purposes of title 
    II of the

[[Page 7694]]

    bill are to make insured and guaranteed loans to bona fide farmers 
    and ranchers who are primarily engaged in agricultural production, 
    and to farm cooperatives, private domestic corporations or 
    partnerships that are primarily and directly engaged in 
    agricultural production.
        No part of the bill deals with fishing activities or the 
    fishing industry or has to do with establishing any loans or 
    credits or otherwise providing financial assistance to any 
    fishermen or those engaged in any fishing activity.
        The whole structure and purpose of this title are limited to 
    provision of credit to farmers and ranchers. Therefore, Mr. 
    Chairman, I feel that the amendment is not germane to the title. . 
    . .
        Mr. Weaver: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say the Farmers Home 
    Administration makes fish loans presently. This is a Farmers Home 
    Administration bill. Certainly the fishermen should be given the 
    right to borrow under this Emergency Loan Act.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Weaver) would add commercial fishermen to the category of those 
    eligible under title II of the bill. Title II, as indicated in 
    section 202 on page 20, establishes a new emergency agricultural 
    credit adjustment program for bona fide farmers and ranchers who 
    are primarily engaged and directly engaged in agricultural 
    production and to other farming entities engaged in agricultural 
    production. While this program would be available to farmers and 
    ranchers, the Committee on Agriculture has chosen to treat them as 
    a generic class of persons engaged in the production of 
    agricultural commodities--a matter properly within the jurisdiction 
    of that committee.
        As indicated in Deschler's Procedure, in section 7.17 of 
    chapter 28--

            To a bill providing relief for one class, an amendment to 
        extend the relief to another class is not germane--

        Especially where, as here, the class of recipients who may 
    receive credit assistance is sought to be to commercial fishermen, 
    matters which are within the jurisdiction of another committee of 
    the House, as pointed out in the colloquy a few minutes ago. So, 
    therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order against the 
    amendment.

Provisions for Assistance to Agriculture Through Price Support 
    Payments--Amendment To Restrict Imports in Competition With 
    Domestic Agriculture

Sec. 4.71 To a proposal to provide financial assistance to domestic 
    agriculture through a system of price support payments, an 
    amendment seeking to protect that segment of domestic agriculture 
    by restricting imports in competition therewith is not germane, 
    since seeking to accomplish a purpose by an unrelated method within 
    the jurisdiction of another committee.

[[Page 7695]]

    During consideration of the Food and Agriculture Act of 
1981(18) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained 
a point of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings 
of Oct. 14, 1981,(19) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 3603.
19. 127 Cong. Rec. 23896, 23898, 23899, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Steven C.] Gunderson [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gunderson: Page 10, after line 13, 
        insert the following new section (and redesignate succeeding 
        sections accordingly):

                           CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS

            Sec. 107. (a) The Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1446) 
        directs the Secretary of Agriculture to support the price of 
        milk so as to assure the domestic production of an adequate 
        supply of pure and wholesome milk to meet current needs, 
        reflect changes in the cost of production, and assure a level 
        of farm income adequate to maintain productive capacity 
        sufficient to meet future anticipated needs.
            (b) Section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 
        624) provides that whenever the Secretary of Agriculture has 
        reason to believe that imports of any product render or tend to 
        render ineffective or materially interfere with the effective 
        operation of a price support or similar program of the United 
        States Department of Agriculture or that such imports reduce 
        substantially the amount of any product processed in the United 
        States from any agricultural commodity for which such price or 
        similar program is in effect, he shall so advise the President 
        who shall, if he agrees there is reason for such belief, cause 
        an immediate investigation by the United States International 
        Trade Commission to determine the facts. If on the basis of 
        such investigation, the President finds the existence of such 
        facts, he shall impose fees not to exceed 50 percent ad valorem 
        or quantitative limitations of not less than 50 percent of the 
        quantity entered during a representative period on such 
        imported products. . . .
            (e) Congress finds that the $300 million added cost of the 
        Dairy Price Support Program resulting from these imports does 
        represent material interference with the Dairy Price Support 
        Program and that the prospect of additional future costs will 
        further interfere with achievement of the purpose and intent of 
        the program.
            (f) To relieve such interference, the Congress further 
        finds that limitations on the import of milk protein products, 
        including but not limited to casein, mixtures of casein, 
        latalbumin, and whey protein concentrates or mixtures 
        containing 5 percent or more of these products that may enter 
        the customs territory of the Untied States in any calendar year 
        should be established in accordance with Section 22 of the 
        Agriculture Adjustment Act. Such annual limitation should be no 
        more than the average of such imports into the United States 
        during the five-year period preceding 1981. . . .

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the Gunderson amendment.
        Clause 7 of rule XVI requires that ``no motion or proposition 
    on a subject different from that under consideration shall be 
    admitted under color of amendment.''

[[Page 7696]]

        Section 795 of the rules of the House states that ``an 
    amendment inserting an additional section should be germane to the 
    portion of the bill to which it is offered.'' Section 798 states 
    that ``an amendment must relate to the subject matter under 
    consideration.''
        In my judgment, neither is true in the case of this amendment. 
    The amendment would seek to restrict the importation of casein, a 
    different subject matter altogether than that which is in title I 
    of this particular bill.
        Mr. Chairman, the Gunderson amendment tries to establish an 
    annual limitation on the importation of casein, and it directs 
    certain material to be sent to the U.S. International Trade 
    Commission and refers to section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment 
    Act. That agency and that particular section of the act is normally 
    the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee. Bills relating to 
    that act and that agency are usually referred to the Ways and Means 
    Committee.
        Therefore, I submit that this amendment is not germane to title 
    I of this bill. . . .
        Mr. Gunderson: . . . There are three basic tests of germaneness 
    under clause 7 of rule XVI: Subject matter, fundamental purpose, 
    and committee jurisdiction. I believe that my amendment meets all 
    three tests.
        First of all, an amendment must relate to the subject matter 
    under consideration. Mr. Chairman, title I of H.R. 3603 deals with 
    the milk price support program. My amendment expresses a 
    congressional finding that casein imports materially interfere with 
    the dairy price support program and that a quota should be 
    established.
        In a similar situation involving a bill that would make 
    oleomargerine and other imitation dairy products subject to the 
    laws of the State or territory into which they are transported, the 
    Chair ruled that an amendment requiring the USDA to perform certain 
    inspections of plants producing imitation butter was, in fact, 
    germane. (5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5919.)
        Second, the fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane 
    to the fundamental purpose of the bill. H.R. 3603 is offered ``to 
    provide price and income protection for farmers and assure 
    consumers an abundance of food and fiber at reasonable prices.'' 
    Mr. Chairman, it is apparent from the text of my amendment that it 
    is designed to provide income protection for farmers by 
    discouraging an increasing number of imitation products. It is also 
    meant to assure that consumers have an abundance of wholesome and 
    nutritious dairy products at a reasonable price rather than having 
    those products forced out of the market by an increasing number of 
    imitation products.
        Finally, an amendment should be within the jurisdiction of the 
    committee reporting the bill. Mr. Chairman, my amendment deals with 
    the effect of casein on the domestic dairy price support program. 
    This subject certainly is within the jurisdiction of the House 
    Committee on Agriculture, who brought H.R. 3603 to the floor, since 
    a subcommittee of that committee held hearings on this very subject 
    in 1979.
        It is arguable that the Committee on Ways and Means should have 
    joint jurisdiction over the subject matter of this amendment. Yet, 
    such joint jurisdiction does not affect its germaneness.

[[Page 7697]]

    During the consideration of the farm bill in 1977, the Chair ruled 
    that an amendment to the food stamp portion of the farm bill 
    dealing with collections from certain food stamp recipients was 
    germane despite the fact that both the Agriculture Committee and 
    the Ways and Means Committee had possible jurisdiction over the 
    subject matter of the amendment--1977 Congressional Record, page 
    25252.
        Mr. Chairman, the past precedents suggest that my amendment is 
    germane. I, therefore, urge the Chair to overrule the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        While the Chair is unclear whether the first part of the 
    amendment merely recites what is already contained in section 22 of 
    the Agricultural Adjustment Act, or whether it confers direct new 
    tariff authority, the Chair believes that any amendment suggesting 
    what the tariff levels on imported dairy products should be raises 
    an issue within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and 
    Means.
        Indeed, the Speaker has consistently referred section 22 
    amendments to that committee.
        The Chair would also note that title I, to which this amendment 
    is addressed, does not impose any particular tariff limitations. 
    The Chair might also cite for purposes of precedent 121 
    Congressional Record, 7667, 94th Congress, 1st session, which 
    related to H.R. 4296, emergency price supports for the 1975 crops. 
    In that instance, to a bill reported from the Committee on 
    Agriculture providing price supports for milk, an amendment 
    expressing the sense of Congress that tariffs be imposed on 
    imported dairy products was ruled out as not germane.
        Therefore, for these reasons, the Chair is required to sustain 
    the point of order.

        Mr. [E] de la Garza [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I did want to 
    question one part of the ruling of the Chair in which the Chair 
    states that the Committee on Ways and Means has exclusive 
    jurisdiction over items such as casein. It has always been my 
    understanding that the Committee on Agriculture would have joint 
    jurisdiction with the Committee on Ways and Means, and I would not 
    like for the ruling of the Chair to be interpreted as dispossessing 
    the Agriculture Committee from joint jurisdiction, because the area 
    of concern involves both committees.
        The Chairman: The Chair would say to the gentleman that the 
    Chairman of the Committee of the Whole would not make any ruling 
    with respect to future jurisdictional matters. That is a matter for 
    the Speaker to determine at the appropriate time. The Chair has 
    ruled with respect to this particular amendment and sustained the 
    point of order.
        Mr. de la Garza: To which I have no objection, Mr. Chairman.

Bill Establishing Agricultural Price Supports--Amendment Restricting 
    Authority of Secretary of Commerce Over Agricultural Exports

Sec. 4.72 To a bill reported from the Committee on Agri

[[Page 7698]]

    culture establishing emergency price supports for certain 
    agricultural commodities, an amendment restricting the authority of 
    the Secretary of Commerce under the Export Administration Act over 
    the export of all agricultural commodities (a matter within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations and 
    covering a more general range of commodities) was held to be not 
    germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 4296 (an emergency price support 
program for certain 1975 crops) in the Committee of the Whole on Mar. 
20, 1975, (21) the Chair sustained a point of order against 
the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 121 Cong. Rec. 7651, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Symms: Page 2, line 19, after the 
        words ``such crops.'', insert the following: ``Notwithstanding 
        any other provision of law, neither the Secretary of 
        Agriculture nor the Secretary of Commerce shall require or 
        provide for the prior approval of or establish other conditions 
        for the export sales of feed grains, wheat, soybeans, or other 
        agricultural commodities.''. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment as not germane to the bill. 
    The amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho affects the 
    implementation of the Export Administration Act. This bill deals 
    with amendments to the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1949, as 
    amended. The amendment deals with restrictions on exports and is 
    not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture, which 
    has brought this bill to the floor.
        The well-established precedent of the House is that the 
    fundamental purpose of an amendment must be in consonance with the 
    fundamental purpose of the bill. It is not in this case. The 
    jurisdiction of the subject matter lies within the jurisdiction of 
    the Committee on International Relations of the House. I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane and is in 
    violation of rule XVI, clause 4. . . .
        Mr. Symms: . . . I would just say that the reason that we have 
    had the difficulties both in the soybean market and the wheat 
    market, which has caused the stimulation of the need for this 
    legislation, is because of the haphazard misuse of export controls, 
    which so much interferes with the foreign markets. Therefore, since 
    the Secretary of Commerce has to be included, this is an 
    appropriate amendment for the House to speak its will on this 
    issue. . . .
        The Chairman: (22) The gentleman from Washington 
    makes the point of order that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Idaho is not germane to the bill. The Chair is 
    prepared to rule on this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The subject of export controls administered by the Secretary of 
    Commerce

[[Page 7699]]

    under the Export Administration Act is within the jurisdiction of 
    the Committee on International Relations, and the issue of 
    exportation of all agricultural commodities is beyond the purview 
    of the pending bill. For these reasons, the Chair feels that the 
    amendment is not germane to the bill and sustains the point of 
    order.

Provisions Relating to Import Duties on Sugar--Amendment Eliminating 
    Price Support Payments for Sugar

Sec. 4.73 To an amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and 
    Means dealing only with import duties and quotas on sugar, an 
    amendment was held to be not germane which provided that such 
    duties and quotas shall be the exclusive method of achieving a 
    price objective for sugar and which by its terms eliminated all 
    price support payments for sugar where such price supports were a 
    matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture and 
    a subject not dealt with in the Committee on Ways and Means' 
    amendment but merely mentioned in the accompanying report.

    On Oct. 6, 1978,(1) the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration H.R. 13750, the Sugar Stabilization Act of 1978. An 
amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means was reported:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 124 Cong. Rec. 34108, 34109, 34111, 34112, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (2) The Clerk will now report the 
    amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Dan Daniel (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment recommended by Committee on Ways and Means: Page 
        7, strike out line 1 and all that follows thereafter down 
        through line 24 on page 21 and insert the following:

                TITLE II--IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON SUGAR . . .
    Sec. 202. Price Objective and Average Daily Prices.

            (a) Price Objective.--(1) The price objective for each 
        sugar supply year beginning after September 30, 1978, is 15 
        cents per pound, raw value.
            (b) Average Daily Prices.--(1) The Secretary shall 
        determine on a continuing basis the average daily price for 
        United States raw sugar imports and shall monitor the prices of 
        sugar and sugar-containing products in the import trade of the 
        United States.
            (2) The Secretary shall publish the determinations made 
        under paragraph (1) in the Federal Register on such periodic 
        basis as he deems appropriate.
    Sec. 203. Secretarial Recommendations Regarding Special Import 
    Duties Backup Quotas.

[[Page 7700]]

            (a) Special Import Duties.--(1) Not later than 30 days 
        before the beginning of each sugar supply year which commences 
        after September 30, 1979, the Secretary shall--
            (A) on the basis of best available information, estimate 
        whether the average daily price for United States raw sugar 
        imports during such sugar supply year will be below the price 
        objective; and
            (B) if the estimation under subparagraph (A) is in the 
        affirmative, recommend to the President that he impose such 
        special import duties on the entry of such sugar (including, 
        but not limited to, refined sugar) and, if appropriate, such 
        sugar-containing products as the Secretary determines to be 
        necessary to assure that the average daily price for United 
        States raw sugar imports will result in the price objective for 
        such sugar supply year being achieved. . . .
            (b) Back-Up Quotas.--Whenever the Secretary has reason to 
        believe that the special import duties imposed on the entry of 
        any sugar or sugar-containing product on the basis of any 
        recommendation made by him under subsection (a), and adjusted 
        pursuant to subsection (c), are not resulting in the price 
        objective for the sugar supply year being achieved, the 
        Secretary shall recommend to the President, as a further 
        adjustment under subsection (c), that he impose in addition to 
        such special import duties, such quotas, on a supply year 
        quarter basis, on the articles concerned as the Secretary 
        determines to be necessary to achieve such price objective. . . 
        .
            (c) Review and Adjustments of Duties and Quotas.--The 
        Secretary shall review, on a supply year quarter basis, the 
        effect of all special import duties and quotas imposed as a 
        result of recommendations made by him under subsections (a) and 
        (b). On the basis of such review, the Secretary may recommend 
        to the President such adjustments with respect to the amount of 
        any such duty or quota, or with respect to sugar or sugar-
        containing products to which any such duty or quota should be 
        extended or removed, as the Secretary determines to be 
        necessary to achieve the price objective for the sugar supply 
        year concerned. . . .

    An amendment was offered by Mr. William A. Steiger, of Wisconsin:

        Mr. Steiger: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the Ways and 
    Means Committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Steiger to the Ways and Means 
        Committee amendment: Amend the section heading and subsection 
        (a) of section 202, as proposed by the Committee, to read as 
        follows:
    Sec. 202. Price Objectives and Average Daily Prices.

            (a) Price Objective--(1) The price objectives for sugar 
        supply years beginning after September 30, 1978, are as 
        follows:
            (A) The price objective for the 1978 sugar supply year is 
        15 cents per pound, raw value. . . .
            (e) Restrictions on Price Support Authority.--During such 
        time as this title has force and effect, except as provided in 
        section 310, the imposition under subsection (a) of special 
        import duties or quotas, as the case may be, with respect to 
        sugar or sugar containing products shall be the exclusive 
        method of achieving the price objective, and shall be in lieu 
        of any statutory or regulatory mechanism established for the 
        purpose of achieving, through direct payments, the price 
        support level for producers and processors of sugar cane and 
        sugar beets, notwith

[[Page 7701]]

        standing any other provision of law. . . .

    Mr. Charles A. Vanik, of Ohio, made the following point of order:

        Mr. Vanik: Mr. Chairman, I oppose consideration of the 
    amendment offered by Mr. Steiger since it is clearly nongermane to 
    the substitute and title II before us.

        The annotations to the rules of the House state that 
    ``restrictions, qualifications, and limitations sought to be added 
    by way of amendment must be germane to the provisions of the 
    bill,'' (cite: rule XVI(7), Sec. 800, p. 539) and further, that 
    ``the burden of proof is on the proponent of an amendment to 
    establish its germaneness,'' (cite: rule XVI(7), Sec. 794, p. 528) 
    and where an amendment is equally susceptible to more than one 
    interpretation, one of which will render it not germane, the Chair 
    will rule it out of order. (June 20, 1975, p.-- )
        Mr. Steiger's amendment effectively prohibits the operation of 
    existing law--law which is not repealed, not amended, and not even 
    cited in the substitute before us.
        For these reasons, I ask that Mr. Steiger's amendment be ruled 
    nongermane to this substitute and title II. . . .
        Mr. Steiger: Mr. Chairman, the Members will notice that the 
    provision has been very carefully drawn so that it is an exclusive 
    remedy. It says, if I may direct the attention of the Chair to page 
    2, the following:

            During such time as this title has force and effect . . . 
        the imposition under subsection (a) of special import duties or 
        quotas with respect to sugar or sugar-containing products shall 
        be the exclusive method of achieving the price objective and 
        shall be in lieu of any statutory or regulatory mechanism 
        established otherwise, notwithstanding any other provision of 
        law.

        I would further, Mr. Chairman, direct attention to page 15 of 
    the committee report of the Committee on Ways and Means. The 
    Members will note on page 15 of that committee report that the 
    Committee on Ways and Means says the following:

            The Department of Agriculture has pledged to the Committee 
        that direct payments will be made under the 1949 Agricultural 
        Act to guarantee processors/producers protection against any 
        increases in the cost of production, as calculated under the 
        1977 Food and Agriculture Act, above the 15-cent price 
        objective level. It is the committee's understanding and intent 
        that direct payments will not be used to bring the price of 
        sugar up to the 15-cent level; rather, the special import 
        duties and quotas will be used to obtain the 15-cent figure. . 
        . .

        Mr. Vanik: Mr. Chairman, on my point of order I specifically 
    complain about the item that is included in the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steiger), subsection (e) on 
    page 2. I want to read the summary of H.R. 17350 in the report of 
    the Committee on Ways and Means on page 11 in the third paragraph, 
    second sentence:

            The Ways and Means Committee bill very clearly does not 
        legislate any new direct payments authority; rather, it relies 
        on existing law and commitment from the USDA to make direct 
        payments to processors. . . .

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.

[[Page 7702]]

        The Ways and Means Committee amendment very clearly does not 
    legislate any new direct support payments authority, a matter not 
    within that committee's jurisdiction; rather, as stated on page 11 
    of their report, it is intended to rely on existing law and 
    commitment from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to make direct 
    payments to processors/producers to reflect any changes in the cost 
    of production of sugar above the 15-cent price objective level.
        The language on page 15 of the report cited by the gentleman 
    from Wisconsin is not in the amendment but simply states an intent, 
    and the Chair, therefore, holds the amendment not germane to the 
    amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means and 
    sustains the point of order.

Bill Providing Price Support for Milk--Amendment Relating to Tariffs on 
    Imported Milk

Sec. 4.74 To a section of a bill reported from the Committee on 
    Agriculture providing a one year price support for milk, an 
    amendment expressing the sense of the Congress that the President 
    shall impose certain tariff duties on imported dairy products was 
    held to go beyond the purview of the pending section and to involve 
    a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and 
    Means, and was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of the emergency price supports bill for 1975 
crops (3) in the Committee of the Whole on Mar. 20, 
1975,(4) a point of order was sustained against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 4296.
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 7667, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Symms:
            Page 3, line 16, after the words ``each quarter.'', insert 
        the following:
            ``It is the sense of Congress that the President shall 
        impose at the earliest practicable date countervailing duties 
        as proposed by the Department of Treasury on February 14, 1975, 
        for dairy products imported into the United States from the 
        European Economic Community.''.

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        The amendment deals with duties which are not within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture and are within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, eliminating 
    various tariffs and trade acts authorized by the Congress and, 
    consequently, does not relate to legislation before the committee 
    at this time, and is in violation of rule XVI, clause 7. . . .
        Mr. Symms: . . . [T]he amount of dairy products purchased by 
    the Com

[[Page 7703]]

    modity Credit Corporation in the last fiscal year equaled exactly 
    the amount dumped on our markets, which were subsidized by foreign 
    dairy products dumped on our markets and undersold, in direct 
    competition to our producers, so I think the amendment is in order.
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley) makes a point of 
    order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho 
    (Mr. Symms) on the ground that it is not germane.
        The amendment relates to the subject of import restrictions and 
    tariffs on dairy products, which subject is not within the purview 
    of section 2 of the bill, nor is it within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Agriculture. The amendment is, therefore, not germane, 
    and the Chairman sustains the point of order.

Provisions Directing Commodity Credit Corporation To Sell Surplus Dry 
    Milk--Amendment Relating to Labeling Under Federal Food, Drug and 
    Cosmetic Act

Sec. 4.75 To an amendment directing the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
    sell surplus stocks of dry milk to domestic companies for the 
    manufacture of casein (a matter within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Agriculture), an amendment to that amendment deeming 
    as misbranded for purposes of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic 
    Act any food substitutes labeled as ``cheese'' (a matter within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce), was held to 
    be not germane.

    During consideration of the Food Security Act (H.R. 2100) in the 
Committee of the Whole on Sept. 26, 1985,(6) the Chair 
sustained a point of order against an amendment to the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 131 Cong. Rec. 25023-25, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sherwood L.] Boehlert [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert: Page 37, after line 9, 
        insert the following:

                          domestic casein industry

            Sec. 215. (a) The Commodity Credit Corporation shall 
        provide surplus stocks of nonfat dry milk of not less than one 
        million pounds annually to individuals or entities on a bid 
        basis.
            (b) The Commodity Credit Corporation may accept bids at 
        lower than the resale price otherwise required by law in order 
        to promote the strengthening of the domestic casein industry.
            (c) The Commodity Credit Corporation shall take appropriate 
        action to assure that the nonfat dry milk sold by the 
        Corporation under this section shall be used only for the 
        manufacture of casein.

[[Page 7704]]

            Redesignate succeeding sections in the subtitle 
        accordingly. . . .

        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jeffords to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Boehlert: At the end of section 211, after the word 
        ``date'', insert the following new section:
        sec. 243. misbranded food substitutes for cheese.

            For purposes of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
        (21 U.S.C. 321 et seq.), any food which is an imitation of 
        cheese and which does not comply with any standard of identity 
        in effect under section 401 of such Act for any cheese shall be 
        deemed to be misbranded if its label contains the word 
        ``cheese''. . . .

        Mr. [E] de la Garza [of Texas]: . . . Mr. Chairman, this 
    amendment addresses the Food and Drug Act, which is under the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and it 
    therefore would not be germane to this legislation. We have no item 
    in the bill that this amendment would be germane to. . . .
        Mr. Jeffords: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond by saying 
    it is difficult for me to see how anything that talks about cheese 
    could not be relevant to the dairy provisions of the farm bill.
        I recognize that there may be some others with concurrent 
    jurisdiction, but certainly the protection of the cheese industry 
    and the ability of our dairy farmers to ensure that imitation 
    products are not sold under the guise of cheese certainly ought to 
    be within the province of this committee. . . .
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will rule that No. 1, the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] is to the Boehlert amendment 
    and not to the farm bill in general, and the Boehlert amendment 
    deals with Commodity Credit Corporation subsidies for dry milk; and 
    so it is not germane to that amendment.
        Second, the point of order raised by the gentleman from Texas 
    [Mr. de la Garza] is correct in regards to the committee 
    jurisdiction argument.
        So the Chair will rule that the amendment is not germane to the 
    Boehlert amendment.

Bill Amending Law Relating to Registration of Pesticides--Amendment 
    Barring Award of Attorneys' Fees in Certain Civil Actions Brought 
    Under the Law

Sec. 4.76 To a title of a bill reported from the Committee on 
    Agriculture amending an existing law relating to registration of 
    pesticides, an amendment providing that notwithstanding any other 
    law, no attorneys' fees shall be awarded in certain civil actions 
    brought under the law being amended was held not germane, as 
    indirectly amending another law within the jurisdiction of another

[[Page 7705]]

    committee governing fees in federal civil actions generally, where 
    nothing in the pending title amended laws on that subject.

    On Sept. 19, 1986,(8) during consideration of the 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act amendments of 1986 
(9) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a 
point of order against the amendment described above, demonstrating 
that an amendment must be germane to the pending title of the bill to 
which it is offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 132 Cong. Rec. 24728-30, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. H.R. 2482.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In lieu of amendments recommended by the Committee on Agriculture 
printed in the bill, the text of H.R. 5440 was being considered by 
titles as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, and Title I of 
H.R. 5440 was open for amendment at any point. Title I stated in part: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 132 Cong. Rec. 24149, 99th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 18, 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec. 106. administrator's authority to require data on inert 
    ingredients. . . .

        (b) Priority List and Data Requirements.--Section 3 (7 U.S.C. 
    136a) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
    subsection:
        ``(g) Priority List and Data Requirements for Inert 
    Ingredients.--
        ``(1) Establishment of List.--Subject to paragraph (4), the 
    Administrator shall establish a priority list of inert ingredients 
    consisting of--. . .
        ``(B) inert ingredients (i) for which additional data are 
    reasonably necessary to assess the risk that the inert ingredient 
    may result in a pesticide causing an unreasonable adverse effect on 
    the environment, (ii) that are similar in molecular structure to a 
    chemical that is oncogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic or causes 
    another similarly significant adverse effect, and (iii) that have 
    significant use in pesticides or to which there is significant 
    exposure from pesticides. . . .
        (2) ``Publication of List.--Not later than 90 days after the 
    effective date of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
    Rodenticide Act Amendments of 1986, the Administrator shall publish 
    the priority list required under paragraph (1). The Administrator 
    shall publish revisions to such list at least annually. . . .
        ``(5) Additional Data.--
        ``(A) The Administrator shall determine whether additional data 
    are required for an inert ingredient in a registered pesticide not 
    later than 1 year after the inert ingredient is placed on the 
    priority list under paragraph (1). The Administrator shall require 
    submission of such data from each registrant of such pesticide 
    under this Act or from manufacturers and processors of the inert 
    ingredient under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Such data shall 
    be submitted within a reasonable time but not later than 4 years 
    after the date of the request. The Administrator may extend the 
    period for the submission of data by not more than 2

[[Page 7706]]

    years if extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the 
    registrant or producer prevent the submission of the necessary 
    data.
        ``(B) Data requirements imposed under subparagraph (A) or a 
    decision not to require data for an inert ingredient shall be 
    subject to judicial review under section 16(b).

    An amendment was offered, as follows:

        Mr. [Ron] Marlenee [of Montana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Marlenee: Page 43, line 7, insert 
        after ``section 16(b).'' the following new sentence:
            ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no attorneys 
        fees or expenses shall be awarded for any civil action brought 
        under this section for failure to meet deadlines.''. . .

        Mr. [Howard L.] Berman [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Montana is in violation of clause 7 of House rule XVI which 
    prohibits the consideration of amendments on a subject different 
    from that under consideration. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Montana carves out an exemption from the 
    Equal Access to Justice Act, which authorizes the awarding of legal 
    fees in certain cases brought against the Federal Government. The 
    bill before us, H.R. 2482, amends the Federal Insecticide, 
    Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act which concerns itself solely with 
    the regulation of pesticides. Neither FIFRA nor this bill address 
    the issue of the awarding of legal fees. Indeed, the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman says that ``Notwithstanding any other 
    provision of law,'' indicating clearly that he intends to reach 
    outside the scope of this bill and the law which it amends. The 
    amendment goes to a totally different and nongermane matter to the 
    business before the committee, and on this basis I ask that the 
    point of order be sustained. . . .
        Mr. Marlenee: . . . Mr. Chairman, my amendment, I submit, is 
    germane for the following reasons:
        First, the title of the bill it is for ``other purposes'' than 
    amending FIFRA.
        Second, other examples of enactments amended by this bill or by 
    the underlying FIFRA Act are: The Federal Hazardous Substances Act; 
    the Poison Prevention Packaging Act; the Federal Food Drug and 
    Cosmetics Act; and title 5 of the United States Code.
        Third, the section and the bill reauthorize programs and 
    funding for the pesticide programs. It also adds a new program 
    (reregistration--section 3 A of FIFRA) that is amended by my 
    amendment. Both the section and the bill relate to fees and funding 
    for the reregistration program. Some of that funding for the 
    reregistration program will come from fees assessed against 
    registrants (see page 42 of the bill) and some will come from 
    appropriated funds (section 816 of the bill).
        My amendment would state how some of those funds could not be 
    utilized and I submit does not violate the rules of the House on 
    germaneness.
        Fourth, my amendment is narrowly drawn and applies only to 
    ``fees or expenses shall be awarded for any civil action brought 
    under this section for failure to meet deadlines.''. . .

[[Page 7707]]

        Fifth, this bill, other than the section I am amending, 
    contains provisions relating to the actions against the United 
    States for just compensation . . . .
        The bill also contains provisions relating to the false 
    statement statute (18 U.S.C. 1001) and prosecutions thereunder.
        Sixth, section 9 of the FIFRA Act gives the EPA Administrator 
    authority to obtain and execute warrants and section 12 authorizes 
    the Administrator to make certain certification to the U.S. 
    Attorney General. Section 701 of the act discusses patent term 
    extension for registrations of pesticides. . . .
        Seventh, I understand, although I have not seen the basis of 
    Mr. Berman's point of order, that it asserts the nongermaneness of 
    my amendment based on the fact that it amends the Equal Access to 
    Justice Act.
        However, section 2412 (b) and (d) of title 28 (Equal Access to 
    Justice Act) specifically provide with respect to fees and expenses 
    of attorneys that those subsections only apply ``Unless expressly 
    prohibited by statute,'' (subsection (b)) and ``Except as otherwise 
    specifically provided by statute,'' (subsection (d)).
        It is submitted that this bill which reauthorizes the FIFRA 
    programs and funding can be utilized to effect the exception 
    provided for in the Equal Access to Justice Act. It is therefore 
    submitted that my amendment is germane to this bill.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from California makes the point of order that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Marlenee) is 
    not germane to the text of title I of H.R. 5440. The amendment 
    waives all provisions of law which would otherwise permit the 
    awarding of attorneys fees in FIFRA related court cases.
        The Chair would first note that the gentleman's argument 
    reaches into and relates to titles of the bill which have not yet 
    been reached in the amendment process.
        The law being waived, moreover, is not the FIFRA law, but is 
    the Equal Access to Justice Act, a law within the jurisdiction of 
    another committee and a law not amended or referenced in the 
    pending title of the bill. Nothing in title I amends existing law 
    pertaining to judicial review and procedures.
        The gentleman from Montana has made the point correctly that 
    the Equal Access of Justice Act says that there can be exceptions 
    specified by other statutes.
        However, that does not remove jurisdiction from the Judiciary 
    Committee or necessarily change the test of germaneness of 
    amendments to other laws. And therefore, in the opinion of the 
    Chair, the amendment addresses an issue within the jurisdiction of 
    another committee and is not germane to the pending title.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Bill Authorizing Secretary of Agriculture To Employ Grain Inspectors--
    Amendment Permitting Employees to Credit Private Service for Civil 
    Service Retirement Purposes

     Sec. 4.77 Committee jurisdiction over the subject of an

[[Page 7708]]

    amendment is not the exclusive test of germaneness where the 
    portion of the bill being amended contains language not within the 
    jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill, and the amendment 
    relates to such language.

    On Apr. 2, 1976,(12) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration a section of a bill (13) reported from 
the Committee on Agriculture authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture 
to employ official grain inspectors without regard to civil service 
appointment statutes upon his finding of their good moral character and 
professional competence. An amendment was offered permitting those 
employees to credit their prior private service as grain inspectors to 
their Civil Service retirement. The amendment was held germane as 
merely stating a further condition upon their status as federal 
employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 122 Cong. Rec. 9240-42, 9253, 9254, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. H.R. 12572, the Grain Standards Act of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

            (c) By amending subsection (d) and adding new subsections 
        (e) . . . to read as follows:
            ``(d) Persons employed by an official inspection agency 
        (including persons employed by a State agency under a 
        delegation of authority pursuant to section 7(e), persons 
        performing official inspection functions under contract with 
        the Department of Agriculture, and persons employed by a State 
        or local agency or other person conducting functions relating 
        to weighing under section 7A shall not, unless otherwise 
        employed by the Federal Government, be determined to be 
        employees of the Federal Government of the United States: 
        Provided, however, That such persons shall be considered in the 
        performance of any official inspection functions or any 
        functions relating to weighing as prescribed by this Act or by 
        the rules and regulations of the Secretary, as persons acting 
        for or on behalf of the United States, for the purpose of 
        determining the application of section 201 of title 18, United 
        States Code, to such persons . . .
            ``(e) The Secretary of Agriculture may hire (without regard 
        to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing 
        appointments in the competitive service) as official inspection 
        personnel any individual who is licensed (on the date of 
        enactment of this Act) to perform functions of official 
        inspection under the United States Grain Standards Act and as 
        personnel to perform supervisory weighing or weighing functions 
        any individual who, on the date of enactment of this Act, was 
        performing similar functions: Provided, That the Secretary of 
        Agriculture determines that such individuals are of good moral 
        character and are technically and professionally qualified for 
        the duties to which they will be assigned.''

        Mrs. [Lindy] Boggs [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Boggs: Page 19, line 11, insert 
        the following immediately after the first period: ``Any 
        individual who is hired by the

[[Page 7709]]

        Secretary pursuant to this subsection shall, for purposes of 
        the annuity computed under section 8339 of title 5, United 
        States Code, be credited (subject to the provisions of sections 
        8334(c) and 8339(i) of such title) with any service performed 
        by such individual before the date of enactment of this 
        subsection in connection with this Act.''. . .

        The Chairman: (14) Does the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Michel) insist upon his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Phil M. Landrum (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, I do so because, in my opinion, the 
    amendment is not germane to this bill, which amends the U.S. Grain 
    Standards Act, and says, on page 18:

            The Secretary of Agriculture may hire (without regard to 
        the provisions of title V, United States Code, governing 
        appointments in the competitive service) . . . any individual 
        who is licensed to perform functions on the date of enactment.

        Then it is provided further that the individuals be of good 
    moral character and that they be professionally qualified, et 
    cetera.
        The amendment of the gentlewoman from Louisiana (Mrs. Boggs), 
    however, seeks to amend title 5, section 8339, 8334(c), and 
    8339(i).
        Mr. Chairman, an amendment to another statute does not make it 
    germane to this bill, and I would cite as my authority on that, the 
    Record of August 17, 1972, page 28913, as follows:

            Under rule 16, to a bill reported from the Committee on 
        Agriculture providing price support programs for various 
        agricultural commodities, an amendment repealing price-control 
        authority for all commodities under an Act reported from the 
        Committee on Banking and Currency is not germane. July 19, 
        1973, etc.

        If the amendment of the gentlewoman from Louisiana were in the 
    form of a bill, it would undoubtedly be referred to the Committee 
    on Post Office and Civil Service, because it has to do with the 
    retirement benefits of employees that would be selected by the 
    section. . . .
        Mrs. Boggs: . . . The language of section 6(e), I feel, is 
    sufficiently broad and certainly the committee report language is 
    sufficiently broad to insist that the workers who are of good moral 
    character, as the bill says, could be employed without regard to 
    various Civil Service regulations in order to quickly be able to 
    put into effect a service that will be highly necessary for the 
    Government if we indeed are going to take over the work of the 
    private agencies and the State agencies.
        Mr. Chairman, the language is sufficiently broad where it goes 
    on to suggest that positions of at least comparable responsibility 
    and rank to those enjoyed in the private and State systems be given 
    to them and that in setting their pay within the appropriate grade, 
    to the extent possible, cognizance should be taken in order to take 
    into consideration these rank and longevity benefits, so that the 
    employees had, under the system where employed, the benefits that 
    they had under longevity. The benefit system under which they were 
    employed certainly included an annuity provision, and I think that 
    this language that

[[Page 7710]]

    this amendment extends to the bill simply points that out.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair has read the language on the page of the committee 
    report and section 6(e) of the bill already deals with the status 
    of the Civil Service requirements with respect to appointments of 
    Federal inspectors. The amendment does not directly amend title 5 
    U.S. Code, and it would further affect the status of those Federal 
    employees under the Civil Service law by permitting them to credit 
    the prior private service to their Civil Service retirement if they 
    become Federal employees. The amendment imposes a further condition 
    upon their hiring.
        Therefore, the Chair rules that as far as germaneness is 
    concerned, the amendment is germane to section 6(e) of the bill, 
    and overrules the point of order.

Bill Relating to Administration of Food Stamp Program--Amendment 
    Providing for Recovery of Benefits From Persons Having Specified 
    Income

Sec. 4.78 To a title of a bill reported from the Committee on 
    Agriculture providing for benefits under, and administration of, 
    the food stamp program, an amendment which provided for recovery of 
    benefits from persons whose income exceeded specified levels was 
    held to be germane, even though it required the Secretary of the 
    Treasury and, impliedly, the Internal Revenue Service to collect 
    any liability imposed by the amendment's provisions.

    On July 27, 1977,(15) during consideration of H.R. 7171 
(the Agriculture Act of 1977), in ruling on a question of germaneness, 
the Chair confined his analysis to the text of the amendment and was 
not guided by conjecture as to other legislation or administrative 
actions which might have--but were not required to--result from the 
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 25249, 25252, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jeffords to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Foley: In title XII, page 28, insert after line 8 the 
        following new section:

        ``recovery of benefits where individual's adjusted gross income 
                      for year exceeds twice poverty level

            ``Sec. 1210. (a)(1) If--
            ``(A) any individual receives food stamps during any 
        calendar year, and
            ``(B) such individual's adjusted gross income for such 
        calendar year exceeds the exempt amount,

        then such individual shall be liable to pay the United States 
        the amount

[[Page 7711]]

        determined under subsection (b) with respect to such individual 
        for such calendar year. Such amount shall be due and payable on 
        April 15 of the succeeding calendar year and shall be collected 
        in accordance with the procedures prescribed pursuant to 
        subsection (g). . . .

            ``(g) The Secretary of the Treasury shall collect any 
        liability imposed by this section in accordance with 
        regulations prescribed by him (after consultation with the 
        Secretary).

            ``(h) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect 
        in any (manner) the application of any provision of the 
        Internal Revenue Code of 1954.''. . .

        Mr. [Fortney H.] Stark [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    a point of order. I would like to engage the author of the 
    amendment in colloquy. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the distinguished gentleman 
    from Vermont who or what branch of Government the gentleman feels 
    would collect this money from the people?
        Mr. Jeffords: Under the amendment, the Department of the 
    Treasury would be required to collect the money.
        Mr. Stark: It would be the Treasury Department and in no way 
    did the gentleman intend that the Internal Revenue Service 
    participate in any of the collection or in collecting the forms or 
    collecting revenue?
        Mr. Jeffords: No, on the contrary, it is my understanding and 
    belief that the Internal Revenue Service would be charged with and 
    do the collecting. . . .
        Mr. Stark: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the 
    jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service lies wholly within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
        This amendment, as the gentleman has stated it, would be 
    counting on the Internal Revenue Service to perform the functions 
    as put down under this amendment. The amendment would not be in 
    order and would not be within the jurisdiction of this committee. . 
    . .
        Mr. Jeffords: . . . As I understand the rules here, I can ask 
    for an amendment that can be proposed, as can anybody, to the 
    collection. We could make the State Department or anyone else do 
    the collection, but we cannot do what I have not done, and very 
    specifically have not done in this amendment, which is to change 
    any statute of the way it is done, which is under the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on Ways and Means. If I am wrong on this, there 
    are so many places in this bill where the same thing is done that I 
    do not know why a number of Members have not raised points of 
    order.
        We have asked the Postal Service to do something; we have asked 
    the social security office to do things; we have mandated different 
    agencies all over the place. We do not interfere with any statutes 
    which are under committee jurisdiction of other committees. I have 
    not done so here. The question is, do we change any statute which 
    is under the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee, and we 
    do not. They are the guardian over those statutes, but they are not 
    the guardian over any agency which happens to be involved with 
    those statutes.
        Mr. Stark: Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite clear that the 
    gentleman, in terms of both the committee report and in his 
    response to questions here, in his statement on the floor that this 
    amendment, although it really says

[[Page 7712]]

    that the Secretary of the Treasury shall collect any liability, 
    clearly the intention is that the Internal Revenue Service shall 
    collect W-2 forms, match them against income figures which are now 
    under the law not to be given even to the Secretary of Treasury, 
    but are for collecting income tax and Internal Revenue matters.
        Clearly, the intent of the amendment is to direct the Internal 
    Revenue Service to participate in that. The jurisdiction of the 
    Internal Revenue Service and all matters pertaining thereto is 
    under the Committee on Ways and Means. I would ask that this 
    amendment be ruled out of order on that basis.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from California makes the point of order that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) is 
    not germane to the food stamp title of the pending bill. The thrust 
    of the gentleman's point of order is that the collection procedure 
    for overpayments of food stamp benefits to persons above the 
    poverty level involves responsibilities of the Treasury Department, 
    and in effect mandates the establishment of regulations which would 
    involve the disclosure of tax returns and tax information and 
    utilization of the Internal Revenue Service--all matters within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
        The Chair notes that the amendment does contain the provision 
    that ``nothing in this section shall be construed to affect in any 
    manner the application of any provision of the Internal Revenue 
    Code of 1954,'' and it seems to the Chair to follow that, under the 
    explicit provisions of the amendment. Secretary of the Treasury 
    would therefore have to establish an independent collection 
    procedure separate and apart from the mandated use of the Internal 
    Revenue Service. The Chair does not have to judge the germaneness 
    of the amendment by contemplating possible future legislative 
    actions of the Congress not mandated by the amendment.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the authority of the Secretary of 
    the Treasury under the rules of the House as collector of 
    overpayments of any sort is not subject explicitly and exclusively 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means under 
    rule X, and even if this were true, committee jurisdiction is not 
    an exclusive test of germaneness where, as here, the basic thrust 
    of the amendment is to modify the food stamp program-a matter now 
    before the Committee of the Whole.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Had the amendment altered the Internal 
Revenue Code or otherwise required the use of the Internal Revenue 
Service, in conjunction with the collection of federal income taxes, in 
recovering the value of benefits, the amendment would not have been 
germane. The Chair was persuaded that the Department of the Treasury 
performs a variety of functions, including payments and collections,

[[Page 7713]]

under laws and policies not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Ways and Means. As indicated in the Chair's ruling, the amendment 
disavowed any intent to affect any provision of the Internal Revenue 
Code.

Bill Making Appropriations for Relief--Amendment Allotting 
    Appropriations for Investigation of Effects of Relief

Sec. 4.79 To a bill making appropriations for relief and work relief, 
    an amendment proposing that part of the appropriation be allotted 
    to a nonpartisan commission to be appointed for the purpose of 
    investigating certain effects of relief was held to be not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(17) comprising relief appropriations, the following 
amendment was offered: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.J. Res. 544 (Committee on Appropriations).
18. 86 Cong. Rec. 6761, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., May 23, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Edwin A. Hall [of New York]: On page 
    33, after line 7, insert a new section, as follows:
        Sec. 37. One million dollars of the sums herein provided shall 
    be allotted to a nonpartisan commission. . . . The Commission shall 
    be . . . charged with a laboratory investigation of relief with 
    reference to its causes and its effects upon the economic and 
    sociological structure of the United States and particularly with 
    reference to its effects on the recipients of relief.

    Mr. Clarence A. Cannon, of Missouri, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane to the bill.(19) The 
Chairman,(20) in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 6762.
20. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Inasmuch as the Committee on Appropriations does not have 
    jurisdiction of the matter contained in the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New York, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Creating Consumer Protection Agency--Amendment Conferring on 
    Congressional Committees Authority To Direct Agency To Intervene in 
    Judicial or Administrative Proceedings

Sec. 4.80 To a bill creating an independent agency in the executive 
    branch to protect consumer interests, an amendment in the form of a 
    new section conferring upon Congressional committees with oversight 
    responsibility for consumer interests the authority to direct that 
    agen

[[Page 7714]]

    cy to intervene in administrative or judicial proceedings was held 
    not merely to reserve to Congress a disapproval authority over the 
    agency but to confer new power on Congressional committees, and was 
    ruled out as beyond the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government 
    Operations and beyond the scope of the bill.

    The proceedings of Nov. 6, 1975, relating to H.R. 7575, the 
Consumer Protection Act of 1975, are discussed in Sec. 14.6, infra.

Bill To Facilitate Settlement of Strikes--Amendment Requiring Unions To 
    Incorporate and To File Reports

Sec. 4.81 To a bill proposed to facilitate the settlement of labor 
    disputes or strikes, an amendment to require labor unions to become 
    corporate bodies and file certain reports, including financial 
    statements, with the Recorder of Deeds was held germane.

    In the 79th Congress, during consideration of a bill (1) 
relating to settlement of labor disputes, an amendment was offered: 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 4908 (Committee on Labor).
 2. 92 Cong. Rec. 851, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 4, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter G.] Andrews of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the Case bill.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Andrews of New York to the Case 
        amendment: Page 12, after line 13, insert a new section to be 
        known as 12(a) entitled ``Incorporation of and Annual Financial 
        Reports by Labor Organizations'':
            ``Paragraph 1. Every labor organization in which the 
        employees are employed by an employer engaged in interstate 
        commerce within the meaning of the Wagner Act shall become a 
        body corporate as provided in this act. The officers of each 
        labor organization shall make, sign, and acknowledge, before 
        any officer competent to take acknowledgment of deeds, and file 
        in the office of the Recorder of Deeds of the District of 
        Columbia, to be recorded by him, a certificate in writing, in 
        which shall be stated--
            ``First. The name or title by which such labor organization 
        is to be known.
            ``Second. The term for which it is organized, which may be 
        perpetual.
            ``Third. The purposes and objects of the organization.
            ``Fourth. The names and addresses of its officers for the 
        first year of its corporate existence.
            ``Par. 2. When the certificate provided for in paragraph 1 
        has been filed, the labor organization shall be a body 
        corporate, and may, in its corporate name, sue and be sued, 
        grant and receive property, real, personal, and mixed, and use 
        such property, and the income thereof for the objects of the 
        corporation. Members of the corporation shall not be personally 
        liable for the acts, debts, or obligations of the corporation.
            ``Par. 3. A labor organization incorporated under this act 
        shall have the power to make and establish such

[[Page 7715]]

        constitution, rules, and bylaws (including rules and bylaws 
        defining the duties and powers of its officers and the time and 
        manner of their election) as its members may deem proper for 
        carrying out its lawful objects. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 852.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jennings] Randolph [of West Virginia]: I make a point of 
    order that the amendment, which I understand is offered as a new 
    section to the Case bill, is not in order. I believe the subject 
    matter goes far afield from the matter under consideration here.

    The Chairman,(4) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Emmet O'Neal (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        When the committee bill was presented to the House, it was 
    under a rule making the Case bill in order. It was previously 
    stated during the debate on the rule, that the purpose was to open 
    up the entire field with reference to labor legislation. The House 
    voted affirmatively for the special rule bringing in the bill.
        This is an amendment to the Case amendment. In the Case 
    amendment there are provisions for financial and legal liability of 
    labor unions and employers, and the amendment of the gentleman from 
    New York, as offered, is merely a means of further bringing about 
    the legal responsibility of the union.
        The Chair therefore believes it is in order, and overrules the 
    point of order.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Parliamentarian's Note: It is perhaps arguable whether a provision 
        relating narrowly to incorporation, or the processes pertaining 
        to incorporation, would lie within the jurisdiction of the 
        Committee on the Judiciary. The Chair in his ruling took a more 
        liberal view, emphasizing the purposes of the amendment as 
        relating to those of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill To Facilitate Settlement of Strikes--Amendment Relating To 
    Taxation and Disposition of Revenues

Sec. 4.82 To a bill having for its purpose the settlement of labor 
    disputes, an amendment relating to taxation and the disposition of 
    revenues was held to be not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (6) was under consideration 
relating to settlement of labor disputes. The following amendment was 
offered to an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the bill: 
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.R. 4908 (Committee on Labor).
 7. 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

[[Page 7716]]

    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.' ''

    The following proceedings then took place (8) with 
respect to a point of order raised against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at pp. 854, 855.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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. . . .
        This is a matter for the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. 
    Chairman. . . .
        Mr. Bailey: I am afraid of that. . . .

    The Chairman [Emmet O'Neal, of Kentucky] held:

        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 Amending Fair Labor Standards Act To Mitigate Effects of Imports 
    on Labor Market--Amendment Modifying Tariff Act With Respect to 
    Imports From Communist Nations

Sec. 4.83 To a bill amending two sections of the Fair Labor Standards 
    Act for purposes of mitigating certain effects of imports on the 
    domestic labor market, an amendment modifying provisions of the 
    Tariff Act of 1930 with respect to the importation of merchandise 
    from communist nations was held to be not germane.

    On Sept. 28, 1967, the Fair Labor Standards Foreign Trade Act of 
1967 (9) was under consideration, which stated in part: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 478 (Committee on Education and Labor).
10. See 113 Cong. Rec. 27212, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 2. (a) Subsection (a) of section 2 of the Fair Labor 
    Standards Act of 1938, as amended (29 U.S.C. sec. 202), is amended 
    to read as follows:
        ``(a) The Congress finds that the existence in industries 
    engaged . . . in the production of goods for commerce, of labor 
    conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard 
    of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being 
    of workers and the unregulated importation of goods produced by 
    industries in foreign nations under such conditions (1) causes 
    commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of commerce to be 
    used to spread and perpetuate such labor conditions among the 
    workers of the several States. . . .''
        (b) Section 2 of such Act is further amended by adding the 
    following new subsection:
        ``(c) It is further declared to be the policy of this Act . . . 
    to provide for

[[Page 7717]]

    the regulation of imports of goods in such manner as will . . . 
    eliminate any serious . . . threat of impairment to the health, 
    efficiency, and general well-being of any group of workers in the 
    United States and the economic welfare of the communities in which 
    they are employed from conditions above referred to in the 
    industries providing them employment in which increased imports are 
    a substantially contributing factor. . . .''

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 27214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: On page 
    4, immediately after line 18, insert the following:
        Sec. 4. (a) Section 313(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
    1313(h)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end 
    thereof the following: ``, except that, if the imported merchandise 
    is imported directly or indirectly from a country or area which is 
    dominated or controlled by Communism, no drawback shall be allowed 
    under subsection (a) or (b).''

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

        Mr. [John H.] Dent [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment is an amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
        This legislation represents an amendment to the Fair Labor 
    Standards Act. The amendment, in my opinion, is not germane, since 
    the provisions of the Tariff Act come under the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means and not under the jurisdiction of the 
    committee or subcommittee which it is my honor to chair.

    The bill amending the Fair Labor Standards Act had been reported 
from the Committee on Education and Labor. As indicated by Mr. Dent, 
the amendment proposing to modify the Tariff Act of 1930 was a matter 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. The 
Chairman,(12) sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Jack B. Brooks (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Providing for Payment of Wages on Highway Projects at Prevailing 
    Rates as Determined by Secretary of Labor--Amendment Making Such 
    Determination a Subject of Administrative Hearings

Sec. 4.84 To that section of a bill providing for payment of wages at 
    prevailing rates, as determined by the Secretary of Labor in 
    accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act, to employees on federal aid 
    highway construction projects, an amendment making such 
    determination a subject of administrative hearings and judicial 
    review was held to be not germane.

[[Page 7718]]

    In the 84th Congress, during consideration of the Federal Highway 
and Highway Revenue Acts of 1956,(13) the following 
amendment was offered by Mr. Bruce R. Alger, of Texas: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 10660 (Committee on Public Works).
14. 102 Cong. Rec. 7206, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 27, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On page 25, immediately after line 9, insert:
        (b) Judicial review under Davis-Bacon Act: Section 7 of the 
    Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C., sec. 276a-6)) is amended to read as 
    follows:
        Sec. 7. (a) Notwithstanding any provision of section 4 of the 
    Administrative Procedure Act, such act shall be applicable in the 
    administration of section 2 and the first section of this act.
        (b) All wage determinations under the first section of this act 
    shall be made on the record after opportunity for a hearing. . . .
        (c) Notwithstanding the inclusion of any stipulations required 
    by any provision of this act, any interested person shall have the 
    right of judicial review of any legal question which might 
    otherwise be raised, including, but not limited to, wage 
    determinations and the territorial applicability of determinations 
    of the Secretary of Labor.

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

        Mr. [Thaddeus M.] Machrowicz [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, as I 
    read the amendment, it attempts to make new provisions in the 
    Davis-Bacon Act, an act which is not germane to the bill which we 
    are now considering.

    It was further stated, by Mr. John A. Blatnik, of Minnesota, that 
``. . . this amendment is completely out of order. It is an attempt to 
amend basic labor legislation which originated in the Labor 
Committee.''
    The Chairman, (15) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The effect of the amendment would be to amend two acts of the 
    Congress, one reported by the Committee on Education and Labor, and 
    the other the Administrative Procedure Act which, it so happens, I 
    was responsible for. The Chair feels that the orderly, proper, and 
    legal way to amend this act is by an amendment to the act itself 
    and not indirectly by amending collaterally.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

    Another amendment was then offered by Mr. Bruce R. Alger, of Texas, 
as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Alger: . . . On page 25, immediately 
    after line 9, insert:
        (b) Procedure for wage determinations:
        (1) Applicability of Administrative Procedure Act: 
    Notwithstanding any provision of section 4 of the Administrative 
    Procedure Act, such Act shall be applicable to the wage 
    determinations by the Secretary of Labor under subsection (a) of 
    this section.

[[Page 7719]]

        (2) Hearings and judicial review: All wage determinations under 
    subsection (a) of this section shall be made on the record after an 
    opportunity for a hearing. . . .

        (3) Questions reviewable: Notwithstanding the inclusion of any 
    stipulations required by the Secretary of Commerce in any contract 
    subject to this section, any interested person shall have the right 
    of judicial review of any legal question which might otherwise be 
    raised, including . . . wage determinations. . . .

    Mr. Blatnik raised the following point of order:

        The amendment is out of order on the ground that it applies to 
    basic legislation which originated in another committee of the 
    House, the House Committee on Education and Labor. . . .

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

        Mr. Chairman, this amendment is quite different from the 
    preceding amendment in that the preceding amendment would have 
    amended the entire Davis-Bacon Act. This amendment is directed 
    solely at this bill and the wages paid on the Interstate System, 
    which is all the Davis-Bacon provision is to apply to.

    The Chairman ruled as follows:

        The Chair is of the same opinion with reference to this 
    proposed amendment as it was with respect to the last one, and 
    therefore the point of order is sustained.

Proposal To Suspend Wage and Employment Laws During Emergency--
    Amendment Providing for Study of Effects of Laws on War Production

Sec. 4.85 To an amendment proposing the suspension of certain laws 
    during the national emergency, an amendment offered as a substitute 
    providing for an investigation by the Committee on the Judiciary of 
    all laws now relating to wages and other conditions of employment 
    to determine the effects of such laws on war production was held to 
    be not germane.

    In the 77th Congress, during consideration of the Second War Powers 
Bill,(16) an amendment was pending, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. S. 2208 (Committee on the Judiciary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: On page 
    12, after line 11, insert a new title, as follows:

                                ``title iv-a

        ``That during the national emergency declared to exist by the 
    President on May 27, 1941, the following provisions of law, as 
    amended, are suspended, insofar as they--
        ``(a) Prescribe the maximum hours, days, or weeks of labor in 
    any specified period of time;

[[Page 7720]]

        ``(b) Require compensation at a rate higher than the usual rate 
    at which an employee is employed (1) for labor in excess of a 
    specified number of hours, days, or weeks in any specified period 
    of time, or (2) for labor on Sundays, holidays, or during the 
    night; or
        ``(c) Require stipulations in contracts which prescribe maximum 
    hours of labor or require compensation at a rate higher than the 
    usual rate at which an employee is employed for labor in excess of 
    a specified number of hours, days, or weeks in any specified period 
    of time, or for labor on Sundays, holidays, or during the night--
        ``(1) `An act to expedite the strengthening of the national 
    defense', approved July 2, 1940;
        ``(2) `An act establishing overtime rates for compensation for 
    employees of the field services of the War Department, and the 
    field services of the Panama Canal, and for other purposes', 
    approved October 21, 1940;
        ``(3) `An act authorizing overtime rates of compensation for 
    certain per annum employees of the field services of the War 
    Department, the Panama Canal, the Navy Department, and the Coast 
    Guard. . . .(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 88 Cong. Rec. 1708, 1709, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 26, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To such amendment, the following amendment was offered: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 88 Cong. Rec. 1739, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 27, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John W.] Gwynne [of Iowa] as a 
    substitute for the Smith amendment: Page 12, after line 11, insert 
    a new title, as follows:

                                 Title IV-A

        The Judiciary Committee of the House is hereby directed to make 
    an immediate study of all laws now . . . relating to the hours . . 
    . compensation, and other conditions of employment . . . with a 
    view to determining which of such laws actually impede . . . the 
    production of . . . implements of war, and to make such 
    recommendations as may appear advisable to expedite the production 
    of . . . implements of war.

    Mr. Charles F. McLaughlin, of Nebraska, made the point of order 
that the amendment was not germane.
    The Chairman,(19) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
    Smith] undertakes to enact certain substantive provisions of law. 
    The amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa provides for an 
    investigation. Of course, the matter of ordering an investigation 
    would be a proper subject matter to address to the House Committee 
    on Rules. . . .
        [T]he amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa is not 
    germane to the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Virginia.

Organizational Bill Creating New Government Department--Amendment 
    Changing Substantive Programs Transferred to Department

Sec. 4.86 To a bill reported from the Committee on Govern

[[Page 7721]]

    ment Operations, establishing a new executive agency, transferring 
    to such agency administration of federal funding programs within 
    the jurisdiction of other committees, and containing an 
    authorization of appropriations to carry out the Act and 
    transferred functions, subject to existing laws limiting any 
    appropriations for the transferred functions, an amendment 
    prohibiting the use of funds authorized by that Act to carry out 
    one of the funding programs being transferred to the new agency is 
    not germane, where the bill is organizational only in nature and 
    intended to transfer the administration of certain laws to that 
    agency without modifying those laws, and where the amendment would 
    impinge on the jurisdiction of other House committees having 
    jurisdiction over those basic laws.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although it is ordinarily germane by way of 
amendment to limit the uses to which an authorization of appropriations 
carried in a bill may be applied, that principle normally applies to 
annual authorization bills reported by the committees having 
legislative and oversight jurisdiction over the statutes for which the 
funds are authorized; but where the Committee on Government Operations 
has reported an organizational bill to create a new department in the 
executive branch, which transfers the administration of existing 
statutes and programs to that department without modifying such 
statutes and programs, and which contains a general authorization of 
appropriations for the department to carry out its functions under the 
Act, such a bill is not necessarily open to amendments which change the 
substantive laws to be administered.
    On June 19, 1979, the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration H.R. 2444, reported from the Committee on Government 
Operations, to establish a new Department of Education, and 
transferring to such Department the administration of federally funded 
programs within the jurisdiction of other committees. The bill 
contained an authorization of appropriations to carry out its 
provisions and to enable the Department to perform the functions 
transferred to it, subject to existing laws limiting appropriations 
applicable to any of those functions.(20) An amendment was

[[Page 7722]]

offered (1) to prohibit the use of any funds appropriated 
under such authorization to provide for transportation of students or 
teachers for purposes of establishing racial or ethnic quotas in 
schools. The amendment was held to be not germane, on the grounds that 
the bill was merely organizational in nature and only transferred the 
administration of educational laws to the Department without modifying 
those laws; and because the amendment would impinge on the jurisdiction 
of other House committees having jurisdiction over those basic laws. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See 125 Cong. Rec. 14717, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., June 13, 1979.
 1. 125 Cong. Rec. 15570, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., June 19, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      authorization of appropriations

        Sec. 436. Subject to any limitation on appropriations 
    applicable with respect to any function transferred to the 
    Department or the Secretary, there are authorized to be 
    appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out the provisions 
    of this Act and to enable the Department and the Secretary to 
    perform any function or conduct any office that may be vested in 
    the Department or the Secretary. Funds appropriated in accordance 
    with this section shall remain available until expended.
        Amendment offered by Mr. Dornan: Page 90, after line 6, insert 
    the following new section and redesignate the following sections 
    accordingly:

      prohibition against the use of personnel funds to force racial/
                            ethnic quota busing

        Sec. 437. No funds appropriated under the authorization 
    contained in section 436 may be used to assign Department of 
    Education personnel to promote or to provide for the transportation 
    of students or teachers (or for the purchase of equipment for such 
    transportation) in order to establish racial or ethnic school 
    attendance quotas or guidelines in any school or school system, or 
    for the transportation of students or teachers (or for the purchase 
    of equipment for such transportation) in order to carry out such a 
    plan in any school or school system.
        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment. . . . [T]he language of section 436 
    that says that this authorization is subject to any limitation 
    applicable with respect to any function transferred to the 
    department, was added to the bill to negate any inference that this 
    section authorizes any funds for programs so transferred.
        Now, the section is designed to authorize only those additional 
    appropriations which are necessary to establish and operate the 
    department. Funds provided to public and private entities under the 
    programs of the department are not authorized by this section, but 
    by legislation subject to the jurisdiction of other committees and 
    not now before the House.
        An amendment to limit or constrain the use of those funds is, 
    therefore, not germane to this bill. . . .
        Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of California]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    may be supporting the bill. I do not think this is a frivolous 
    amendment. I believe it is germane.
        So as not to waste the time of this body or of this committee, 
    I asked the

[[Page 7723]]

    parliamentarian last week to take an initial look at this. He said 
    that it might take some further study, but that it looked germane 
    at first view.
        What it attempts to do, if it appears slightly redundant, is to 
    make sure that the Department of Education is not crippled by the 
    burden of reverse discrimination dealing with quotas, busing or 
    teacher transfers. The teacher transfer problem is one to which my 
    own brother has been subjected after teaching in a Los Angeles 
    school system for 12 years.
        I will accept whatever ruling the Chair issues to this, since 
    they have already had a chance to take a look at it once.
        I just simply state that it is germane in more than one section 
    and not legislating in an appropriations bill, to point out areas 
    in which money cannot be spent and to allocate any personnel to 
    carry out someone else's school plan or to have a brand new 
    department of education suffering under the burden of coming up 
    with their own, I think would get the new department off to a bad 
    footing for this or what I expect to be a whole new administration 
    starting on January 20 of 1981. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes that amendments are ordinarily germane 
    which limit the uses to which an authorization of appropriations or 
    an appropriation for an existing program may be put; however, the 
    Chair knows of no precedent applying that principle to a bill which 
    is only organizational in nature. Ordinarily, bills authorizing or 
    making appropriations to carry out existing statutes emerge from 
    the committees which have reported such statutes and which during 
    the authorization and appropriation process have exercised 
    oversight over the manner in which those programs are and should be 
    carried out; but the fundamental issue involved with the pending 
    bill is not whether those programs should be carried out as it is 
    with annual authorizations or appropriations, but who should 
    administer them. . . .
        To allow as germane the amendment proposed by the gentleman 
    from California would be to impinge upon the jurisdiction of the 
    committees responsible for overseeing and authorizing the 
    administration of the laws transferred by the pending legislation, 
    and would broaden its scope beyond an organizational bill to one 
    also modifying and limiting the programs proposed to be transferred 
    intact to the new department.
        The Chair believes that it is important to understand the 
    impact which section 436 has upon the bill.
        In this regard, the Chair will focus upon the first clause in 
    that section, which on its face renders the authorization for 
    appropriations subject to any limitations on appropriations 
    applicable with respect to any function transferred to the 
    department or secretary. Since the basic purpose of this bill is to 
    create a new departmental entity to carry out existing educational 
    programs and policies, it is reasonable to infer that the thrust of 
    section 436 is merely to assure under the rules of the House that 
    appropriations both for substantive educational programs and for 
    administrative expenses of the new department as an organizational 
    entity will continue to be considered as au

[[Page 7724]]

    thorized by and subject to provisions of existing law.

        Thus, amendments to section 436 which attempt to restrict the 
    availability of funds authorized therein in ways which are not 
    addressed by existing law, such as the denial of funds to pay 
    salaries and expenses to persons who promulgate regulations 
    relating to some newly stated aspect of educational policy, are 
    beyond the scope of title IV. Title IV establishes an 
    administrative structure within the new department to carry out 
    presently enacted educational programs and policies. Such a title 
    should not, in an organizational bill, be open to amendments which 
    redirect the administration of educational programs in ways not 
    precisely contemplated by existing law.
        Accordingly, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Amendment To Create Employee Positions in Bureau of Public Roads in 
    Lieu of Positions Allocated Under Classification Act

Sec. 4.87 To a pending amendment in the nature of a substitute for a 
    bill to supplement the Federal Aid Road Act, an amendment 
    authorizing the creation of high level positions in the Bureau of 
    Public Roads in lieu of any positions allocated under the 
    Classification Act, was held to be not germane.

    In the 84th Congress, during consideration of a bill (3) 
to amend and supplement the Federal Aid Road Act, the following 
amendment was offered (4) to a pending amendment in the 
nature of a substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 7474 (Committee on Public Works).
 4. 101 Cong. Rec. 11689, 11690, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Gordon H.] Scherer [of Ohio] to the 
    amendment offered by Mr. [George A.] Dondero [of Michigan]: On page 
    22, after line 20, insert a new section as follows:
        Sec. 209. (a) The Secretary of Commerce . . . is authorized to 
    place 2 positions in the Bureau of Public Roads in grade 18 and a 
    total of 20 positions in grades 16 and 17 of the General Schedule 
    established by the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. . . .

    A point of order was raised by Mr. Robert E. Jones, Jr., of 
Alabama, against the amendment. In support of the point of order, he 
stated:

        Mr. Chairman, I think I have stated the point of order that 
    this is a matter coming within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Post Office and Civil Service. It is a reclassification section, 
    and therefore it is not germane to the [amendment]. . . .

    The Chairman,(5) in ruling on the point of order, said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment offered by 
    the gen

[[Page 7725]]

    tleman from Ohio does, in fact, create additional positions within 
    the general schedules established by the Classification Act of 
    1949, which is within the jurisdiction and authority of another 
    standing committee of the House.
        The Chair therefore is constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

Bill To Readjust Postal Rates--Amendment Directing Committee Chairmen 
    To Investigate Operation of Post Office

Sec. 4.88 To a bill proposing to readjust postal rates, an amendment 
    directing the Chairmen of the Committees on Post Office and Civil 
    Service of the two Houses jointly to employ a staff of experts to 
    investigate the operation of the Post Office Department was held to 
    be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of a bill (6) 
to readjust postal rates, an amendment was offered (7) as 
described above. Mr. Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, made the point of 
order that the amendment was not germane to the bill. The Chairman, 
(8) in ruling on the point of order, stated: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.R. 2982 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
 7  97 Cong. Rec. 11677, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 19, 1951.
 8. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
 9. 97 Cong. Rec. 11677, 11678, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 19, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The committee has before it a bill to readjust postal rates. 
    The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Corbett] has offered an 
    amendment which would direct the chairman of the Committee of the 
    House on the Post Office and Civil Service and of the Committee of 
    the Senate on Post Office and Civil Service to employ not less than 
    five individuals. The amendment goes further, and also fixes the 
    salaries of persons so employed. . . . It is evident that the 
    Committee on the Post Office and Civil Service would not have 
    jurisdiction of a proposal to increase the employees of the 
    committee or to create new positions in such committee. Therefore, 
    the amendment goes far beyond the scope of the bill, and beyond the 
    jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill. Therefore, the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

Budget Resolution Addressing Congressional Action--Amendment Expressing 
    Sense of Congress as to President's Authority Under Impoundment 
    Control Act

Sec. 4.89 To a second concurrent resolution on the budget containing 
    diverse provisions which addressed congressional actions on the 
    budget, an amendment expressing the sense of Congress that

[[Page 7726]]

    language repealing the Impoundment Control Act should be included 
    in any continuing appropriation bill, thereby addressing issues of 
    Presidential authority was conceded to be not germane.

    During consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 448 in the 
Committee of the Whole on Nov. 18, 1980,(10) a point of 
order was conceded and sustained against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 126 Cong. Rec. 30026, 30027, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Latta: Insert after section 5 the 
    following new section:
        Sec. 6. It is the sense of the Congress that the appropriate 
    committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate make in 
    order as part of any continuing appropriation bill for fiscal year 
    1981 language providing for the repeal of provisions of title X of 
    Public Law 93-344, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 
    Act, effective upon enactment of such continuing appropriation and 
    to continue no later than September 30, 1981. . . .
        Mr. [James M.] Frost [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio is 
    not germane to House Concurrent Resolution 448, revising the 
    congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal years 
    1981, 1982, and 1983.
        This amendment would make it the sense of the Congress that any 
    continuing appropriation bill for fiscal year 1981 contain language 
    that would repeal for 1 year the impoundment provisions of the 
    Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
        The concurrent resolution implements certain directives of the 
    Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act. The provisions 
    establishing the concurrent budget resolution procedure are 
    contained in the first nine titles of the act which are cited in 
    Public Law 93-344 as the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. They 
    have no relation to, nor are they derived from, title X, which is 
    cited as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
        It would seem clear, then, that the intent of the act was for 
    concurrent resolutions on the budget to address the internal budget 
    process of the Congress rather than addressing the impoundment 
    process to be followed between the executive and the legislative 
    branches as established by statute.
        To include directives concerning impoundment in a concurrent 
    budget resolution, then, would be outside the intent of the statute 
    and beyond the scope of the resolution, thus rendering them 
    nongermane.
        While the specific language of the Latta amendment would not 
    amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, the 
    ultimate effect would be to do so. The Latta amendment would 
    require, as a sense of the Congress, that a continuing 
    appropriation bill contain language repealing for 1 year the 
    impoundment provisions of title X of the Congressional Budget and 
    Impoundment Act. In all likelihood, any amendment to such a 
    continuing appropriation bill

[[Page 7727]]

    would be nongermane. Further, if a continuing appropriation bill 
    were introduced with such language, it would be subject to referral 
    to the Committee on Rules, which has jurisdiction over amendments 
    to the Budget Act.
        While jurisdiction over a legislative matter is not the sole 
    test of germaneness, it is an important consideration. For example, 
    Deschler's Procedure at chapter 28, section 4.26, states:

            To a bill reported from the Committee on Ways and Means 
        providing for a temporary increase in the public debt ceiling 
        for the current fiscal year (not directly amending the Second 
        Liberty Bond Act), an amendment proposing permanent changes in 
        that act and also affecting budget and appropriations 
        procedures (matters within the jurisdiction of other House 
        committees) was held not germane.

        It may be argued that an amendment directing the offering of a 
    nongermane amendment in and of itself could be considered 
    nongermane. Argument has been proposed that section 4 of House 
    Concurrent Resolution 448 provides a basis of germaneness for the 
    Latta amendment. Section 4 contains sense of the Congress language 
    stating that, ``A full-scale review of the Budget Act and the 
    congressional budget process should be undertaken without delay.'' 
    This language does not require any specific action to be taken to 
    change the budget process or to amend the Budget Act. The Latta 
    amendment would extend the scope of the sense of the Congress 
    language in section 4 to require that a specific amendment 
    repealing the impoundment provisions of the Budget Act be adopted.
        The precedents indicate such action would be nongermane. For 
    example, Deschler's Procedure at chapter 28, section 33.23, states:

            An amendment requiring the availability of funds ``under 
        this or any other Act'' for certain humanitarian assistance was 
        held to go beyond the scope of the pending bill and was ruled 
        out as not germane, affecting funds in other provisions of law.

        I would contend, Mr. Chairman, that the Latta amendment is 
    nongermane. . . .
        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: . . . This resolution 
    contains no reconciliation instruction which could force the 
    committees of the Congress to come up with the spending cuts of $17 
    billion. Likewise, it gives the President no power whatsoever to 
    accomplish these cuts by executive direction. This amendment would 
    address this deficiency if it were allowed without the point of 
    order. It provides that it is the sense of the Congress that when 
    it takes up the continuing resolution for the 1981 appropriations, 
    it will include language which suspends, for the remainder of 
    fiscal year 1981 only, the anti-impoundment provisions of the 
    Budget Act. What it would do, then, is give the President-elect the 
    ability to keep Federal spending within the ceiling established in 
    this budget resolution should the Congress be unable to do so. . . 
    .

        Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: (11) The point of order is conceded. 
    The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William H. Natcher (Ky.).

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

[[Page 7728]]

Bill To Increase Debt Ceiling--Amendment Affecting Budget and 
    Appropriations Procedures

Sec. 4.90 To a bill reported from the Committee on Ways and Means 
    providing for a temporary increase in the public debt ceiling for 
    the current fiscal year but not directly amending the Second 
    Liberty Bond Act, an amendment proposing permanent changes in that 
    Act and also affecting budget and appropriations procedures 
    (matters within the jurisdiction of other House committees) was 
    held not germane.

    On Nov. 7, 1973,(12) it was demonstrated that to a bill 
proposing a temporary change in law, an amendment making other 
permanent changes in that law is not germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 36240, 36241, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 11104, providing for a temporary 
        increase in the public debt limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 2. Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
        section 101 of the Act of October 27, 1972, providing for a 
        temporary increase in the public debt limit for the fiscal year 
        ending June 30, 1973 (Public Law 92-599), as amended by the 
        first section of Public Law 93-53, is hereby repealed.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gross: On page 2, line 3, after 
        the period, insert the following: Provided further, that the 
        expenditures of the Government during each fiscal year, 
        including reduction of the public debt in accordance with the 
        provisions of section 3, shall not exceed its revenues for such 
        year except--
            (1) in time of war declared by the Congress . . .
            Sec. 3. Section 21 of the Second Liberty Bond Act, as 
        amended (31 U.S.C. 757b), is amended by inserting ``(a)'' after 
        ``Sec. 21.'', and by adding at the end thereof the following:
            ``(b) The public debt limit set forth in subsection (a) is 
        hereby reduced as follows:
            ``(1) Effective on July 1, 1974, by an amount equal to 2 
        percent of the net revenue of the United States for the fiscal 
        year ending June 30, 1973;
            ``(2) Effective on July 1, 1975, by an amount equal to 3 
        percent of the net revenue of the United States for the fiscal 
        year ending June 30, 1974;
            ``(3) Effective on July 1, 1976, by an amount equal to 4 
        percent of the net revenue of the United States for the fiscal 
        year ending June 30, 1975;
            ``(4) Effective on July 1, 1977, and July 1 of each year 
        thereafter, by an amount equal to 5 percent of the net revenue 
        of the United States for the fiscal year ending on June 30, of 
        the preceding year.''
            Sec. 4. (a) The Budget submitted annually by the President 
        pursuant to section 201 of the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921, 
        as amended, shall be prepared, on the basis of the best 
        estimates then available, in such a manner as to insure 
        compliance with the first section of this Act.
            (b) Notwithstanding any obligational authority granted or 
        ap

[[Page 7729]]

        propriations made except such with respect to the legislative 
        and judicial branches of the Government, the President shall 
        from time to time during each fiscal year take such action as 
        may be necessary (by placing funds in reserve, by apportionment 
        of funds, or otherwise) to insure compliance with the first 
        section of this Act.
            Sec. 5. The Congress shall not pass appropriations measures 
        which will result in expenditures by the Government during any 
        fiscal year in excess of its estimated revenues for such year 
        (as revenues have been estimated in the budget submitted by the 
        President), except--
            (1) to the extent of any additional revenues of the 
        Government for such fiscal year resulting from tax legislation 
        enacted after the submission of the budget for such fiscal 
        year; or
            (2) in time of war declared by the Congress; or
            (3) during a period of grave national emergency declared in 
        accordance with the first section of this Act; but, subject to 
        paragraph (1) of this section, appropriations measures which 
        will so result in expenditures in excess of estimated revenues 
        may be passed by the Congress only during such a period of 
        grave national emergency.
            Sec. 6. This Act shall apply only in respect of fiscal 
        years beginning after June 30, 1974.

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ullman: Mr. Chairman, the bill before us provides for a 
    temporary change in the debt ceiling in conformity with the Second 
    Liberty Bond Act. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa 
    makes a permanent change in the Second Liberty Bond Act, and 
    therefore is not germane to this bill. . . .
        Mr. Gross: . .  . Mr. Chairman, the entire thrust of the bill 
    before us is the national debt and the ceiling of that debt. The 
    main thrust of this amendment is to control the Federal debt and 
    reduce the ceiling.
        Mr. Chairman, I believe the amendment is in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.
        The bill presently before the House provides for a temporary 
    change in the debt limit for this fiscal year, and the amendment 
    constitutes a permanent change in the law.
        In addition, the amendment also goes to the preparation of the 
    budget under the Budget and Accounting Act which is under the 
    jurisdiction of another committee. Volume 8 of the precedents of 
    the House provides under section 2914 the following:

            To a section proposing legislation for the current year, an 
        amendment rendering such legislation permanent was held to be 
        not germane.

        The Chair sustains the point of order.

General Appropriation Bill--Amendment To Modify Rules of Congress for 
    Consideration of Appropriations in Subsequent Years

Sec. 4.91 To a general appropriation bill providing funds for one 
    fiscal year, an amendment changing existing law

[[Page 7730]]

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

    On June 29, 1987,(14) during consideration of the 
Legislative Branch Appropriations, fiscal 1988,(15) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order against 
the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 133 Cong. Rec. 18082, 18083, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. H.R. 2714.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lungren: Page 31, after line 25, 
        insert the following new sections:
            Sec. 309. Subsection (c) of section 130 of the joint 
        resolution entitled ``Joint resolution making continuing 
        appropriations for the fiscal year 1982, and for other 
        purposes'' (approved October 1, 1981; Public Law 97-51) is 
        amended by striking out ``Effective'' and by inserting in lieu 
        thereof ``(1) Except to the extent provided by paragraph (2), 
        effective'' and by inserting at the end thereof the following 
        new paragraph:
            ``(2) If all general appropriation bills for any fiscal 
        year have not been presented to the President for signature 
        under section 7 of Article I of the Constitution before the 
        beginning of that fiscal year, then the appropriation contained 
        in paragraph (1) shall not be effective with respect to such 
        fiscal year.''.
            Sec. 2310. It shall not be in order in either the House of 
        Representatives or the Senate to consider the general 
        appropriation bill making appropriations for the legislative 
        branch for any fiscal year unless and until all other general 
        appropriation bills for such fiscal year have been presented to 
        the President for signature under section 7 of Article I of the 
        Constitution. . . .

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

[[Page 7731]]

        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William J. Hughes (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Bill Authorizing Issuance of Bonds--Amendment Providing Bonds Be Tax 
    Exempt

Sec. 4.92 To that section of a bill authorizing the issuance of bonds, 
    an amendment providing that such bonds be exempt both as to 
    principal and interest from any taxes was held to be germane.

    The following exchange in the 74th Congress, (17) during 
consideration of a bill (18) to amend an act relating to 
flood control and industrial development in the Tennessee Valley, 
concerned a point of order raised against the amendment described 
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 79 Cong. Rec. 10967, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., July 10, 1935. The 
        Chairman was William J. Driver (Ark.).
18. H.R. 8632 (Committee on Military Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. 
    . . .
        Is that germane to the bill? It relates to the taxing authority 
    of the Government, and that can only be considered when coming from 
    the Ways and Means Committee.
        The Chairman: The Chair holds that the amendment is germane in 
    that it simply provides an exemption with respect to the bonds to 
    be issued by the Corporation.
        Mr. Taber: Will the Chair rule on the other part of the point 
    of order, that a bill coming from this committee cannot be 
    considered when it relates to the taxing power of the Government 
    and that the amendment does relate to the taxing power of the 
    Government, and therefore must come from the Ways and Means 
    Committee?
        The Chairman: The Chair holds that the amendment strikes at 
    that power in an incidental way, and therefore is not subject to 
    the point of order.
        The point of order is overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent has been effectively 
overruled by Sec. 4.45, infra.

Joint Resolution Directing Agencies To Make Information Available to 
    Committees--Amendment To Create Joint Committee

Sec. 4.93 To a joint resolution directing agencies of the government to 
    make certain information available to committees of Congress, an 
    amendment proposing creation of a joint committee that would 
    formulate ``rules . . . with respect to the powers, duties, and 
    procedures of all committees of either House under this joint reso

[[Page 7732]]

    lution'' was held to be not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(19) directing agencies of the government to make available 
to congressional committees certain information, an amendment was 
offered (20) as described above. In ruling on a point of 
order raised by Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, the Chairman, Leo E. 
Allen, of Illinois, stated: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.J. Res. 342 (Committee on Expenditures in the Executive 
        Departments).
20. 94 Cong. Rec. 5811, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., May 13, 1948.
 1. Id. at p. 5812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [T]his amendment would create a joint standing committee. It 
    would take away the authority of the Rules Committee which under 
    the rules of the House has jurisdiction over this subject. The 
    Chair therefore holds that the amendment is not germane and 
    sustains the point of order.

Amendment Changing Method of Appointing Members of Civil Rights 
    Commission

Sec. 4.94 To a bill reported from the Committee on the Judiciary, 
    establishing a commission on civil rights with members to be 
    appointed by the President, an amendment requiring that the 
    commissioners be Members of Congress and that they be appointed by 
    the Speaker and President of the Senate was held to be not germane.

    In the 84th Congress, a bill (2) was under consideration 
which stated in part: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 627 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 3. 102 Cong. Rec. 13542, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 19, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Part I--Establishment of the Commission on Civil Rights

        Sec. 101. (a) There is created in the executive branch of the 
    Government a Commission on Civil Rights (hereinafter called the 
    ``Commission'').
        (b) The Commission shall be composed of six members who shall 
    be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of 
    the Senate. . . .

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at pp. 13548, 13549.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Walter E.] Rogers of Texas: Amend 
    H.R. 627 by striking out all of section 101 beginning on line 21, 
    page 19, to and including all of line 14 on page 20, and all of 
    line 15 on page 20 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
        Sec. 101. . . .
        (b) The ``Commission'' shall be composed of six Members of the 
    Congress of the United States of America, 3 of which shall be duly 
    elected and qualified Members of the United States House of 
    Representatives and 3 shall

[[Page 7733]]

    be duly elected and qualified Members of the United States Senate. 
    The Members of the House of Representatives shall be appointed by 
    the Speaker of the House of Representatives. . . . The Members 
    representing the Senate shall be appointed by the President of the 
    Senate. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment as follows: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 13549.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane. This 
    amendment seeks to set up a joint congressional committee. As such, 
    the jurisdiction over such procedure would come within the Rules 
    Committee.

    The Chairman,(6) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [T]he amendment would provide for the appointment of what is 
    tantamount to a joint committee composed of Members of the Senate 
    and the House of Representatives, which is clearly a deviation from 
    the original purpose of the legislation.
        For that reason, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Resolution Providing for Special Committee To Investigate Campaign 
    Expenditures--Amendment Directing Payment of Expenses From 
    Contingent Fund

Sec. 4.95 To a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules 
    providing for a special committee to investigate campaign 
    expenditures, a committee amendment providing in part that expenses 
    of such committee be paid from the contingent fund of the House was 
    held to be not germane.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of a resolution 
(7) providing for a special committee, a committee amendment 
was reported which provided that the special committee's expenses be 
paid from the contingent fund of the House.(8) A point of 
order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H. Res. 551 (Committee on Rules).
 8. 90 Cong. Rec. 6393, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., June 21, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that the Rules 
    Committee has exceeded its authority. . . .
        The following exchange ensued: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 6394.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (10) It is a question of germaneness, 
    whether the amendment is germane to the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: The point of order made 
    by the gentleman from Missouri would strike out the entire 
    amendment because a part of it was not germane?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Michigan . . . realizes that 
    one part of an amendment being deficient, the whole amendment is 
    vitiated.

[[Page 7734]]

    The Speaker then sustained the point of order. Citing precedents, 
the Speaker noted that the matter in question was within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Accounts.

Appropriations for Expense Allowances for Members--Amendment to Amend 
    Internal Revenue Code

Sec. 4.96 To a provision, in a general appropriation bill, 
    appropriating sums for expense allowances for Members, an amendment 
    seeking to amend the Internal Revenue Code was held to be not 
    germane.

    On May 10, 1945, the Legislative Appropriations Bill of 1946 
(11) was under consideration, stating in part: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 3109 (Committee on Appropriations).
12. See 91 Cong. Rec. 4451, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There shall be paid to each Representative and Delegate, and to 
    the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, after January 2, 1945, 
    an expense allowance of $2,500 per annum to assist in defraying 
    expenses related to or resulting from the discharge of his official 
    duties. . . .

    The following amendment was offered:

        There shall be paid to each Representative and Delegate and to 
    the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico after January 2, 1945, 
    an additional annual salary of $1,500. . . .
        Section 23(a)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code (relating to 
    deductibility of trade and business expenses) is amended by 
    inserting at the end thereof a new sentence as follows: For the 
    purposes of this chapter, in the case of an individual holding an 
    office as a Member of the Congress . . . his home shall be 
    considered to be his place of residence within the State . . . from 
    which he is such a member, but the deduction allowable for the 
    taxable year by reason of this sentence shall in no event exceed 
    $2,500. . . .

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

        Mr. [Emmet] O'Neal [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment goes far beyond the provisions of 
    the bill. . . . Certainly the provision reading ``his home shall be 
    considered to be his place of residence within the State . . .'' 
    does not confine it to the purposes of taxation but would affect 
    many, many laws on the statute books today not in any way related 
    to taxation. . . .

    The Chairman, John J. Delaney, of New York, in ruling on the point 
of order, stated: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 4452.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        One item in the bill is an expense allowance of $2,500 per 
    annum, which in no sense of the word is a raise of salary. The 
    gentleman from Mississippi includes in his amendment to that pro

[[Page 7735]]

    vision matter that evidently is not germane to the bill. Therefore, 
    the Chair sustains the point of order.

    Subsequently, Mr. William M. Whittington, of Mississippi, offered 
an amendment containing language as above relating to the Internal 
Revenue Code. The Chairman, in again sustaining a point of order raised 
by Mr. O'Neal, stated: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 4453.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The pending appropriation bill contains a provision that would 
    allow Members of Congress a sum not exceeding $2,500 to pay 
    expenses. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi 
    would constitute legislation on an appropriation bill, legislation 
    which comes within the province of the Committee on Ways and Means. 
    The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is not germane to 
    the pending paragraph and, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Bill Containing Provisions Addressing Relationship Between Federal Laws 
    and Certain Industry--Amendment Proposing Study of Impact of 
    Possible Tax Law Changes

Sec. 4.97 Although a proposal for a change in the tax laws is not 
    ordinarily germane to a bill which has not been reported by the 
    Committee on Ways and Means, a proposal for a study of the impact 
    of possible tax law changes on a certain industry may be germane to 
    a bill with broad and diverse provisions on the subject of the 
    relationship between federal law and the industry in question.

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

Price Control Bill--Amendment Relating to Stamp Taxes and Repealing 
    Silver Purchase Act

Sec. 4.98 To a price control bill, an amendment repealing the Silver 
    Purchase Act of 1934 and containing provisions relating to stamp 
    taxes, matters within the jurisdiction of another committee, was 
    held to be not germane.

    In the 77th Congress, during consideration of the Price Control 
Bill,(15) Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, offered an 
amendment (16) as described above. The Chairman, Jere 
Cooper, of Tennessee, in ruling on a point of order raised by Mr. Henry 
B. Steagall, of Alabama, stated: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 5990 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
16. 87 Cong. Rec. 9223, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 28, 1941.
17. Id. at p. 9224.

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

[[Page 7736]]

        The gentleman from Alabama makes a point of order against the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois on the ground that 
    it covers a subject matter clearly coming within the jurisdiction 
    of another standing committee of the House. The Chair is of the 
    opinion that the amendment is subject to this point of order and 
    therefore sustains the point of order.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Subsequently, an amendment seeking to repeal certain provisions of 
        the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which was within the 
        jurisdiction of another committee, was also held not germane to 
        the Price Control Bill. Id. at p. 9225 (ruling of the Chairman 
        with respect to another amendment offered by Mr. Dirksen).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Works Construction Bill--Revenue-sharing Amendment

Sec. 4.99 While committee jurisdiction over the subject matter of an 
    amendment is not the exclusive test of germaneness in cases in 
    which the proposition being amended already contains comprehensive 
    provisions that overlap jurisdictional delineations, it is a 
    relevant test where the pending text is entirely within one 
    committee's jurisdiction and where the amendment falls within 
    another committee's purview.

    H.R. 5247, a bill reported from the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation, consisted of one title relating to grants to state and 
local governments for local public works construction projects. A new 
title added by the Senate and contained in a conference report provided 
grants to state and local governments to assist them in providing 
public services. On Jan. 29, 1976,(19) a point of order was 
made in the House against the title added by the Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 122 Cong. Rec. 1582, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Jones, Jr., of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    the conference report on the bill (H.R. 5247) to authorize a local 
    public works capital development and investment program, and ask 
    unanimous consent that the statement of the managers be read in 
    lieu of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order that title II of the conference report to H.R. 5247 
    constitutes a nongermane Senate amendment to the House-passed bill 
    and is in violation of clause 4 of rule XXVIII of the House rules. 
    . . .
        Mr. Speaker, when H.R. 5247 was before the House in May, it was 
    for the sole purpose of authorizing appropriations for the 
    construction of public works projects to help alleviate 
    unemployment. Along with 312 other Members of the House, I 
    supported that legislation.
        However, when the bill was before the Senate, title II, an 
    entirely dif

[[Page 7737]]

    ferent and unrelated matter, was added. Title II is not a public 
    works provision. Title II simply authorizes appropriations for the 
    basic day-to-day support of the budgets of State and local 
    governments. It is, in short, a revenue sharing provision.
        Mr. Speaker, you, yourself, must have recognized this as 
    revenue sharing legislation when you referred identical legislation 
    introduced in the House exclusively to the Government Operations 
    Committee. Title II clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the 
    Government Operations Committee, not the Public Works Committee.
        Even in the Senate, this provision came out of the Government 
    Operations Committee, not the Public Works Committee. Perhaps if 
    the Senate had a rule on germaneness as we do, we would not be 
    facing this problem right now.
        Had title II been offered in the House when this bill was 
    before us on the floor, it would clearly have been subject to a 
    point of order as nongermane under clause 7 of rule XVI. It, 
    therefore, continues to be nongermane under clause 4 of House rule 
    XXVIII dealing with conference reports.
        Mr. Speaker, I recognize that committee jurisdiction is not the 
    exclusive test of germaneness. I do not base my point of order on 
    this issue alone. This provision simply has nothing to do with 
    public works, the only matter which was before the House in H.R. 
    5247. To the contrary, the use of title II funds for construction 
    purposes is specifically prohibited. Furthermore, there is not one 
    word in title II to guarantee that the funds will be used to 
    stimulate employment, the primary purpose of H.R. 5247.
        Mr. Speaker, title II does not come within the jurisdiction of 
    the Public Works Committee. It does not constitute public works or 
    emergency employment legislation, and it could not have been 
    incorporated into the bill when it was previously before the House. 
    For these reasons, I respectfully request that my point of order be 
    sustained. . . .
        Ms. [Bella S.] Abzug [of New York]: . . . There has been a 
    certain confusion presented here, and that is in the meaning of the 
    rule which this House passed and which my esteemed chairman, the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) referred to. Clause 4, rule 
    XXVIII, was passed by this House in 1970 and 1972. This procedure 
    which the House adopted in 1972 was intended to do away with the 
    situation wherein the Senate . . . attached to a House-passed bill 
    matter that was wholly unrelated to the subject on which the House 
    had acted. . . .

        The bill as reported from the conference does not contain 
    provisions whose subject and substance is different. Title I of the 
    conference report version is almost identical with the House-passed 
    bill. Title II, upon which there is now brought a question of a 
    separate vote, is the conference version and is also directed, as 
    is title I, to the question of assistance in unemployment, and is 
    so aimed at correcting it at the local level. . . . The allocation 
    of funds is dependent on the extent to which unemployment in any 
    area exceeds the national average, so that both the public works, 
    title I, and title II, countercyclical assistance, have the same, 
    identical goal. That is, to ease the current recession. . . .
        Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: . . . The 
    fundamental

[[Page 7738]]

    method used in the original bill to stimulate the economy is to 
    provide for the construction of public works projects. The methods 
    used in the amendment provide for the stabilization of budgets of 
    general purpose governments, the maintenance of basic services 
    ordinarily provided by the State and local governments, emergency 
    support grants to State and local governments to coordinate budget-
    related actions with the Federal Government. Clearly, the methods 
    provided for in the Senate amendment are on their face so different 
    from those in the House bill as to preclude their being considered 
    as the same or closely allied. For this reason, then, the amendment 
    is in violation of clause 4, rule XVI.
        The Speaker: (20) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) makes the point of order 
    that title II of the conference report, which was contained in the 
    Senate amendment to H.R. 5247, would not have been germane if 
    offered as an amendment in the House and is thus subject to a point 
    of order under rule XXVIII, clause 4.
        The test of germaneness in this case is the relationship 
    between title II of the conference report and the provisions of 
    H.R. 5247 as it passed the House. The Chair believes that had title 
    II been offered as an amendment in the House it would have been 
    subject to a point of order on two grounds.
        First, one of the requirements of germaneness is that an 
    amendment must relate to the fundamental purpose of the matter 
    under consideration and must seek to accomplish the result of the 
    proposed legislation by a closely related means--Deschler's 
    Procedure, chapter 28, sections 5 and 6. The fundamental purpose of 
    the bill when considered by the House was to combat unemployment by 
    stimulating activity in the construction industry through grants to 
    States and local governments to be used for the construction of 
    local public works projects.
        While the fundamental purpose of title II of the conference 
    report is related to the economic problems caused by the recession, 
    specifically unemployment, the means proposed to alleviate that 
    problem are not confined to public works construction. Title II 
    authorizes grants to States and local governments to pay for 
    governmental services such as police and fire protection, trash 
    collection and public education. The managers, in their joint 
    statement, specifically state that the grants under title II are 
    for the ``maintenance of basic services [ordinarily] provided by 
    the State and local governments and that State and local 
    governments shall not use funds received under the act for the 
    acquisition of supplies or for construction unless essential to 
    maintain basic services.'' An additional purpose of this title is 
    to reduce the necessity of increases in State and local government 
    taxes which would have a negative effect on the national economy 
    and offset reductions in Federal taxes designed to stimulate the 
    economy. The Chair therefore finds that the program proposed by 
    title II of the report is not closely related to the method 
    suggested in the House version of the bill.
        Second, title II of the report proposes a revenue sharing 
    approach to the problems faced by State and local gov

[[Page 7739]]

    ernments during the present recession. General revenue sharing is a 
    matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government 
    Operations under rule X, clause 1(h)(4), and a bill, H.R. 6416, in 
    many respects identical to title II of the report, was introduced 
    in the House on April 28, 1975, and referred to that committee. 
    While committee jurisdiction is not the exclusive test of 
    germaneness--Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 4.16--it is 
    a relevant test where, as here, the scope of the House bill is 
    within one committee's jurisdiction. The precedents indicate that 
    as a bill becomes more comprehensive in scope the relevance of the 
    test is correspondingly reduced. The bill, as it passed the House, 
    was not a comprehensive antirecession measure overlapping other 
    committees' jurisdictions, but proposed a specific remedy, local 
    public works construction assistance, to a complex problem. Given 
    the limited scope of the bill as it passed the House, the Chair 
    finds the jurisdiction test quite persuasive in this instance.
        For the reasons just stated, the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Provisions Making Support Fund Effective Upon Approval by Congressional 
    Committees (as Provided by Public Buildings Act) of Construction of 
    Eisenhower Civic Center--Amendment Changing Approval Procedures 
    Under Law

Sec. 4.100 While as a general rule an amendment to a law which had been 
    reported from one committee is not germane to a bill reported from 
    another committee, where the pending bill incorporates by reference 
    provisions of a law from another committee and conditions the 
    bill's effectiveness upon actions taken pursuant to a section of 
    that law, an amendment to alter that section of the law may be 
    germane; thus, to a section in a District of Columbia Committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute providing that a support 
    fund for the Eisenhower Civic Center would become effective upon 
    approval of construction of the Center by the House and Senate 
    Committees on the District of Columbia and Appropriations as 
    provided in section 18 of the Public Buildings Act (originally 
    reported from the Committee on Public Works), an amendment changing 
    the approval mechanism in that section of law (to eliminate the 
    Committees on Appropriations) was held germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 12473 in the Committee of the

[[Page 7740]]

Whole on Apr. 8, 1974,(1) the Chair overruled a point of 
order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 120 Cong. Rec. 10108-10, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth J.] Gray [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gray to the committee amendment: 
        Page 21, strike out lines 4 through 8, inclusive, and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
            Sec. 16. (a) Subsection (b) of section 4 of the Dwight D. 
        Eisenhower Memorial Bicentennial Civic Center Act (P.L. 92-520) 
        is hereby repealed.
            (b) Paragraph (4) of subsection (d) of section 18 of the 
        Public Buildings Act of 1959 is amended by striking out the 
        following: ``, and the Senate and House Committees on 
        Appropriations,''. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas M.] Rees [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order on the amendment to the committee amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) Does the gentleman from California 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rees: . . . The point of order is that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois is not germane to the 
    Eisenhower Memorial Civic Center Sinking and Support Funds Act of 
    1974, which is the bill now before us. What the gentleman's 
    amendment does is amend the Public Buildings Act of 1959, as 
    amended, to create the Eisenhower Civic Center. What his amendment 
    would specifically do would be to delete two sections, one of them 
    with the congressional approval, and the other, section 4(b), 
    dealing with the authorization for $14 million.
        It is my contention, Mr. Chairman, that his amendments would 
    only be germane to specific legislation, which would be an 
    amendment to the Public Buildings Act of 1959. . . .
        Mr. Gray: Mr. Chairman, the parameters and the scope of my 
    amendment concern financing only. It is true that the Public 
    Buildings Amendments Act of 1959, as amended, was the authority for 
    the establishment of the authorization for this center. My 
    amendment only deals with the $14 million, which is part of the 
    financing similar to the purposes of H.R. 12473, which is to 
    establish and finance a sinking fund for the Dwight D. Eisenhower 
    Memorial Bicentennial Civic Center. Very simply put in Illinois 
    country language, one puts in; the other takes out. It is a very 
    simple amendment. . . .
        Mr. [M. G.] Snyder [of Kentucky]: . . . I support the points 
    raised by the gentleman from California with regard to germaneness. 
    I take issue with the gentleman from Illinois that all this 
    amendment does is relate to financing. That is not accurate. This 
    amendment also takes away an oversight of the District of Columbia 
    and of both the House and the Senate. It attempts to amend the 
    provisions of law of the Committee on Public Works, rather than the 
    attempts of the District of Columbia relating to this legislation 
    concerning financing. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California (Mr. Rees) makes 
    the point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr.

[[Page 7741]]

    Gray) is not germane to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for the bill H.R. 12473. The gentleman from Kentucky 
    (Mr. Snyder) also supports the point of order. The Chair has 
    listened to the arguments in support of and against the point of 
    order.
        The committee amendment establishes a support fund for the 
    Civic Center, into which will be deposited funds from operating 
    revenues, spinoff tax benefits, certain local income, real estate 
    and sales taxes and funds appropriated pursuant to the 
    authorization of $14 million contained in section 18 of the Public 
    Buildings Act as the Federal share for the construction costs of 
    the Eisenhower Civic Center.
        The amendment of the gentleman from Illinois would repeal that 
    portion of the Eisenhower Civic Center Act--section 18 of the 
    Public Buildings Act which authorizes the $14 million share--and 
    repeal that portion of the ``approval'' provision contained in 
    section 18 which requires approval of the Senate and House 
    Committees on Appropriation. The amendment has been drafted as a 
    substitute for the language contained in section 16 of the 
    committee amendment, which provides that the provisions of H.R. 
    12473 become effective either on date of enactment or upon approval 
    by the House and Senate Committees on the District of Columbia and 
    Appropriations as provided in section 18 of the Public Buildings 
    Act, whichever is later.
        While under ordinary circumstances an amendment to a law 
    reported from committee B is not germane to a bill reported by 
    committee A, in this instance the Gray amendment would appear to be 
    germane to section 16 of the committee amendment to H.R. 12473.
        The Chair would cite two reasons for reaching this conclusion: 
    First, since section 16 of the committee amendment makes the act 
    contingent upon approval of construction plans as provided in 
    section 18 of the Public Buildings Act, an amendment to alter the 
    approval mechanism contained in that act is germane; and second, 
    since H.R. 12473 would transfer funds appropriated as the Federal 
    share into the support fund being established in the bill, the 
    concept of the extent of Federal participation in the project has 
    been injected into the committee amendment. Therefore an amendment 
    to eliminate the Federal share, thereby making the project one 
    which will be financed entirely by local revenues, in the opinion 
    of the Chair is germane.
        For these reasons the Chair holds that the amendment is germane 
    and overrules the point of order.

Bill Authorizing Appropriations for Expansion of Educational Programs--
    Amendment Providing Tax Deduction for Support of College Student

Sec. 4.101 To a bill authorizing appropriations to assist in the 
    expansion and improvement of educational programs, an amendment, in 
    the nature of a substitute, to provide for an income tax deduction 
    for anyone furnishing support to a student in college was held to 
    be not germane.

[[Page 7742]]

    In the 85th Congress, during consideration of a bill (3) 
to assist in the expansion and improvement of education programs to 
meet critical national needs, the following amendment was offered: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 13247 (Committee on Education and Labor).
 4. 104 Cong. Rec. 16734, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 8, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John P.] Saylor (of Pennsylvania): 
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: ``That any 
    person who provides more than 50 percent of a student's support 
    while attending a college or institution of higher learning shall 
    be entitled to an additional exemption on his or her income tax for 
    any year beginning with 1958 of $1,000.''

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

        Mr. [Carl A.] Elliott [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. It involves a tax 
    question which falls within the jurisdiction of another committee 
    of the House, the House Committee on Ways and Means.

    The Chairman, John E. Fogarty, of Rhode Island, in ruling on the 
point of order, stated: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 16735.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This is not an appropriation bill that we are considering 
    today. It is strictly an authorization bill. The Chair feels that 
    it does invade the jurisdiction of another committee, the Committee 
    on Ways and Means, and therefore sustains the point of order.

Provisions Prescribing Standards for Administration of Educational 
    Programs--Amendment Providing Remedies for Denial of Equal 
    Educational Opportunity

Sec. 4.102 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.

    The proceedings of Mar. 26, 1974, during consideration of H.R. 69, 
to amend and extend the Elementary and Secondary Education

[[Page 7743]]

Act, are discussed in Sec. 3, supra.

Bill To Protect Civil Rights--Amendment to Provide Aid to Education on 
    Basis of Progress in Desegregation

Sec. 4.103 To a bill to protect political rights, reported from the 
    Committee on the Judiciary, an amendment to provide aid to 
    education in communities proceeding with desegregation was held to 
    be not germane, the subject of the amendment being a matter within 
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor.

    In the 86th Congress, a bill (6) was under consideration 
relating to enforcement of constitutional rights. The following 
amendment was offered to the bill: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.R. 8601 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 7. 106 Cong. Rec. 5479, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 14, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Insert 
    a new title VII and renumber the remaining titles and sections 
    accordingly:

                                  Title--

    GRANTS TO ASSIST STATE AND LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES TO EFFECTUATE 
                               DESEGREGATION

                      Authorization of Appropriations

        Sec.--. (a) For the purpose of assisting State and local 
    educational agencies which, on May 17, 1954, maintained segregated 
    public schools to effectuate desegregation in such schools in a 
    manner consistent with pertinent Federal court decisions, there are 
    hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year such sums 
    as the Congress may determine. . . .

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

        Mr. [Edwin E.] Willis [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        As the Chair has just ruled, the basic purpose of the bill 
    under consideration has to do with protection of voting rights. 
    This amendment deals with a system of Federal aid to education. It 
    sets forth new procedures that are wholly unrelated to the basic 
    bill.

    In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Celler, stated: 
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 5480.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The amendment now before us concerns the right to 
    education, the right of certain people in certain localities to 
    have their children educated. This amendment merely adds another 
    proposition whereby a remedy is pro

[[Page 7744]]

    vided to enforce a constitutional right and therefore it is 
    germane. Here we are merely adding another proposition to a series 
    of individual propositions dealing with one class, namely: the 
    enforcement of constitutional rights.

    The Chairman, Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, in ruling on the 
point of order, stated: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 5481.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]he Chair holds that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York is not germane because it seeks to 
    introduce a subject matter which would have been referred to a 
    committee other than the one reporting the pending bill. The Chair 
    is of the opinion that the matter contained in the amendment is a 
    subject within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and 
    Labor and not the Committee on the Judiciary. Therefore, the Chair 
    rules that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York is 
    not germane.

Bill To Protect Mentally Ill--Amendment Prohibiting Use of Revenue-
    sharing Funds for Jurisdictions Permitting Operation of Homosexual 
    Bathhouses

Sec. 4.104 To an individual proposition relating to mental health, an 
    amendment addressing other public health hazards and funding 
    programs unrelated to mental health is not germane; thus, to a bill 
    reported from the Committee on Energy and Commerce relating to 
    mentally ill individuals, an amendment prohibiting the use of 
    general revenue-sharing funds (a matter within the jurisdiction of 
    the Committee on Government Operations) to jurisdictions permitting 
    the operation of homosexual male baths hazardous to the public 
    health was held to be not germane, because it was within another 
    committee's jurisdiction and not confined to the issue of mental 
    health.

    During consideration of H.R. 4055 (relating to protection and 
advocacy for mentally ill individuals) in the Committee of the Whole on 
Jan. 30, 1986,(10) the Chair sustained a point of order 
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 132 Cong. Rec. 1052, 1053, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer: Page 18, insert after 
        line 7 the following:

                          TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS
    Sec. 301. Public Baths.

            That no city, town, or other political jurisdiction may 
        receive Federal revenue sharing funds under chapter 67 of title 
        31, United States Code, if it permits the operation of any 
        public bath which is owned or operated by an individual who 
        knows or has rea

[[Page 7745]]

        son to know that the bath is hazardous to the public health or 
        who knows or has reason to know is used for sexual relations 
        between males. . . .

        Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: The amendment is a 
    prohibition for the expenditures of revenues under the Revenue 
    Sharing Act. It is not germane to the legislation before us. . . .
        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: . . . Mr. 
    Chairman, since the bill before us now relates to a new program 
    relating to the expenditure of funds to reduce the suffering and 
    improve the care of the mentally ill, does it not seem logical that 
    we would add an amendment that would reduce the incidence of a 
    disease that is fatal?
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William J. Hughes (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        General revenue sharing is a matter that is within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations. The bill in 
    question deals with mental health, not all public health.
        For the reasons advanced by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Waxman], the point of order is well taken and is sustained.

Bill Authorizing Daylight-Saving Time in District of Columbia--
    Amendment Relating to Daylight-Saving Time in Other Jurisdictions

Sec. 4.105 To a bill authorizing the commissioners of the District of 
    Columbia to establish daylight-saving time, an amendment relating 
    to daylight-saving time as affecting ``services in interstate 
    commerce'' was held to be not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(12) authorizing daylight-saving time in the District of 
Columbia, an amendment was offered providing that the establishment of 
such time for the District of Columbia should not be construed to 
require any change in time for services in interstate 
commerce.(13) A point of order was raised against the 
amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. S. 736 (Committee on the District of Columbia).
13. 93 Cong. Rec. 4164, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 28, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground it is not 
    germane and covers interstate commerce as distinguished from local 
    jurisdiction.

    The Chairman,(14) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Gordon Canfield (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from South Dakota goes 
    beyond the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, and is not 
    germane. The point of order is sustained.

[[Page 7746]]

Bill Amending Small Business Act--Senate Amendment Providing for Legal 
    Fees for Parties Prevailing Against United States

Sec. 4.106 To a House bill narrowly amending the Small Business Act 
    reported from the Committee on Small Business, a Senate amendment 
    adding a new title providing for the payment of attorney fees and 
    other court expenses to parties prevailing against the United 
    States in court litigation and amending title 28 (within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary) was held not 
    germane (pending a motion to recede and concur in the Senate 
    amendment with an amendment including such provisions, after the 
    conference report on the bill had been ruled out of order).

    The proceedings of Oct. 1, 1980, relating to H.R. 5612 (addressing 
small business assistance and reimbursement for certain fees), are 
discussed in Sec. 26.26, infra.

House Bill Concerning Foreign Relations and Operation of State 
    Department and Other Agencies--Senate Amendment To Provide 
    Guidelines for Acceptance of Foreign Gifts

Sec. 4.107 To a House bill containing diverse amendments to existing 
    laws within the jurisdiction of the Committee on International 
    Relations, relating to foreign relations and the operation of the 
    Department of State and related agencies, a portion of a Senate 
    amendment thereto contained in a conference report, amending the 
    Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act (within the jurisdiction of the 
    same committee) to provide guidelines and procedures for the 
    acceptance of foreign gifts by United States employees and to 
    provide that the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
    adopt regulations governing acceptance by Members and House 
    employees of foreign gifts, was held germane when a point of order 
    was raised against a portion of the conference report under Rule 
    XXVIII clause 4.

[[Page 7747]]

    During consideration of the conference report on H.R. 6689 
(15) in the House on Aug. 3, 1977,(16) the 
Speaker Pro Tempore overruled a point of order in the circumstances 
described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal year 1978.
16. 123 Cong. Rec. 26532, 26533, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       foreign gifts and decorations

        Sec. 515. (a)(1) Section 7342 of title 5, United States Code, 
    is amended to read as follows:
        Sec. 7342. Receipt and disposition of foreign gifts and 
    decorations
        ``(a) For the purpose of this section--
        ``(1) `employee' means--
        ``(A) an employee as defined by section 2105 of this title and 
    an officer or employee of the United States Postal Service or of 
    the Postal Rate Commission . . .
        ``(F) a Member of Congress as defined by section 2106 of this 
    title (except the Vice President) and any Delegate to the Congress 
    . . .
        ``(6) `employing agency' means--
        ``(A) the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the 
    House of Representatives, for Members and employees of the House of 
    Representatives, except that those responsibilities specified in 
    subsections (c)(2)(A), (e), and (g)(2)(B) shall be carried out by 
    the Clerk of the House . . .
        ``(D) the department, agency, office, or other entity in which 
    an employee is employed, for other legislative branch employees and 
    for all executive branch employees . . .
        ``(b) An employee may not--. . .
        ``(2) accept a gift or decoration, other than in accordance 
    with the provisions of subsections (c) and (d).
        ``(c)(1) The Congress consents to--
        ``(A) the accepting and retaining by an employee of a gift of 
    minimal value tendered and received as a souvenir or mark of 
    courtesy; and
        ``(B) the accepting by an employee of a gift of more than 
    minimal value when such gift is in the nature of an educational 
    scholarship or medical treatment or when it appears that to refuse 
    the gift would likely cause offense or embarrassment or otherwise 
    adversely affect the foreign relations of the United States, except 
    that--
        ``(i) a tangible gift of more than minimal value is deemed to 
    have been accepted on behalf of the United States and, upon 
    acceptance, shall become the property of the United States. . . .
        Mr. [Bruce F.] Caputo [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        I would like to make a point of order and I regret that it 
    comes at so late an hour and after the previous discussion. I make 
    the point of order that the matter contained in section 515 of the 
    conference report would not be germane to H.R. 6689 under clause 7 
    of rule XVI if offered in the House and is therefore subject to a 
    point of order under clause 4 of rule XXVIII.
        Let me state that the language in the conference report 
    substantially changes the terms under which the Members of Congress 
    can accept or authorize acceptance of things of value from foreign 
    governments.
        The Constitution clearly provides in article I that each House 
    shall write its own rules. The House has a rule of its

[[Page 7748]]

    own on this matter, rule 44, which we only recently modified, under 
    which Members of Congress could receive things of value from 
    foreign governments.
        The conference report changes that rule because it is a 
    subsequent act of this House and in direct conflict with that rule. 
    In Jefferson's Manual, section 335 and Deschler's Procedures, 
    chapter 5, that is clearly improper. We cannot change the rules of 
    the House in that manner. Let me read from Jefferson's Manual, 
    section 335 briefly. It says:

            But a committee may not report a recommendation which, if 
        carried into effect, would change a rule of the House unless a 
        measure proposing amendments to House rules has initially been 
        referred to the Committee of the Whole by the House.

        This has not been referred to the Committee of the Whole by the 
    House as required by the precedents. Indeed, this is the first time 
    the House has viewed this matter and it would have been impossible 
    for us to have referred it to the Committee of the Whole. It was 
    put in by the other body. We never considered it.
        If the Chair does not sustain my point of order, he will be in 
    effect sustaining the other body in writing the rules of this 
    House. . . .
        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, clause 4 of 
    House rule 43 deals only with gifts to employees. It does not deal 
    with gifts of foreign governments, which is the subject of this 
    amendment.
        Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we have specifically provided that 
    nothing in this section shall be construed in derogation of any 
    regulations prescribed by any Member or agency, and in this 
    instance it would be the Congress or the Ethics Committee, which 
    provides for more stringent limitations on the receipt of gifts and 
    declarations by employees.
        We are dealing with this in this amendment, because it deals 
    with the foreign gifts and declarations section which affects other 
    members of the Government not having anything to do incidentally 
    with Members of the House and in no way changes the rules of the 
    House.
        Mr. Caputo: Mr. Speaker, on page 21 of the committee report, 
    section 515 says such act is amended and then it says, ``a Member 
    of Congress.'' It clearly applies to Members of Congress.
        Let me state what it does. It permits Members of Congress to 
    accept gifts of more than minimum value.
        Page 22, section (c)(1)(B) clearly changes rule 24.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) The Chair is ready to 
    rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York makes a point of order that the 
    conference report contains, in section 515, matter contained in the 
    Senate amendment which would not have been germane to the bill if 
    offered in the House.
        Section 515 amends the Foreign Gifts and Declarations Act to 
    provide new guidelines and procedures relating to the acceptance by 
    employees of the United States of gifts and awards from foreign 
    governments. The section provides that the Committee on Standards 
    of Official Conduct shall have the func

[[Page 7749]]

    tions of regulating the minimum value of an acceptable gift for 
    Members and employees of the House of Representatives, of 
    consenting to the acceptance by Members and employees of gifts in 
    certain circumstances, and of disposing of unacceptable gifts 
    through the General Services Administration. H.R. 6689, the Foreign 
    Relations Authorization Act, as passed by the House, contained a 
    wide variety of amendments to existing laws within the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on International Relations relating generally to 
    the foreign relations of the United States and the operations of 
    the Department of State, the U.S. Information Agency, and the Board 
    for International Broadcasting. It thus appears to the Chair that 
    an amendment to the Foreign Gifts and Declarations Act, a law 
    within the jurisdiction of the committee and relative to our 
    foreign relations, would have been germane to the bill if offered 
    in the House, particularly since section 111 of the House bill 
    dealt with foreign employment by officers of the United States 
    notwithstanding article I, section 9 of the Constitution. The 
    Foreign Gifts and Declarations Act arose from the identical 
    constitutional provision. The fact that the Senate amendment placed 
    new responsibilities on a standing committee of the House does not 
    render the provision subject to a point of order, since no attempt 
    is made to amend the rules of the House or to otherwise exceed the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The point of order was based on the grounds 
that the provision had the effect of amending the Rules of the House, 
to allow the acceptance of gifts prohibited by House Rule 43, the Code 
of Official Conduct. The actual effect of the provision, however, was 
merely to assign the regulatory authority under the Act in relation to 
the House of Representatives, not to supersede a more restrictive 
standard imposed by the Rules or standards of the House of 
Representatives.

Increased Salaries for Members--Amendment Affecting Audits in House

Sec. 4.108 To a bill reported from the Committee on the Post Office and 
    Civil Service providing in part for increased salaries for Members 
    of Congress and legislative employees, an amendment proposing 
    changes in the Accounting and Auditing Act and relating to 
    procedures governing audits of financial transactions of the House 
    of Representatives and the Architect of the Capitol was held to be 
    not germane as within the jurisdiction of another House committee 
    (Government Operations).

[[Page 7750]]

    In the 88th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(18) relating to salary increases for federal officers and 
employees, the following amendment was offered: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 8986 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
19. 110 Cong. Rec. 5125, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 12, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Oliver P. Bolton on page 40, 
    immediately following line 4, insert the following:
        Sec. 203. Section 117 of the Accounting and Auditing Act of 
    1950 (64 Stat. 837; 31 U.S.C. 67)) is amended by adding at the end 
    thereof the following new subsection:
        ``(c) Except as otherwise provided by law, the Comptroller 
    General in auditing the financial transactions of the House of 
    Representatives and of the Architect of the Capitol shall make such 
    audits at such times as he may deem appropriate. For the purpose of 
    conducting such audits, the provisions of section 313 of the Budget 
    and Accounting Act (42 Stat. 26; 31 U.S.C. 54) shall be applicable 
    to the legislative agencies under audit. . . .''

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

        Mr. [James H.] Morrison [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment is not germane and has nothing to do with pay raises. It 
    was not discussed in our committee. It covers a subject completely 
    outside the provisions of the bill. It is not contemplated within 
    the title of the bill.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated, as follows: 
(20)

        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton [of Ohio]: . . . The bill deals with the 
    salary of the Members of the House. My amendment would go toward 
    the accounting for those expenditures of the House which if they 
    were not expended by the House would well be considered salary.

    The Chairman,(21) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The subject matter of the pending bill pertains to salaries of 
    various governmental employees and not to accounting. The amendment 
    that the gentleman from Ohio offers is, in effect, the same as a 
    bill which he has introduced that was referred to the Committee on 
    Government Operations. The subject matter of the bill and of the 
    gentleman's amendment pertains to accounting, which comes under the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations and not 
    under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
    Service.

New Office Within Department of Justice--Amendment To Abolish 
    Department of Justice

Sec. 4.109 To a bill reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, 
    creating a new Office of Criminal Justice within the Department of 
    Justice, an

[[Page 7751]]

    amendment abolishing the Department and transferring its functions 
    to a new independent agency outside the Cabinet, a matter within 
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations, was 
    ruled out as not germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of the Law Enforcement 
and Criminal Justice Assistance Act of 1967,(22) the 
following amendment was offered: (23)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. H.R. 5037 (Committee on the Judiciary).
23. 113 Cong. Rec. 21845, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 8, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William E.] Minshall: On Page 25, 
    strike out lines 5 through 15, and insert the following:
        Sec. 401. (a) There is hereby established as an independent 
    agency of Government an Office of Justice which shall be headed by 
    an Attorney General who shall be appointed for a term of 15 years 
    by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. 
    The Attorney General, in the performance of his duties, shall not 
    be subject to the direction or supervision of the President, nor 
    shall he be a member of his Cabinet.
        ``(b) There are hereby transferred to the Attorney General of 
    the Office of Justice all functions exercised by the Department of 
    Justice on the date of enactment of this Act, including all 
    functions provided for in this Act. Such personnel, property, and 
    unexpended balances of appropriations as the Director of the Bureau 
    of the Budget determines relate primarily to functions transferred 
    by this Act shall be transferred to the Office of Justice.
        ``(c) The Department of Justice, the office of Attorney General 
    in such Department, and all other offices provided for by law in 
    such Department are hereby abolished.
        ``(d) Effective date of this section will be March 1, 1969.''

    In ruling on a point of order raised against the amendment, the 
Chairman (24) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Minshall] 
    proposes the abolishment of the Department of Justice and the 
    transfer of its functions to a newly created Office of Justice. . . 
    .
        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler] has raised the point 
    of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill under 
    consideration.
        The bill now before the Committee of the Whole bestows certain 
    new functions, authority, and responsibilities on the Attorney 
    General. It creates, within the Department of Justice, a new Office 
    of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. It does not reorganize the 
    existing structure of the Department.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio is, in effect, 
    a plan for governmental reorganization, and as such would not be 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, which 
    reported this bill. This is one argument against considering the 
    amendment germane.

[[Page 7752]]

        The Chair feels that the situation presented by this amendment 
    is analogous to that presented when a bill amendatory of existing 
    law in one particular is sought to be amended by a repeal of the 
    law. In those cases, decisions are uniform to the effect that the 
    amendments are not considered germane--volume [Cannon's Precedents] 
    VIII, sections 2948-2949.
        The Chair does not feel that the amendment is within the scope 
    of the bill before the Committee of the Whole. It relates to a 
    subject not under consideration at this time. The Chair therefore 
    sustains the point of order.