[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§ 8. Individual Proposition Offered as Amendment to Another Individual Proposition]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 7898-7947]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 8. Individual Proposition Offered as Amendment to Another 
    Individual Proposition

    A well-established principle governing questions of germaneness is 
that one individual proposition may not be amended by another 
individual proposition even though the two may belong to the same 
class.(14) The question for the Chair frequently consists in 
determining what comprises an ``individual proposition.'' 
(15) For example, it has been held that, to a bill relating 
to relief for one class, an amendment seeking to include another class 
is not germane.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 8.8, 8.17, infra.
15. Where a bill relates to the maintenance and administration of a 
        certain parkway, a proffered amendment affecting the 
        administration of a different parkway is not germane. See 
        Sec. 3.60 (Parliamentarian's Note), supra.
16.  See Sec. 13.19, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Sec. 8.1 To a portion of an appropriation bill containing funds for a 
    certain purpose to be expended by one government agency, an 
    amendment containing funds for another government agency for the 
    same general purpose may not be germane although authorized by law; 
    thus, to a title of a general appropriation bill containing funds 
    for energy programs administered by the Department of Energy, an 
    amendment appropriating a portion of those funds for a pilot wood 
    utilization program authorized by law to be conducted by the 
    Department of

[[Page 7899]]

    Agriculture was held not germane.

    On July 24, 1981,(17) during consideration of the Energy 
and Water Development Appropriations for fiscal 1982 (18) in 
the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order 
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 127 Cong. Rec. 17226, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. H.R. 4144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the gentleman's amendment. . . .
        The amendment is not germane to this paragraph of the bill nor 
    to the bill as a whole. The wood residue program is authorized by 
    Public Law 96-554, and clearly is to be administered by the Forest 
    Service, Department of Agriculture, which is funded under the 
    Interior appropriations bill.
        This program was not authorized to be administered or funded by 
    the Department of Energy, which is where the gentleman's amendment 
    applies.
        Under clause 7, rule XVI, it is stated that it is not in order 
    during consideration in the House to introduce a new subject by way 
    of amendment, and an amendment inserting an additional section 
    should be germane to the portion of the bill to which it is 
    offered.
        I contend this amendment is not germane to this paragraph or 
    this bill and is in violation of clause 7, rule XVI. . . .
        Mr. Weaver: . . . [T]he Department of Energy now funds wood 
    utilization programs. This bill is law. We are not changing 
    existing law. We are referring only to existing law and it is an 
    energy manufacturing program and, therefore, definitely germane to 
    this bill.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order made by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bevill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19.  Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the reasons stated by the gentleman from Alabama, the 
    distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the point of order is 
    sustained and the amendment is held not germane to the pending 
    title of the bill, which relates only to the Department of Energy.

Amendment Changing Existing Law To Achieve Single Purpose Offered to 
    Proposition Not Amending That Law

Sec. 8.2 An amendment changing existing law in order to achieve one 
    individual purpose is not germane to a proposition which does not

[[Page 7900]]

    amend that law and which seeks to accomplish another individual 
    purpose.

    The proceedings of Dec. 14, 1973, relating to H.R. 11450, the 
Energy Emergency Act, are discussed in Sec. 41.20, infra.

Bill Granting Rights to Executive Agency Employees--Amendment To Extend 
    Coverage of Bill to Legislative Employees

Sec. 8.3 Unless a bill so extensively amends existing law as to open up 
    the entire law to amendment, the germaneness of an amendment to the 
    bill depends upon its relationship to the subject of the bill and 
    not to the entire law being amended; thus, to a bill amending a 
    section of title 5, United States Code, granting certain rights to 
    employees of executive agencies of the federal government, an 
    amendment extending those rights to legislative branch employees, 
    as defined in a different section of that title, was held to be 
    beyond the scope of the bill and was held to be not germane.

    On Oct. 28, 1975,(20) during consideration of a bill 
(1) dealing with the right to representation for federal 
executive employees during questioning, the Chair, in ruling that the 
amendment described above was not germane to that bill, reiterated the 
principle that one individual proposition is not germane to another 
individual proposition, even though the two belong to the same class:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 121 Cong. Rec. 34031, 34036, 34037, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1.  H.R. 6227.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 (a) 
        chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding 
        at the end thereof the following new subchapter:

                       ``SUBCHAPTER III--EMPLOYEE RIGHTS

        ``Sec. 7171. Right to representation during questioning

            ``(a) Any employee of an Executive agency under 
        investigation for misconduct which could lead to suspension, 
        removal, or reduction in rank or pay of such employee shall not 
        be required to answer questions relating to the misconduct 
        under investigation unless--
            ``(1) the employee is advised in writing of--
            ``(A) the fact that such employee is under investigation 
        for misconduct,
            ``(B) the specific nature of such alleged misconduct, and
            ``(C) the rights such employee has under paragraph (2) of 
        this subsection, and

[[Page 7901]]

            ``(2) the employee has been provided reasonable time, not 
        to exceed 5 working days, to obtain a representative of his 
        choice, and is allowed to have such representative present 
        during such questioning, if he so elects. . . .

        Mr. [Robin L.] Beard of Tennessee: Madam Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Beard of Tennessee: on page 1, 
        line 8 insert immediately following the word ``agency'' the 
        following: ``, or any employee as defined under section 2107 of 
        this Title,''.

        Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California: Madam Chairman, I have a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Madam Chairman, under rule XVI, clause 7, of the Rules of the 
    House, any amendment to a bill concerning a subject different from 
    those contained in the bill is not germane and is subject to a 
    point of order. The instant amendment proposes to make the bill 
    applicable to a completely new class of employees other than what 
    is covered under the bill, namely, congressional employees. 
    However, the reported bill applies only to employees of executive 
    agencies as defined under section 105.
        In my opinion, the subject of the amendment is not similar to 
    any of the subject matters involved in H.R. 6227 which I have just 
    outlined and is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Beard of Tennessee: . . . Madam Chairman, I feel the 
    amendment is germane to this particular bill inasmuch as the people 
    we are including in this bill are Federal employees and those 
    concerning whom we are legislating today are Federal employees. . . 
    .
        Madam Chairman, if I may be heard further on the point of 
    order, all this does is to remove an exemption rather than add a 
    group of employees. It is just removing an exemption, and I believe 
    that is the fair thing to do.
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill before us is very explicit as to its scope. It 
    includes any employee of an executive agency. The bill itself, by 
    its own terms, affects the class of civil servants known as 
    executive agency employees.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
    Beard) would seek to amend the bill by adding a totally different 
    individual class of employees to the bill beyond the scope of the 
    bill, namely, congressional employees as defined in section 2107.
        The rule of germaneness, in terms of amendments of this kind, 
    states as follows: One individual proposition may not be amended by 
    another individual proposition, even though the two belong to the 
    same class.
        In light of that principle and in light of the scope of this 
    bill, the Chair rules that this amendment is not germane and is, 
    therefore, out of order. . . .
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Madam Chairman, 
    respecting the chairperson's ruling, in regard to title V to which 
    this bill addresses itself, an amendment to title V includes all 
    employees, including the President, Members of Congress, and 
    members of the uniformed services, even though this bill has 
    application,

[[Page 7902]]

    as the gentlewoman has said, only to Federal employees. Therefore, 
    this title V does apply to all Federal employees. . . .
        The Chairman: To the gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot) 
    the Chair would only state that the germaneness of the amendment 
    must be weighed against the content and scope of the bill and not 
    title V of the United States Code, as the gentleman would interpret 
    it.

Bill Relating to Civil Service Employees--Amendment To Extend Coverage 
    of Bill to Postal and District of Columbia Employees

Sec. 8.4 To a bill relating to a certain class of federal employees 
    (the civil service), an amendment to bring another class of 
    employees (postal and District of Columbia employees) within the 
    scope of the bill is not germane.

    On Sept. 7, 1978,(3) during consideration of a bill 
(4) containing proposals to reform the federal civil service 
through merit system principles and personnel management, a point of 
order was made against two titles of a committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, one dealing with the work week of federal 
firefighters and one amending a law (the ``Hatch Act'') regulating 
political activities of postal and District of Columbia employees as 
well as the civil service. The point of order was made pursuant to a 
special order allowing a point of order based on the contention that 
both titles taken together would not have been germane if offered as a 
separate amendment to the bill as introduced, and providing that if the 
point of order were sustained, the committee amendment after deletion 
of those titles, would be read as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment. The Chair ruled that the amendment was not germane, basing 
such ruling on the inclusion of postal and District employees within 
the coverage of the bill, without deciding the issue relating to 
inclusion of provisions as to the work week of federal firefighters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 124 Cong. Rec. 28437-39, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (H.R. 11280).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (5) . . . Pursuant to the rule, The 
    Clerk will now read by titles the committee amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Post Office and 
    Civil Service now printed in the reported bill as an original bill 
    for the purpose of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. George E. Danielson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk proceeded to read the bill.
        Mr. [Lloyd] Meeds [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order

[[Page 7903]]

    against titles IX and X, based on their violation of clause 7, rule 
    XVI, in that they are nongermane to the bill before us.
        Title IX deals with two groups of employees not covered in the 
    original bill. It includes postal workers and District of Columbia 
    employees. There is much precedent which indicates that we have 
    classes of subjects not covered by the basic proposition before us, 
    which renders the new material nongermane. That is precisely what 
    title IX does by adding two new subjects.
        Title X, on the other hand, introduces new subject matter, the 
    pay of firefighters that is not covered in the original bill. Title 
    X deals exclusively with hours of work and wages of firefighters, 
    while the original bill deals with the institution of the merit 
    system within the system. Where hours or wages are included, it is 
    only incidental to the basic proposition of the merit system, so 
    both of these titles should be stricken for the above reason, and 
    for the added reason that neither proposition amends the original 
    bill. Rather, both seek to amend existing and basic law. . . .
        Mr. [William] Clay [of Missouri]: . . . The facts are fairly 
    obvious--and the connections between Hatch Act reform and the rest 
    of H.R. 11280 are quite strong--
        First, the bill, in section 2302 (on page 138, beginning on 
    line 24) defines improper political activities as a prohibited 
    personnel practice. Title IX of the bill states exactly what these 
    improper political activities are.
        Second, the bill charges the special counsel of the Merit 
    System Protection Board (MSPB) with responsibility for not only 
    investigating prohibited personnel activities in general but 
    improper political activities in particular. (See page 160, 
    beginning on line 24.) Title IX of the bill defines more fully 
    these activities which apply to Federal civilian as well as postal 
    employees.
        Mr. Chairman, it is inconceivable to me that this bill--which 
    touches on virtually every aspect of civil service--should have 
    political activities and firefighters singled out for this kind of 
    shabby treatment. . . .
        Mr. [Herbert E.] Harris [II, of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    point of order under the rule applies to titles IX and X, and comes 
    before this House in a most unusual, and indeed a peculiar, way 
    that the Chair perhaps would have to rule against the germaneness 
    of one title that will be germane, because it is connected in the 
    rule to another title that the Chair may consider nongermane.
        I think it is unfortunate that the House must consider the 
    matter in that fashion. I would point out to the Chair with regard 
    to this point of order that title X, in fact, does pass the 
    jurisdictional test. It was in fact with the same jurisdiction 
    committee, the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, as this 
    bill is brought; therefore, it passes that jurisdictional test as 
    far as the case is concerned.
        I would point out further that the firefighter bill was 
    actually reported out of this committee and came before this House; 
    it passed by almost a 2-to-1 margin. Again, it reaches the 
    fundamental purpose test.
        The bill itself is for the reform of the civil service system 
    by title. This bill is for the reform of the working condi

[[Page 7904]]

    tions of the firefighters, a part of the civil service system by 
    title. The fundamental purpose of both bills are exactly the same, 
    that is, reform of the system. . . .
        I can cite precedents to indicate that when a bill deals with 
    several particulars, one particular may be held to be germane.
        In fact, this class is the same as the other titles of the 
    bill. A bill may be amended by a specific proposition of the same 
    class.
        I would be happy to quote to the Chair about a dozen precedents 
    that make this point.
        If in fact we were to deal with the whole civil service system, 
    dealing with a particular part of that system, that is the 
    firefighters and their work rules is a particular matter within 
    that system. Therefore, I would urge the Chair to overrule the 
    point of order and hold title X as germane.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Washington makes a point of 
    order against titles IX and X of the committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Post Office 
    and Civil Service, on the grounds that those titles would not have 
    been germane if offered as an amendment to the bill H.R. 11280, as 
    introduced.
        As indicated by the gentleman from Washington, the special 
    order providing for consideration of this measure, House Resolution 
    1307, allows the Chair to entertain a point of order on the basis 
    stated by the gentleman, that titles IX and X would not have been 
    germane as a separate amendment to H.R. 11280 in its introduced 
    form.
        The bill as introduced and referred to the Committee on Post 
    Office and Civil Service, although broad in its coverage of reform 
    proposals within the competitive service and in the executive 
    branch of the Government, is limited to merit system principles and 
    personnel management within the civil service of the U.S. 
    Government. Title IX of the committee amendment is designed to 
    characterize and to protect appropriate political activities of 
    employees of the District of Columbia and Postal Service as well as 
    civil service employees, by amending the Hatch Act. The Chair 
    agrees with the argument of the gentleman from Washington that the 
    amendment would add an entirely new class of employees to that 
    covered by the bill, and for that reason is not germane.
        Accordingly the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Governing Political Activities of Federal Civilian Employees--
    Amendment To Extend Coverage to Military Personnel

Sec. 8.5 To a bill governing the political activities of a certain 
    class of federal employees, an amendment broadening the scope of 
    the bill to cover another class of federal employees is not 
    germane; thus, where a bill contained a provision excluding from 
    its coverage a particular class (members of the uniformed 
    services), the effect of which was to narrow the scope of the bill 
    to an

[[Page 7905]]

    other single class (federal civilian employees), an amendment 
    proposing to strike out that exclusion from coverage, thereby 
    broadening the scope of the bill to include the separate class, was 
    held not germane.

    On June 7, 1977,(6) during consideration of the Federal 
Employees' Political Activities Act of 1977,(7) the Chair 
held that an amendment which by deleting an exception to the definition 
of the class covered by the bill and by inserting new provisions has 
the effect of including another class, is not germane. The amendment 
and proceedings related thereto were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 123 Cong. Rec. 7713, 17714, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. H.R. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Kindness: Page 28, line 12, 
        strike out ``but does not include a member of the uniformed 
        services'' and insert ``including any member of the uniformed 
        services''. . . .
            Page 38, line 14, immediately before the period insert ``or 
        by reason of being a member of the uniformed services''.
            Page 45, before line 8, insert the following:
            ``(j) The preceding provisions of this section shall not 
        apply in the case of a violation by a member of a uniformed 
        service. Procedures with respect to any such violation shall, 
        under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, be the 
        same as those applicable with respect to violations of section 
        892 of title 10.
            Page 46, after line 12, insert the following:
            ``(c) The preceding provisions of this section shall not 
        apply in the case of a violation by a member of the uniformed 
        services. Any such violation shall, under regulations 
        prescribed by the Secretary concerned, be subject to the same 
        penalties as apply in the case of a violation of section 892 of 
        title 10.''.
            Page 47, after line 21, insert the following:
            ``(d) In the case of members of the uniformed services, the 
        Secretary concerned shall carry out the responsibilities 
        imposed on the Commission under the preceding provisions of 
        this section.''. . . .
            Page 48, after line 17, insert:
            ``(c) In the case of members of the uniformed services, the 
        Secretary concerned shall prescribe the regulations the 
        Commission is required to prescribe under this section, section 
        7322(9)), and section 7324(c)(2) and (3) of this title.''. . . 
        .

        Mr. [William] Clay [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I raise the 
    point of order on the grounds that the matter contained in the 
    amendment is in violation of the germaneness rule stated in clause 
    7 of House rule XVI.
        The instant amendment proposes to make the bill applicable to 
    an entirely new class of individuals other than what is covered 
    under the bill.
        The reported bill applies only to civilian employees in 
    executive branch agencies, including the Postal Service and the 
    District of Columbia government, who are presently under the Hatch 
    Act.
        The amendment seeks to add a totally different class of 
    individuals to

[[Page 7906]]

    the bill; namely, military personnel who are not now covered by the 
    Hatch Act. Accordingly the amendment is not germane to the bill. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Thomas N.] Kindness [of Ohio]: Responding (to) the point 
    of order, Mr. Chairman, the bill, as before us at this time, has 
    been expanded in considerable degree by the Clay amendment and by 
    other amendments that have been adopted during the course of the 
    consideration of the bill in the Committee of the Whole.
        However, I would point out that the amendment is germane, and I 
    particularly direct the attention of the chairman and the Members 
    to line 12 of page 28 where, in the definition of the word 
    ``employee'' the words appear, on line 12, ``but does not include a 
    member of the uniformed services.''
        Mr. Chairman, that is the very crux of this whole point. The 
    committee has given consideration, apparently, to the inclusion or 
    exclusion of members of uniformed services under the provisions of 
    this bill. A conscious decision was apparently made; and as 
    reported to the House, this bill has that conscious decision 
    reflected in it not to include members of the uniformed services.
        Mr. Chairman, the issue is directly before the House in that 
    form, so that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio is 
    in order, is pertinent, and is germane. It could not be nongermane.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. James R. Mann (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) makes a point of order 
    that the striking of the language, ``but does not include a member 
    of the uniformed services,'' and the remainder of the amendment 
    broadens the scope of the bill in violation of rule XVI, clause 7.
        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kindness) argues that because the 
    exclusion from coverage for the military is in the bill and has 
    received consideration, that the germaneness rule should be more 
    liberally interpreted. . . .
        An annotation to clause 7, rule XVI, says that, in general, an 
    amendment simply striking out words already in a bill may not be 
    attacked as not germane unless such action would change the scope 
    and meaning of the text. Cannon's VIII, section 2921; Deschler's 
    chapter 28, sec. 15.3.
        On October 28, 1975, Chairman Jordan of Texas ruled, during the 
    consideration of a bill H.R. 2667, giving the right of 
    representation to Federal employees during questioning as follows:

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

        The class of employees included in this legislation is confined 
    to civilian employees of the Government, and those specifically so 
    stated and described as being civilian employees of the executive 
    agencies, of the Postal Service and of the District of Columbia 
    government, and a reference to the Hatch Act as currently in force 
    indicates that military personnel are not included in that act.

[[Page 7907]]

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

Bill Containing Cost-of-living Adjustment for Foreign Service 
    Retirees--Amendment To Adjust Civil Service Annuities

Sec. 8.6 To a bill reported from the Committee on International 
    Relations containing a cost-of-living adjustment for foreign 
    service retirees, an amendment containing a comparable adjustment 
    in annuities for federal civil service employees was held to be not 
    germane as beyond the scope of the bill and within the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

    During consideration of H.R. 13179 (the State Department 
authorization bill for fiscal 1977)), it was demonstrated that an 
individual proposition may not be germane to another individual 
proposition even though they may belong to the same generic class. The 
proceedings of June 18, 1976,(9) wherein the Chair sustained 
a point of order against the amendment described above, were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 122 Cong. Rec. 19224, 19226, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 7908]]

     cost-of-living adjustments of foreign service retirement annuities

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Derwinski: Page 10, strike out 
        lines 3 through 9 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            Sec. 13. (a) Section 882(b) of the Foreign Service Act of 
        1946 (22 U.S.C. 1121(b)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(b) Effective the first day of the second month which 
        begins after the price index change equals a rise of at least 3 
        percent for a month over the price index for the month last 
        used to establish an increase, each annuity payable from the 
        Fund having a commencing date not later than that effective 
        date shall be increased by such percentage rise in the price 
        index, adjusted to the nearest 1/10th of 1 percent.''. . .

             cost-of-living adjustments of civil service annuities

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

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

[[Page 7909]]

        Mr. Chairman, I urge the point of order be overruled.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Bill Amending Part of Law Relating to Prohibition Against Former 
    Executive Branch Employees Appearing Before Agency on Matters 
    Within Former Responsibility--Amendment To Repeal Prohibition in 
    Another Section of Law Against Appearances by Former Officials 
    Irrespective of Subject Matter

Sec. 8.7 To a bill amending one subsection of law dealing with one 
    prohibited type of activity, an amendment to another subsection 
    dealing with a related but separate prohibited type of activity is 
    not germane; thus, to a bill narrowly amending one subsection of 
    existing law to modify prohibitions against former executive branch 
    employees appearing before their former employing agency for a 
    certain time on matters within their former responsibility, further 
    narrowed by amendment to strike proposed changes in another 
    subsection of that law relating to coverage of categories of former 
    officials under the entire law, an amendment to a third subsection 
    of that section of law to repeal a separate prohibition against 
    appearances by former senior executive officials irrespective of 
    the subject matter of the appearance or communication, was held not 
    germane to the bill as perfected by amendment.

    On May 16, 1979,(11) during consideration of S. 869 in 
the Committee of the Whole, the bill had been amended to narrow it to 
one subsection of law. The amended bill read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 125 Cong. Rec. 11470-72, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That subsection (b) 
    of section 207 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by the 
    Act of October 26, 1978 (Public Law 95-521, section 501 (a); 92 
    Stat. 1864)) is amended as follows: In clause (ii), strike 
    ``concerning'' and insert ``by personal presence at''; and in 
    subparagraph (3), before ``which was'' insert ``, as to (i),'' and 
    after ``responsibility, or'' insert ``, as to (ii),''.

[[Page 7910]]

        Subsection (d)(3) of the aforesaid section 207 is amended by 
    striking ``O-7'' and inserting ``O-9''; and by inserting after 
    ``or'' the following: ``at such pay grade of O-7 or O-8 who has 
    significant decisionmaking or supervisory responsibility as 
    designated by the Director of the Office of Government Ethics in 
    consultation with the head of the department or agency concerned; 
    or''.

    The Chair then sustained a point of order against the following 
amendment:

        Mr. [Thomas N.] Kindness [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment and ask unanimous consent for its immediate 
    consideration.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            On page 2, following line 2, add the following new sections 
        to the bill:
            ``Sec. 2. Subsection (c) of section 207 of title 18, United 
        States Code, is hereby repealed.
            ``Sec. 3. Section 207 of title 18, United States Code is 
        further amended--
            (1) in subsection (d) by striking out ``(c)'' and inserting 
        in lieu thereof ``(b)(ii)'';
            (2) in subsection (e) by striking out ``(c)'' and inserting 
        in lieu thereof ``(b)(ii)'';
            (3) in subsection (f) by striking out ``(a), (b), and (c)'' 
        and inserting in lieu thereof ``(a) and (b)'';
            (4) in subsection (i) by striking out ``(c)'' and inserting 
        in lieu thereof ``(b)(ii)'';
            (5) in subsection (j) by striking out ``(a), (b), or (c)'' 
        and by inserting in lieu thereof ``(a) or (b)''; and
            (6) by redesignating subsection (d) through (j) as 
        subsections (c) through (i), respectively. . . .

        Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    gentleman's amendment would repeal subsection (c) of title 207 of 
    the United States Code. I respectfully submit that it is not 
    germane inasmuch as the bill pending before the committee at this 
    time refers only to subsection (b) of section 207 of the United 
    States Code. It has nothing to do with subsection (c). Therefore, 
    it is beyond the scope of the bill and is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Kindness: This railroad is running pretty fast. The 
    chairman of the subcommittee has just shown a lack of confidence in 
    this bill. So much so that all we can consider under a very 
    narrowly drawn committee amendment is just a little bit of the 
    section that is involved. The real controversy lies outside of 
    subsection (b). . . .
        Now, as to the germaneness of the amendment that is before us, 
    it relates to section 207. It relates specifically to section 
    207(c). No amount of cute parliamentary maneuvering can remove 
    subsection (b) from section 207. Under the rules of the House, the 
    whole section is appropriate for consideration.
        The previous ruling of the Chair related to the establishment 
    of some other section of law; but this is right in the same section 
    and it is inappropriate to limit the application of this bill to 
    just a portion of the section which is, indeed, a sentence. To 
    limit it to only subsection (b) would not be to even consider the 
    complete sentence.
        Mr. [Carlos J.] Moorhead [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    wanted to speak to that point of order. The title of this bill is 
    an act to amend section 207 of title 18, United States Code. That 
    is exactly what this amendment does. It amends section 207 of title 
    18 of the United States Code. It should be relevant.

[[Page 7911]]

        Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, on that point, in connection with 
    the point raised by the gentleman from California (Mr. Moorhead), 
    we must relate the ruling of the Chair on the point of order that 
    has been raised to section 501 of title 18 of the United States 
    Code. There can be no way to relate the ruling to section 501 of 
    title 18 without it being in order and germane to consider 
    everything within that section 501. . . .
        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I speak in 
    opposition to the point of order. As has been said before, both the 
    matter before the House and the amendment relate to section 207. 
    Both address the same question, the precise question, that was 
    addressed by the original bill. This amendment is both germane to 
    the original bill and germane to the committee amendment.
        It is stated in the report:

            The purpose of the proposed legislation is to make two 
        clarifying amendments to section 207 of title 18, as amended by 
        the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. This section bars certain 
        government contacts or activity by former Federal officials and 
        employees after they have left government employment.

        Mr. Chairman, in discussing the purpose of the amendment, Mr. 
    Charles Curtis is quoted on page 4. It is said:

            Many top level Federal officers and employees come to a 
        Federal agency from outside the government. Generally, they 
        serve for a limited term or at the pleasure of the agency head 
        or the President. They do not intend, nor could they reasonably 
        expect, to make a career in Federal service. It is 
        fundamentally important, therefore, if we are to be able to 
        convince senior, highly qualified individuals to contribute 
        their talents to government that we preserve a reasonable 
        opportunity that they will be able to continue to pursue their 
        profession after they leave government.

        Mr. Chairman, both the original bill and the amendment offered, 
    and incidentally, both the original bill and the amendment offered 
    open up section 207 in order to correct it for a specific purpose. 
    They open that section to correct it in order to prevent a bar to 
    persons going out of Government from continuing to engage in the 
    type of skills and employment that they are trained for. The 
    amendment that is contained in the original bill purports to do 
    that by saying that nothing in the provision addressed will apply 
    to an employee who does not appear personally before the agency.
        The amendment that is offered to this simply strikes out all of 
    the third paragraph that addresses the same kind of question and 
    strikes out an absolute prohibition against an employee appearing 
    before the commission at all for any purpose during a period of 1 
    year.
        These both address the same problem. They have both been 
    addressed in hearings before the committee; they have both been 
    addressed by officials of Government over and over again.
        Mechanically, this is germane because it deals with the same 
    section, and substantially it is germane, because it deals with the 
    same problem.
        If a point of order could be so narrowly drawn, then there 
    would be no opportunity to meet a question addressed in the same 
    section of a bill except by one means. There would be no

[[Page 7912]]

    option of meeting the same problem by another means.
        In drawing so narrow a construction of the rules of 
    germaneness, which, incidentally are not perfect--they are somewhat 
    widely permitted to vary--if there could be any argument of 
    reasonableness, it would be that one may address the question of 
    the revolving door proposition either by permitting employees not 
    to be barred absolutely for a year or by means of saying that a 
    person will not be barred except for personal appearance. These are 
    two ways of reaching the same question under the same section. . . 
    .
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: . . . I would just like 
    to note that even though the title itself refers to the full 
    section, the body of the bill relates only to subsection (b) and 
    subsection (d) as originally passed by the Senate and sent over to 
    this body. It does not relate in any way to subsection (c), which 
    is the subject of the amendment and, therefore, I believe the 
    germaneness rule, which I will acknowledge is a narrow 
    interpretation, should be followed here, and that only amendments 
    to those two parts of section 207 would be in order. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.  E de la Garza (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair can only rule with respect to the legislation which 
    appears before the Committee of the Whole in its present form, and 
    that is S. 869.
        By a previous amendment adopted in the committee, the reference 
    to subsection (d)(3) has been stricken from the bill. The only 
    other subsection that remains in the bill is subsection (b) of 
    section 207 of title 18 addressing one category of employees. Any 
    mention made of the title to the bill is not considered as a 
    substantive part of the legislation and does not determine the 
    germaneness of an amendment to the test.
        Therefore, under the precedents as studied by the Chair, the 
    Chair will sustain the point of order.

Bill To Increase Legislative Clerk-hire Allowance--Amendment Affecting 
    Private Sector Employment

Sec. 8.8 To a bill increasing the allowance of Members and Delegates 
    for clerk hire, an amendment providing that nothing in the act or 
    in any executive order or rule of any government agency shall 
    prohibit any employer from paying to any employee a wage equivalent 
    to 75 cents per hour was held to be not germane.

    The Chairman,(13) in making the above ruling with 
respect to an amendment offered by Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
stated: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.  Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
14. 90 Cong. Rec. 9013, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 7, 1944. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 5590 (Committee on Accounts), relating 
        to clerk-hire allowances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Virginia has offered an amendment which has 
    been

[[Page 7913]]

    reported, to which the gentleman from Missouri (15) has 
    made a point of order on the ground that the amendment is not 
    germane to the pending bill. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Mr. John J. Cochran.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair . . . invites attention to page 193 of Cannon's 
    Precedents of the House of Representatives, which states under the 
    subject of germaneness:

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

        . . . [T]he Chair sustains the point of order.

Resolution Requesting Budgetary Information From President--Amendment 
    Requesting Budgetary Information From Certain House Members

Sec. 8.9 To a resolution requesting the President to furnish certain 
    information pertaining to the 1958 budget, an amendment requesting 
    that House Members who signed the proposed program for the 
    Democrats also furnish budgetary information was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 85th Congress, during consideration of a resolution 
(16) as described above, the following amendment was 
offered: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16.  H. Res. 190 (Committee on Appropriations).
17. 103 Cong. Rec. 3525, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 12, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Page 
    1, line 5, immediately preceding the word ``Resolved'' insert:
        Resolved, That the signers of the proposed program for the 
    Democrats in the House of Representatives . . . are . . . requested 
    to furnish to the Clerk of the Committee on Appropriations a 
    statement indicating whether the amounts named in the budget as 
    submitted for foreign policy and national defense . . . are 
    excessive or deficient. . . .

    Mr. Clarence A. Cannon, of Missouri, made the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane. The Chairman, Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, 
in sustaining the point of order, stated:

        The pending resolution deals entirely and exclusively with the 
    request for information from the executive branch of the 
    Government. The gentleman's amendment deals entirely with a request 
    for information with respect to the House of Representatives, part 
    of the legislative branch of the Government, and is not germane.

    Subsequently, during consideration of the same resolution, another 
amendment was ruled out of order on similar grounds. Such amendment 
stated: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 3527.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Leslie C.] Arends [of Illinois]: 
    After line 4, insert:
        Resolved, That the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations 
    . . . be

[[Page 7914]]

    asked within 3 weeks to report to the House as to where reductions 
    can be made in the budget.

Bill To Protect Federal Government From Subversive Activities--
    Amendment Relating to Protection of ``Any Government'' in United 
    States

Sec. 8.10 To a bill relating to registration of Communist organizations 
    and concerned with protection of the federal government from 
    subversive activities, an amendment providing that ``It shall be 
    unlawful for any person . . . to collaborate [with others] in 
    working for the overthrow . . . or weakening of any government in 
    the United States,'' was held to be not germane.

    In the 81st Congress, a bill (19) was under 
consideration to protect the United States against certain subversive 
activities. An amendment was offered (20) as described 
above. A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 9490 (Committee on Un-American Activities).
20. 96 Cong. Rec. 13762, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 29, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane. This is a 
    registration act. The amendment would properly be to the Smith Act.

    The following exchange ensued:

        The Chairman: (1) The Chair would like to inquire of 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania if he has taken into consideration 
    that on page 9, in section 4 there are certain prohibited acts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.  Albert A. Gore (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walter: Mr. Chairman, I call the attention of the Chair to 
    the fact those prohibited acts are on the part of employees of the 
    Government. The amendment goes further and applies to anybody who 
    conspires to overthrow the Government, either by force or violence 
    or by peaceful means.

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

        It is true that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Florida [Mr. Bennett] deals with acts relating to the destruction 
    or weakening of any government in the United States, which the 
    Chair would interpret to mean the government of any subdivision of 
    the country, referring to section 4. The bill before the committee 
    deals only with the Federal Government of the United States. 
    Therefore the Chair is constrained to rule that the amendment is 
    not germane to the bill now under consideration.

    Subsequently, a similar amendment was allowed which deleted the 
reference to ``any government'' in the United States.

[[Page 7915]]

Bill Providing for Census and Apportionment of Representatives--
    Amendment Invoking Constitutional Provisions Requiring Reduction of 
    Basis of Representation Where Voting Rights Abridged

Sec. 8.11 To a bill providing for a census and apportionment of 
    Representatives in Congress, an amendment was held to be not 
    germane which sought to invoke constitutional provisions requiring 
    reduction of the basis of representation where the right of 
    citizens to vote is abridged.

    In the 76th Congress, the bill (2) described above was 
under consideration when the following amendment was offered: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.  S. 2505 (Committee on the Census).
 3. 86 Cong. Rec. 4384, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Apr. 11, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John C.] Schafer of Wisconsin: Page 
    2, after the period at the end of the last line insert: ``Provided 
    That in submitting the statement to Congress and making the 
    apportionment, the reduction provided in section 2 of the 
    fourteenth amendment to the Constitution shall be made.''

    Mr. Lindsay C. Warren, of North Carolina, raised the point of order 
that the amendment was not germane. In defense of the amendment, the 
proponent stated:

        Mr. Chairman, the committee reported the bill with an amendment 
    excluding two classes of people who are not to be counted in the 
    apportionment, namely, aliens and Indians. This amendment therefore 
    opens up the bill so that . . . we can add another class of those 
    to be excluded in the count. . . .

    The Chairman, Marvin Jones, of Texas, in sustaining the point of 
order, noted that, ``the pending bill only deals with the mechanics of 
an apportionment and does not deal with the census itself.'' 
(4) He cited the principle that, ``One individual 
proposition may not be amended by another individual proposition,'' 
(5) and also quoted a prior ruling of the Chair which had 
included the observation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 4385.
 5. Id. at p. 4384.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . that even though a subject relates to the same matter, 
    yet if it introduces a new element or an element of uncertainty, or 
    if it provides a future action upon the happening of something 
    indefinite, the matter so offered is not then germane as an 
    amendment.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 4385.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joint Resolution Proposing Constitutional Amendment To Reform Electoral 
    College Process--Amendment Relating to Apportionment of 
    Representatives

Sec. 8.12 To a joint resolution proposing a constitutional

[[Page 7916]]

    amendment relating to the election of the President and Vice 
    President by popular vote rather than through the electoral college 
    process, an amendment pertaining to the apportionment of 
    Representatives and the size of congressional districts was held to 
    be not germane.

    In the 91st Congress, a bill (7) was under consideration 
proposing an amendment to the Constitution relating to the election of 
the President and Vice President. The following amendment was offered 
to the bill: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.J. Res. 681 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 8. 115 Cong. Rec. 25983, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 18, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Thaddeus J.] Dulski [of New York]: 
    Page 3, insert after line 14 the following:

            Sec. 6. In each State entitled . . . to more than one 
        Representative . . . there shall be established . . . a number 
        of districts equal to the number of Representatives to which 
        such State is so entitled. . . . [N]o district . . . shall 
        contain a number of persons . . . more than 2\1/2\ per centum 
        greater or less than the average obtained by dividing the whole 
        number of persons in such State . . . by the number of 
        Representatives to which such State is entitled. . . .
            Page 3, strike out lines 17 and 18, and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:

        Sec. 8. The first five sections of this article shall take 
    effect one year after the 21st day of January following 
    ratification. Section 6 of this article shall not apply to any 
    Congress beginning prior to one year after the date of ratification 
    of this article or to any Congress prior to the 93rd Congress.

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

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: . . . House Joint 
    Resolution 681 relates to the election of the President and Vice 
    President. The Dulski amendment prescribes standards for 
    congressional redistricting and is not germane to the purposes of 
    the resolution under consideration.

    The Chairman, Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, in ruling on the point 
of order, stated: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 25984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The joint resolution presently under consideration relates to 
    the method of selecting the President and Vice President of the 
    United States. There is no reference therein to the apportionment 
    of Representatives or to their election.
        Therefore, the Chair holds that the establishment or 
    description of congressional districts is not a matter that is 
    within the scope of the pending joint resolution and the amendment 
    is not germane.

Bill Regulating Poll Closing Time in Presidential Elections--Amendment 
    Extending Coverage of Bill to Primary Elections

Sec. 8.13 To a bill regulating poll closing time in presidential

[[Page 7917]]

    general elections, an amendment extending the provisions of that 
    bill to presidential primary elections is not germane.

    On Jan. 29, 1986,(10) it was demonstrated that an 
individual proposition may not be germane to another individual 
proposition although the two may belong to the same class, when the 
Chair sustained a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 132 Cong. Rec. 684, 99th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 3525, a bill providing for uniform poll closing time for 
        presidential elections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Frenzel: On page 3, line 18, 
        insert the following: ``primary and'' before the word 
        ``general''.
            On page 4, line 4, after the word ``election'' insert the 
        following: ``or a Presidential primary election in which there 
        is more than one State conducting its primary election,''. . .

        Mr. [Dennis E.] Eckart of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I offer a point 
    of order based on clause 7 of rule XVI, the germaneness rule. I 
    would cite in particular Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 
    7 to the effect that ``one individual proposition is not germane to 
    another individual proposition.'' This bill deals exclusively with 
    Presidential general elections. The amendment deals with 
    Presidential primary elections. I make the point of order that the 
    amendment is not germane and would go further to the point that 
    suggests that not all States in fact have primaries. Many have 
    conventions, many have other delegate selection processes known as 
    caucuses, and therefore the application of this amendment across 
    general election procedures would not be uniform. Therefore I 
    insist on my point of order based on the germaneness rule. . . .
        Mr. Frenzel: . . . It is true that the primary system is 
    nonuniform. It is also true that this bill is not uniform, since it 
    now eliminates certain jurisdictions, and, of course, from the 
    origination did not include two of our great States, who have a 
    part in both the general and the primary process.
        However, the point that I made is, that without primary 
    elections it would be impossible to select the candidates for the 
    general election; and to say that a person's vote in the general 
    election has a different value or weight than one in the primary 
    election, I think, is something that is antithetical to our form of 
    representative government.
        It is all one process; it is inseverable, and whatever the 
    precedent says about this thing, I think most sentient Americans 
    would suggest that an election bill handled by a committee with 
    election jurisdiction that could not be amended for a primary would 
    be a very strange election bill, indeed. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Doug Barnard, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As stated in the committee report, the sole purpose of the bill 
    is to regulate Presidential general elections in

[[Page 7918]]

    terms of poll closing. An amendment to extend the scope of the bill 
    to Presidential primary elections is not germane under the 
    principle that an individual proposition is not germane to another 
    individual proposition although the two may belong to the same 
    class, and the point of order is sustained.

Senate Amendment Relating to Availability of Senate Contingent Fund for 
    Historical Items in Capitol--House Amendment Relating to 
    Availability of House Unexpended Balances for Additional Purposes

Sec. 8.14 To a Senate amendment relating to availability of the Senate 
    contingent fund for art and historical items in the Capitol 
    buildings, a proposed House amendment relating also to the 
    availability of House unexpended balances for those or other 
    purposes authorized by law, or required to implement specified 
    House resolutions (such as those relating to ``mass franked 
    mailings''), was conceded to be not germane.

    The proceedings of May 24, 1990, relating to the conference report 
on H.R. 4404, the Dire Emergency supplemental appropriations, are 
discussed in Sec. 27.36, infra.

Bill Authorizing Specified Individuals' Appeals From Court of Claims--
    Amendment Conferring Jurisdiction on Court of Claims To Hear Claims 
    of Other Individuals

Sec. 8.15 To a bill authorizing an appeal to the Supreme Court from a 
    judgment of the Court of Claims in a specific case, an amendment 
    conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Claims to hear and 
    determine another case was held to be not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (12) was under 
consideration which stated: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 7230 (Committee on the Judiciary).
13. 86 Cong. Rec. 10274, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Aug. 13, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That George A. Carden and Anderson T. 
    Herd, or their legal representatives may, at any time within ---- 
    months after the date of the enactment of this act, appeal as of 
    right to the Supreme Court of the United States from the judgment 
    of the Court of Claims of the United States in the suit No. 42711 
    heretofore instituted. . . .

    An amendment was offered providing in part: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 10275.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon the Court of Claims 
    of the United States, notwithstanding any lapse of

[[Page 7919]]

    time or statute of limitation, to hear, determine, and render 
    judgment upon the claim or claims of (particular persons).

    Mr. Zebulon Weaver, of North Carolina, raised the point of order 
that the amendment was not germane to the bill. Chairman Luther 
Johnson, of Texas, in sustaining the point of order, stated:

        The bill under consideration, H.R. 7230, relates merely to one 
    claim, that of George A. Carden and Anderson T. Herd. The bill 
    confers upon these claimants the right to take their case from the 
    Court of Claims to the Supreme Court of the United States. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania covers a 
    number of other parties in other claims who it does not appear are 
    in any way related to the pending bill.

Bill Prohibiting Speculation in Onion Futures--Amendment Prohibiting 
    Speculation in Potato Futures

Sec. 8.16 To a bill prohibiting speculation in onion futures, an 
    amendment prohibiting speculation in Irish potato futures was held 
    to be not germane.

    In the 85th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(15) to amend the Commodity Exchange Act to prohibit trading 
in onion futures, an amendment was offered (16) as described 
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 376 (Committee on Agriculture).
16. 104 Cong. Rec. 4325, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 13, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Victor L. Anfuso, of New York, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane. In defense of the amendment, the 
proponent stated as follows:

        Mr. [Clifford G.] McIntire [of Maine]: Mr. Chairman, I do want 
    to point out that my amendment is consistent with the legislative 
    work which this committee has done. . . .
        . . . I will accept the ruling of the Chairman, but in view of 
    all the legislative work which has been done in relation to 
    potatoes as well as onions, I feel that they, too, deserve 
    consideration under this legislation.
        The Chairman, (17) citing the principle that ``one 
    individual proposition may not be amended by another individual 
    proposition,'' sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Wayne N. Aspinall (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill To Provide Price Support for Tung Nuts--Amendment To Provide Price 
    Support for Honey

Sec. 8.17 To a bill to provide price support for tung nuts, a committee 
    amendment to provide price support for honey was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(18) to pro

[[Page 7920]]

vide price support for tung nuts, an amendment was offered 
(19) as described above. A point of order was raised against 
the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 29 (Committee on Agriculture).
19. 95 Cong. Rec. 10639, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 2, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, since the 
    committee amendment has no greater standing than any other 
    amendment, the title of this bill is to amend the Agricultural 
    Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, to provide parity for tung nuts 
    and for other purposes. I make the point of order that the 
    inclusion of honey is not related to the bill and is, therefore, 
    not in order.

    Responding to the point of order, Mr. John Phillips, of California, 
stated: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 10640.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, the title of the 
    Agricultural Adjustment Act is all-inclusive. . . . This title, to 
    which objection is raised on the floor, says specifically, ``To 
    amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, to 
    provide parity for tung nuts, and for other purposes.'' The 
    committee, in the final line on page 3, has specified an amendment 
    to the title to include tung nuts and honey.

    The Chairman, (1) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John McSweeney (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The title of the bill does not control. It is the body of the 
    bill that controls. When an individual proposition is added to 
    another individual proposition by amendment, even though they are 
    in the same class, they are not germane. The Chair sustains the 
    point of order.

Bill Relating to Cost of Inspection of Meat--Amendment To Extend 
    Coverage of Bill to Seafood

Sec. 8.18 To a bill proposing that the cost of federal inspection of 
    meat and meat products be borne by the United States, an amendment 
    seeking to extend coverage of the bill to seafood and seafood 
    products was held to be not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of a bill (2) 
relating to the meat inspection service of the Department of 
Agriculture, an amendment was offered (3) as described 
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. S. 2256 (Committee on Agriculture).
 3. 94 Cong. Rec. 6235, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., May 20, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Clifford R. Hope, of Kansas, raised the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill. The Chairman,(4) in 
ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Samuel K. McConnell, Jr. (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair holds that the amendment is not germane. Under the 
    rulings on the question of germaneness, one individual proposition 
    may not be amended by another individual proposition, even

[[Page 7921]]

    though the two may belong to the same class. The Chair sustains the 
    point of order.

Bill Providing Financial Relief for Agricultural Producers--Amendment 
    To Extend Relief to Commercial Fishermen

Sec. 8.19 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 
(5) in the Committee of the Whole on Apr. 24, 
1978,(6) Chairman Don Fuqua, of Florida, sustained a point 
of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 11504.
 6. 124 Cong. Rec. 11080-81, 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 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.

[[Page 7922]]

        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.

Provision To Prohibit Use of Funds for Enforcement of OSHA Regulations 
    Applicable to Small Farms--Amendment Requiring Expenditure To 
    Assure Congressional Compliance With OSHA

Sec. 8.20 To a substitute amendment prohibiting the use of funds in a 
    general appropriation bill for the enforcement of any regulation 
    under the Occupational Health and Safety Act applicable to small 
    farms, an amendment adding at the end thereof the requirement that 
    such funds be expended to assure full compliance under that Act by 
    Congressional Members and staff was held not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 14232 (7) in the Committee 
of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
amendment described above. The proceedings of June 24, 
1976,(8) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. The Departments of Labor and Health, Education and Welfare 
        Appropriation bill for fiscal 1977.
 8. 122 Cong. Rec. 20370, 20371, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Millicent] Fenwick [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment as a substitute for the

[[Page 7923]]

    amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Skubitz).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Skubitz: On page 7, strike the period 
        at the end of line 25, and insert in lieu thereof: ``: Provided 
        That none of the funds appropriated under this paragraph shall 
        be obligated or expended to prescribe, issue, administer, or 
        enforce any standard, rule, regulation, or order under the 
        Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 which is applicable 
        to any person who is engaged in a farming operation which 
        employs five or fewer employees.''. . .

        Mr. [Gary] Myers of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania to the 
        amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Skubitz: At the end of the amendment 
        offered by Mrs. Fenwick strike the period and add the 
        following: ``Provided further, That the funds appropriated 
        under this paragraph shall be obligated or expended to assure 
        full compliance of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
        1970 by Members of Congress and their staffs.''

        Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not germane. It is also in 
    violation of the rule against legislating on an appropriation bill. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick) has offered a 
    substitute for an amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas 
    (Mr. Skubitz).
        Both the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
    Skubitz) and the proposed substitute offered by the gentlewoman 
    from New Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick) are applicable to farmworkers and 
    have a precise reference to the number of employees engaged by a 
    farmer.
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Myers) would add to the 
    substitute additional provisions requiring that funds appropriated 
    under the program shall be obligated and expended to assure 
    compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act by Members 
    of Congress and their staffs.
        Manifestly, this does constitute legislation on an 
    appropriation bill; and, beyond that, it would not be germane, in 
    the opinion of the Chair, to the pending substitute.
        For those reasons, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill To Regulate Marketing of Domestically Produced Farm Products--
    Amendment To Control Importation of Farm Products

Sec. 8.21 To a bill to regulate the marketing of domestically produced 
    farm products, an amendment proposing to control the importation of 
    farm products was held to be not germane.

[[Page 7924]]

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of a farm bill 
(10) as described above, the following amendment was 
offered: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 8505 (Committee on Agriculture).
11. 82 Cong. Rec. 1193, 75th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 9, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Page 80, at the bottom of the page, add a new section as 
    follows:

            Sec. 389. That . . . the importation of dairy products into 
        the United States is prohibited unless such products have been 
        produced from cattle which are free from bovine tuberculosis. . 
        . .

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

        Mr. [John M.] Jones [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment in that it is not germane to the 
    paragraph, the section, or the bill itself. . . .

    The Chairman, Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, noting that 
(12) ``The purpose of the pending bill is to regulate the 
marketing of domestically produced farm products,'' and that the 
amendment sought to control the conditions under which farm products 
are produced in foreign countries, sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 1194.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Providing for Foreign Aid--Amendment Relating to Relief in United 
    States

Sec. 8.22 To a bill providing for aid to certain foreign countries, an 
    amendment relating to relief in the United States was held to be 
    not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, a bill (13) was under 
consideration providing for aid to foreign countries. An amendment was 
offered (14) as described above. Mr. John M. Vorys, of Ohio, 
raised the point of order that the amendment was not germane to the 
bill.(15) The Chairman,(16) in sustaining the 
point of order, stated that the amendment ``has nothing whatever to do 
with aid to foreign countries, but deals entirely with domestic 
conditions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 4604 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
14. 93 Cong. Rec. 11295, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 11, 1947.
15. Id. at p. 11296.
16. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provision Delaying Arms Shipment to Turkey Pending Certification of 
    Progress in Resolving Cyprus Issue--Amendment To Require Further 
    Certification as to Control of Opium Traffic

Sec. 8.23 To an amendment to a section of a bill delaying the shipment 
    of certain arms to Turkey pending a Presidential certification that 
    progress has been made with respect to the refugee problem on 
    Cyprus, an amend

[[Page 7925]]

    ment thereto requiring that the President also certify that the 
    government of Turkey has taken adequate measures to control the 
    diversion of opium poppy into illicit channels was held not 
    germane.

    During consideration of S. 2230 (17) in the Committee of 
the Whole on Oct. 2, 1975,(18) the Chair sustained a point 
of order against the amendment described above, citing the principle 
that one individual proposition may not be amended by another 
individual proposition even though the two may belong to the same 
class. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. A bill authorizing appropriations for the Board for International 
        Broadcasting for fiscal 1976, and to promote improved relations 
        between the United States, Greece and Turkey.
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 31480, 31481, 31486, 31489, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (19) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 2. (a)(1) The Congress reaffirms the policy of the 
        United States to seek to improve and harmonize relations among 
        the allies of the United States and between the United States 
        and its allies, in the interest of mutual defense and national 
        security. In particular, the Congress recognizes the special 
        contribution to the North Atlantic Alliance of Greece and 
        Turkey by virtue of their geographic position on the 
        southeastern flank of Europe and is prepared to assist in the 
        modernization and strengthening of their respective armed 
        forces.
            (2) The Congress further reaffirms the policy of the United 
        States to alleviate the suffering of refugees and other victims 
        of armed conflict and to foster and promote international 
        efforts to ameliorate the conditions which prevent such persons 
        from resuming normal and productive lives. . . .
            (b)(1) In order that the purposes of this Act may be 
        carried out without awaiting the enactment of foreign 
        assistance legislation for fiscal year 1976 programs--
            (A) the President is authorized, notwithstanding section 
        620 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, to furnish to the 
        Government of Turkey those defense articles and defense 
        services with respect to which contracts of sale were signed 
        under section 21 or section 22 of the Foreign Military Sales 
        Act on or before February 5, 1975, and to issue licenses for 
        the transportation to the Government of Turkey of arms, 
        ammunition, and implements of war (including technical data 
        relating thereto): Provided That such authorization shall be 
        effective only while Turkey shall observe the cease-fire and 
        shall neither increase its forces on Cyprus nor transfer to 
        Cyprus any United States supplied implements of war: Provided 
        further, That the authorities contained in this section shall 
        not become effective unless and until the President determines 
        and certifies to the Congress that the furnishing of defense 
        articles and defense services, and the issuance of licenses for 
        the transportation of implements of war, arms and ammunition 
        under this section are important to the national security 
        interests of the United States; and

[[Page 7926]]

            (B) the President is requested to initiate discussions with 
        the Government of Greece to determine the most urgent needs of 
        Greece for economic and military assistance.
            (2) The President is directed to submit to the Speaker of 
        the House of Representatives and to the Foreign Relations and 
        Appropriations Committees of the Senate within sixty days after 
        the enactment of this Act a report on discussions conducted 
        under subsection (b)(1)(B), together with his recommendations 
        for economic and military assistance to Greece for the fiscal 
        year 1976. . . .

        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fascell: Page 3, line 6, strike 
        out ``(1)''; in line 15, strike out ``and to issue licenses'' 
        and all that follows thereafter through ``thereto)'' in line 18 
        and insert in lieu thereof ``if the President determines and 
        certifies to the Congress that significant progress has been 
        made with respect to the refugee problem on Cyprus''; on page 
        4, line 1, strike out ``, and the issuance of licenses'' and 
        all that follows thereafter through ``ammunition'' in line 2; 
        and on page 4, strike out line 9 and all that follows 
        thereafter through line 16 on page 6.

        Mr. [Charles B.] Rangel [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rangel to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Fascell: On line 5 of the Fascell amendment after the word 
        ``Cyprus'' insert the following: and if the President 
        determines and certifies to the Congress that the Government of 
        Turkey has taken adequate measures to control the diversion of 
        opium poppy into illicit channels.

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Rangel) to the Fascell amendment contains language that is not 
    germane, not only to the Fascell amendment, but certainly not to 
    the bill before us.
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment violates rule XVI, clause 7, of 
    the Rules of the House of Representatives, which provides that no 
    motion or proposition on a subject different from that under 
    consideration shall be admitted under the guise of an amendment.
        This rule is construed by the precedents of the House to 
    require that the fundamental purpose of an amendment must be 
    germane to the fundamental purpose of the bill. I cite Cannon's 
    Precedents VIII, 2911. The relevant portion of this bill relates to 
    the cessation of hostilities in Cyprus, not to the cultivation of 
    poppies in Turkey. No matter how laudable the gentleman's amendment 
    may be, or how much I may personally agree with the importance of 
    elimination of poppy cultivation, this amendment is not germane to 
    this bill, I submit, or to the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Florida (Mr. Fascell), and my point of order should be sustained.
        The title of the bill and the report from the Committee on 
    International Relations before us make it clear that the 
    fundamental purpose of this bill is to hasten a peaceful solution 
    of the Cyprus situation. The committee did not undertake a 
    comprehensive inquiry into the question of poppy cultivation in its 
    consideration of this bill, which addresses quite different issues. 
    We

[[Page 7927]]

    have no way of knowing, on the basis of this report, what efforts 
    the administration is making with the Government of Turkey to deal 
    with this situation or what steps have been taken by the Government 
    of Turkey. . . .

        Mr. Rangel: . . . It appears to me that if we are talking about 
    an agreement between the Turkish people and the Greek people, and 
    certainly one of which the U.S. Congress has an interest, that this 
    bill is broad enough to have the amendment included as being 
    germane to the bill. . . .
        Mr. Fascell: . . . The language in the bill in many places 
    makes it very, very clear that what we are seeking to do here is 
    to--and I quote from the bill--``. . . to improve and harmonize 
    relations among the allies of the United States and between the 
    United States and its allies . . .''
        The amendment which is pending, the principal amendment, lays 
    down a condition stating that it is essential to harmonize those 
    relationships. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Rangel) seeks to impose another condition for that same 
    purpose. I think it is clearly germane. . . .
        Mr. [John] Brademas [of Indiana]: . . . I would like to rise in 
    support of the position voiced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
    Fascell) and to draw attention to the fact, Mr. Chairman, that even 
    in the committee report there are separate views that touch upon 
    the very subject which is the subject of the gentleman's amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The test of germaneness is whether the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is germane to the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fascell).
        Under Cannon's Procedures of the House of Representatives on 
    page 202, we find the following:

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

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
    Fascell) applies to one matter. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) applies to a different and a 
    separate matter.
        Under the precedents supporting the principle set forth in 
    Cannon's Procedures, the point of order must be sustained and the 
    point of order is sustained.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Stratton).(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. An amendment having a similar purpose was later offered to a 
        section of the bill and was held to be germane. See Sec. 10.21, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Providing Relief for Aliens Who Are Political Refugees--Amendment 
    To Provide Similar Relief for Nonaliens

Sec. 8.24 To a bill providing relief for one class, an amendment to 
    extend the relief to another class is not germane; thus, to a bill 
    providing relief for aliens who are political refugees of a certain 
    geographic area, an amendment

[[Page 7928]]

    broadening the coverage of the bill to persons from another 
    geographic area who are not aliens as defined in immigration law 
    was held not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 6755 (United States assistance to 
migrants and refugees) in the Committee of the Whole on May 14, 
1975,(1) Chairman Morris K. Udall, of Arizona, sustained a 
point of order against the following amendment, demonstrating that one 
individual proposition is not germane to another individual 
proposition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 14360, 14361, 14362, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Ms. Abzug: On page 1, line 10, strike 
        out ``aliens'' and insert in lieu thereof ``persons''.
            On page 2, line 1, strike out ``Cambodia or Vietnam,'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``Cambodia, Vietnam or the United 
        States''.
            On page 2, line 13, strike out ``aliens'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``persons''.
            On page 2, line 16, strike out ``Cambodia or Vietnam'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``Cambodia, Vietnam or the United 
        States.''. . .

        Mr. [Joshua] Eilberg [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane.
        This bill deals with a particular class of people: refugees 
    from Indochina, that is, Cambodia and Vietnam. The subject matter 
    of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
    Abzug) has to do with amnesty, a matter which is within the 
    jurisdiction of the subcommittee chaired by the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Kastenmeier), and is being separately considered by 
    that subcommittee, actively considered.
        This bill will cover those aliens, refugees, who have been 
    paroled into the United States under section 212(d)(5) of the 
    Immigration and Nationality Act. In addition, the term ``refugee,'' 
    as defined in the bill and as that term is interpreted under 
    international law and under section 203(a)(7) of the Immigration 
    and Nationality Act, does not include U.S. citizens, and the bill 
    was not intended to cover that category or class of people. . . .
        Ms. Abzug: . . . The bill before us deals with providing 
    assistance to a certain class of individuals, namely, those who 
    have had to flee their homeland because of fear of prosecution 
    because of their political opinions, among other things. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, my amendment is germane because it does not seek 
    to add another class of persons. What my amendment says is that 
    there are several persons or several groups eligible within the 
    class, the class being those who have to flee their homeland 
    because of fear of persecution because of their political opinions. 
    That is the purpose of the legislation. We would not be addressing 
    this question of assistance if these people were just ordinary 
    refugees. What we are saying is that they are here in the country 
    be

[[Page 7929]]

    cause they fear persecution because of their political opinions, 
    and that was the same reason we originally gave relief to the 
    Cubans under the legislation which this bill tracks.
        My amendment, I submit, is germane. It merely adds another 
    group of persons and makes them eligible within the class. They are 
    also persons who fled their country because of fear of personal and 
    political persecution.
        The American political refugee, the person who resisted the war 
    in Vietnam because it was illegal and immoral, was forced to go 
    into exile in Sweden and in Canada and is unable to return because 
    of fear of prosecution, is entitled to the same kind of assistance 
    that the Vietnamese and the Cambodian refugee is entitled to. . . .
        Mr. [Paul S.] Sarbanes [of Maryland]: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    class to which H.R. 6755 addresses itself is to aliens who, in 
    turn, meet other requirements contained within the legislation. The 
    permanent legislation to which this pending legislation is related, 
    since this is temporary legislation, is Public Law 87-510, the 
    Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 which also deals with 
    aliens as a class to which that legislation pertains.
        The jurisdiction of the committee bringing this legislation to 
    the floor of the House would not run to the programs proposed to be 
    covered if the class were expanded to ``persons'' rather than 
    ``aliens,'' the jurisdiction of this committee rests upon its 
    immigration and naturalization jurisdiction, and pertains to the 
    class of aliens which is set out in the legislation in the 
    Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962.
        Ms. Abzug: . . . I do not think the rule of germaneness is 
    determined by the jurisdiction of a committee. The situation is 
    that we are dealing with the bill that is before us now, and the 
    question of whether this committee would have had jurisdiction over 
    this or a bill with changed wording does not go to the question of 
    germaneness. Therefore, I press my point, and simply say that my 
    amendment merely brings in a third category of eligible persons, 
    and the fact that they are or are not aliens does not preclude them 
    from being covered for the purposes provided for the class for whom 
    the bill addresses itself, namely, those who have been uprooted as 
    a result of their political opinions from their homeland for fear 
    of persecution.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Abzug) has offered an 
    amendment to the bill which, in several places, strikes out 
    ``aliens'' and inserts ``persons,'' and would strike ``Cambodia or 
    Vietnam'' and insert ``Cambodia, Vietnam or the United States,'' to 
    which the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Eilberg) has made the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill.
        The Chair has examined the bill and the report, and would 
    characterize this bill as one which enables the United States to 
    render assistance to a certain class of individuals, specifically, 
    as stated on page 6 of the report, those individuals who are 
    refugees from Indochina, and who are aliens.
        The amendment, however, offered by the gentlewoman from New 
    York, would extend the coverage of this act

[[Page 7930]]

    to another class of individuals, specifically persons of the United 
    States, who are citizens, but not aliens, even though they might be 
    in a broader sense considered ``political refugees.''
        The precedents of the House indicate that to a bill dealing 
    with the relief of one class, an amendment seeking to include 
    another class is not germane, both because one individual 
    proposition is not germane to another individual proposition and 
    because such amendment would broaden the scope of the bill.
        The Chair refers to Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 
    10.2, and Cannon's Precedents, volume 8, sections 2959 and 3046.
        The Chair believes that these principles are applicable in the 
    present situation. By striking the word ``aliens'' and inserting in 
    lieu thereof the word ``persons'' and by including a new class of 
    persons within the coverage of the bill, the amendment would 
    broaden the bill beyond its original scope. The Chair, therefore, 
    feels that the amendment is not germane, and the point of order is 
    sustained.

Bill Relating to Evacuation of Persons--Amendment Relating to 
    Evacuation of Commodities

Sec. 8.25 To a bill dealing with the evacuation of persons, an 
    amendment dealing with the evacuation of commodities is not 
    germane.

    During consideration of the Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation 
Assistance Act (2) in the Committee of the Whole on Apr. 23, 
1975,(3) the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 6096.
 3. 121 Cong. Rec. 11550, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. John L. Burton: Page 2 at the end 
        of line 2, add such evacuation programs to include the 
        evacuation of any gold, silver, or other valuable commodities 
        belonging to the people of the United States that is determined 
        to be in danger of being shipped to Switzerland, including 16 
        tons of gold.

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment. It goes far afield from the 
    bill and it is not germane. . . .
        Mr. John L. Burton: . . . The title of the bill is 
    ``Humanitarian Aid and Evacuation.''
        ``Evacuation,'' in the dictionary, is described as the removal 
    of things. It is not limited to persons.
        There is nothing in the title that says ``an evacuation of 
    persons.'' I think that it is very germane, the thought of some $83 
    million. . . .
        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr., of New Jersey]: ``Things,'' as I 
    have read the Webster International Dictionary--that is, the latest 
    version--would certainly include gold but would not necessarily be 
    limited to the evacuation or withdrawal of things confined only to 
    precious metals. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).

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

[[Page 7931]]

        Under section 4 of the bill it says:

            For the purposes of section 2, evacuation shall be defined 
        as the removal to places of safety . . .

        And the Chair will not read all of the intervening words--
        with the minimum use of necessary force, the following 
        categories of persons:

        The gentleman's amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill and 
    is not germane to section 2. Accordingly, the point of order is 
    sustained.

Senate Amendment Striking Appropriation for Missile Program--House 
    Amendment Reinserting Missile Appropriation and Earmarking Other 
    Funds for Unrelated Programs

Sec. 8.26 To a Senate amendment striking an appropriation for a missile 
    program from a general appropriation bill, a House amendment not 
    only reinserting a portion of those funds but also earmarking other 
    funds in the bill for specific grants unrelated to that missile 
    program and waiving provisions of law otherwise restricting such 
    grants was conceded to be nongermane.

    The proceedings of Nov. 15, 1989, relating to H.R. 3072, Department 
of Defense appropriations for fiscal 1990, are discussed in Sec. 27.13, 
infra.

Differing Bases of Selective Service Deferments

Sec. 8.27 To a bill amending the Selective Service Act and establishing 
    categories of registrants on the basis of persons dependent on each 
    registrant for support, an amendment was held to be not germane 
    which sought deferment of certain agricultural workers from 
    military service.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of a bill (5) 
as described above, the following amendment was offered: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 1730 (Committee on Military Affairs).
 6. 89 Cong. Rec. 3300, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 12, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Hampton P.] Fulmer [of South 
    Carolina]: On page 4, line 20, after the word ``board'', strike out 
    all that follows in lines 20 to 24 inclusive, and insert, in lieu 
    thereof, the following: ``provided, however, That every registrant 
    who is . . . employed substantially full time on a farm in 
    connection with the production or harvesting of any agricultural 
    commodity set forth in local board release No. 164 of the Selective 
    Service System as being a commodity essential to the war effort 
    shall . . . be deferred by his selective service local board from 
    training and service under this act. . . .''

[[Page 7932]]

    Mr. Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, raised the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill.(7) The 
Chairman,(8) in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 3301.
 8. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill establishes the categories of registrants on the basis 
    of dependents. Certainly . . . a worker in agriculture should not 
    come within that category.
        Further, on page 4 of the bill it is provided expressly that no 
    deferment shall be made of individuals by occupational groups. The 
    Chair feels that farmers come very clearly within the provisions of 
    that language and therefore holds that the amendment is not 
    germane.

Bill To Increase Cadet Corps at United States Military Academy--
    Amendment To Increase Certain Appointments to Military Academy and 
    Naval Academy

Sec. 8.28 To a bill proposing to increase the corps of cadets at the 
    United States Military Academy, an amendment was held to be not 
    germane which sought to increase the number of men to be appointed 
    both to the Military Academy and the Naval Academy from among sons 
    of certain war veterans.

    In the 77th Congress, a bill (9) was under consideration 
increasing the corps of cadets at the Military Academy. An amendment 
was offered (10) as described above. Mr. Andrew J. May, of 
Kentucky, raised the point of order that the amendment was not germane 
to the bill. The Chairman, J. Bayard Clark, of North Carolina, in 
ruling on the point of order, stated: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 6979 (Committee on Military Affairs).
10. 88 Cong. Rec. 4158, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., May 13, 1942.
11. Id. at p. 4159.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that the reference in the pending amendment to 
    matters pertaining to the Naval Academy and the appointment of 
    cadets to the Naval Academy takes it too far afield to make it 
    germane to the pending bill; therefore the Chair sustains the point 
    of order.

Bill Affecting Pensions for Veterans Based on Disability--Amendment 
    Relating to Compensation for Service-Connected Disability

Sec. 8.29 To a privileged pension bill, a committee amendment which 
    included provisions relating to compensation on account of service-
    connected disability was held to be not germane.

    In the 84th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(12) relating

[[Page 7933]]

to disability pension awards, a committee amendment was offered 
(13) as described above. A point of order was raised against 
the amendment, as follows: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 7886 (Committee on Veterans' Affairs).
13. 102 Cong. Rec. 11142, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., June 27, 1956.
14. Id. at p. 11143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Ayres [of Ohio]: . . . This bill has been 
    classified as a general pension bill, and as such, comes up for 
    debate as a privileged matter. The term ``pension'' means payment 
    for a non-service-connected disability. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, all of title II relates entirely to service-
    connected compensation for disabilities of a veteran or to his 
    widow and/or children, and this is not germane to this bill.

    The Chairman, Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, in ruling on the point of 
order, stated: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at pp. 11143, 11144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        From the very beginning the House, in the adoption of its 
    rules, has made a distinction between pensions and compensation. . 
    . .

        There can be no doubt that the bill as presented here was a 
    pension bill. The committee amendment seeks to add among other 
    things compensation provisions to the pending bill. The fact that 
    it was a pension bill gave it a privileged status and enabled the 
    bill to be called up as a privileged bill, but the compensation 
    part of the bill does not have a privileged status, as is true in 
    the instance of the pension provisions.
        Therefore, as to the committee amendment, including both 
    pension and compensation provisions, the rule is well established 
    that if any part of an amendment is subject to a point of order the 
    whole amendment is subject to a point of order. Therefore, the 
    Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman from Ohio.

    A subsequent motion to recommit the bill with instructions to 
report back a pension bill with compensation provisions was also ruled 
out of order. The motion was as follows: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 11145.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ayres moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 7886, to the 
    Committee on Veterans' Affairs with instructions to report it back 
    forthwith with the following amendment: Strike out all after the 
    enacting clause and insert the following: ``That (a) all monthly 
    wartime rates of compensation payable under public laws 
    administered by the Veterans' Administration for disability less 
    than total (not including special awards and allowances, dependency 
    allowances, or subsistence allowances), are hereby increased by 10 
    percent.'' . . .

    A point of order was made, as follows:

        Mr. [Edmond] Edmondson [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the motion to recommit on the same ground 
    that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ayres] made against the amendment 
    to the first section of this bill namely, that it is not germane; 
    that it is a compensation matter which he seeks by a motion to 
    recommit to place in a privileged pension bill.

[[Page 7934]]

    The Speaker,(17) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [T]he Chair feels that the same point of order will lie against 
    this motion to recommit with instructions as did lie against the 
    committee amendment in the bill with reference to compensation; and 
    therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Affecting Naval Procurement--Amendment Affecting Procurement for 
    Other Armed Services

Sec. 8.30 To a bill amending the Navy Ration Statute to permit 
    oleomargarine to be served to naval personnel, an amendment 
    providing that no oleomargarine be acquired for use by the armed 
    services when surplus butter stocks are available to the armed 
    services through the Commodity Credit Corporation was held to be 
    not germane.

    In the 85th Congress, a bill (18) was under 
consideration amending the Navy Ration Statute as indicated above. The 
following amendment was offered to the bill: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 912 (Committee on Armed Services).
19. 104 Cong. Rec. 6931, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 22, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin]: Add 
    the following new section:
        Sec. 2. During any period when surplus butter stocks are 
    available to the armed services through the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation no oleomargarine or margarine shall be acquired for use 
    by the armed services or any branch or department thereof. . . .

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

        Mr. [Paul J.] Kilday [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that this is a bill to 
    amend the Navy rations statute so as to provide for serving 
    oleomargarine or margarine. It goes no further than to amend the 
    Navy ration statute. The Navy ration statute does not refer to 
    other departments of the armed services.

    The Chairman,(20) relying on the rule that, ``one 
individual proposition may not be amended by another individual 
proposition even though the two may belong to the same class,'' 
sustained the point of order, pointing out that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. James W. Trimble (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin includes 
    the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The bill before the House deals 
    solely with the Navy.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 32.4, infra, discussing a similar amendment which, because 
        more narrowly worded, was held to be germane.

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

[[Page 7935]]

Senate Amendment Proposing Feasibility Study of Land Transfer in 
    State--House Amendment Concerning Environmental Liabilities in 
    Another State

Sec. 8.31 To a Senate amendment proposing a feasibility study of a 
    certain land transfer in one state, a House amendment waiving 
    existing law concerning certain environmental liabilities in 
    another state was conceded to be nongermane.

    The proceedings of Nov. 15, 1989, relating to H.R. 3072, Department 
of Defense appropriations for fiscal 1990, are discussed in Sec. 27.39, 
infra.

Bill Relating to Prices of Petroleum Products--Amendment Relating to 
    Price of Coal

Sec. 8.32 To a bill containing provisions with respect to prices of 
    petroleum products and transferring certain functions of the Price 
    Administrator with respect to such products to the Petroleum 
    Administrator for War, an amendment seeking to transfer 
    responsibilities with regard to coal prices to the Solid Fuels 
    Administrator for War was held to be not germane.

    In the 78th Congress, a bill (2) was under consideration 
which stated in part: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 2887 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 3. See 89 Cong. Rec. 10630, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 13, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That the powers and functions conferred by 
    the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, upon the Price 
    Administrator, with respect to crude petroleum and the products 
    thereof . . . are hereby transferred to the Petroleum Administrator 
    for War. . . . In the fixing of prices for crude petroleum and the 
    products thereof . . . the Petroleum Administrator for War shall 
    consider the necessity for exploring for crude petroleum. . . .

    An amendment was offered, as follows: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at pp. 10641, 10642.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Calvin D. Johnson [of Illinois]: After 
    the last sentence insert, ``The fixing of prices of any mineral 
    through which by hydrogenation crude petroleum and the products 
    thereof and derivatives therefrom may be produced is hereby 
    transferred to the Solid Fuels Administrator for War. . . .''

    Mr. Johnson, in explaining the amendment, stated: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 10642.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . This amendment would transfer [the coal-mining] industry 
    to the Solid Fuels Administrator.

[[Page 7936]]

    Mr. Wesley E. Disney, of Oklahoma, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane to the bill. In defense of the amendment, 
the proponent stated:

        . . . Coal and oil are both fuel. The component parts of coal 
    and the component parts of oil are identical.

    The Chairman,(6) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that there is no doubt that the 
    amendment seeking to include minerals in a bill providing for 
    petroleum certainly would bring in a proposition in addition to the 
    one covered by the bill, and therefore, is not germane. The point 
    of order is sustained.

Bill Providing for Disposal of Tin From National Stockpile--Amendment 
    Providing for Disposal of Silver

Sec. 8.33 An individual proposition is not germane to another 
    individual proposition, even though the two belong to the same 
    class; thus, to a House bill providing for the disposal of tin from 
    the national stockpile, a Senate amendment included in the 
    conference report providing for the disposal of silver from the 
    stockpile was conceded to be nongermane and held to be subject to a 
    motion to reject under Rule XXVIII clause 4.

    The proceedings of Dec. 12, 1979, relating to H.R. 595, authorizing 
the Administrator of General Services to dispose of tin from the 
national stockpile, are discussed in Sec. 26.8, infra.

Bill Relating to Settlement of Railway Labor Dispute--Amendment 
    Relating to Settlement of Another Railway Labor Dispute

Sec. 8.34 To a bill relating to settlement of a particular railway 
    labor dispute, involving certain railways and unions, an amendment 
    concerning another dispute between a different railroad company and 
    its employees was held to be not germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill relating to 
settlement of a railway labor dispute, the following amendment was 
offered: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 15930, 15931, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1967. 
        Under consideration was H.J. Res. 559 (Committee on Interstate 
        and Foreign Commerce).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mrs. [Leonor K.] Sullivan [of Missouri]: 
    Add at the end of the joint resolution a new section as follows:

[[Page 7937]]

        Sec. 7. The Special Board established by the first section of 
    this joint resolution shall also have and exercise, with respect to 
    any labor dispute to which the Florida East Coast Railway Company 
    is a party . . . the same powers and duties set forth in sections 
    2, 3, and 4 of this joint resolution. In the exercise of such 
    powers and duties pursuant to this section the Special Board shall 
    use in lieu of the proposals of the Special Mediation Panel, the 
    recommendations of Emergency Board Number 157 as contained in its 
    report of December 23, 1963, with respect to disputes covered by 
    said report and shall extend the principles underlying said 
    recommendations to the other disputes covered by this section. . . 
    .

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

        Mr. [Samuel N.] Friedel [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment which has been offered by the 
    distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri [Mrs. Sullivan] is not 
    germane to the joint resolution now under consideration.

        Mr. Chairman, the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 559) deals with a 
    nationwide railroad dispute with the shop craft unions. However, 
    the amendment which has been offered by the distinguished 
    gentlewoman from Missouri [Mrs. Sullivan] deals with a single 
    dispute involving one railroad and all of its employees, not just 
    the shop craft union. . . .

    Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, in sustaining the point of 
order, stated:

        . . .  The joint resolution . . . is aimed at one specific 
    controversy between labor and management. The amendment . . . 
    relates to a different controversy involving different 
    classifications of unions as pointed out by the gentleman from 
    Maryland [Mr. Friedel].
        The amendment therefore is beyond the purview of the resolution 
    (H.J. Res. 559). . . .

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

Sec. 8.35 To a bill relating to the design of public coin currency, an 
    amendment providing for issuance of a commemorative coin is not 
    germane; thus, to a bill requiring public currency coins to bear a 
    design and date emblematic of the Bicentennial of the American 
    Revolution, an amendment providing for the issuance or sale of 
    Bicentennial gold commemorative coins was held to be not germane.

    On Sept. 12, 1973,(8) during consideration of H.R. 8789 
in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order 
against the following amendment, thus illustrating that one individual 
proposition is not germane

[[Page 7938]]

to another individual proposition, although the two may belong to the 
same class:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 119 Cong. Rec. 29376, 29377, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 H.R. 8789

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

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

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

[[Page 7939]]

    be altered except once every 25 years, and that the talk of 
    creating another commemorative coin for distribution to those who 
    wish to memorialize the Bicentennial is not nearly so radical a 
    departure from the intent of this legislation and, in fact, is, 
    indeed, germane. . . .
        Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I believe this 
    amendment is not germane to the bill before us and, therefore, 
    think that a point of order on germaneness should lie. This bill 
    does deal with coin of the realm. The entire purpose of having half 
    dollars, dollars, and quarters minted into Bicentennial coin is 
    because they are coins in general circulation at the present time.
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment would create a whole new coin 
    which would be a collector's item and not be coin of the realm, as 
    the gentleman has suggested. Therefore, I do think that it changes 
    the subject of the bill; changes the purpose of the bill, and, 
    therefore, is not germane.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Spark M. Matsunaga (Ha.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Bill Relating to Design of Public Coin Currency--Amendment To Require 
    Issuance of Other Coin Currency in Uncirculated Proof Form

Sec. 8.36 To a bill relating to the design of certain coin currency, an 
    amendment specifying the metal content of other coin currency and 
    requiring its issuance in uncirculated proof form was held not 
    germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 8789 in the Committee of the Whole on 
Sept. 12, 1973,(10) Chairman Spark M. Matsunaga, of Hawaii, 
sustained points of order against two amendments (relating to the metal 
content of another currency coin) to a bill requiring certain coins to 
bear a design and date emblematic of the Bicentennial of the American 
Revolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 29377, 29378, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Crane: On page 2, following line 
        4, insert a new section 3 as follows and renumber the 
        succeeding section accordingly:

[[Page 7940]]

            Sec. 3. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law with 
        respect to the design of coins, the Secretary of the Treasury 
        shall mint and issue at face value through the Federal Reserve 
        banks after July 4, 1975, and until such time as the Secretary 
        of the Treasury may determine, one hundred and fifty million or 
        more circulating one-dollar coins which shall bear a design 
        determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be emblematic of 
        the bicentennial of the American Revolution. These one-dollar 
        coins shall meet the following specifications:
            (A) a diameter of 1.500 inches;
            (B) a cladding of an alloy of 800 parts of silver and 200 
        parts of copper; and
            (C) a core of an alloy of silver and copper such that the 
        whole coin weighs 24.592 grams and contains 9.837 grams of 
        silver and 14.755 grams of copper.
            (b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall mint and issue, in 
        uncirculated proof form, the above-specified coin in quantities 
        and prices as he shall determine to be appropriate. . . .

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

    Subsequently,(11) another amendment was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 119 Cong. Rec. 29378, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 12, 1973.

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

[[Page 7941]]

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

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

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

Provision Authorizing Law Enforcement Assistance to States for Purchase 
    of Photographic and Fingerprint Equipment--Amendment To Provide 
    Assistance for Purchase of Bulletproof Vests

Sec. 8.37 To an amendment authorizing law enforcement administration 
    grants to states and localities for the purchase of photographic 
    and fingerprint equipment for law enforcement purposes, an 
    amendment including assistance for the purchase of bulletproof 
    vests was held to be directed toward a different category of law 
    enforcement equipment concerned with physical protection rather 
    than information-gathering and was therefore beyond the scope of 
    the amendment and not germane; the decision of the Chairman on the 
    germaneness of the amendment was upheld on appeal by a voice vote.

[[Page 7942]]

    On Oct. 12, 1979,(12) during consideration of the 
Justice System Improvement Act of 1979 (13) in the Committee 
of the Whole, Chairman Mike McCormack, of Washington, held that to an 
amendment providing financial assistance for a certain class of law 
enforcement equipment (for informational purposes), the following 
amendment adding financial assistance for another class (for protection 
of law enforcement officers) was not germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 125 Cong. Rec. 28121, 28123, 28124, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H.R. 2061.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7943]]

    line, but rules that under the precedents the amendment is not 
    germane to the pending amendment and the point of order is 
    sustained. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
        The Chairman: The question is, Shall the Chair's ruling stand 
    as the judgment of the Committee?
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
    pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not 
    present.
        The Chairman: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXIII, the Chair 
    announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period 
    of time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will 
    be taken on the pending question following the quorum call. Members 
    will record their presence by electronic device.
        The call was taken by electronic device. . . .
        The Chairman: Three hundred and twelve Members have answered to 
    their names, a quorum is present, and the Committee will resume its 
    business.
        The pending business is the demand of the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Ashbrook) for a recorded vote appealing the decision of the 
    Chair.
        Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) insist upon his 
    demand for a recorded vote?
        Mr. Ashbrook: I do not, Mr. Chairman.

Bill Providing Aid for Construction of Public School Facilities--
    Amendment Proposing Assistance for Teachers' Salaries

Sec. 8.38 To a bill providing for federal financial assistance to 
    states to be used for constructing public school facilities, an 
    amendment proposing financial assistance for teachers' salaries was 
    held to be not germane.

    In the 86th Congress, a bill (14) was under 
consideration to authorize federal financial assistance to states for 
school construction. An amendment was offered (15) as 
described above. Mr. Cleveland M. Bailey, of West Virginia, raised the 
point of order that the amendment was not germane.(16) The 
Chairman,(17) in sustaining the point of order, stated: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 10128 (Committee on Education and Labor).
15. 106 Cong. Rec. 11269, 11270, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 26, 1960.
16. Id. at p. 11270.
17. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
18. 106 Cong. Rec. 11276, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 26, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The pending bill has to do with Federal aid to public schools 
    construction. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana, 
    in addition to dealing with school facilities construc

[[Page 7944]]

    tion also deals with the salaries of teachers, which comes in a 
    different category altogether, and, in the opinion of the Chair, 
    would not be germane. . . .

Bill Providing Aid for Construction of Public School Facilities--
    Amendment Proposing Loans To Assist in Construction of Private 
    Schools

Sec. 8.39 To a bill to provide financial assistance to the states for 
    construction of public school facilities, an amendment proposing 
    loans to assist in the construction of private schools was held to 
    be not germane.

    In the 86th Congress, a bill (19) was under 
consideration to authorize federal financial assistance to states for 
public school construction. An amendment was offered (20) as 
described above. A point of order was raised against the amendment, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 10128 (Committee on Education and Labor).
20. 106 Cong. Rec. 11292, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 26, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West Virginia]: . . . Since the 
    bill, H.R. 10128, is confined to one specified class of schools, 
    under the rule of germaneness the gentleman's proposal, plainly, is 
    not in order because it would add another specified class of 
    schools.

    The Chairman, Aime J. Forand, of Rhode Island, citing precedents 
and noting that the bill ``has to do strictly with public schools,'' 
sustained the point of order.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 11293.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill To Aid Construction of Health Research Facilities--Amendment To 
    Provide for Training of Research Workers

Sec. 8.40 To a bill providing assistance for construction of facilities 
    for research with respect to certain diseases, an amendment to 
    provide for training of research workers was held to be not 
    germane.

    The following proceedings took place on July 13, 1956: 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 102 Cong. Rec. 12736, 84th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        S. 849 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (3) Under the rule, the Clerk will now 
    read the substitute committee amendment printed in the reported 
    bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

            Sec. 2. The Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. ch. 6A) is 
        amended by adding at the end thereof the following new title:

                     Title VII--Health Research Facilities

            (b) It is . . . the purpose of this title to assist in the 
        construction of

[[Page 7945]]

        facilities for the conduct of research in the sciences related 
        to health by providing grants-in-aid on a matching basis to 
        public and nonprofit institutions for such purpose.

    Mr. Peter F. Mack, Jr., of Illinois, offered an amendment 
(6) as described above. A point of order was raised against 
the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 102 Cong. Rec. 12737, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Hinshaw [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. . . .
        . . . I feel that the amendment is not germane to an amendment 
    to the act. It is not a question of the act itself. This bill is an 
    amendment to the act and the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Illinois is not germane to this amendment.

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

        Mr. Mack [of Illinois]: . . . Mr. Chairman, this bill amends 
    the Public Health Act, title 44, United States Code, chapter 6(a) 
    the National Research Institute. In this section they provide for 
    both training and research. Therefore, I feel that my amendment is 
    germane to the bill.

    The Chairman, in sustaining the point of order raised by Mr. 
Hinshaw, stated:

        The bill under consideration provides for construction of 
    facilities for research. Research is an entirely different subject 
    matter from training.

Bill Authorizing Grants to Certain Private Health Care Facilities--
    Amendment Authorizing Grants To States for Control of Health Hazard

Sec. 8.41 To a bill authorizing categorical grants to certain private 
    entities furnishing health care to medically underserved 
    populations, a committee amendment authorizing direct grants to 
    States for control of a certain public health hazard was held not 
    germane because it related to different categories of recipients.

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

        The text of the bill is as follows: . . .
    section 1. short title: reference to act.

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

[[Page 7946]]

    sec. 2. medically underserved populations.

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

            Section 330 (42 U.S.C. 254c) is amended by redesignating 
        subsection (h) as subsection (i) and by inserting after 
        subsection (g) the following new subsection:
            ``(h) In carrying out this section, the Secretary may enter 
        in a memorandum of agreement with a State. Such memorandum may 
        include, where appropriate, provisions permitting such State 
        to--
            ``(1) analyze the need for primary health services for 
        medically underserved populations within such State;
            ``(2) assist in the planning and development of new 
        community health centers; . . .
    sec. 4. authorization of appropriations.

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

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

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (6) The Clerk will report 
    the next committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

        Mr. [Mickey] Leland [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order that the amendment is not germane to the subject matter or 
    purpose of this

[[Page 7947]]

    bill and is in violation of clause 7 of rule XVI.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: . . . If no one wishes to be heard on 
    the point of order, the Chair is ready to rule.
        The amendment does not pertain to the subject matter of the 
    introduced bill and addresses a subject that is not covered by the 
    bill and the point of order is sustained.