[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§ 9. General Amendments to Specific or Limited Propositions; Amendments Enlarging Scope of Proposition]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 7947-8033]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 9. General Amendments to Specific or Limited Propositions; 
    Amendments Enlarging Scope of Proposition

    It is well established that a specific proposition may not be 
amended by a proposition general in nature.(7) It has been 
stated that, ``A measure relating to a limited and specific matter may 
not be amended to include matters general in character and scope.'' 
(8) The question for the Chair frequently consists in 
determining what comprises a ``general'' or ``specific'' proposition. 
It has been held that, to a bill limited in its application to certain 
departments and agencies of Government, an amendment applicable to all 
departments and agencies is not germane.(9) And to a 
proposition applying to named individuals, an amendment making such 
proposition one of general applicability was held not to be 
germane.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. Sec. 9.6, 9.9, infra.
 8. See Sec. 9.9, infra.
 9. See Sec. 15.17, infra.
10. See Sec. 27.41, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the rule, it is not in order to amend a private 
bill by a proposition of general legislation.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 9.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment which, by striking words in the bill, broadens the 
scope of the bill may be held not to be germane.(12) But in 
one case where words of qualification were permitted to be stricken, 
the Chair apparently took the view that such words were unnecessary, 
and that the essence of the bill was not changed by deleting 
them.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.  See Sec. 20, infra.
13. See Sec. 9.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fact that a bill requires a study to be made as to the impact 
of the bill upon factors or activities that are not otherwise within 
the scope of the subject matter of the bill, does not render germane an 
amendment that seeks to directly affect such factors or activities, or 
one that seeks to make the effectiveness of the bill conditional upon 
factors not otherwise related to the subject matter of the 
bill.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See, for example, the proceedings of Nov. 2 and Nov. 3, 1983, 
        relating to H.R. 1234, the Fair Practices and Procedures in 
        Automotive Products Act, discussed in Sec. 31.20, infra.

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

[[Page 7948]]

                          -------------------Provision Effective for 
    One Year--Amendment Proposing Permanent Change in Law

Sec. 9.1 To a proposition establishing a ceiling on employment for one 
    year, an amendment proposing a hiring preference system as 
    permanent law is not germane as going beyond the year and the issue 
    of the number of employees covered by the measure to which offered.

    The proceedings of Oct. 11, 1989, relating to H.R. 3026, District 
of Columbia appropriations for fiscal 1990, are discussed in Sec. 24.5, 
infra.

One Year Authorization--Amendment Permanently Extending Law

Sec. 9.2 To a proposition to appropriate or to authorize appropriations 
    for only one year (and containing no provisions extending beyond 
    that year) an amendment to extend the appropriation or 
    authorization to another year is not germane.

    On Nov. 13, 1980,(15) during consideration of the State 
and Local Fiscal Assistance Act Amendments of 1980 (16) in 
the Committee of the Whole, it was held that to an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute only extending for one year the entitlement 
authorization for revenue-sharing during fiscal year 1981 and 
containing conforming changes in the law which would not effectively 
extend beyond that year, an amendment extending the revenue-sharing 
program for 3 years was broader in scope and was not germane. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 126 Cong. Rec. 29523-28, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. H.R. 7112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (17) When the Committee rose on 
    Wednesday, November 12, 1980, section 1 had been considered as 
    having been read and opened for amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there any amendments to section 1?
        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Horton: Strike out everything after the enacting clause and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:
    Section 1. Short Title.

            This Act may be cited as the ``State and Local Fiscal 
        Assistance Act Amendments of 1980''.

[[Page 7949]]

    Sec. 2. Extension of Program.

            (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 105(c)(1) of 
        the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 is amended by 
        adding at the end thereof the following: ``In addition, there 
        are authorized to be appropriated to the Trust Fund 
        $4,566,700,000 to pay the entitlements of units of local 
        government hereinafter provided for the entitlement period 
        beginning October 1, 1980, and ending September 30, 1981.''. . 
        .

    An amendment was offered:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wydler to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Horton: On page 1 of the 
        amendment of the gentleman from New York, strike out section 2 
        and insert in lieu thereof the following:
    Sec. 2. Extension of Program.

            (a) Authorization of Appropriations for Local Share.--
        Section 105(c)(1) of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act 
        of 1972 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: 
        ``In addition, there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Trust Fund to pay the entitlements of units of local government 
        hereinafter provided $4,566,700,000 for each of the entitlement 
        periods beginning October 1 of 1980, 1981, and 1982.''. . .
            ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations for Allocations to 
        State Governments.--
            ``(1) In general.--In the case of each entitlement period 
        described in paragraph (2), there are authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Trust Fund $2,300,000,000 for each such 
        entitlement period to make allocations to State governments. . 
        . .
            ``(2) Entitlement periods.--The following entitlement 
        periods are described in this paragraph:
            ``(A) The entitlement period beginning October 1, 1981, and 
        ending September 30, 1982; and
            ``(B) The entitlement period beginning October 1, 1982, and 
        ending September 30, 1983.''. . . .

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is 
    not germane to the Horton substitute. It is in violation of rule 
    XVI against nongermane amendments. The Horton substitute is limited 
    to an extension of this legislation in 1981 only. The amendment, 
    however, seeks to add language dealing with fiscal years 1982 and 
    1983. This is a different subject from that of the Horton 
    substitute and does not conform to the rule. The Horton substitute 
    was very carefully drafted and restricted to units of local 
    government for the entitlement period beginning October 1, 1980, 
    and ending September 30, 1981.
        The proposed amendment is a different subject matter, dealing 
    with State governments for a different period of time. . . .
        Mr. [John W.] Wydler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    to the amendment that I have offered deals with exactly the same 
    subject matter as in the amendment that has been offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton). It does deal with a longer 
    time period, but it is the same time period exactly that is 
    contained in the legislation. It deals with other matters which are 
    contained in the general legislation, so I feel it is well within 
    the parameters of the bill it is trying to be substituted for.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the fundamental purpose of the 
    amendment

[[Page 7950]]

    offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton), in the nature 
    of a substitute, is to extend for 1 year the entitlement 
    authorization for revenue-sharing payments to local governments 
    during fiscal year 1981.
        Any amendment offered thereto must be germane to the Horton 
    amendment. It will not be sufficient that the amendment be germane 
    to the committee bill. Under the precedents, to a proposition to 
    appropriate for only 1 year, an amendment to extend the 
    appropriation to another year, is not germane; Cannon's Precedents, 
    volume 8, section 2913.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the Horton amendment and the 
    conforming changes therein have as their fundamental purpose the 
    extension of local entitlements for only 1 year and do not thereby 
    open up the amendment to permanent or multiyear changes in the 
    revenue-sharing law.
        For that reason, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Extending Time Limit for Settlement of Particular Labor Dispute--
    Amendment To Provide Permanent Procedures for Settlement of All 
    Emergency Labor Disputes

Sec. 9.3 To a bill extending the time limit for negotiation of labor 
    disputes under the Railway Labor Act for purposes of permitting 
    additional time for negotiation of a particular labor dispute, an 
    amendment providing permanent procedures for the settlement of all 
    emergency labor disputes by amendment of the Railway Labor Act was 
    held to be not germane.

    In the 90th Congress, a bill (18) was under 
consideration which related to settlement of a labor dispute between 
certain railroad companies and their union employees. An amendment was 
offered (19) whose purpose was explained by the proponent, 
Mr. William E. Brock 3d, of Tennessee, as follows: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.J. Res. 559 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
19. See 113 Cong. Rec. 15912, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1967.
20. Id. at p. 15914.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . I propose to do two things: first, to put off the strike 
    for 90 days as is proposed in the bill, and second, during this 
    period, to take an entirely different approach, based upon the 
    problem, not the symptom that we are treating with compulsory 
    arbitration. I would prohibit industrywide bargaining and require 
    as an alternative carrier-by-carrier negotiations.

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

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: . . . First, the amendment 
    goes beyond the fundamental purpose of the legislation before the 
    committee today. As such it is not germane to the fundamental 
    purposes of the measure.

[[Page 7951]]

        I would cite that the amendment deals with sections of the 
    Railway Labor Act other than those presently before us. . . .
        . . . [T]he pending measure is limited to a specific labor 
    dispute, whereas the amendment . . . deals with all labor disputes.
        The legislation pending before the committee today deals with 
    railroads in one specific instance . . . whereas the amendment . . 
    . deals with every industry covered by the Railway Labor Act, which 
    would also include the airlines. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, in addition to this I would point out that 
    legislation dealing with a specific subject or a specific set of 
    circumstances under the rules may not be amended by a provision 
    which is general in nature even when of the class or the specific 
    subject involved.

    The Chairman,(1) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.  Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair will call attention to ``Cannon's Precedents,'' 
    volume 8, page 479, section 2912, which reads as follows:

            To a bill proposing measures to meet a declared emergency 
        and limited in operation to a period of five years an amendment 
        proposing permanent legislation of the same character was held 
        not to be germane. . . .

        Because the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
    is permanent legislation and the resolution before the committee is 
    limited to an existing situation and is not permanent in nature, 
    the Chair holds that the amendment is not germane.

Amendment Directing Study of Subject Not in Bill

Sec. 9.4 To a bill mandating that a certain percentage of automobiles 
    sold in the United States be manufactured domestically, imposing an 
    import restriction on any person violating that requirement, and 
    requiring diverse studies of the impact of the bill and of 
    discriminatory practices of manufacturers affecting domestic 
    production of automobile parts, an amendment directing the Attorney 
    General to study the antitrust and tax implications of automobile 
    manufacturers' sales-lease price differentials was held not germane 
    as relating to a subject (antitrust and tax law) beyond the scope 
    of studies and requirements contained in the bill.

    During consideration of the Automotive Products Act of 1983 
(2) in the Committee of the Whole on Nov. 2 and 3, 
1983,(3) the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
amendment de

[[Page 7952]]

scribed above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 1234.
 3. 129 Cong. Rec. 30527, 30781, 30782, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    sec. 9. study of discriminatory practices affecting domestic 
    production of motor vehicle parts.

        Within eighteen months after the date of the enactment of this 
    Act, the Secretary and the Federal Trade Commission shall jointly 
    undertake an investigation, and submit to Congress a written 
    report, regarding those policies and practices of vehicle 
    manufacturers that are used to persuade United States motor vehicle 
    dealers, in choosing replacement parts for motor vehicles, to favor 
    foreign-made parts rather than domestically produced parts. Such 
    report shall include, but not be limited to, recommended 
    administrative or legislative action that the Secretary and the 
    Federal Trade Commission consider appropriate to assure that 
    domestic producers of replacement parts are accorded fair access to 
    the United States market for such parts.
    sec. 10. impact study regarding motor vehicle dealerships.

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

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

          Sec. 11. impact study regarding unfair price discrimination.

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

[[Page 7953]]

point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey is out of order in accordance with rule XVI, clause 7, the rule 
of germaneness.

        The gentleman has offered as an amendment a form of a bill 
    which is pending before the gentleman's subcommittee which deals 
    with the question of how leasing companies buy automobiles through 
    dealerships and under what circumstances. . . .
        The findings of the bill say that there has been serious injury 
    due to increases in imports. The purposes of the bill are declared 
    as they are going to remedy the serious injuries by not allowing 
    foreign-made merchandise to be sold in the United States.
        Clearly, this amendment, which deals with domestic-sales 
    arrangements of domestic companies, has nothing whatever to do with 
    the bill and should be declared out of order. . . .
        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, as 
    salutory as the purpose of this amendment is, I certainly would 
    support it under other circumstances. It gives responsibilities to 
    the Attorney General that are not in the bill. It requires a study 
    of antitrust matters which are not at all pertinent to the bill 
    before us and it deals with pricing.
        For all those reasons, I believe it is nongermane and, 
    therefore, regrettably, I have to assert a point of order.
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from New Jersey 
    wish to be heard on the point of order? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Perfecting Amendment--Substitute Striking out Larger Portion of Text

Sec. 9.5 For a perfecting amendment to a subsection striking out one 
    activity from those covered by a provision of existing law, a 
    substitute striking out the entire subsection, thereby eliminating 
    the applicability of existing law to a number of activities, was 
    held more general in scope and not germane.

    On Aug. 18, 1982,(5) during consideration of H.R. 5540, 
the Defense Industrial Base Revitalization Act, in the Committee of the

[[Page 7954]]

Whole, the Chair made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 128 Cong. Rec. 21967, 21968, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) All time has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Wyche Fowler, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk will now read the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
    Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs now printed in the 
    reported bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment in 
    lieu of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H.R. 5540

            . . . Sec. 2. Title III of the Defense Production Act of 
        1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2091 et seq.) is amended by inserting 
        after section 303 the following:
            Sec. 303A. (a) It is the purpose of this section to 
        strengthen the domestic capability and capacity of the Nation's 
        defense industrial base. The actions specified in this section 
        are intended to facilitate the carrying out of such purpose.
            ``(b)(1) The President, utilizing the types of financial 
        assistance specified in sections 301, 302, and 303, and any 
        other authority contained in this Act, shall take immediate 
        action to assist in the modernization of industries in the 
        United States which are necessary to the manufacture or supply 
        of national defense materials which are required for the 
        national security or are likely to be required in a time of 
        emergency or war. . . .
            ``(c) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 
        Secretary of Commerce, shall--
            ``(1) determine immediately, and semiannually thereafter, 
        those industries which should be given priority in the awarding 
        of financial assistance under subsection (b);
            ``(2) determine the type and extent of financial assistance 
        which should be made available to each such industry; and
            ``(3) with respect to the industries specified pursuant to 
        paragraph (1), indicate those proposals, received under 
        subsection (e), which should be given preference in the 
        awarding of financial assistance under subsection (b) based on 
        a determination that such proposals offer the greatest prospect 
        for improving productivity and quality, and for providing 
        materials which will reduce the Nation's reliance on imports. . 
        . .
            ``(m)(1) All laborers and mechanics employed for the 
        construction, repair, or alteration of any project, or the 
        installation of equipment, funded, in whole or in part, by a 
        guarantee, loan, or grant entered into pursuant to this section 
        shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on 
        projects of similar character in the locality as determined by 
        the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Act entitled `An 
        Act relating to the rate of wages for laborers and mechanics 
        employed on public buildings of the United States and the 
        District of Columbia by contractors and subcontractors, and for 
        other purposes', approved March 3, 1931 (40 U.S.C. 276a et 
        seq.), and commonly known as the Davis-Bacon Act.

    When consideration of H.R. 5540 resumed on Sept. 23, 
1982,(7) an amendment was offered by Mr. Bruce F. Vento, of 
Minnesota, and proceedings ensued as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 128 Cong. Rec. 24963, 24964, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Vento: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page 7955]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Vento:
            Page 41, line 24, strike out ``, or the installation of 
        equipment,''.
            Page 42, beginning on line 15, strike out ``, or the 
        installation of equipment,''. . . .

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Erlenborn as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Vento: Beginning on page 41, line 22, 
        strike all of subsection (m) through page 43, line 2.

        Mr. Vento: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment offered as a substitute by the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Erlenborn). . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the substitute offered by the gentleman is 
    clearly not in order. Under rule 19, Cannon's Procedure VIII, 
    section 2879, the precedents provide that ``to qualify as a 
    substitute an amendment must treat in the same manner the same 
    subject carried by the amendment for which it is offered.''
        My amendment would remove language from the committee bill and 
    limit the applicability of the Davis-Bacon Act in terms of one type 
    of activity. The gentleman's substitute would strike the entire 
    section of the committee bill which my amendment seeks to perfect 
    and thereby eliminate the Davis-Bacon provisions of this 
    legislation.
        In this case, the amendment offered by the gentleman clearly 
    does not treat the subject in the same manner which my amendment 
    does. Also, under Deschler's Procedure, chapter 27, section 14.1, 
    decisions made by the Chair on August 12, 1963, December 16, 1963, 
    and June 5, 1974, a motion to strike out a section or paragraph is 
    not in order while a perfecting amendment is pending. In addition, 
    the decisions of the Chair of December 16, 1963, and June 5, 1974, 
    and contained in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 27, section 14.4, 
    provides that a provision must be perfected before the question is 
    put on striking it out. A motion to strike out a paragraph or 
    section may not be offered as a substitute for pending motion to 
    perfect a paragraph or section by a motion to strike and insert. 
    The gentleman's amendment attempts to accomplish indirectly 
    something that he is precluded from doing directly. . . .
        Mr. Erlenborn: . . . It does appear to me from what the 
    gentleman has said in support of his point of order that he is 
    claiming that my substitute would treat a different matter or in a 
    different manner the same matter as the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman.
        The language to which both amendments are directed is language 
    in the bill that is applying the Davis-Bacon Act to activities 
    under the bill in question. The amendment offered by the gentleman 
    is reducing the extent of that coverage by taking out the 
    installation of equipment.
        My substitute also reduces that by eliminating the language so 
    there would be no extension of Davis-Bacon to the activities beyond 
    the present coverage of Davis-Bacon.
        So the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from 
    Min

[[Page 7956]]

    nesota (Mr. Vento) is affecting Davis-Bacon by reducing its 
    coverage. Mine also would affect the reduction of Davis-Bacon, only 
    in a broader manner; and I, therefore, believe the amendment is in 
    order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Vento) for the reasons advocated by the gentleman 
    from Minnesota that the substitute is too broad in its scope in its 
    striking the whole of subsection (m).
        The Chair would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Erlenborn) it would be appropriate as a separate amendment but it 
    is not in order as a substitute because of the scope of the 
    amendment.
        The point of order of the gentleman from Minnesota is 
    sustained.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As the above proceedings indicate, a motion 
to strike out an entire subsection of a bill is not, in any event, a 
proper substitute for a perfecting amendment to the subsection, since 
it is broader in scope, but may be offered after disposition of the 
perfecting amendment.

Bill Authorizing Deportation of Named Individual--Amendment Authorizing 
    Deportation of Class of Aliens

Sec. 9.6 To a bill authorizing the deportation of a named individual, 
    an amendment authorizing deportation of any alien who is a member 
    of an organization specified in the amendment was held not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (8) was under consideration 
to authorize the deportation of Harry Bridges.(9) An 
amendment was offered (10) as described above. A point of 
order was raised against the amendment, as follows: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 9766 (Committee on Immigration and Naturalization).
 9. See 86 Cong. Rec. 8203, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., June 13, 1940.
10. Id. at pp. 8213, 8214.
11. Id. at p. 8214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Lesinski [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I doubt that 
    that amendment should be voted on, as it is general legislation, 
    and we have before us a private bill, not general legislation. The 
    amendment is not germane to this bill.

    The Chairman (12) sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Millard F. Caldwell (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill To Abolish Specified National Monument--Amendment Relating to 
    Monuments Generally

Sec. 9.7 To a bill to abolish a particular monument created by 
    executive order, an amendment requiring, in specified 
    circumstances, Congres

[[Page 7957]]

    sional approval of proclamations relating to preservation of 
    American antiquities was held to be not germane.

    In the 78th Congress, a bill (13) was under 
consideration to abolish the Jackson Hole National Monument. The 
following amendment was offered to the bill: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 2241 (Committee on Public Lands).
14. 90 Cong. Rec. 9192, 9193, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 11, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Antonio M.] Fernandez [of New 
    Mexico]: After the end of the first section add another section as 
    follows:
        Sec. 2. That section 2, of the act entitled ``An act for the 
    preservation of American antiquity, approved June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 
    225, U.S.C., title 16, sec. 431.),'' be, and the same is hereby, 
    amended by adding at the end of said section the following words: 
    ``Provided however, That any proclamation hereafter made under 
    authority of this act shall not become effective until approved by 
    act of Congress if the lands embraced within or reserved as a part 
    of the national monument created thereby exceed 10,000 acres in 
    area.''

    Mr. J. Hardin Peterson, of Florida, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane to the bill.(15) The Chairman, 
(16) in holding that the amendment was not germane, noted 
that, ``The bill . . . refers to a very limited subject, applying only 
to the Jackson Hole National Monument and not to monuments generally.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 9193.
16. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Prohibiting Interstate Shipment of Specified Mechanical Gambiling 
    Devices--Amendment Expanding Prohibition To Include Racing Horses 
    and Dogs

Sec. 9.8 To a bill to prohibit the transportation in interstate 
    commerce of specific types of mechanical gambling devices, an 
    amendment expending the prohibition to include racing horses and 
    racing dogs was held to be not germane.

    In the 81st Congress, a bill (17) was under 
consideration which related to transportation of gambling devices in 
interstate and foreign commerce. An amendment was offered 
(18) as described above. Mr. John W. Heselton, of 
Massachusetts, raised the point of order that the amendment was not 
germane to the bill. The Chairman,(19) noting that, ``the 
bill as now amended is not directed at gambling in general'', held the

[[Page 7958]]

amendment to be beyond the scope of the bill and therefore not to be 
germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. S. 3357 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
18. 96 Cong. Rec. 13651, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 28, 1950.
19. Henry M. Jackson (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Providing Aid for School Construction in Federal Impact Areas-- 
    Amendment Providing Aid for School Construction Generally

Sec. 9.9 To a bill providing federal assistance for construction of 
    schools in areas affected by certain federal activities, an 
    amendment providing for federal assistance for school construction 
    generally was held not to be germane.

    In the 84th Congress, a bill (20) was under 
consideration providing federal assistance for school construction in 
specified areas. An amendment was offered (1) as described 
above. Mr. Noah M. Mason, of Illinois, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane to the bill.(2) The Chairman, 
Charles Melvin Price, of Illinois, in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 11695 (Committee on Education and Labor).
 1. 102 Cong. Rec. 12027, 12028, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 7, 1956.
 2. Id. at p. 12028.
 3. Id. at pp. 12028, 12029.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill under consideration . . . is one limited to financial 
    assistance for the construction of schools in impacted areas. . . .
        The amendment . . . has for its purpose an authorization for 
    school construction generally. . . . It is a well-recognized 
    principle . . . that a measure relating to a limited and specific 
    matter may not be amended to include matters general in character 
    and scope.

    The Chairman then sustained the point of order.

Counsel for Persons Charged Under Civil Rights Act--Counsel for Any 
    Offense

Sec. 9.10 To an amendment providing for legal counsel for persons cited 
    for alleged contempt under a civil rights act, an amendment to 
    provide for legal counsel for persons ``charged with any offense'' 
    was held to be not germane.

    In the 85th Congress, during consideration of a bill (4) 
to protect civil rights of persons within the jurisdiction of the 
United States, the following amendment was offered: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 6127 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 5. 103 Cong. Rec. 9378, 9379, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 17, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Basil L.] Whitener [of North 
    Carolina]: On page 8, immediately following line 24, in

[[Page 7959]]

    sert: Provided That any person cited for an alleged contempt under 
    this act shall be allowed to make his full defense by counsel (to 
    be assigned by the Court in certain instances).

    To such proposition, the following amendment was offered: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 9382.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan] to 
    the amendment offered by Mr. Whitener: After the word ``contempt'' 
    insert ``or charged with any offense.''

    Mr. Kenneth B. Keating, of New York, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane to the bill. The Chairman,(7) 
in sustaining the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [T]he amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina has to do 
    with contempt, whereas the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Michigan has to do with any offense or charge, which broadens the 
    scope of the pending amendment to a degree where the Chair holds 
    that it is not germane. . . .

Bill Providing Remedies for One Form of Discrimination--Amendment To 
    Establish Community Relations Service Addressing Broad Range of 
    Discriminatory Practices

Sec. 9.11 To that title of a civil rights bill authorizing the Attorney 
    General to bring actions on account of discriminatory practices in 
    public facilities, an amendment striking that title and inserting 
    provisions establishing a Community Relations Service to assist in 
    resolving a broad range of disputes relating to discriminatory 
    practices was held to be not germane.

    In the 88th Congress, during consideration of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1963,(8) the following amendment was offered: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 7152 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 9. 110 Cong. Rec. 2251, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 6, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert T.] Ashmore [of South 
    Carolina]: Strike out all of title III and insert in lieu the 
    following:

          TITLE III--ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS SERVICE

        Sec. 301. There is hereby established a Community Relations 
    Service. . . .
        Sec. 302. It shall be the function of the Service to provide 
    assistance to communities and persons therein in resolving disputes 
    . . . relating to discriminatory practices based on race . . . or 
    national origin which impair the rights of persons . . . under the 
    Constitution . . . or which . . . may affect interstate commerce. 
    The Service may offer its services in cases of such disputes . . . 
    whenever in its judgment

[[Page 7960]]

    peaceful relations among the citizens of the community involved are 
    threatened thereby. . . .
        Sec. 303. (a) The Service shall whenever possible in performing 
    its functions under this title seek and utilize the cooperation of 
    the appropriate State or local agencies and may seek and utilize 
    the cooperation of any nonpublic agency which it believes may be 
    helpful.

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

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I am 
    constrained to make the point of order that the amendment is not 
    germane to the title III. Title III involves litigation. Litigation 
    is the subject of title III.
        The amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina involves the 
    establishment of a community relations service, which is a sort of 
    informal conciliatory agency to settle disputes.

    The Chairman, Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, in ruling on the point 
of order, stated: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 2252.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is to be noted that the title in the pending bill is limited 
    to the denial of access to or full and complete utilization of any 
    public facility which is owned, operated or managed by or on behalf 
    of any State or subdivision thereof.
        The Community Relations Service which is sought to be set up in 
    the amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina goes far beyond 
    the provisions of the title in the pending bill. It is the opinion 
    of the Chair that the amendment is, therefore, not germane to the 
    title in the pending bill and sustains the point of order.

    Subsequently, a similar amendment was offered, as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William C.] Cramer [of Florida]: On 
    page 48, strike out all of title III and insert the following 
    section:
        Sec. 301. (a) There is hereby established in the Department of 
    Commerce a Community Relations Service. . . .
        Sec. 303. (a) The Service, shall, whenever possible, in 
    performing its functions under this title, seek and utilize the 
    cooperation of the appropriate State or local agencies.

    Mr. Cramer, explaining the amendment, stated: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at pp. 2252, 2253.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The wording I am offering sets up a community relations 
    service and is that reported out by the subcommittee which, I am 
    sure the gentleman knows, is substantially different in that the 
    community relations service is transferred to the Department of 
    Commerce, and is limited to six employees as compared to the 
    administration's bill.

    A point of order was again raised, as follows: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 2253.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, I reiterate and reaffirm the point of 
    order which I made against the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from South Carolina (Mr. Ashmore).

    The Chairman, in sustaining the point of order, stated:

[[Page 7961]]

        The text of the new title III to be inserted (by the amendment) 
    would create a community relations service in the Department of 
    Commerce, and it would place in that commission far broader powers 
    than are sought to be provided under the pending bill. . . .
        The Chair is of the opinion that, similar to the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from South Carolina, the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Florida is not germane to title III of the 
    pending bill.

Bill Imposing Penalties for Obstruction of Desegregation Orders--
    Amendment Making Provisions Applicable to All Court Orders

Sec. 9.12 To that chapter of a bill making it a federal crime to 
    obstruct court orders relating to desegregation of public schools, 
    an amendment to broaden the chapter by making it applicable to all 
    court orders was held to be not germane.

    In the 86th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(13) to enforce certain constitutional rights, the following 
amendment was offered: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 8601 (Committee on the Judiciary).
14. 106 Cong. Rec. 6369, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 23, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Samuel L.] Devine [of Ohio]: On page 
    1, beginning at line 10, strike out all down to and through line 23 
    on page 2, and insert:
        Sec. 1509. Obstruction of court orders.
        Whoever . . . willfully . . . obstructs . . . the due exercise 
    of rights or the performance of duties under any order . . . of a 
    court of the United States, shall be fined . . . or imprisoned. . . 
    .

    Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, made a point of order against the 
amendment. The Chairman, Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, in 
sustaining the point of order, stated: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 6370.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio has the effect 
    of making the ruling applicable to all court orders. The bill under 
    consideration applies to certain court orders. It is quite limited 
    in scope of application.

    Subsequently, an amendment was offered to strike out the language 
that limited the application of the provisions to desegregation 
rulings, thus making the section applicable to the obstruction of all 
court orders.(16) Mr. Celler again made a point of order 
against the amendment. The following exchange ensued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 6381 (amendment offered by Mr. Howard W. Smith [Va.]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order 
    that the point of order comes too late. I had been recognized.
        The Chairman: The point of order does not come too late.

[[Page 7962]]

    Subsequently, the Chairman, in sustaining the point of order, cited 
the rule that, a proposal to eliminate portions of a text thereby 
extending the scope of its provisions to other subjects than those 
originally presented is in violation of the rule requiring germaneness.

Bill Authorizing Commission To Investigate Deprivation of Voting Rights 
    Due to Discrimination--Amendment Striking Language so as to Expand 
    Coverage to Any Deprivation of Voting Rights

Sec. 9.13 To a bill establishing a commission on civil rights and 
    authorizing such commission to investigate deprivation of voting 
    rights due to color, race, religion, or national origin, an 
    amendment striking out such terms so that an investigation could 
    encompass any deprivation of voting rights, was held to be germane.

    In the 85th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(17) relating to civil rights, an amendment was offered 
(18) as described above. A point of order was raised against 
the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17.  H.R. 6127 (Committee on the Judiciary).
18. 103 Cong. Rec. 9019, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 13, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: The point of order is 
    that the adoption of this amendment would completely change the 
    character of the legislation. It would leave in the bill simply the 
    power to investigate the right to vote. Such a commission set up in 
    this manner would not normally be created by the Committee on the 
    Judiciary but, rather, by the Committee on House Administration.

    Mr. Martin Dies, Jr., of Texas, in response to the point of order 
raised against the amendment, stated in part that ``the right to vote 
is a civil right.'' The Chairman, (19) in ruling on the 
point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas offers an amendment to the bill now 
    under consideration that would strike out the words ``by reason of 
    their color, race, religion, or national origin.'' The paragraph to 
    which it is offered deals with investigations to be made by the 
    Commission and reads ``investigate allegations in writing under 
    oath or affirmation that certain citizens of the United States are 
    being deprived of their right to vote.'' Then comes the 
    qualification.
        The Chair rules that those additional qualifications are not 
    necessary. The intent of the paragraph is still carried out by 
    virtue of the fact that it authorizes the Commission to investigate 
    the allegation that someone is being deprived of his political 
    right to vote and, therefore, overrules the point of order.

[[Page 7963]]

Substitute Amendment More Comprehensive Than Amendment

Sec. 9.14 To an amendment only decreasing the fiscal year 1984 
    authorization for Army ammunition funds in Title I of the Defense 
    Department authorization bill, a substitute adding language 
    prohibiting use of any Defense Department funds for the production 
    or procurement of binary chemical weapons was held to be not 
    germane because addressing funds not addressed by the pending 
    amendment.

    During consideration of H.R. 2969 in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 15, 1983,(20) the Chair, in sustaining a point of order 
against the amendment described above, indicated that a substitute for 
an amendment must be germane to the amendment to which offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 129 Cong. Rec. 15803, 15809, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki: Page 2, line 15, strike 
        out ``$2,272,500,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$2,157,900,000''. . . .

        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bethune as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki: Page 2, line 15, strike out 
        ``$2,272,500,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$2,157,900,000''.
            Page 10, after line 12, insert the following new section:

          prohibition on procurement of binary chemical munitions and 
            related production facilities, equipment, and precursor 
                                   chemicals

            Sec. 109. (a) None of the funds appropriated pursuant to 
        the authorizations of appropriations in this title may be 
        obligated or expended for procurement of binary chemical 
        munitions or for production facilities, equipment, or precursor 
        chemicals for such munitions.
            (b) No funds available to the Department of Defense may be 
        made available for the production or procurement of binary 
        chemical munitions (or for production facilities, equipment, or 
        precursor chemicals for such munitions) through the use of 
        reprogramming authority. . . .

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, under 
    section 109 of the amendment, on line 9, it says,

            No funds available to the Department of Defense may be made 
        available for the production or procurement of binary chemical 
        munitions (or for production facilities, equipment, or 
        precursor chemicals for such munitions) through the use of 
        reprogramming authority.

        The point of order is that this bill is a bill that would 
    authorize funds for

[[Page 7964]]

    fiscal year 1984 exclusively, whereas the amendment deals with 
    funds that might have been made available to the Department of 
    Defense in other ways, prior years, or subsequent year, and, 
    therefore, is outside of the scope of the pending legislation and 
    is, therefore, out of order. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (1) The Chair will rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.  John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Zablocki amendment addresses the Army ammunition funds 
    authorized by title I of the pending bill. The Bethune substitute 
    addresses other funds available to the Department of Defense not 
    authorized by the pending title I and is not germane to the 
    Zablocki amendment.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Provision Prohibiting Use of Specified Funds for Abortions--Motion To 
    Strike Out Language as Broadening Scope of Prohibition to Include 
    All Funds in Bill

Sec. 9.15 A motion to strike out a portion of the text of an amendment, 
    thereby extending its scope to a more general subject, is not 
    germane; thus, to a substitute amendment to the District of 
    Columbia Appropriation bill prohibiting the use of annual federal 
    payment funds therein for the performance of abortions, an 
    amendment striking the reference to federal payment funds, thereby 
    broadening the scope of the substitute to cover any funds contained 
    in the bill, was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 4580 (2) in the Committee 
of the Whole on July 17, 1979,(3) the Chair sustained a 
point of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. The District of Columbia Appropriations for fiscal 1980.
 3. 125 Cong. Rec. 19064, 19066, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Dornan: Page 17, after line 2, add the 
    following new section:
        ``Sec. 221. None of the funds appropriated under this Act shall 
    be used to pay for abortions.''. . .
        Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment 
    as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas as a 
        substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Dornan: ``None of 
        the funds in this Act provided by the Federal payment shall be 
        used to perform abortions.''. . .

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: 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. Bauman to the amendment offered

[[Page 7965]]

        by Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Dornan: delete from the amendment of 
        the gentleman from Texas the following words: ``provided by the 
        Federal payment''.

    A point of order was made, as follows:

        Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas: . . . As I understand the 
    amendment it in essence takes it back to the original Dornan 
    amendment without providing for the substitute. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, that is not a point of order, it 
    simply is an accurate description of the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I suppose the point 
    of order is that it is a sham amendment in that it just repeats the 
    intent of the original amendment.
        The Chairman: (4) In the opinion of the Chair, the 
    gentleman from Texas is suggesting that the perfecting amendment 
    broadens the scope of the substitute amendment, and for that reason 
    is not germane. The point of order is sustained under the 
    precedents that a motion to strike cannot broaden the scope of the 
    pending proposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Albert A. Gore, Jr. (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Chair could cite a 
    precedent for his ruling?
        The Chairman: Deschler's procedure chapter 28, section 15.3.

Amendment Relating to Funds in ``This or Any Other Act''

Sec. 9.16 An amendment requiring the availability of funds ``under this 
    or any other Act'' for certain humanitarian assistance was held to 
    go beyond the scope of the pending bill and was ruled out as not 
    germane, affecting funds in other provisions of law.

    During consideration of the Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation 
Assistance Act (5) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair 
sustained a point of order against the amendment described above. The 
proceedings of Apr. 23, 1975,(6) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.  H.R. 6096.
 6. 121 Cong. Rec. 11550, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Matthew F.] McHugh [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McHugh: Page 3, immediately after 
        line 12, add the following new section: ``Sec. 8. (a) Funds 
        made available under this Act or any other Act for humanitarian 
        assistance shall be furnished under such international 
        organizations, international agreements or voluntary relief 
        agencies as the President may determine.
            ``(b) Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
        Act and within each 90-day period thereafter, the President 
        shall, to the fullest extent practicable, transmit to the 
        Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
        Foreign Relations of the Senate a report describing fully and 
        completely--
            ``(1) the amount of each type of humanitarian assistance 
        provided under the Act;

[[Page 7966]]

            ``(2) the actual and anticipated recipients of such 
        assistance;''. . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment in that some of the changes 
    are subject to a point of order because in line 2 it quotes, ``This 
    act or any other act.''
        Therefore, it affects funds made available in other acts and 
    limits their use. . . .
        Mr. McHugh: . . . Section 6, or what was section 6, provides 
    for funds under the Foreign Assistance Act of $177 million. That is 
    the other act referred to in the proposed section. Therefore, I 
    think it is in order.
        The Chairman: (7) Unfortunately, the intention of 
    the gentleman is not represented by the language of the amendment. 
    The amendment is overly broad in scope, and accordingly, the point 
    of order must be sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not 
    allowed.

Provision Adding New Labor Standard--Amendment To Strike Section of 
    Bill Covering Several Standards

Sec. 9.17 For an amendment inserting an additional labor standard to 
    those contained in a section of a bill, a motion to strike out the 
    entire section was ruled out as not a proper substitute for the 
    perfecting amendment, and not germane in that it had the effect of 
    enlarging the scope of the perfecting amendment.

    During consideration of H.R. 14747 (amending the Sugar Act of 1948) 
in the Committee of the Whole on June 5, 1974,(8) it was 
demonstrated that a motion to strike out a section is not in order as a 
substitute for a perfecting amendment to that section. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 120 Cong. Rec. 17868, 17869, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. O'Hara: Page 18, after line 5, 
        insert:
            (5) That the producer who compensates workers on a piece-
        rate basis shall have paid, at a minimum, the established 
        minimum hourly wage.

        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Symms as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. O'Hara: In lieu of the amendment 
        offered by the gentleman from Michigan insert the following: 
        ``Section 11 of the bill, page 15, strike out all of line 11 
        through line 6 of page 17 and renumbering the `(3)' on line 7, 
        page 17 as `(1)', and strike out line 15 on page 17 through 
        line 5 on page 18.''. . .

[[Page 7967]]

        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment in that it is not germane to the provisions of my 
    amendment. It deals with different parts of section 11. . . .
        Mr. Symms: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment is germane to the 
    gentleman's amendment. It strikes it and all the labor provisions 
    from the bill.
        The Chairman: (9) It is the ruling of the Chair that 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Symms) as a 
    substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. O'Hara) is not a proper substitute. The substitute would 
    strike portions of section 11 not affected by the pending 
    amendment. And, the substitute is broader in scope than the 
    amendment to which offered and is not germane thereto. The Chair 
    sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.  James A. Burke (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Restriction of Funds in ``This or Any Other Act''

Sec. 9.18 To a title of a bill primarily amending the Foreign 
    Assistance Act reported from the Committee on Foreign Affairs to 
    authorize assistance for Africa (containing one reference to 
    another law, the Export-Import Bank Act, not directly amended and 
    also within the jurisdiction of another committee), an amendment 
    restricting the availability of funds in that bill ``or any other 
    Act'' to support the activities of the African National Congress 
    was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 3100 (10) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Dec. 9 and 10, 1987,(11) it was held that to 
a bill amending an existing law to authorize a program, an amendment 
restricting authorizations under that or any other Act is not germane. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1987.
11. 133 Cong. Rec. 34592, 34595, 34675, 34676, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             TITLE VIII--AFRICA

               Part A--Africa Famine Recovery and Development
    sec. 801. short title.

        This part may be cited as the ``Africa Famine Recovery and 
    Development Act''. . . .
        Part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is amended by 
    adding after chapter 6 the following new chapter:

            ``CHAPTER 7--AFRICA FAMINE RECOVERY AND DEVELOPMENT
    ``sec. 476. other assistance programs.

        ``To the maximum extent practicable, resources allocated for 
    sub-Saharan Africa under chapter 4 of part II (relating to the 
    Economic Support Fund), title IV of chapter 2 of this part 
    (relating to the Overseas Private Investment Corporation), the 
    Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, the Peace Corps Act, and the

[[Page 7968]]

    African Development Foundation Act shall be used to provide 
    assistance which meets the criteria specified in section 472(b). To 
    the maximum extent practicable, the agency primarily responsible 
    for administering this part should use resources and authorities 
    available under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance 
    Act of 1954, section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949, and 
    the Food for Progress Act of 1985 to complement the assistance 
    provided under section 472. . . .
        Mr. [Dan] Burton of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana: Page 201, after 
        line 8, insert the following:

          sec. 830. prohibition on assistance to the african national 
                                   congress.

            (a) Prohibition.--None of the funds authorized to be 
        appropriated by this or any other Act may be used to support, 
        directly or indirectly, activities of the African National 
        Congress.
            (b) Waiver.--Subsection (a) may be waived by the President 
        if he certifies to the Congress that--
            (1) the National Executive Committee of the African 
        National Congress has taken a stand publicly and officially 
        opposing the practice of ``necklacing'', the practice of 
        execution by fire, used against South African blacks; . . .
            (3) the African National Congress no longer receives its 
        primary financial, military, and training support from the 
        Soviet Union or other Communist countries listed in section 
        620(f) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. . . .

        Mr. [Mickey] Leland [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        The point of order has to do with germaneness, Mr. Chairman. 
    The gentleman's amendment goes a lot farther beyond the purview of 
    the responsibility of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and thus also 
    the parameters of the bill itself that we are debating here. It 
    reaches the interest of other agencies that are not within the 
    jurisdiction of the consideration of this legislation at this time, 
    and therefore it is nongermane to the arguments that we pursue here 
    today.

        Also, Mr. Chairman, the amendment that the gentleman has 
    offered goes a lot farther than any other amendment that has been 
    offered here today. It is much broader, the scope of which is too 
    far reaching to be relevant to the discussions we have here today 
    under the foreign aid bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Les AuCoin (Ore.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would state that according to the Procedures of the 
    House, and quoting from section 8, chapter 28, the following:

            . . . a bill authorizing appropriations for a particular 
        program for 10 fiscal years, an amendment restricting 
        authorizations under any act of Congress for any fiscal year 
        contingent upon implementation of a plan to reduce spending 
        under the bill was held not germane as not confined to the bill 
        under consideration.

        The Chair would note in reading that amendment of the gentleman 
    from Indiana that the gentleman provides a prohibition on funds 
    appropriated by this or any other act, and the Chair can find in no 
    other instance in title VIII as amended where there is any similar 
    prohibition.

[[Page 7969]]

        For that reason, the Chair would rule that the gentleman's 
    amendment goes beyond the scope of title VIII and is not germane. 
    Therefore, the point of order is sustained.

Specific Appropriation--Conditions Not Limited to Funds in Bill

Sec. 9.19 To a joint resolution making supplemental appropriations for 
    relief, an amendment prohibiting use of federal relief money for 
    political purposes but not limiting the prohibition to funds 
    appropriated by the pending bill, was held to be not germane.

    In the 75th Congress, a bill (13) was under 
consideration which stated in part: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.J. Res. 596 (Committee on Appropriations).
14. See 83 Cong. Rec. 2069, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 16, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That to continue to provide relief, and work 
    relief on useful public projects, as authorized in the Emergency 
    Relief Appropriation Act of 1937 . . . there is hereby 
    appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
    appropriated, the sum of $250,000,000. . . .

    The following amendment was offered: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 2070.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert L.] Bacon [of New York]: Page 
    1, line 10, insert the following proviso: ``Provided however, That 
    it shall be unlawful to use Federal relief . . . funds . . . for 
    political purposes; for anyone to . . . receive contributions for 
    political purposes from anyone receiving . . . assistance out of 
    Federal relief funds. . . .''

    Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane.(16) The Chairman,(17) 
in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 2071.
17. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Bacon] unquestionably would apply to all relief funds heretofore 
    appropriated. For this reason the amendment is broader than the 
    scope of the joint resolution now under consideration and is 
    therefore not germane.

Restriction on Funding in Bill--Amendment Restricting all Funds

Sec. 9.20 To a Senate amendment prohibiting the use of funds 
    appropriated for a fiscal year for a specified purpose, a proposed 
    House amendment prohibiting the use of funds appropriated by ``this 
    or any prior Act'' for a different unrelated purpose is not 
    germane.

    The proceedings of June 30, 1987, relating to H.R. 1827, sup

[[Page 7970]]

plemental appropriations for fiscal 1987, are discussed in section 
27.4, infra.

Provision Affecting Specific Funds in Bill--Amendment Prohibiting Use 
    of Funds in Bill or in Any Other Act for Particular Purpose

Sec. 9.21 To a proposition limiting the use of funds in a bill for a 
    particular purpose, an amendment limiting the use of funds in other 
    Acts and for a purpose more general in scope is not germane; thus, 
    to a Senate amendment to an appropriation bill reported from 
    conference in disagreement, striking out a House provision 
    prohibiting the use of funds in the bill for a designated Outer 
    Continental Shelf lease sale in California, a House amendment 
    prohibiting the use of funds in the bill or in any other Act for 
    that lease sale and other California lease sales was conceded to be 
    nongermane as more general in scope.

    On Oct. 5, 1983,(18) during consideration of the 
Department of the Interior appropriations for fiscal 1984 (H.R. 3363) 
in the House, a point of order was conceded and sustained in the 
circumstances described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 129 Cong. Rec. 27319, 27320, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

        The amendment reads as follows:

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

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

            Mr. Yates moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 95 and concur therein 
        with an amendment, as follows: Restore the matter stricken by 
        said amendment, amended to read as follows:
            Sec. 113. (a) No funds in this or any other act may be 
        expended by the Department of the Interior for the lease or 
        sale of lands within the Department of the Interior Southern 
        California Planning Area described in (1) through (4) below. No 
        funds may be expended for lease or sale of lands within the 
        area described in (1) through (4) so long as adjacent State 
        Tidelands continue to be designated as State Oil and Gas 
        Leasing Sanctuary pursuant to Sec. 6871.1 et seq. of the 
        California Public Resources Code . . .
            (1) An area of the Department of the Interior Southern 
        California Planning Area off the coastline of the State of 
        California Oil and Gas Leasing Sanctuary as described by Sec. 
        6871.1 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code in 
        effect September 29, 1983 . . . .
            (4) An area within the boundaries of the Santa Barbara 
        Channel Eco

[[Page 7971]]

        logical Preserve and Buffer Zone, as defined by Department of 
        the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Public Land Order 4587. 
        . . .
            (b) Until January 1, 1985, no funds may be expended by the 
        Department of the Interior for the lease or sale of lands in 
        OCS Lease Sale #80 which lie within an area located off the 
        coastline of the State of California Oil and Gas Leasing 
        Sanctuary as defined by Sec. 6871.1 et seq. California Public 
        Resources Code in effect September 29, 1983 . . . .
            (c) Until January 1, 1985, no funds may be expended by the 
        Department of the Interior for the lease or sale of lands 
        within the Department of the Interior Southern California 
        Planning Area, as defined in section 2(a) of the Outer 
        Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331(a)), located in the 
        Pacific Ocean off the coastline of Santa Monica Bay, State of 
        California, which lies within a line on the California 
        (Lambert) Plane Coordinate System . . . .
            (f) In OCS Lease Sale 80, lease or sale of lands affecting 
        the responsibilities of the Department of Defense shall be with 
        the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense. . . .

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

Joint Resolution Continuing Appropriations for Certain Agencies--
    Amendment Imposing Restriction Affecting All Expenditures

Sec. 9.22 To a joint resolution ``continuing'' appropriations for one 
    month, an amendment placing a restriction on the total 
    administrative budget expenditures for the fiscal year and thus 
    affecting funds not continued by the bill was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill continuing 
appropriations through October 1967, an amendment was offered 
(20) as above described. A point of order was raised against 
the amendment, as follows: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 113 Cong. Rec. 26957, 26958, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 27, 1967. 
        Under consideration was H.J. Res. 849 (Committee on 
        Appropriations).
 1. Id. at p. 26959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In sustaining the point of order, Speaker John W. McCormack, of

[[Page 7972]]

Massachusetts, cited precedents ``which stand for the general 
proposition that to a bill limited in its application to certain 
departments and agencies of Government, an amendment applicable to all 
departments and agencies is not germane.'' (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 26960. For more detailed discussion, see Sec. 15.17, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment to Existing Law--Restriction on ``This or Any Other Act''

Sec. 9.23 To a bill amending an existing law, an amendment prohibiting 
    assistance under that Act or under any other Act for a particular 
    purpose was held too general in scope, affecting laws not being 
    amended by the bill and was held to be not germane.

    On May 11, 1976,(3) during consideration of the 
Vocational Education Act amendments (4) in the Committee of 
the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 122 Cong. Rec. 13419, 13427, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. H.R. 12835.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conlan: On page 190, between lines 
        3 and 4, add the following new subsection:
            ``Sec. 302. (g) The General Education Provisions Act is 
        amended by adding the following new section:
            `` `Sec. ( ). No grants, contracts, or support are 
        authorized under this or any other Act for any purpose in 
        connection with the Man: A Course of Study (MACOS) curriculum 
        program or materials, or in connection with the high school 
        sequel to MACOS, Exploring Human Nature.' ''. . . .

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment because it is not germane.
        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. B.F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Perkins: It is funded by the National Science Foundation, 
    Mr. Chairman. It affects the National Science Foundation; 
    therefore, it is not germane. . . .
        Mr. [John B.] Conlan [of Arizona]: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    National Institute for Education, which is a part of this bill, has 
    the educational resource information clearing houses--18 of them--
    across the Nation, including the one at the University of Indiana, 
    which is totally computerized and which disseminates information in 
    this area. So I do think the matter is germane.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Kentucky makes a point of order against the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona on the basis of 
    germaneness. The Chair in a quick examination of the amendment 
    notes that the amendment reads:

            No grants, contracts, or support are authorized under this 
        or any other Act . . .

[[Page 7973]]

        And on that basis the Chair is going to sustain the point of 
    order because of the fact that the amendment goes beyond the scope 
    of this pending bill.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Pertaining to One Agency in Department--Amendment Affecting All 
    Departmental Programs

Sec. 9.24 To a proposition limited in its application to a single 
    agency within an executive department, an amendment applicable to 
    all activities and agencies within the department is not germane; 
    thus, to an amendment in the nature of a substitute authorizing 
    funds for institutes within the National Institutes of Health, and 
    granting new authority to the National Institutes of Health, an 
    amendment restricting fetal and infant research within the entire 
    Department of Health and Human Services (which includes the 
    National Institutes of Health) was held to be not germane.

    On Sept. 30, 1982,(6) during consideration of the Health 
Research Extension Act of 1982 (7) in the Committee of the 
Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 128 Cong. Rec. 26216-19, 26225, 26226, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. H.R. 6457.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

                                  short title

            Section 1. (a) This Act may be cited as the ``Biomedical 
        Research and Library Extension Act of 1982''.

                           national cancer institute

            Sec. 2. (a) Section 410(a) of the Public Health Service Act 
        (42 U.S.C. 286e(a)) is amended by striking out ``and'' after 
        ``1981;'', and by inserting before the period a semicolon and 
        ``$925,450,490 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1983. . 
        . .
            Sec. 5. (a) Title IV of the Public Health Service Act is 
        amended by adding at the end the following new part: . . .
            Sec. 481. (a) There is established in the Public Health 
        Service a National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal 
        Diseases (hereinafter in this part referred to as the 
        ``Institute''). The general purpose of the Institute is the 
        conduct and support of research, training, health information, 
        and related programs with respect to arthritis and 
        musculoskeletal and skin diseases, including sports-related 
        disorders. . . .
            Sec. 6. (a)(1) The Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
        through the Director of the National Institutes of Health, 
        shall in accordance with subsection (b) arrange for the conduct 
        of a study of the effectiveness of the existing combinations of 
        disease research programs within the individual national 
        research institutes and of the standards which should be 
        followed in establishing

[[Page 7974]]

        new or realigning existing national research institutes. . . .
            Sec. 7. (a) The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
        shall review--
            (1) the actions being taken by the Department of Health and 
        Human Services to support research to develop research and 
        testing methodologies which will decrease the number of live 
        animals used in biomedical and behavioral research;
            (2) the actions taken by the Department to improve 
        oversight of the use of animals in such research by entities 
        which receive financial support for such research through the 
        Department. . . .

        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Broyhill: Page 18, after 
        line 16, insert the following new section:

                          ``fetal and infant research

            ``Sec. 8. The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
        not conduct or support research or experimentation in the 
        United States or abroad on a living human fetus or infant, 
        whether before or after induced abortion, unless such research 
        or experimentation is done for the purpose of insuring the 
        survival of that fetus or infant.''. . .

        Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment is in violation of rule XVI, clause 7, of the House of 
    Representatives. The gentleman's amendment is not germane to the 
    amendment for two reasons:
        The subject matter of the Broyhill amendment is the 
    reauthorization of the National Cancer and Heart, Lung, and Blood 
    Institutes and the National Library of Medicine which is 
    administered by NIH. The Broyhill amendment is limited specifically 
    to the research conducted by the Cancer and Heart Institutes. The 
    amendment proposes to limit research throughout the Department of 
    Health and Human Services. The amendment would affect research 
    conducted by the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health 
    Administration, FDA, CDC, NIOSH, and the National Institute for 
    Handicapped Research.
        NIH is not the only research agency within the Department of 
    Health and Human Services that conducts research involving infants. 
    For example, the Center for Disease Control does or has done 
    research on infants and nutrition--new strains of infectious 
    diseases, adverse reactions to vaccines and drugs, infant 
    mortality. . . .
        Other agencies do extensive research on child health and infant 
    mortality.
        My second point is that a specific subject may not be amended 
    by a provision general in nature, even when the same class of the 
    specific subject. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule on the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Norman E. D'Amours (N.H.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Insofar as the amendment may restrict the authority of the 
    Secretary of HHS over programs not covered in the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute, and also may restrict research for 
    experimentation of other agencies not within the province of the 
    substitute, the Chair agrees with the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
        The Chair has also found a precedent in Deschler's Procedures, 
    chapter 28, section 8.26, where--

[[Page 7975]]

            Sec. 8.26 To a bill amending the Bretton Woods Agreement 
        Act, perfected by the Committee of the Whole to only address 
        U.S. participation in and use of a special and limited 
        International Monetary Fund financing facility, an amendment 
        adding a new section to the act to impose certain policy 
        directives on the U.S. Governor of the International Monetary 
        Fund in relation to all IMF transactions was held not germane.

        The Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Section 7 of the Broyhill amendment in the 
nature of a substitute arguably did broaden the scope of such amendment 
sufficiently to allow the Dannemeyer amendment, since the provision as 
to animal research was not confined to the National Institutes of 
Health, but was applicable to the research efforts of the entire 
Department of Health and Human Services.

Bill Addressing Disclosure of Medicaid and Medicare Patients' Records--
    Disclosure by Any Government Employee of Other Records

Sec. 9.25 To a bill amending existing law for limited purposes, an 
    amendment further changing that law but affecting programs beyond 
    the scope of the bill and the law being amended and waiving other 
    inconsistent provisions of law is not germane.

    On Sept. 23, 1977,(9) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration a bill (10) jointly reported from the 
Committees on Ways and Means and Interstate and Foreign Commerce to 
enable the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to investigate 
and prosecute fraud and abuse in the medicare and medicaid health 
programs within their respective jurisdictions. An amendment was 
recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means to prohibit any federal 
officer or employee from disclosing any identifiable medical record in 
the absence of patient approval. The amendment was held not germane, as 
exceeding the scope and subject matter of the bill. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 123 Cong. Rec. 30532-34, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. H.R. 3, Medicare-Medicaid Antifraud and Abuse Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) The Clerk will report the second 
    amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by the Committee on Ways and Means: Page 
        66, strike out line 22 down through and including line 5 on 
        page 70 and insert in lieu thereof:
            (l)(1) Part A of title XI of such Act (as amended by 
        section 3(a) of this Act) is amended by adding after section 
        1124 the following new section:

[[Page 7976]]

           ``disclosure of individually identifiable medical records

            ``Sec. 1125. (a)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        this Act except paragraph (2) of this subsection, no officer, 
        employee, or agent of the United States, or any office, agency, 
        or department thereof, or any Professional Standards Review 
        Organization or any person acting or purporting to act on 
        behalf of such Organization, may inspect, acquire, or require 
        the disclosure of, for any reason whatever, any individually 
        identifiable medical record of a patient, unless the patient 
        has authorized such inspection, acquisition, or disclosure in 
        accordance with subsection (b). . . .
            (2) After taking into consideration the recommendations 
        contained in the final report of the Privacy Protection Study 
        Commission (established under section 5 of the Privacy Act of 
        1974), the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall 
        prepare and submit, not later than three months after the date 
        such Commission submits its final report, to the Committee on 
        Interstate and Foreign Commerce and the Committee on Ways and 
        Means of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on 
        Human Resources and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a 
        report containing specific recommendations (including draft 
        legislation) for the timely development and implementation of 
        appropriate procedures (including use of detailed written 
        consent forms) in order to (A) maintain the confidentiality of 
        individually identifiable medical records (whether they relate 
        to medical care provided directly by, or through the financial 
        assistance of, the Federal Government or not), and (B) prevent 
        the unwarranted inspection by, and disclosure to, Federal 
        officers, employees, and agents and Professional Standards 
        Review Organizations of such records. . . .

        Mr. [Richardson Preyer [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    raise a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        [T]his amendment in its scope would apply far beyond the 
    purpose of the bill and the jurisdiction of the committee. The 
    jurisdiction of the committee and the purpose of the bill is to 
    deal with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and 
    increase the Department's ability to investigate and prosecute 
    medicare and medicaid fraud and abuse.
        However, the amendment covers not only the Department of 
    Health, Education, and Welfare but all the officers, employees, and 
    agents of the United States. The committee report specifically 
    states, ``Under the bill PSRO's and employees or agents of the 
    Federal Government may not inspect, acquire or require the 
    disclosure of individually identifiable medical records.'' The Ways 
    and Means Committee does not have jurisdiction, for example, over 
    the employees of the Department of Defense, the Veterans' 
    Administration, or the Federal courts.
        In addition this amendment clearly conflicts with the Deschler 
    precedent in chapter 28, section 8.1, which states that--

            To a bill limited in its application to certain departments 
        and agencies of government, an amendment applicable to all 
        departments and agencies is not germane.

        Finally, Mr. Chairman, I note the amendment attempts to 
    supersede all other laws and regulations of the United States in 
    conflict with this amendment. This violates the principle of the 
    Deschler precedent in chapter 28, section 29.4, which states that--

[[Page 7977]]

            To a bill referring to certain provisions of existing law, 
        an amendment repealing a portion of that law was held not 
        germane. . . .

        Mr. [Philip M.] Crane [of Illinois]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    in opposition to the point of order. The Ways and Means amendment, 
    set forth as section 5(1) of H.R. 3 as reported by that committee, 
    is clearly germane to the original bill and the bill in its current 
    form.
        In the first place, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3 ostensibly has as its 
    purpose the prevention of fraud and abuse in the medicare and 
    medicaid programs. To achieve that objective, a very complex set of 
    provisions were put into the original bill, including provisions in 
    section 5, that greatly strengthen the investigatory and 
    enforcement roles of professional standards review organizations 
    (PSRO's).
        These organizations do not simply acquire and inspect records 
    only of medicare and medicaid patients, or of doctors and other 
    health professionals who treat only those patients. Quite the 
    contrary is true. PSRO's are required to compile statistically 
    valid ``profiles'' of patients and providers, in order to identify, 
    among other things, patterns of suspected unnecessary services and 
    treatment that does not conform to ``appropriate'' medical 
    standards. In so doing, they not only may--they must--inspect, 
    acquire, and require the disclosure of the records of private 
    patients and their doctors. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I am well aware of the precedents of this body--
    and I am certain that my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee 
    are as well--that would not allow section 5(l) of H.R. 3 to be 
    broader in scope than the original bill. The fact is, however, that 
    section 5(h) of the bill now before us clearly extends the specter 
    of unauthorized violations of patients' rights to confidentiality 
    to all patients, by all Federal agencies and departments. There is 
    no way for Congress to know, in advance, precisely who will seek to 
    inspect, acquire or require the disclosure of the data and records 
    gathered by a PSRO and mandated to be shared with others by the 
    original language of H.R. 3. Furthermore, a private patient's 
    medical record can be transformed into a medicare or medicaid 
    patient's record simply by a change in the status of the patient--
    his becoming eligible, for example, through disability, age, or 
    poverty. The medicare and medicaid programs have much to fear if 
    the kinds of safeguards provided for in the Crane-Stark amendment 
    are not extended to all records of patients and all Federal 
    officials.
        The Crane-Stark amendment most certainly relates to the 
    fundamental purpose of H.R. 3, and applies only to those 
    individuals, agencies and departments that are within the scope of 
    the original bill. To decide otherwise would, I respectfully 
    submit, significantly and adversely affect the very patients who 
    are the intended beneficiaries of this important legislation. It 
    would create potential barriers between patient and doctor by 
    inhibiting free communication, since there would be no guarantees 
    that their jobs would be secure or their friends and families would 
    be free from interrogation and investigation by the Federal 
    Government. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from North Carolina makes the point of order 
    against the

[[Page 7978]]

    amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means printed on 
    page 66, line 22, through page 70, line 5, on the grounds that it 
    is not germane to the bill H.R. 3.
        The bill amends several titles of the Social Security Act to 
    correct fraudulent activities under the medicare and medicaid 
    programs by strengthening penalty sanctions, increasing disclosure 
    of information requirements, improving the professional standards 
    review program, and by proposing certain administrative reforms.
        The amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, 
    while addressing the role of professional standards review 
    organizations in permitting disclosure of confidential medical 
    records of patients under medicare and medicaid programs, goes 
    beyond that issue and encompasses a prohibition against any officer 
    or employee of the Federal Government from disclosing any 
    identifiable medical record absent specific authorization from the 
    patient. As drafted, the amendment would supersede any other 
    provision of law which would otherwise permit Federal officials to 
    disclose medical records, and would appear to affect health 
    programs which are not medicare or medicaid related which do not 
    involve PSRO participation and which are not established under the 
    Social Security Act.
        For this reason, the Chair holds that the amendment recommended 
    by the Committee on Ways and Means is not germane to H.R. 3 and 
    sustains the point of order.

Bill To Collect Medical Information for Study--Amendment Broadly 
    Restricting Access of Government Employees to Medical Information

Sec. 9.26 To a bill providing for the collection of certain 
    information, an amendment restricting access to a category of 
    information which might be needed to conduct that study is not 
    germane if it can be interpreted to more broadly deny access for 
    any purpose to any information within that category; thus, to a 
    bill authorizing a federal agency through grants or contracts to 
    conduct a study of a child health assurance program, an amendment 
    denying access to medical records to government employees and 
    agents or to an organization conducting medical reviews for 
    purposes of that study was conceded by the sponsor to deny access 
    to medical records which were not necessarily to be utilized to 
    conduct the study, and was held not germane as applying to medical 
    records not otherwise covered by the bill.

[[Page 7979]]

    On Dec. 11, 1979,(12) during consideration of the Child 
Health Assurance Act of 1979 (13) in the Committee of the 
Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order against the amendment 
described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 125 Cong. Rec. 35425, 35438, 35439, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
13.  H.R. 4962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 14. (a)(1) The Secretary shall conduct or arrange (through 
    grants or contracts) for the conduct of an ongoing study of the 
    effectiveness of the child health assurance program under section 
    1913 of the Social Security Act. Not later than two years after the 
    effective date prescribed by section 16(a)(1) and each two years 
    thereafter, the Secretary shall report to Congress the results of 
    the study and include in the report (1) the effect of preventive 
    and primary care services on the health status of individuals under 
    the age of 21 assessed under such program, (2) the incidence of the 
    various disorders identified in assessments conducted under the 
    program, and (3) the costs of identifying, in such program, such 
    disorders. . . .
        Mr. Philip M. Crane [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Philip M. Crane: On page 38, 
        following line 15, insert the following new subsection:
            (2)(a) No officer, employee, or agent of the Federal 
        Government or of an organization conducting medical reviews for 
        purposes of carrying out the study provided for in subsection 
        (a)(1) of this section shall inspect (or have access to) any 
        part of an individually identifiable medical record (as 
        described in subsection (c)) of a patient which relates to 
        medical care not provided directly by the Federal Government or 
        paid for (in whole or in part) under a Federal program or under 
        a program receiving Federal financial assistance, unless the 
        patient has authorized such disclosure and inspection in 
        accordance with subsection (b).
            (b) A patient authorizes disclosure and inspection of a 
        medical record for purposes of subsection (a) only if, in a 
        signed and dated statement, he--
            (1) authorizes the disclosure and inspection for a specific 
        period of time;
            (2) identifies the medical record authorized to be 
        disclosed and inspected; and
            (3) specifies the agencies which may inspect the record and 
        to which the record may be disclosed.
            (c) For purposes of this section:
            (1) The term ``individually identifiable medical record'' 
        means a medical, psychiatric, or dental record concerning an 
        individual that is in a form which either identifies the 
        individual or permits identification of the individual through 
        means (whether direct or indirect) available to the public. . . 
        .

        Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    a point of order on the amendment. . . .
        I would like to make an inquiry of the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Philip M. Crane) who has offered the amendment, if I might. 
    The section (2)(a) on page 38 following line 15 as it would be 
    inserted by this amendment says:

            No officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Government or 
        of an organization conducting medical reviews for purposes of 
        carrying out

[[Page 7980]]

        the study provided for in subsection (a)(1) of this section 
        shall inspect (or have access to). . . .

        Is this a parenthetical clause: ``Or of an organization 
    conducting medical reviews for purposes of carrying out the study 
    provided for,'' or are we also referring only to the officers, 
    employees, or agents of the Federal Government who are conducting 
    medical reviews for purposes of carrying out the study?
        Mr. Philip M. Crane: If the gentleman will yield, the reason 
    for the seeming redundancy of language was to guarantee that there 
    would not be any commission or what I would classify as an agent, 
    but which might be open to some debate, or group of private 
    individuals performing a function under the auspices of the Federal 
    Government. I would define that as an agent and, therefore, that 
    language would be, then, redundant to that extent. My concern is 
    quibbling over fine points of definitions, and to the extent that 
    there is a potential here for some private group with the full 
    authority of the Federal Government to conduct these kinds of 
    studies, I want to make sure that those do not in any way have the 
    possibility of falling into the hands of Government officials 
    without the written consent of the patient involved.
        Mr. Waxman: If I might further inquire, is it fair to say that 
    the limitation, ``No officer, employee, or agent of the Federal 
    Government'' pertains specifically to the carrying out of the study 
    provided for in subsection (a)(1)? Is it specifically addressed to 
    carrying out that study? . . . I am trying to ascertain whether it 
    is limited to carrying out the study provided for in subsection 
    (a)(1) and the medical records are viewed only for the purpose of 
    carrying out that study.
        Mr. Philip M. Crane: Does the gentleman mean is it confined to 
    that?
        Mr. Waxman: Yes.
        Mr. Philip M. Crane: No, it is not. That would not be my 
    understanding of the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Waxman: Mr. Chairman, as I read this section without the 
    limitation that I tried to determine was included there, I believe 
    it is overly broad and, therefore, not germane, and I make a point 
    of order of the fact that it is not germane to the bill before us. 
    . . .
        Mr. Philip M. Crane: . . . I think it is, indeed, germane 
    because, Mr. Chairman, the language of the amendment, I think, 
    addresses the specific narrow concern that the Chairman has upon 
    which he bases his point of order, but, on the other hand, there 
    are implications in the language of the bill that I think this 
    additional language in this paragraph addresses, and that is the 
    potential to go beyond those narrow constraints that I think the 
    gentleman, the Chairman, would presume exist within this 
    legislation.

        I am less sure and less confident that those restraints are 
    there. I would argue that the specificity of the first part of this 
    sentence that ``No officer, employee, or agent of the Federal 
    Government or of an organization conducting medical reviews for 
    purposes of carrying out the study provided for in'' that 
    subsection indicated is language narrow enough to be germane to the 
    intent of the bill.
        The Chairman: (14) . . . [T]he Chair is prepared to 
    rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Bruce F. Vento (Minn.).

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

[[Page 7981]]

        The Chair, in listening to and weighing the arguments, finds 
    that the point of order is well taken. The argument seems to 
    establish that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Philip M. Crane) could go to confidentiality of other medical 
    records that would not otherwise be covered by the pending 
    legislation and as such represents, then, too broad an amendment. 
    The records could deal with additional information that would 
    usually be under the confidentiality of physician-and-patient 
    relationship, that would be outside the services rendered through 
    this program if the conduct of Federal officers is not to be 
    confined to the carrying out of the study in section 14. Therefore, 
    the Chair states that the point of order is well taken. . . .
        The point of order is sustained. The amendment is ruled out of 
    order.

Bill Authorizing Loans to Livestock Producers--Amendment To Expand 
    Coverage of Bill to All ``Agricultural'' Producers

Sec. 9.27 To a bill authorizing emergency loans to livestock producers, 
    an amendment changing the word ``livestock'' to ``agricultural'' 
    was held to broaden the class of producers covered by the bill and 
    was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 15560 (emergency loans to livestock 
producers) in the Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that a 
specific proposition may not be amended by a proposition more general 
in scope. The proceedings of July 16, 1974,(15) were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 120 Cong. Rec. 23333, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Benjamin A.] Gilman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment to section 1 of the bill now before us, as well as 
    conforming amendments to sections 2, 3, and 8. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Gilman: Page 5, line 24, strike 
        the word ``Livestock'' and insert the word ``Agricultural''. . 
        . .
            Page 7, line 17, strike the word ``livestock'' and insert 
        the word ``agricultural'', and at the end of line 23, strike 
        the word ``livestock'' and insert the word ``agricultural''. . 
        . .

        Mr. [Bob] Bergland [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Gilman) on the ground that the amendment is 
    nongermane. The amendment takes a number of specific subjects, 
    beef, cattle, dairy cattle, swine, sheep, goats, chickens, and 
    turkeys, and broadens the class by a general provision to include 
    all other commodities such as beekeepers, catfish farmers, and 
    others.
        It is well settled in the precedents that a specific subject 
    may not be amended by a provision general in nature. Under clause 7 
    of rule XVI, the amendment is not germane to the bill. . . .
        Mr. Gilman: . . . The intent of the amendments refers to 
    agricultural

[[Page 7982]]

    loans, and complies with the intent of the main bill.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Lloyd Meeds (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Bergland) makes the point of 
    order that the amendment violates clause 7, rule XVI. The general 
    rule is that a general proposition is not in order as an amendment 
    to a specific proposition, Cannon's VIII, 2998.
        Specifically in point, however, is Cannon's Precedents, volume 
    8, section 3235:

            To a proposition authorizing loans to farmers in certain 
        areas, an amendment authorizing loans without geographical 
        restriction was held not germane.

        The Chair would observe that the language of the bill is 
    confined in scope to ``livestock'' producers, and contains 
    definition of ``livestock.'' The purpose of the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) would be to broaden the 
    bill to all agriculture, including many products not livestock, and 
    therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.

Provision Relating to Taxes on Specified Livestock Products--Amendment 
    Relating to Taxes on Agricultural Products Generally

Sec. 9.28 To an amendment relating to taxes on certain livestock 
    products, including pork, bacon, and ham, an amendment relating to 
    taxes on ``agricultural products'' was held not germane.

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of the Revenue Bill of 
1938,(17) an amendment was offered (18) to impose 
an excise tax upon the importation of pork and pork products. As a 
substitute for such amendment, an amendment was offered (19) 
as described above. Mr. Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, raised a point of 
order against the amendment.(20) The Chairman,(1) 
in sustaining the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 9682 (Committee on Ways and Means).
18. 83 Cong. Rec. 3198, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 10, 1938.
19. Id. at p. 3199.
20. Id. at p. 3200.
 1. Clifton A. Woodrum (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois refers to 
    particular products of livestock. The amendment of the gentleman 
    from Wisconsin to the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois 
    undertakes to bring in all agricultural products and is clearly 
    subject to the point of order that it is not germane.

Bill Affecting Wheat Sold as Feed--Amendment Affecting all Feed Crops

Sec. 9.29 To a joint resolution increasing the quantity of wheat which 
    may be sold for

[[Page 7983]]

    feed by the Commodity Credit Corporation, an amendment providing 
    that ``any producer of any feed crop may feed such crop to his own 
    stock without . . . penalty'' was held not germane.

    In the 78th Congress, a bill (2) was under consideration 
which sought to permit additional sales of wheat for feed and which 
stated: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.J. Res. 83 (Committee on Agriculture).
 3. See 89 Cong. Rec. 2014, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 15, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That the limitation contained in the Department 
    of Agriculture Appropriation Act, fiscal year 1943, on the quantity 
    of wheat which Commodity Credit Corporation can sell for feed is 
    hereby increased from 125,000,000 to 225,000,000 bushels.

    An amendment was offered (4) as described above. Mr. 
Hampton P. Fulmer, of South Carolina, having raised a point of order 
against the amendment, the Chairman, Robert E. Thomason, of Texas, 
ruled as follows: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 2015.
 5. Id. at p. 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The joint resolution applies to wheat and the amendment applies 
    to any and all crops, and therefore is not germane. The point of 
    order is sustained.

Annual Appropriation--Amendment Permanently Changing Authorizing Law

Sec. 9.30 To a proposition appropriating funds for a program for one 
    fiscal year, an amendment permanently amending the authorizing law 
    relating to eligibility for funding in any fiscal year is more 
    general in scope and is not germane.

    On Oct. 5, 1983,(6) during consideration of H.R. 3363 
(7) in the House, the Chair held that, to a Senate amendment 
to an appropriation bill reported from conference in disagreement, 
striking funds for a certain fisheries program, a House amendment 
permanently amending the authorizing law to provide authority for 
funding for a state ineligible under existing law was not germane; the 
point of order was conceded and sustained. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 129 Cong. Rec. 27313, 27314, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. The Department of the Interior Appropriations for fiscal 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment reads as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 16: Page 10, lines 10 and 11, strike 
        out ``; and

[[Page 7984]]

        for expenses necessary to carry out the Anadromous Fish 
        Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 757a-757f)''.

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

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

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

Amendment Broadening a Specific Limitation on Appropriations That Had 
    Been Struck by Senate Amendment

Sec. 9.31 A specific proposition may not be amended by a proposition 
    more general in scope; thus, to a Senate amendment striking a 
    provision in a general appropriation bill which precluded the use 
    of funds therein by the Environmental Protection Agency to control 
    air pollution by regulating parking facilities, a motion in the 
    House to recede and concur in the Senate amendment with an 
    amendment which temporarily prohibited the use of such funds to 
    implement any plan requiring the review of any indirect sources of 
    air pollution was held more comprehensive in scope and was held to 
    be not germane.

    On Dec. 12, 1974,(9) during consideration in the House 
of the conference report on H.R. 16901,(10) it was 
demonstrated that where a Senate amendment proposed to strike out 
language in a House

[[Page 7985]]

bill, the test of the germaneness of a motion to recede and concur with 
an amendment was the relationship between the language in the motion 
and the provisions in the House bill proposed to be stricken by the 
Senate amendment. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 120 Cong. Rec. 39272, 39273, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
10. Agriculture, Environment and Consumer Appropriations, fiscal 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (11) The Clerk will report the next 
    amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 8: Page 52, line 20, strike: ``Sec. 
        510. No part of any funds appropriated under this Act may be 
        used by the Environmental Protection Agency to administer any 
        program to tax, limit, or otherwise regulate parking 
        facilities.''

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

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 8 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows:
            ``Sec. 510. No part of any funds appropriated under this 
        Act may be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to 
        implement or enforce any provision of a state implementation 
        plan promulgated or approved pursuant to Section 110 of the 
        Clean Air Act that requires the review of indirect sources, as 
        defined in 40 CFR 52.22(b)(1), pending completion of judicial 
        review, pursuant to Section 307(b) of the Clean Air Act, of the 
        indirect source regulations set forth in 40 CFR 52.22, or any 
        other such regulation relating to indirect sources.''. . .

        Mr. [Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point 
    of order on the ground of nongermaneness.
        The House provision provided only for parking, and the Senate 
    struck completely the House provision.
        This language is not germane in that it goes far beyond 
    parking. The amendment would cover airports, it would cover 
    highways, it would cover shopping centers, and it would cover 
    sports arenas, regardless of whether any parking facilities are 
    attached or associated.
        There is no question but what this is not germane. It is far 
    beyond what the House had stated, and I think it is not appropriate 
    to be in an appropriation bill at all. Therefore I ask that it be 
    stricken in accordance with the arguments used against the 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. Whitten: . . . Mr. Speaker, the legislation to which the 
    gentleman from Florida has referred has had the effect of stopping 
    employment in the cities of this country. It has done this because 
    they have to have a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency 
    for parking. It has prevented new buildings in universities, 
    hospitals, shopping centers--and this at a time of great 
    unemployment in the United States.
        It was felt when the bill passed in the House that in order to 
    prevent that effect upon our economy and upon the growth of our 
    cities, and in order to protect the inner cities so that efforts 
    could be made to live there, that we, in

[[Page 7986]]

    turn, should keep this one item from being used to effect this 
    legislation.
        In the Senate it was felt that since there are lawsuits pending 
    throughout the United States, I think in at least four instances, 
    that this legislation covering parking was the key, that that part 
    which had parking in it should be included in the conference and 
    the conferees felt that in the interest of the Nation that those 
    related matters which are a part and parcel of the provisions to 
    which we were trying to direct our attention, should be accepted, 
    and it was accepted by the conferees.
        So, Mr. Speaker, on that basis I respectfully submit that while 
    we touched on only one part of this provision, that the other parts 
    thereby came before the conference, and on that basis we have gone 
    along with delaying this, not to prohibit, but to restrict EPA from 
    causing such delays or work stoppages in this area until such time 
    as the courts determine the issue. And, as I said, the question is 
    now pending before the Federal courts in at least four cases. Of 
    course neither of these provisions, either the House or the 
    conference provision, affects the rights of the cities, towns or of 
    a State from taking such action as they wish. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        There is only one issue involved here and that is whether the 
    amendment included in the motion of the gentleman from Mississippi 
    is germane. It obviously is far more comprehensive than the House 
    provision, and is not germane thereto. The Chair, therefore, 
    sustains the point of order.

General Appropriation Bill--Amendment Delaying Availability of All 
    Funds in Bill Pending Unrelated Contingency

Sec. 9.32 While it may be in order on a general appropriation bill to 
    delay the availability of certain funds therein until a nonfederal 
    recipient meets certain qualifications so long as the contingency 
    does not impose new duties on federal officials or directly change 
    existing law, the contingency must be related to the funds being 
    withheld and cannot affect other funds in the bill which are not 
    related to that factual situation; thus, to a general appropriation 
    bill containing funds not only for certain allowances for former 
    President Nixon, but also for other departments and agencies, an 
    amendment delaying the availability of all funds in the bill until 
    Nixon has made restitution of a designated amount to the United 
    States government was held to be not germane where that contingency 
    was not related to the availability of other funds in the bill.

[[Page 7987]]

    In the proceedings of Oct. 2, 1974,(12) relating to 
supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1975,(13) the points 
of order made against the amendment in question were largely based on 
the contention that the amendment constituted legislation on an 
appropriation bill. Most points of order against amendments delaying 
the availability of funds pending an unrelated contingency are based on 
the issue of germaneness, and in the Chair's ruling it appeared that 
the defect in the amendment was that its scope was so broad as to 
affect funds in the bill other than those to which the limitation was 
directly related--in other words, that the amendment was not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 120 Cong. Rec. 33620, 33621, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
13. 13. H.R. 16900.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        Mr. [Tom] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment.
        This amendment would impose some duty upon an agency of 
    Government in this bill. The Internal Revenue Service is the only 
    agency that can collect taxes. This obviously would require duties 
    not now required by law. It is obviously legislation in an 
    appropriation bill, and therefore it is subject to a point of 
    order. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment. . . . It merely delays 
    the availability of certain funds here appropriated until a certain 
    state of facts exist.
        It does not impose any duty upon a Federal official, in the 
    opinion of the Chair. The only duty it imposes by its terms, would 
    be upon President Nixon, who is no longer a Federal official. . . .
        Under the precedents and under the rules that the Chair has 
    been able to examine, the Chair is of the opinion that this 
    amendment might be in order.
        If the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) wants to be heard on 
    the point of order, the Chair will withhold his final ruling. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: . . . The Chair is undoubtedly 
    correct, that this does not impose additional duties under the 
    standards set out in various cases. However, the objection of the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon), as I understand it, is that this 
    does not impose additional duties but creates substantive law. It 
    establishes a liability in effect on the President of the United 
    States, which liability does not

[[Page 7988]]

    exist by any judicial determination unless this action is taken by 
    this body.
        Mr. Chairman, what we are in effect doing is passing a special 
    bill with respect to liability of the President of the United 
    States for an amount of money that has only been determined by a 
    committee of this House and not by a court. If we pass this, we are 
    in effect saying that until he pays a certain amount of money, 
    which we say he owes by virtue of passing a law today, he will not 
    receive money that he would otherwise receive.
        I find this a very, very extensive legislative determination, 
    one which I would have doubts about on constitutional grounds, even 
    if it were brought up as a separate piece of legislation.
        I understand that the question of constitutionality is not 
    before the Chair with respect to a point of order, but I merely 
    point that out in emphasizing the great substantive effect of this 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Charles S.] Gubser [of California]: . . . [T]he word 
    ``restitution,'' if I understand the English language correctly . . 
    . would imply that the funds were held by Richard Nixon illegally. 
    Therefore if . . . we allow this amendment to stand, we are clearly 
    creating what should be a judicial decision, and we are giving it 
    legislative sanction, and it is therefore legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. Therefore I think the point of order should be 
    sustained. . . .
        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, this amendment says ``no funds in this 
    act'', and that means if this amendment is adopted unless former 
    President Nixon paid this amount of money the whole bill is dead. 
    If that does not constitute legislation on an appropriation bill I 
    do not know what does.
        The Chairman: The Chair must observe that the Chair is not in a 
    position to rule as suggested by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Eckhardt) on a question of constitutionality. The gentleman's point 
    may quite well be valid, but the Chair is not in a position to rule 
    on constitutionality, nor is the Chair in a position to rule upon 
    the validity of the commentary offered as to whether or not the 
    Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation may or may not have 
    established this precise figure as being owed. . . .
        The Chair is . . . impressed by the most recent comment made by 
    the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Steed) wherein the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma points out that by the terms of the amendment itself funds 
    under the entire act and not just funds for the former President, 
    would be inhibited. Let the Chair read the amendment.

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

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

[[Page 7989]]

Rescinding Agency's Funds for One Purpose--Amendment Conditioning 
    Availability of All Agency Funds on State Compliance With Federal 
    Standards for Seat Belt Use

Sec. 9.33 To a proposition rescinding an agency's funds for research 
    and education on the subject of motor vehicle seat belts and 
    passive restraints, an amendment conditioning the availability of 
    all of that agency's funds on certain findings with respect to 
    state compliance with federal standards for mandatory seat belt use 
    was conceded to be not germane, in that it affected regulatory 
    operations and was not confined to research and education funds.

    During consideration of H.R. 2577 (15) in the House on 
July 31, 1985,(16) a point of order against a motion to 
recede and concur with an amendment to the pending proposition was 
conceded and therefore sustained. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Supplemental Appropriations, fiscal 1985.
16. 131 Cong. Rec. 21832-34, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

Restricting Programs Not in Bill

Sec. 9.34 While an amendment may be germane which limits for certain 
    purposes the au

[[Page 7990]]

    thorities granted in a bill, the amendment must be confined to the 
    agencies, authority and funds addressed by the bill and may not be 
    more comprehensive in scope; thus, to a bill amending the Bretton 
    Woods Agreement Act to ratify proposed amendments to the 
    International Monetary Fund Articles of Agreement, to approve an 
    increase in the United States quota in the Fund and to authorize 
    dealing in gold in connection with the Fund, an amendment 
    prohibiting the alienation of gold to any IMF trust fund, to any 
    other international organization or its agents, or to any person or 
    organization acting as purchaser for any central bank or 
    governmental institution was held not germane, being more general 
    in scope.

    On July 27, 1976,(18) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 13955 (amending the Bretton Woods Agreement 
Act), when a point of order against the amendment described above was 
sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 122 Cong. Rec. 24040, 24041, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Committee amendments: page 2, line 23, strike out ``Sec. 3'' 
    and insert ``Sec. 5''.
        Page 3, line 11, strike out ``Sec. 4'' and insert ``Sec. 6''.
        Page 3, after line 12, insert the following:
        Sec. 7. Section 10(a) of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 (31 
    U.S.C. 822a(a)) is amended to read as follows:
        ``Sec. 10. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury, with the approval 
    of the President, directly or through such agencies as he may 
    designate, is authorized, for the account of the fund established 
    in this section, to deal in gold and foreign exchange and such 
    other instruments of credit and securities as he may deem necessary 
    to and consistent with the United States obligations in the 
    International Monetary Fund. The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
    annually make a report on the operations of the fund to the 
    President and to the Congress.''. . .
        Mr. [Ronald E.] Paul [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Paul: On page 5, add the following 
        new section:
            ``Unless Congress by law authorizes such action, neither 
        the President nor any person or agency shall on behalf of the 
        United States alienate any gold to any trust fund established 
        by the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund, 
        or to any other international organization or its agents, or to 
        any person or organization acting as a purchaser on behalf of 
        any central bank or governmental institution.''. . .

        Mr. [Thomas M.] Rees [of California]: . . . The legislation 
    before us is to provide for amendment of the

[[Page 7991]]

    Bretton Woods Agreements Act and only the Bretton Woods Agreements 
    Act, and only those things in the U.S. statute that are directly 
    thereto attached to the purpose of the Bretton Woods Agreements 
    Act. This amendment is not limited to the International Monetary 
    Fund because there is the language at about page 5 of the 
    amendment, ``or to any other international organization or its 
    agents, or to any person or organization acting as a purchaser on 
    behalf of any central bank or governmental institution.''
        It goes about 5 miles beyond the Bretton Woods Agreements Act.
        Mr. Chairman, I submit that the amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: . . . Mr. Chairman, on 
    page 18, Article 5, Section 12, of the Jamaican Agreements, which 
    is something which we are partially ratifying with this 
    legislation, it does refer to this special trust fund.
        On page 18 of the communication sent to us from the Secretary 
    of State it refers to this special trust fund and the conditions 
    under which our governor and others will be expected to abide, and 
    it is very much a part of what we are ratifying.
        So I believe that it can be shown, because we are ratifying the 
    Jamaica Agreements with this legislation, that in fact we are 
    speaking and the gentleman from Texas is speaking to this issue and 
    he wishes to put conditions on our Governor in this International 
    Monetary Fund. . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Charles H. Wilson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from California makes the point of order that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is not 
    germane to the bill H.R. 13955.


        The bill has as its major purpose the ratification of proposed 
    amendments to the International Monetary Fund Articles of 
    Agreement, and to consent to an increase in the quota of the United 
    States in the International Monetary Fund.
        The amendment would prohibit the President or the Secretary of 
    the Treasury from alienating or selling any gold to any trust fund 
    established by the IMF or to any other international organization 
    or its agents, or to any person or organization acting as a 
    purchaser on behalf of any central bank or governmental 
    institution, unless Congress authorizes such action by law.
        While the Chair is not completely aware of the impact which the 
    gentleman's amendment would have on international organizations 
    other than the International Monetary Fund, it is apparent from the 
    text of the amendment that it is far more comprehensive in scope 
    than the bill to which offered. Since the amendment is not limited 
    by its terms as a restriction upon U.S. authority to alienate gold 
    to the IMF, the Chair holds that the amendment is not germane to 
    H.R. 13955 and sustains the point of order.

Bill Amending One Law on Economic Development--Amendment To Require 
    Study of Impact of All Laws on Employment Opportunities

Sec. 9.35 To a bill reported from the Committees on Public

[[Page 7992]]

    Works and Transportation and on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs 
    amending an existing law to promote economic development through 
    financial assistance to local communities, an amendment requiring 
    the study of the impact of all federal, state and local laws and 
    regulations (not merely the law being amended by the bill) on 
    employment opportunities was held more general in scope and held to 
    be not germane.

    During consideration of the National Development Investment Act 
(20) in the Committee of the Whole on July 12, 
1983,(1) the Chair sustained a point of order in the 
circumstances described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 10.
 1. 129 Cong. Rec. 18712, 18713, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: On page 44, after line 23, add 
    the following new section:
        Sec. 103. The Secretary of Commerce shall, in conjunction with 
    the appropriate state and local authorities, conduct a study of the 
    impact on employment opportunities of Federal, State, and local 
    laws and regulations.
        (a) Such study shall identify those laws and regulations which 
    have an adverse impact on employment opportunities and shall 
    identify to what extent such regulations and laws cause or result 
    in a reduction of permanent employment opportunities.
        (b) The Secretary shall, not later than December 30, 1983, 
    submit a report to Congress on the results of the study under 
    subsection (a), together with its recommendations on methods to 
    reduce or eliminate such adverse impact. . . .
        Mr. [James L.] Oberstar [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania is so broadly 
    written as to be nongermane to this legislation. It directs the 
    Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study of State and local laws, 
    State and local regulations, in addition to Federal laws and 
    regulations, in conjunction with employment opportunities, so 
    broadly written as to have nothing to do with the legislation at 
    hand.
        I make the point of order that the amendment is not germane. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: . . . This simply 
    authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to take action in exactly the 
    same areas that this bill covers. This bill covers a very broad 
    range of economic activity in the country. It authorizes the 
    Secretary of Commerce to take steps to assure employment 
    opportunities. The amendment that I have offered here to title I is 
    simply saying that there should be a study by the Federal 
    Government in the same areas that this bill addresses; so I would 
    ask the Chair to reject the point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.  Charlie Rose (N.C.).

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

[[Page 7993]]

        The amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania requires a 
    study of the impact of all Federal, State, and local laws, on 
    employment. The bill under consideration only amends several laws 
    within the jurisdiction of the Public Works and Transportation 
    Committee and the Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs Committee 
    dealing with economic development. An amendment bringing into issue 
    all Federal, State and local laws as to their impact on employment 
    is more general in scope and is not germane.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Directed to One Function of Agency--Amendment Pertaining to All 
    Agency Actions

Sec. 9.36 To a bill amending the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, 
    perfected by the Committee of the Whole only to address United 
    States participation in and use of a special and limited 
    International Monetary Fund financing facility, an amendment adding 
    a new section to the Act to impose certain policy directives on the 
    United States Governor of the IMF in relation to all IMF 
    transactions was held not germane.

    On Feb. 23, 1978,(3) during consideration of H.R. 9214, 
it was demonstrated that an amendment adding a new section to the end 
of a bill must be germane to the bill as amended. The proceedings in 
the Committee of the Whole wherein the Chair sustained a point of order 
against such amendment were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 124 Cong. Rec. 4421, 4426, 4427, 4451, 4452, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                 H.R. 9214

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        Bretton Woods Agreements Act (22 U.S.C. 286-286k-2), as 
        amended, is further amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new section:
            ``Sec. 27. (a) For the purpose of participation of the 
        United States in the Supplementary Financing Facility 
        (hereinafter referred to as the `facility') established by the 
        decision numbered 5508-(77/127) of the Executive Directors of 
        the Fund, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to make 
        resources available as provided in the decision numbered 5509-
        (77/127) of the Fund, in an amount not to exceed the equivalent 
        of 1,450 million Special Drawing Rights.
            ``(b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall account, through 
        the Fund established by section 10 of the Gold Reserve Act of 
        1934, as amended (31 U.S.C. 882a), for any adjustment in the 
        value of monetary assets held by the United States in respect 
        of United States participation in the facility.''. . . .

        The Chairman: (4) The Clerk will report the next 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 7994]]

            Committee amendment: On page 2, after line 15, insert:
            Sec. 2. Section 3(c) of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act 
        (22 U.S.C. 286a(c)) is amended by inserting ``(1)'' immediately 
        after ``(c)'' and by adding at the end thereof the following:
            (2) The United States executive director to the Fund shall 
        not be compensated by the Fund at a rate in excess of the rate 
        provided for an individual occupying a position at level IV of 
        the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 
        States Code. . . .
            (3) The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United 
        States executive director to the Fund to present to the Fund's 
        Executive Board a comprehensive set of proposals, consistent 
        with maintaining high levels of competence of Fund personnel 
        and consistent with the Articles of Agreements with the 
        objective of assuring that salaries of Fund employees are 
        consistent with levels of similar responsibility within 
        national government service or private industry. The Secretary 
        shall report these proposals together with any measures adopted 
        by the Fund's Executive Board to the relevant committees of the 
        Congress prior to July 1, 1978.

        Mr. [Stephen L.] Neal [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment to the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Neal to the committee amendment:
            Page 2, strike out line 20 and insert in lieu thereof ``The 
        individual who represents the United States in matters 
        concerning the Supplementary Financing Facility''.
            Page 2, lines 24 and 25, strike out ``The United States 
        alternate executive director to the Fund'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``The alternate to the individual who represents the 
        United States in matters concerning the Supplementary Financing 
        Facility''. . . .
            Page 3, line 5, strike ``United States executive director 
        to the Fund'' and insert in lieu thereof ``individual who 
        represents the United States in matters concerning the 
        Supplementary Financing Facility''. . . .

        [The committee amendment was agreed to and the committee 
    amendment, as amended, was agreed to.]
        Mr. [John J.] Cavanaugh [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cavanaugh: At the end of the bill 
        add the following:
            The Bretton Woods Agreements Act (22 U.S.C. 286-286k-2), as 
        amended, is further amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new section:
            Sec. 29. The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the 
        United States Executive Director to seek to assure that no 
        decision by the International Monetary Fund on use of the 
        Facility undermines or departs from United States policy 
        regarding the comparability of treatment of public and private 
        creditors in cases of debt rescheduling where official United 
        States credits are involved. . . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Cavanaugh).
        The amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Harkin: Page 3, immediately after 
        line 14, insert the following:

[[Page 7995]]

            Sec. 3. The Bretton Woods Agreements Act (22 USC 286-286k-
        2), as amended, is further amended by adding at the end thereof 
        the following new section:

            ``Sec. 29. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct 
        the United States Executive Director on the Executive Board of 
        the International Monetary Fund to initiate a wide consultation 
        with the Managing Director of the Fund and other member country 
        Executive Directors with regard to encouraging the IMF staff to 
        formulate stabilization programs which, to the maximum feasible 
        extent, foster a broader base of productive investment and 
        employment, especially in those productive activities which are 
        designed to meet basic human needs.
            ``(b) In accordance with the unique character of the 
        International Monetary Fund, the Secretary of the Treasury 
        shall direct the U.S. Executive Director to take all possible 
        steps to the end that all Fund transactions, including economic 
        programs developed in connection with the utilization of Fund 
        resources, do not contribute to the deprivation of basic human 
        needs, nor to the violation of basic human rights, such as 
        torture, cruel or inhumane treatment or degrading punishment, 
        prolonged detention without charge, or other flagrant denials 
        of life, liberty and the security of person; and to oppose all 
        such transactions which would contribute to such deprivations 
        or violations. . . .

        Mr. Neal: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, we have just established that we are only 
    considering the so-called Witteveen Facility of the International 
    Monetary Fund, and this amendment goes far beyond that. . . .
        Mr. Harkin: . . . I would respond to that argument by saying 
    that my amendment is entirely in order because, if we look at the 
    different sections, the first section of my amendment goes toward 
    instructing the U.S. Executive Director of the IMF to do certain 
    positive things about initiating wide consultations, and so forth, 
    which would help to promote those kinds of programs that would help 
    meet the basic human needs in other countries. This is a directive 
    to our Director on the Board of the International Monetary Fund.
        The last part of my amendment, subparagraph (c) also mandates 
    that the Executive Director do other positive things by submitting 
    a report to the Congress not later than 180 days after the close of 
    each calendar year outlining the effects of the policies that were 
    followed on the Fund which were designed to meet these basic human 
    needs of people in other countries.
        As far as the Fund or the Witteveen Facility itself is 
    concerned, my subparagraph (b), which is the human rights section, 
    speaks directly to the Witteveen Facility and directs the U.S. 
    Executive Director to make sure that the basic human rights of 
    people are not violated. . . .
        Mr. [M. Dawson] Mathis [of Georgia]: . . . The gentleman from 
    North Carolina (Mr. Neal) is attempting now to say that the 
    legislation before us has been narrowed in scope to the point where 
    it only deals with the Witteveen Facility, and that has been the 
    thrust of the previous committee amendments that I have argued 
    against, because I knew we were going to arrive at a point where 
    the gentleman was going to raise this point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, the clumsy attempt to do that has obviously 
    failed in this

[[Page 7996]]

    fashion because subsection (3) of section 2 of the bill still deals 
    with the question of the Secretary of the Treasury instructing the 
    Executive Director of the Fund to present a comprehensive set of 
    proposals that do not deal with that issue. So the committee 
    amendment, which has already been adopted, very clearly deals with 
    the original Bretton Woods Act, and it is not restrictive in its 
    scope. . . .
        Mr. Harkin: Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Georgia 
    (Mr. Mathis) has raised an interesting point. In the bill, under 
    paragraph (3) on page 3, it does in fact provide that the U.S. 
    Executive Director to the Fund has to do a certain positive thing. 
    He has to present to the Fund's Executive Board a comprehensive set 
    of proposals, et cetera. So it does not speak simply about the 
    Witteveen Facility.
        I think that my amendment, which mandates that the Executive 
    Director do other positive things, fits in very nicely with 
    subparagraph (3). . . .
        Mr. Neal: Mr. Chairman, I would say that the amendment before 
    us is not germane because it is not germane to the fundamental 
    purpose of the bill nor does it relate exclusively to the subject 
    matter under consideration.
        Under the Rules of the House, no motion or proposition on a 
    subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted 
    under disguise of an amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule . . . .
        The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Neal) made a point of 
    order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
    Harkin) is not germane to the bill H.R. 9214 in its perfected form. 
    In its perfected form the bill, while amending the Bretton Woods 
    Agreement Act, relates only to the authority of the United States 
    to participate in the supplementary financing facility of the 
    International Monetary Fund and to the salaries of the IMF 
    employees who are employees who administer that supplemental 
    financing facility, the so-called Witteveen Facility, but it does 
    not deal with the other operations of the International Monetary 
    Fund.
        The precedents indicate:

            To a bill amending one section of existing law to 
        accomplish a particular purpose, an amendment proposing changes 
        in another section of that law in a [manner] not within the 
        terms of the bill is not germane. (Deschler's Procedure, 
        chapter 28, section 32.1, section 32.14.)
            In passing on the germaneness of an amendment, the Chairman 
        considers the relationship of the amendment to the bill as 
        modified by the Committee of the Whole. (Deschler's Procedure, 
        chapter 28, section 2.4.)

        The bill as modified by the Committee of the Whole is not 
    sufficiently broad, in the opinion of the Chair, to permit 
    amendments affecting operations of the IMF which are not directly 
    and solely related to the Witteveen Facility. As indicated 
    throughout the report on the bill, that special function of the IMF 
    is separate and distinct from other operations of the IMF, both 
    from the standpoint of qualification for participation in the 
    facility and from the point of view of disposition of assets and 
    the liabilities of participating nations.
        Let the Chair just add that the Cavanaugh amendment to H.R. 
    9214

[[Page 7997]]

    reserved itself to decisions by the IMF on the use of the facility, 
    referring to the Witteveen Facility, thereby confining itself to 
    that narrow aspect of the bill and not amending the entire act.
        Accordingly, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Amendment Changing One Budget Category--Substitute Changing Several

Sec. 9.37 To a substitute amendment to a concurrent resolution on the 
    budget changing one functional category only, an amendment changing 
    not only that category but several other categories of budget 
    authority and outlays and covering an additional fiscal year was 
    held to be more general in scope and therefore was ruled out as not 
    germane.

    On May 2, 1979,(5) during consideration of House 
Concurrent Resolution 107 (first concurrent resolution on the budget, 
fiscal 1980), the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
amendment described above, thus demonstrating that a specific 
proposition may not be amended by a proposition more general in scope. 
The amendment and proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 125 Cong. Rec. 9556, 9562-64, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Ms. Holtzman: In the matter relating 
        to the appropriate level of total new budget authority decrease 
        the amount by $8,113 million;
            In the matter relating to the appropriate level of total 
        budget outlays decrease the amount by $2,705 million;
            In the matter relating to the amount of the deficit 
        decrease the amount by $2,705 million;
            In the matter relating to the appropriate level of the 
        public debt decrease the amount by $2,705 million;
            In the matter relating to Function 050 decrease the amount 
        for budget authority by $3,351 million; and decrease the amount 
        for outlays by $1,177 million. . . .
            In the matter relating to Function 350 decrease the amount 
        for budget authority by $102 million; and decrease the amount 
        for outlays by $34 million. . . .
            In the matter relating to Function 450 decrease the amount 
        for budget authority by $75 million; and decrease the amount 
        for outlays by $25 million. . . .
            Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
        an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California as 
        a substitute for the amendment offered by Ms. Holtzman: In the 
        matter relating to National Defense for fiscal year 1980, 
        strike out the amount specified for new budget authority and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``$137,808,000,000''.

[[Page 7998]]

            In the matter relating to National Defense for fiscal year 
        1980, strike out the amount specified for outlays and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$125,070,000,000''.
            Increase the aggregate amounts in the first section (other 
        than the amount of the recommended level of Federal revenues 
        and the amount by which the aggregate level of Federal revenues 
        should be decreased) accordingly. . . .

        Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment to the 
    amendment offered as a substitute. . . .
        Mr. John L. Burton: My amendment is an amendment to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Charles H. 
    Wilson) as a substitute for the amendment. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. John L. Burton to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California as a substitute 
        for the amendment offered by Ms. Holtzman; Strike all after 
        line 1 and insert:
            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That the Congress hereby determines and declares, 
        pursuant to section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
        1974, that for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1979--
            (1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $510,800,000,000, and the amount by which the aggregate level 
        of Federal revenues should be decreased is zero;
            (2) the appropriate level of total new budget authority is 
        $586,255,609,000.
            (3) the appropriate level of total budget outlays is 
        $510,567,609,000.
            (4) the amount of the deficit in the budget which is 
        appropriate in the light of economic conditions and all other 
        relevant factors is zero and . . .
            Sec. 3. Based on allocations of the appropriate level of 
        total new budget authority and of total budget outlays as set 
        forth in paragraphs (2) and (3) of the first section of this 
        resolution, the Congress hereby determines and declares 
        pursuant to section 301(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act 
        of 1974 that, for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1979, 
        the appropriate level of new budget authority and the estimated 
        budget outlays for each major functional category are as 
        follows:
            (1) National Defense (050):
            (A) New budget authority, $112,974,000,000;
            (B) Outlays, $101,686,000,000.
            (2) International Affairs (150):
            (A) New budget authority, $12,932,000,000;
            (B) Outlays, $8,223,000,000. . . .
            Sec. 6. Pursuant to section 304 of the Congressional Budget 
        Act of 1974, the appropriate allocations for fiscal year 1979 
        made by H. Con. Res. 683 are revised as follows:
            (a)--
            (1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $458,485,000,000, and the amount by which the aggregate level 
        of Federal revenues should be decreased is $15,000,000;
            (2) the appropriate level of total new budget authority is 
        $555,659,000,000;
            (3) the appropriate level of total budget outlays is 
        $492,820,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: . . . I raise the 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane to the Wilson amendment, which addresses itself to one 
    function, national defense, and this

[[Page 7999]]

    addresses itself far beyond that; and, therefore, it is not 
    germane. . . .
        Mr. John L. Burton: . . . It is my understanding that the 
    Charles H. Wilson amendment although it only addressed itself to 
    defense, it, by the language, inferred all that was in the 
    amendment of the gentlewoman from New York, by striking that. It 
    struck every section of the Holtzman amendment.
        If I am not germane here, certainly I am germane to the 
    Holtzman amendment and will offer my amendment to the Holtzman 
    amendment in the nature of an amendment to the Holtzman amendment, 
    if that be the necessary case.

            The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule 
        upon the point of order of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
        Giaimo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The substitute offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Charles H. Wilson) deals only with the national defense functional 
    category for fiscal 1980. The amendment thereto offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. John L. Burton) deals not only with 
    defense but with several other functional categories and is more 
    general in scope.
        Therefore, the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    John L. Burton) is not germane and the point of order is sustained.

Budget Resolution: Perfecting Amendment Changing Certain Figures for 
    One Year--Amendment Rewriting Resolution and Effecting Changes for 
    Two Years

Sec. 9.38 An amendment (in effect in the nature of a substitute) 
    rewriting an entire concurrent resolution on the budget covering 
    two fiscal years is not germane to a perfecting amendment proposing 
    certain changes in figures for one of the years covered by the 
    resolution.

    On May 2, 1979,(7) during consideration of the first 
concurrent resolution on the Budget, fiscal year 1980 (House Concurrent 
Resolution 107), the Chair sustained a point of order against an 
amendment, thus holding that to a perfecting amendment to a concurrent 
resolution on the budget changing amounts in functional categories and 
aggregates only for one fiscal year, an amendment which addresses the 
budget for another fiscal year as well and which contains other 
unrelated matter, as a redraft of the entire resolution, is not 
germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 125 Cong. Rec. 9556, 9564-66, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.

[[Page 8000]]

            The Clerk read as follows:
            Amendment offered by Ms. Holtzman: In the matter relating 
        to the appropriate level of total new budget authority decrease 
        the amount by $8,113 million;
            In the matter relating to the appropriate level of total 
        budget outlays decrease the amount by $2,705 million;
            In the matter relating to the amount of the deficit 
        decrease the amount by $2,705 million;

            In the matter relating to the appropriate level of the 
        public debt decrease the amount by $2,705 million;
            In the matter relating to Function 050 decrease the amount 
        for budget authority by $3,351 million; and decrease the amount 
        for outlays by $1,177 million. . . .
            In the matter relating to Function 350 decrease the amount 
        for budget authority by $102 million; and decrease the amount 
        for outlays by $34 million. . . .
            In the matter relating to Function 450 decrease the amount 
        for budget authority by $75 million; and decrease the amount 
        for outlays by $25 million. . . .

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. John L. Burton to the amendment 
        offered by Ms. Holtzman: Strike all after line 1 and insert:
            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That the Congress hereby determines and declares, 
        pursuant to section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
        1974, that for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1979--
            (1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $510,800,000,000, and the amount by which the aggregate level 
        of Federal revenues should be decreased is zero; . . .
            Sec. 6. Pursuant to section 304 of the Congressional Budget 
        Act of 1974, the appropriate allocations for fiscal year 1979 
        made by H. Con. Res. 683 are revised as follows: . . .

    Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: The gentleman's amendment 
is a substitute for the entire resolution; the Holtzman amendment is 
not. It touches on matters not dealt with in the Holtzman amendment, 
namely, changes for fiscal year 1979. It is, therefore, not germane to 
the amendment of the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Holtzman). . . .

        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule on the 
    point of order made by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
    Holtzman) deals only with fiscal year 1980 targets. The amendment 
    thereto offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. John L. 
    Burton) deals not only with 1980 but with fiscal 1979 revisions and 
    contains other language. The amendment is not germane to the 
    Holtzman amendment. The Chair so rules and sustains the point of 
    order.

Bill Amending Law With Respect to Certain Authority--Amendment 
    Repealing Authority Under Any Provision of Law

Sec. 9.39 An amendment repealing authority under any pro

[[Page 8001]]

    vision of law is not germane to a bill amending only one law with 
    respect to that authority; thus, to a bill amending the Defense 
    Production Act to promote the development of synthetic fuels for 
    defense purposes, and authorizing loans and contracts to assist 
    such development, an amendment repealing authority under the 
    Defense Production Act or under any other law to impose allocation 
    and price controls on petroleum and natural gas was held not 
    germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 3930 (9) in the Committee 
of the Whole on June 26, 1979, (10) it was demonstrated that 
a specific proposition may not be amended by a proposition more general 
in scope when the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. The Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979.
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 16701, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer: Page 11, after line 6, 
    insert the following new section:

     removal of certain controls impeding production of petroleum and 
                                natural gas

        Sec. 5. Title VII of the Defense Production Act of 1950 is 
    amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:
        ``Sec. 721. Effective beginning 30 days after the date of the 
    enactment of this section, allocation and maximum lawful price 
    restrictions imposed on crude oil, natural gas, and refined 
    petroleum products, by the provisions of this Act or any other law, 
    and the authority to impose such restrictions under such 
    provisions, is terminated.''. . . .
        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: I make a point of 
    order against the amendment, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The bill before us is a narrowly drawn bill dealing with the 
    production of synthetic fuel. This amendment talks about lawful 
    price restriction by the provision of this act or any other law. It 
    far exceeds the scope of the legislation before the Committee and 
    the amendment is not in order. . . .
        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: . . . Title 3 of 
    the bill before the House deals with the expansion of productive 
    capacity and supply. The amendment which I have tendered will 
    remove certain controls impeding production of petroleum and 
    natural gas. I submit on that basis it is germane, it is 
    appropriate for us to consider to remove what really is the cause 
    of the shortage of oil in this country; namely, the law that this 
    Congress has enacted. It is not the oil companies or the OPEC 
    nations, it is this place right here.
        If we want to have more oil, take the price off and that is the 
    way to do it.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).

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

[[Page 8002]]

        The provisions of the act before the Committee relate solely to 
    production of fuels for the national defense. The amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from California effectively modifies the Petroleum 
    Allocation Act and other laws not amended by the bill before us and 
    the Chair sustains the point of order.

Joint Resolution Appropriating Funds for Emergency Fuel Assistance--
    Amendment To Prohibit Windfall Profits Taxes To Be Used for Other 
    Purposes Except as Specified

Sec. 9.40 To a joint resolution appropriating funds to the Community 
    Services Administration for emergency fuel assistance, an amendment 
    providing that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
    portion of any oil windfall profit taxes imposed by law may be 
    transferred to any other use except to the extent that the amount 
    of such taxes exceeded the amount appropriated by the joint 
    resolution, was conceded to be subject to the point of order that 
    it was not germane.

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 430 in the House on 
Oct. 25, 1979,(12) a point of order against the following 
amendment was conceded and sustained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 125 Cong. Rec. 29639, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo).
        Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) The gentleman from 
    Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) concedes the point of order and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Relating to Information in One Agency--Amendment Relating to 
    Information Throughout Government

Sec. 9.41 To a section of a bill requiring the Administrator of

[[Page 8003]]

    the Energy Research and Development Administration to maintain a 
    central source of information on energy resources and technology, 
    and making such information maintained by ERDA available under 
    provisions of the Freedom of Information Act for public inspection, 
    an amendment to prohibit the disclosure of proprietary information 
    obtained by compulsory process by any federal agency and maintained 
    by ERDA was subject to the interpretation that such information, 
    wherever situated, would not be subject to disclosure--thereby 
    affecting the confidentiality of information held by other 
    agencies, and was held to be not germane.

    On June 20, 1975,(14) during consideration of the Energy 
Research and Development Administration authorization bill for fiscal 
1976 (15) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained 
a point of order in the circumstances described above. The section of 
the bill and the amendment offered thereto were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 19934, 19966, 19967, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. H.R. 3474.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 307. The Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and 
    Development Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1878; 42 U.S.C. 5901) is amended 
    by adding at the end thereof the following new section:
        ``Sec. 17. The Administrator shall establish, develop, acquire, 
    and maintain a central source of information on all energy 
    resources and technology, including proved and other reserves, for 
    research and development purposes. This responsibility shall 
    include the acquisition of proprietary information, by purchase, 
    donation, or from another Federal agency, when such information 
    will carry out the purposes of this Act. In addition the 
    Administrator shall undertake to correlate, review, and utilize any 
    information available to any other Government agency to further 
    carry out the purposes of this Act. The information maintained by 
    the Administrator shall be made available to the public, subject to 
    the provisions of section 552 of title 5, United States Code, and 
    section 1905 of title 18, United States Code, and to other 
    Government agencies in a manner that will facilitate its 
    dissemination.''. . .
        Mr. [Barry] Goldwater [Jr., of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Goldwater: Page 43, line 6, before 
        the period, insert the following ``: Provided That any such 
        proprietary information obtained by compulsory process by any 
        Federal agency shall not be subject to the mandatory disclosure 
        provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552 and further, where the Administrator 
        so finds, any proprietary information

[[Page 8004]]

        obtained by other means shall be deemed to qualify for 
        exemption from mandatory disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)''. 
        . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        The point of order is that the amendment is not germane. The 
    amendment appears to relate to the language of the bill at page 43, 
    line 6. In point of fact, the amendment seeks to amend the Freedom 
    of Information Act, 5 United States Code 552, which is cited 
    therein. It might appear that the amendment is subject to a number 
    of different meanings. I can think of at least two at the moment, 
    and perhaps three or four others. The first instance is that any 
    proprietary information received by compulsory process by any 
    Federal agency shall not be subject to the mandatory disclosure 
    provisions of 5 United States Code 552--and I am literally quoting 
    from the language of the amendment--and that being so, the 
    amendment is defective as seeking to amend legislation not 
    presently before the House and not within the jurisdiction of the 
    particular committee that is presenting the legislation before us, 
    and relating to entirely different matters.
        It is possible that it refers to earlier legislation or, 
    rather, refers to earlier clauses and sentences of the legislation 
    before us. It is also possible that the legislation that the 
    amendment would have the law amended is that once proprietary 
    information had fallen into the hands of the Federal Government by 
    compulsory process and had, through any methodology whatsoever, 
    arrived in the hands of ERDA, that the original Federal agency 
    which had ownership or custody of that information would thereupon 
    be sterilized in making that information available pursuant to the 
    provisions of 5 United States Code 552, the Freedom of Information 
    Act.
        In either the first instance or in the second instance the 
    amendment seeks to amend legislation not properly before us at this 
    time, the Freedom of Information Act, which is not under the 
    jurisdiction of the committee or which, by notice, has not properly 
    been available to the Members as to the offering of this amendment.
        The amendment is, therefore, in my view, on at least two of the 
    three interpretations violative of the Rules of the House, and 
    violative of the rules of germaneness, and is subject to a point of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Goldwater: . . . Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the 
    gentleman from Michigan that if the gentleman will read the 
    amendment it refers to not all proprietary information, but any 
    such proprietary information, specifically narrowing it to ERDA as 
    this particular bill addresses itself.
        This amendment does not seek to amend the Freedom of 
    Information Act, but merely to apply the Freedom of Information 
    Act. It is, in essence, a limitation upon ERDA and as specifically 
    authorized by the Freedom of Information Act under subsection (d), 
    subsection (3). That this section, in other words, the Freedom of 
    Information Act, does not apply to matters that are specifically 
    exempted from disclosure by statute. The other statute is what, in 
    essence, I am speaking. It is not an amendment to the Freedom of 
    Information Act, but in essence is a

[[Page 8005]]

    limitation on the activities of ERDA, and merely applies the 
    regulations of the Freedom of Information Act. . . .

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: . . . The amendment states that 
    any such proprietary information obtained by a compulsory process 
    by a Federal agency shall not be subject to mandatory disclosure 
    under the Freedom of Information Act. Such information refers back 
    to the sentence immediately preceding the amendment in the bill on 
    page 43, beginning in line 2:

            This responsibility shall include the acquisition of 
        proprietary information, by purchase, donation, or from another 
        Federal agency.

        So if information is obtained from another Federal agency, and 
    that Federal agency has obtained such by compulsory process, such 
    purports to say that such information, wherever it may appear, is 
    excluded from the effect of the Freedom of Information Act. The 
    Freedom of Information Act provides that each agency in accordance 
    with published rules shall make available for public inspection and 
    copying any information of the type described here which appears in 
    a final opinion or statement of policy on administrative staff 
    manual or instructions to staff, et cetera. If that information has 
    ultimately found its way to ERDA, it becomes such information, and 
    under the terms of the amendment would, thus, be insulated from the 
    Freedom of Information Act wherever it might appear. That, I think, 
    clearly alters the Freedom of Information Act which specifically 
    states in its last clause that the exceptions to the Freedom of 
    Information Act do not authorize withholding of information or 
    limit the availability of records to the public except as 
    specifically stated in this section.
        This adds another exception, and that is the exception of 
    information that has passed into the hands of ERDA.
        If the language is ambiguous, or if it is reasonably subject to 
    more than one construction, and if a reasonable construction of the 
    language alters another act, then it is the burden of the person 
    offering the amendment to clarify the amendment to make absolutely 
    certain that the amendment does not affect the other act.
        The gentleman has not done so. The language is, therefore, 
    subject reasonably to the construction of changing processes of 
    other agencies and is, therefore, not germane.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    this rather difficult question which confronts the committee at 
    this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The burden of sustaining the germaneness of the amendment lies 
    with the author. In the opinion of the Chair, the author of the 
    amendment has not sustained that burden, and it does appear to the 
    Chair that the amendment as presently offered would possibly mean 
    that this restriction on the information would apply wherever the 
    information might reside not just within ERDA. The amendment is, 
    therefore, ambiguous and could be construed to go beyond the scope 
    of the bill before the committee at this time.
        The point of order is sustained.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although the language of the

[[Page 8006]]

amendment, ``any such proprietary information'' in one interpretation, 
applied only to information held by ERDA, the Chair felt that an 
equally logical interpretation of the language substantially broadened 
its impact and rendered it not germane.

Crude Oil Pricing--Substitute Limiting Price of All Petroleum Products

Sec. 9.42 An individual proposition may not be amended by a proposition 
    more general in scope, and a substitute for an amendment must be 
    confined in scope to the subject of the amendment; thus, for an 
    amendment prohibiting the Administrator from setting ceiling prices 
    for domestic crude oil above a certain level in the exercise of the 
    authority transferred to him in a bill creating a new Federal 
    Energy Administration, a substitute directing the Administrator to 
    set ceiling prices on crude oil and on petroleum products at 
    designated levels was held to go beyond the scope of the pending 
    amendment and was ruled out as not germane.

    During consideration of the Federal Energy Administration Act (H.R. 
11793) in the Committee of the Whole on Mar. 6, 1974,(17) 
the following amendment was ruled out as not being germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 120 Cong. Rec. 5448, 5449, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Eckhardt to the amendment offered by Mr. Dingell: On page 20, 
        after line 2, add the following: ``In exercising the functions 
        provided in item (5), above, the Administration shall take the 
        following action:
            ``(A) Immediately upon the enactment of this Act, the 
        Administrator shall issue an order to establish a ceiling on 
        prices of crude oil and petroleum products at levels not 
        greater than the highest levels pertaining to a substantial 
        volume of actual transactions by each business enterprise or 
        other person during the fourteen-day period ending January 19, 
        1974, for like or similar commodities, or if no transactions 
        occurred during such period, then the highest applicable level 
        in the nearest preceding fourteen-day period.
            ``(B) The ceiling on prices required under subsection (a) 
        shall be applicable to all retail prices and to wholesale 
        prices for unfinished, or processed goods.
            ``(C) As soon as practicable, but not later than thirty 
        days after the date of enactment of this section, the 
        Administrator shall by written order stating in full the 
        considerations for his actions, roll back prices for crude oil 
        and petroleum products to levels no higher than those 
        prevailing in the seven-day period ending Novem

[[Page 8007]]

        ber 1, 1973, in order to reduce inflation. . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment and offer that the amendment is 
    nongermane to this bill under rule XVI, clause 7.
        The amendment deals with subjects not included in this bill and 
    also affecting policy which is not the subject of section 5 but, 
    rather, other matters like petroleum products. . . .
        Mr. Eckhardt: . . . Realizing, of course, that germaneness, 
    like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder, nevertheless, it seems 
    to me to be clear that, when an amendment is before this body which 
    amendment would have the effect of rolling back the price of crude 
    oil, all of it, without any attention as to whether or not that oil 
    is new oil produced at high prices or older oil produced at 
    relatively low prices, it simply must be germane to the original 
    amendment to put in a limitation with respect to that amendment to 
    provide that there be reason respecting the rollback and that the 
    rollback should not be applicable in such a way as to prohibit the 
    production of new discoveries. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) has offered a 
    substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Dingell). The opening lines of the substitute for the 
    amendment read as follows:

            In exercising the functions so provided in item 5 above, 
        the Administrator shall take the following action: (a) 
        immediately upon the enactment of this act the Administrator 
        shall issue an order to establish a ceiling on prices of crude 
        oil and petroleum products at levels not greater than the 
        highest levels pertaining to substantial volume of actual 
        transactions.

        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) has made a point of 
    order against the substitute amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Dingell).
        The Chair rules that in order to qualify as a substitute for an 
    amendment such substitute must treat in equal manner the same 
    subject matter carried by the amendment for which proposed. The 
    pending amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Dingell), and the Chair reads from the language of that amendment, 
    pertains only to the price for domestic crude oil. The substitute 
    for the amendment goes beyond the scope of the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and goes beyond the 
    subject matter contained in the amendment.
        For the reasons given by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Horton) in support of his point of order and for the reasons 
    stated, the Chair sustains the point of order to the substitute for 
    the amendment.

Provisions Relating to Production Goals for Synthetic Fuels To Meet 
    Defense Needs--Amendment Requiring That Any Fuel Sold in Commerce 
    Contain Specified Percentage of Synthetic Fuel

Sec. 9.43 Where a bill pending before the Committee of the

[[Page 8008]]

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

    During consideration of the Defense Production Act Amendments of 
1979 (H.R. 3930) in the Committee of the Whole on June 26, 
1979,(19) amendments offered as a substitute for pending 
amendments were ruled out as going beyond the scope of the pending 
amendment and therefore not germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 16663, 16668, 16673, 16674, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                  expansion of productive capacity and supply

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

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

            Amendments offered by Mr. Wright: Page 5, line 2, strike 
        out the period after ``section'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``and at least 2,000,000 barrels per day crude oil equivalent 
        of synthetic fuels and synthetic chemical feedstocks not later 
        than ten years after the effective date of this section.''. . .
            Page 10, line 23, strike ``appropriated $2,000,000,000'' 
        and insert in

[[Page 8009]]

        lieu thereof ``appropriated from general funds of the Treasury 
        not otherwise appropriated or from any fund hereafter 
        established by Congress after the date of enactment of this 
        sentence not to exceed $3,000,000,000.'' . . .

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

            Amendments offered by Mr. Jeffords as a substitute for the 
        amendments offered by Mr. Wright: Page 5, line 8, add new 
        subsections ``b'' through ``(f)''.
            ``(b) Of the total quantity of gasoline and diesel fuel 
        sold in commerce during any of the following years by any 
        refiner (including sales to the Federal Government), 
        replacement fuel shall constitute the minimum percentage 
        determined in accordance with the following table: . . .
            1987, 1988, and 1989-10 percent. . . .
            (c) Not later than July 1, 1981, the Secretary shall 
        prescribe, by rule, the minimum percentage replacement fuel, by 
        volume, required to be contained in the total quantity of 
        gasoline and diesel fuel sold each year in commerce in the 
        United States in calendar years 1982 through 1986 by any 
        refiner for use as a motor fuel. Such percentage shall apply to 
        each refiner, and shall be set for each such calendar year at a 
        level which the Secretary determines--
            (1) is technically and economically feasible, and
            (2) will result in steady progress toward meeting the 
        requirements under this section for calendar year 1987. . . .

        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, as 
    much as I support the concept of the substitute of the gentleman 
    from Vermont--I believe I am a cosponsor of his bill--I do not 
    believe it is a proper part of this legislation in that it is not 
    germane.
        First, it is not germane to the Wright amendment which is a 
    production amendment and a defense production amendment.
        This amendment is a regulatory amendment dealing with 
    ``replacement fuels sold in commerce.'' It is not a production 
    bill.
        The same language is contained further down. It regulates the 
    amount of synthetic fuel and diesel fuel sold each year in commerce 
    in the United States and the guts of the bill are regulatory, 
    rather than production aimed. Therefore, this amendment is not 
    germane to the Wright amendment or to the bill. . . .
        Mr. Jeffords: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that once the Wright 
    amendment has been agreed to as being part of the bill, then a 
    substitute which goes well beyond the original concept of the bill 
    is also germane and in order.
        I would point out that the Wright amendment, as I have said 
    before, takes us totally out of just the needs for the Federal 
    Government and goes out into the area of sales in commerce. I think 
    because the Wright amendment is being considered as germane, the 
    substitute should also.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas goes to goals 
    for defense production of synthetic fuels and

[[Page 8010]]

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

Suspension of One Environmental Law--Suspension of All Other 
    Environmental Requirements in Certain Instances

Sec. 9.44 To a section of an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    authorizing the Federal Energy Administrator to temporarily suspend 
    stationary source fuel or emission limitations under the Clean Air 
    Act where compliance with the limitations would be impossible due 
    to unavailability of certain fuels, an amendment authorizing 
    temporary suspension of those limitations ``or other environmental 
    protection requirements'' if energy-producing facilities are unable 
    to construct antipollution systems due to unavailability of 
    materials was held to go beyond the scope of that section and was 
    held to be not germane.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(1) during consideration of the Energy 
Emergency Act (H.R. 11450) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair 
ruled that to a proposition temporarily suspending certain requirements 
of the Clean Air Act, an amendment temporarily suspending other 
requirements of all other environmental protection laws was not 
germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 119 Cong. Rec. 41751, 41752, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      sec. 201. suspension authority.

        Title I of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.) is 
    amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

    ``temporary authority to suspend certain stationary source emission 
                            and fuel limitations

        ``Sec. 119. (a)(1) The Administrator may, for any period 
    beginning on or after the date of enactment of this section and 
    ending on or before May 15, 1974, temporarily suspend any 
    stationary source fuel or emission limitation as it applies to any 
    person, if the Administrator finds that such person

[[Page 8011]]

    will be unable to comply with such limitation during such period 
    solely because of unavailability of types or amounts of fuels. Any 
    suspension under this paragraph and any interim requirement on 
    which such suspension is conditioned under subsection (b) shall be 
    exempted from any procedural requirements set forth in this Act or 
    in any other provision of local, State, or Federal law. The 
    granting or denial of such suspension and the imposition of an 
    interim requirement shall be subject to judicial review only on the 
    grounds specified in paragraphs (2)(B) and (2)(C) of section 706 of 
    title 5, United States Code, and shall not be subject to any 
    proceeding under section 304(a)(2) of this Act. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Edwards of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Edwards of Alabama to the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Staggers:
            On page 46, line 16, delete the word ``paragraph'' and 
        insert the word ``section.''
            On page 47, line 1, add a new section 119(a)(2) as follows:
            ``The Administrator shall, for any period beginning on or 
        after the date of enactment of this section, temporarily 
        suspend any stationary source fuel or emission limitation or 
        other environmental protection requirement as it applies to any 
        energy producing facility or refinery, if the Administrator 
        finds that such facility or refinery will be unable to comply 
        with such limitation during such period because of the 
        unavailability of plant equipment or materials needed to 
        construct an emission reduction system or other antipollution 
        system and that such facility or refinery has entered into a 
        contractual obligation to obtain the plant equipment or 
        materials needed for such a system. . . .
            On page 52, line 7, delete subsection (e) of section 119 
        and add a new subparagraph (e) as follows: ``No State or 
        political subdivision may require any person, energy producing 
        facility or refinery, to whom a suspension has been granted 
        under subsection (a) to use any fuel the unavailability of 
        which is the basis of such person's suspension or to meet any 
        requirement the compliance with which is prevented by the 
        unavailability of plant equipment or materials needed to 
        construct an emission reduction or other antipollution system. 
        . . .

        Mr. [Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I must be 
    constrained to make a point of order against this amendment. In 
    checking the amendment, if one examines it carefully, it would 
    amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Occupational 
    Health and Safety Act, the Ocean Dumping Act; the Public Works 
    Committee would be infringed upon; the Committee on Education and 
    Labor would be infringed upon; the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
    Fisheries would be infringed upon.
        It is not germane. It also would amend the Solid Waste Disposal 
    Act and the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act. It is not limited in 
    time, nor constrained by any relationship to fuel shortage.
        For all these reasons, a careful examination, I would think, 
    would show that it is not germane and, furthermore, these matters 
    have been already handled in the bill.
        The Chairman: (2) Will the gentleman from Florida 
    cite the specific

[[Page 8012]]

    language? The Chair is concerned, because he has reference to page 
    46 of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, title 
    II, and the language appearing on that page and thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rogers: Mr. Chairman, I think if the Chair would direct its 
    attention to about the sixth line of the amendment, where it says, 
    ``Or other environmental protection requirement,'' which violates 
    all of these other laws that this does not apply to at all, ``To 
    any energy producing facility or refinery.''
        The Chair can also direct its attention on the bottom, about 
    four lines up, where it begins, ``To meet any requirement the 
    compliance with which is prevented by the unavailability of plant 
    equipment or materials needed to construct an emission reduction or 
    other antipollution system,'' so the language here is so broad it 
    goes far beyond this act. It is an infringement on all of these 
    other laws and on all the jurisdiction of these other committees. . 
    . .
        Mr. Edwards of Alabama: . . . This comes under the section 
    called Suspension Authority, and in that section the Administrator 
    is empowered to suspend the type of fuel an industry is required to 
    use if it is not available.
        By the same token, my amendment is limited to energy producing 
    facilities or refineries which we desperately need now. And all it 
    simply says is that if, in an effort to comply with EPA 
    requirements, the Administrator finds that the material is not 
    available, the Administrator has the right to suspend the 
    requirement until the material is available if, in fact, the 
    industry has made a good faith effort and a contract to obtain this 
    equipment.
        Mr. Chairman, to me this is a vital part of this particular 
    legislation, trying to find ways to conserve fuel under the 
    Emergency Energy Act. I think it is right on all fours with what 
    this section is designed to do.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        While the language in the bill is broad, suspending certain 
    procedural requirements of law, the Chair, in the absence of 
    specific knowledge as to all of the other environmental protection 
    requirements that are involved in the language of the amendment, 
    feels constrained to sustain the point of order.
        The Chair believes he will sustain the point of order on the 
    ground that this language is simply so broad as to suspend 
    virtually every requirement of law, and the Chair out of caution 
    sustains it for fear of further broadening a bill which is already 
    very broad.

Precise Change in One Subsection of Existing Law--Comprehensive 
    Amendment Affecting Provisions and Classes of Persons Not Within 
    Scope

Sec. 9.45 A bill narrowly amending one subsection of existing law for a 
    single purpose does not necessarily open the entire section of the 
    law to amendment; thus, to a bill narrowly amending one subsection 
    of existing law relating to one specific criminal activity, an 
    amendment postponing the effective date of

[[Page 8013]]

    the entire section, affecting other criminal provisions as well as 
    the one amended by the bill, and affecting other classes of 
    persons, was held not germane.

    During consideration of S. 869(3) in the Committee of 
the Whole on May 16, 1979,(4) the Chair sustained a point of 
order against the amendment described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. A bill relating to clarification of conflict of interest 
        restrictions on former government employees.
 4. 125 Cong. Rec. 11466, 11467, 11470, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 
        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),''. . . .

        Mr. [Robert] McClory [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McClory: On page 2, following line 
        2, add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 2. Section 503 of Public Law 95-521 is amended by 
        striking ``July 1, 1979'' and inserting ``January 1, 1980'' in 
        lieu thereof.''. . .

        Mr. [George] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I will 
    make the point of order now.
        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would add a section 2 
    to amend section 503 of Public Law 95-521 by striking ``July 1, 
    1979'' and inserting ``July 1, 1980'' in lieu thereof. I 
    respectfully point out that the bill before us does not deal with 
    section 503 of Public Law 95-521. It does not deal with that 
    section and, therefore, the gentleman's amendment would not be 
    germane to the bill before us. . . .
        Mr. McClory: Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I have offered 
    relates to Public Law 95-521, which is the law which is referred to 
    in the legislation which we have under consideration at the present 
    time. The amendment which I have offered would delay the effective 
    date of the entire legislation, including the section to which the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Danielson) has made reference, and 
    which is referred to specifically in the measure, and would keep 
    that part and the rest of the legislation from becoming effective 
    until January 1, 1979.
        It is, in my view, entirely germane. It is precisely relevant 
    to the subject about which we are giving consideration now. Instead 
    of papering over something with a so-called technical amendment, 
    what we are doing is to delay the effective date of the entire act 
    in order that we can handle the subject not only technically but 
    substantively as well. I urge that the Chairman overrule the point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (5) . . . This act applies to 
    subsection (b) of section 207 of

[[Page 8014]]

    title 18, and it is a very narrowly drafted and defined bill as 
    amended at this point. The amendment which the gentleman has 
    offered seeks to extend the time for the entire act covering 
    categories of persons other than those under subsection (b) of 
    section 207, and under the precedents that the Chair has examined, 
    the Chair will sustain the point of order accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. E de la Garza (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Broadcasting to Cuba--To All Dictatorships in Caribbean

Sec. 9.46 A specific proposition may not be amended by a proposition 
    more general in scope; thus, to a bill authorizing funds for radio 
    broadcasting to Cuba, an amendment broadening the bill to include 
    broadcasting to all dictatorships in the Caribbean Basin was held 
    to be not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 5427 in the Committee of the Whole on 
Aug. 10, 1982,(6) Chairman William R. Ratchford, of 
Connecticut, sustained a point of order against an amendment as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 128 Cong. Rec. 20263, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Harkin: Page 2, beginning in line 
        4, strike out ``Radio Broadcasting in Cuba Act'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``Radio Broadcasting to Dictatorships in the 
        Caribbean Basin''. . . .

        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: . . . Mr. Chairman, let me 
    make a point of order against this amendment under clause 7, rule 
    XVI, because this is an amendment which is obviously an attempt to 
    broaden the subject matter of this bill to include dictatorships in 
    the Caribbean basin and to set other parameters that are just not 
    in this bill and, therefore, it is not germane.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Iowa wish to be heard on 
    the point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair is prepared to sustain the point of order on the 
    basis that the amendment, as proposed, is more general in scope and 
    is not germane to the relatively narrow purpose of the bill.

Economic Sanctions Against One Country--Sanctions Against Any Other 
    Country Violating Human Rights

Sec. 9.47 To a bill dealing with enforcement of United Nations 
    sanctions against one country in relation to a specific trade 
    commodity, an amendment permitting the President to suspend all 
    economic relations and communications between the United States and 
    any other country, on the basis of human rights violations as 
    determined by the President, was held to be not germane.

[[Page 8015]]

    On Mar. 14, 1977,(7) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 1746, amending the United Nations 
Participation Act of 1945 to halt the importation of Rhodesian chrome. 
The bill permitted the President to enforce United States compliance 
with United Nations Security Council sanctions against trade with 
Rhodesia particularly with reference to the importation of Rhodesian 
chrome. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 123 Cong. Rec. 7432, 7446, 7447, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it amended by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 5 of 
    the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 287c) is 
    amended--
        (1) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following new 
    sentence: ``Any Executive order which is issued under this 
    subsection and which applies measures against Southern Rhodesia 
    pursuant to any United Nations Security Council Resolution may be 
    enforced, notwithstanding the provisions of any other law; and
        (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
        ``(c)(1) During the period in which measures are applied 
    against Southern Rhodesia under subsection (a) pursuant to any 
    United Nations Security Council Resolution, a shipment of any steel 
    mill product (as such product may be defined by the Secretary) 
    containing chromium in any form may not be released from customs 
    custody for entry into the United States if--
        ``(A) a certificate of origin with respect to such shipment has 
    not been filed with the Secretary; or
        ``(B) in the case of a shipment with respect to which a 
    certificate of origin has been filed with the Secretary, the 
    Secretary determines that the information contained in such 
    certificate does not adequately establish that the steel mill 
    product in such shipment does not contain chromium in any form 
    which is of Southern Rhodesian origin. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Elliott] Levitas [of Georgia]: 
        Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
        That section 5(a) of the United Nations Participation Act of 
        1945 is amended--

            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' immediately after ``(a)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(2)(A) Subject to the conditions prescribed in 
        subparagraph (B), if the President determines that the 
        government of a foreign country is engaged in a consistent 
        pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human 
        rights (including torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading 
        treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges, 
        or other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, and the 
        security of person), the President may, through any agency 
        which he may designate and under such orders, rules, and 
        regulations as may be prescribed by him, suspend (in whole or 
        in part) economic relations or rail, sea, air, postal, 
        telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication between 
        that foreign country or any national thereof or any person 
        therein and

[[Page 8016]]

        the United States or any person subject to the jurisdiction 
        thereof, or involving any property subject to the jurisdiction 
        of the United States. . . .

        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order the amendment is not germane.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill deals only with United Nations sanctions against 
    importation of chrome, while the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Georgia deals with embargoes and other economic sanctions on 
    any material or commercial transaction. Also, the bill deals only 
    with sanctions against Rhodesia, both in the title and in the body 
    of the bill. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
    permits U.S. rather than U.N. sanctions to be imposed on products 
    or communications from any foreign country. It is the opinion of 
    the Chair that the amendment is not germane, and the Chair sustains 
    the point of order.
        There being no further amendments, under the rule, the 
    Committee rises.

Restricting Aid to One Nation--Restricting Aid to Others

Sec. 9.48 To an amendment restricting the use of funds for military 
    operations in South Vietnam, an amendment extending that 
    restriction to other countries in Indochina was held to be more 
    general in scope and was ruled out as not germane.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(9) during consideration of the Vietnam 
Humanitarian Assistance and Evacuation Act,(10) 10 in the 
Committee of the Whole, it was held that to a proposition dealing with 
a specific issue, an amendment more general in scope was not germane. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 11514, 11521, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. H.R. 6096.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solarz: Page 1, line 5, insert 
        ``(a)'' immediately after ``Sec. 2.'', and page 2, immediately 
        after line 2, add the following new subsection:
            (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no 
        funds authorized or made available under this Act may be used 
        to finance, directly or indirectly, any combat activity, any 
        involvement in hostilities, or any military or paramilitary 
        operation, by the Armed Forces of the United States in, over, 
        or off the shores of South Vietnam after the end of the 30-day 
        period beginning on the first date after the date of enactment 
        of this Act on which any American ground combat forces are 
        introduced into South Vietnam in conjunction with any program 
        of evacuation as defined by Section 4 of this Act. . . .

        Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment 
    to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 8017]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Harkin to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Solarz:
            Amend the Solarz amendment as follows: After the word 
        ``Vietnam'' used for the first time, insert the following: ``, 
        Cambodia, Laos, and North Vietnam''.

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment. It seems to me it goes much 
    farther geographically than anything in the bill. . . .
        Mr. Harkin: . . . I think the amendment is well in order 
    because it is speaking directly to this section about involvement 
    in a military or paramilitary operation and we are talking about 
    limiting those uses to a 30-day period. I think the amendment is in 
    order because it does meet the limitations imposed on the bill by 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solarz).
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) 
    does go in scope beyond the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Solarz), whose amendment is limited to the area of 
    Vietnam. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa goes 
    beyond that by inserting Cambodia and Laos and North Vietnam.

        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Provision Relating to Official Conduct of Federal Employees--Amendment 
    Relating to All Conduct

Sec. 9.49 To a proposition relating only to official conduct of federal 
    employees, an amendment concerned with any criminal conduct of 
    those officials, whether or not related to the performance of 
    official duties, was held nongermane as addressing a broader 
    category of conduct.

    On Oct. 12, 1978,(12) during consideration in the House 
of S. 555, the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, a point of order was 
sustained against a provision contained in the conference report. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 36459-61, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Wiggins [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against title VI of the conference report. That, for 
    the Speaker's information, is the title dealing with the special 
    prosecutor language in the conference report. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, my point of order is based upon rule XXVIII, which 
    is the germaneness section. It is my position, Mr. Speaker, that 
    title VI is a nongermane Senate amendment and it violates that 
    section of the House rules which I have cited. . . .
        [T]he language in the special prosecutor amendment added by the 
    Sen

[[Page 8018]]

    ate is so broad and sweeping that it covers in several respects 
    private individuals, that is to say, new classes of people who are 
    not covered under the sweep of the ethics bill. . . .
        The special prosecutor bill, which is tacked on to the ethics 
    bill, is a complicated and important piece of legislation. It was 
    considered in detail by a different subcommittee in the Committee 
    on the Judiciary which did not consider the ethics bill. It is true 
    that the Committee on the Judiciary reported out a special 
    prosecutor bill but it was never brought to the floor of the House 
    and, indeed, has never been debated nor subject to amendment by 
    Members of this House.
        It is a far-reaching piece of legislation, it is complicated, 
    different in form, different in purpose, different in all respects 
    from the ethics bill which we did consider several days ago.
        I hope that the Speaker, when the Speaker is prepared to rule, 
    will recognize that germaneness, if it is to have any meaning at 
    all, is offended in a fundamental way by allowing the Senate to 
    tack on an issue which is so basically different and unrelated to 
    the ethics bill which we considered earlier. . . .
        Mr. [James R.] Mann [of South Carolina]: . . . The House 
    amendment to S. 555 is actually the text of H.R. 1 as passed by the 
    House. The text of H.R. 1, as finally approved, was actually the 
    text of an amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. 
    Thus, the issue, as I understand it, is whether the provisions of 
    title VI of the conference report would have been germane to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute which eventually became the 
    text of House bill, H.R. 1, had the provisions of title VI been 
    offered as an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute. I believe that the provisions of title VI would have 
    been germane to the amendment in the nature of a substitute and 
    that the chair should therefore overrule the point of order. . . .
        The basic test for determining germaneness is whether the 
    fundamental purpose of the amendment is germane to the fundamental 
    purpose of the bill. The question here, then, is whether the 
    fundamental purpose of title VI is germane to the fundamental 
    purpose of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. I submit 
    that it is. The purpose of the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, which is subtitled the ``Ethics in Government Act,'' is 
    to promote ethical conduct by Federal Government officials and 
    certain other private citizens. The purpose of title VI of the 
    conference report is also to promote ethical conduct.
        A second test for germaneness is whether the subject matter of 
    the amendment relates to the subject matter of the bill. The 
    question here is whether the subject matter of title VI of the 
    conference report relates to the subject matter of the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute. I submit that it does.
        The subject matter of the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute was broad. It encompassed ethical standards and conduct 
    involving officials in all three branches of the Federal 
    Government--legislative, executive, and judicial--as well as 
    certain private citizens.
        With regard to Federal Government employees and officials, it 
    required de

[[Page 8019]]

    tailed financial disclosure statements to be filed by people in all 
    three branches of Government. It established an Office of 
    Government Ethics with broad authority, including the power to 
    promulgate regulations pertaining to ``conflicts of interest and 
    ethics in the executive branch.'' It amended our Federal criminal 
    law in the area of conflicts of interest. . . .
        The gentleman from California concedes that the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute encompasses private citizens. He argues, 
    however, that those private citizens are connected in some way with 
    the Government.
        Mr. Speaker, I submit that the private citizens covered in 
    title VI of the conference report encompass only one narrow group. 
    The President's campaign manager is connected to the Government 
    just as much as the partner of some Government employee who may be 
    violating some law in appearing before some Government agency. He 
    is connected in the same way as the business partner of a 
    Government employee would be connected. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) . . . In looking at 
    the gentleman's point of order in this instance the gentleman from 
    California makes two points, one as title VI relates to new classes 
    of persons not covered by the House-passed bill, and the other in 
    terms of the breadth of the types of conduct subject to 
    investigation by the special prosecutor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.  Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It seems that under what is being considered here, the breadth 
    of the investigation which the special prosecutor may undertake, 
    goes far beyond the scope of the activity regulated by the House-
    passed bill. In looking at title VI, it authorizes the special 
    prosecutor to investigate any violation of any Federal criminal law 
    other than a violation constituting a petty offense--conduct which 
    may or may not directly relate to the official duties of the 
    persons covered. For that reason . . . the Chair does sustain the 
    point of order.

Bill Governing Rights and Obligations Under Federal Employment System 
    of Employees Engaging in Political Activities--Amendment To 
    Prohibit Compensation From Any Employment Public or Private

Sec. 9.50 To a bill reported from the Committee on Post Office and 
    Civil Service governing the political activities of federal 
    employees and containing certain restrictions on federal employment 
    relative to such activities, language in an amendment requiring 
    federal employees who wish to become candidates for elective office 
    to obtain leaves of absence, and also prohibiting them from 
    receiving compensation from employment public or private during the 
    period of their candidacy, was held to be beyond the scope of the 
    bill and to be not germane.

[[Page 8020]]

    On June 7, 1977,(14) during consideration of H.R. 10 
(15) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman James R. Mann, 
of South Carolina, sustained a point of order against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 123 Cong. Rec. 17711, 17712, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. The Federal Employees' Political Activities Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clifford R.] Allen [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Allen: Delete from section 7326 
        subsections (b) and (c) thereof, substituting therefor a new 
        subsection (b), below and change the designation of subsection 
        (d) to ``(c)'':
            ``(b) An employee who desires to become a candidate for any 
        elective office must first obtain a leave of absence and shall 
        not work and/or earn compensation or other privileges of 
        employment for a period beginning with the last workday 
        preceding the day said employee shall either qualify as a 
        candidate or announce his or her candidacy for such elective 
        office, and ending with the day after said election, or the day 
        after said employee withdraws as a candidate for elective 
        office, whichever is sooner; and no such employee shall be 
        entitled to use, during this period, any entitlement to sick 
        leave or any other form of leave, except that said employee may 
        be entitled to be paid during the foregoing period of absence 
        from his employment for any period of accrued annual leave or 
        compensatory time to which he was entitled on the day the 
        foregoing period of absence commences, at the election of said 
        employee.''. . .

        Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to my 
    reservation of a point of order, I would like to ask the gentleman 
    in the well, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Allen), if he could 
    explain to us the meaning of the words beginning on lines 2 and 3 
    of paragraph (b) of his amendment which read ``shall not work and/
    or earn compensation or other privileges of employment for a period 
    beginning with the last workday preceding the day said employee 
    shall either qualify as a candidate.''
        What does the gentleman mean that ``an employee who desires to 
    become a candidate--shall not work and/or earn compensation'' 
    during his leave of absence?
        Mr. Allen: It means if he is on a leave of absence without pay 
    in order to make a political campaign for office, that he shall not 
    work in the agency nor shall he withdraw pay or be entitled to any 
    other emoluments or compensation during that period until the 
    campaign is over or until he has withdrawn as a candidate. . . .
        Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I raise the point of order 
    on the ground that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Tennessee is in violation of clause 7 of House Rule XVI which 
    provides: ``no motion or proposition on a subject different from 
    that under consideration shall be admitted under color of 
    amendment.''
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment under consideration is far broader 
    than the Act which it attempts to amend and would not only affect 
    the rights of the proposed candidate as an employee of the Federal 
    Government but it also places a restriction on his ability to

[[Page 8021]]

    otherwise provide support for himself and his family, particularly 
    that language that talks about not working or earning any 
    compensation or seeking any privileges of employment, and for that 
    reason I believe the amendment is subject to a point of order as 
    not germane to the bill before us. . . .
        Mr. Allen: . . . The present language of the bill is that:

            (b) An employee who is a candidate for elective office 
        shall, upon the request of such employee, be granted leave 
        without pay for the purpose of allowing such employee to engage 
        in activities relating to such candidacy.
            (c) Notwithstanding section 6302(d) of this title, an 
        employee who is a candidate for elective office shall, upon the 
        request of such employee, be granted accrued annual leave for 
        the purpose of allowing such employee to engage in activities 
        relating to such candidacy. Such leave shall be in addition to 
        leave without pay to which such employee may be entitled under 
        subsection (b) of this section.

        The language is certainly germane. It simply says that instead 
    of him having to apply for the leave of absence--I mean, instead of 
    being permitted to, he shall be required to ask for a leave of 
    absence and during that period the Federal Government will pay him 
    no money other than what he has already earned, or any other 
    emoluments.
        I understand the gentleman making the point of order is 
    undertaking to read into the amendment what is not there and that 
    is that it would prevent him from working outside. We are talking 
    about working for the Federal Government and drawing pay from an 
    agency of the Federal Government in which he is a civil service 
    employee.
        Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, in response to the 
    gentleman, that is in effect the way the amendment reads; but, in 
    addition to that, the gentleman has now further explained the 
    amendment making it clear that the gentleman intends that the 
    obtaining of a leave of absence from one's supervisory employer, I 
    assume, is a condition precedent to seeking any elective public 
    office, whether partisan or nonpartisan. I think that goes beyond 
    the scope of this bill. That would amount to a restriction on the 
    ability of an employee to participate in a right or privilege that 
    he has contingent upon receiving permission from another employee 
    and there is no such restriction now or ever before in the Hatch 
    Act, nor in the Hatch Act amendment now before us, as amended, and 
    it is still not germane for that reason.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    Michigan makes a point of order [against]) the language contained 
    in the amendment, which is actually ``shall not work and/or earn 
    compensation or other privileges of employment for a period 
    beginning with the last work day preceding the day said employee 
    shall either qualify as a candidate or announce his or her 
    candidacy for such elective office,''.
        The amendment goes beyond the scope and purpose of H.R. 10, in 
    that it is not limited to compensation from or privileges 
    incremental to Federal employment.

        A plain reading of the language indicates that such limitation 
    is not implicit in that language. The amendment would prevent 
    Federal employees from obtaining any compensation, pub

[[Page 8022]]

    lic or private, and thus inhibit conduct of an employee that is not 
    political--the earning of compensation, and that is not necessarily 
    connected to Federal employment.
        The Chair does not find it necessary to rule on the point 
    concerning leave of absence as a prerequisite. Because of the 
    language with reference to employment, which the Chair might also 
    state could easily be corrected, the pending amendment provides 
    language and regulates conduct beyond the scope of the committee 
    bill and is not germane.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Provision Waiving Laws Governing Removal of Government Employees--
    Amendment Proposing Removal of Noncitizens from Government

Sec. 9.51 To that section of a bill permitting, upon approval by the 
    Secretary of War, waiver of certain provisions of law regarding 
    removal of government employees, an amendment proposing that all 
    government employees who are not American citizens shall be 
    discharged was held to be not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (16) to strengthen national 
defense was under consideration which stated in part: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 9850 (Committee on Military Affairs).
17. See 86 Cong. Rec. 6852, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., May 24, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Provided further, That in connection with the defense 
    program of the United States the provisions of section 6 of the act 
    of August 24, 1912 (U.S.C., 1934 ed., title 5, sec. 652), may be 
    waived in any case when approved by the Secretary of War. . . .

    An amendment was offered (18) which stated in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 6854.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [E]very officer, official, and employee of the United 
    States Government and of each and every department, bureau, and 
    agency thereof, regardless of position, class, grade, rating, or 
    duties, who is not an American citizen, shall be discharged and 
    removed from the Government service within 60 days after the 
    passage of this act.

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

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it deals 
    with agencies that do not come within the scope of this bill. 
    Therefore it is not germane.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent said:

        Mr. [Stephen] Pace [of Georgia]: . . . Section 6 is the section 
    dealing with the removal for cause of a person engaged in the 
    classified civil service. It applies only, Mr. Chairman, to one 
    branch of the Government service, that is, to the War Department. . 
    . .
        [T]his amendment simply provides that instead of merely the 
    Secretary of

[[Page 8023]]

    War having the right to waive the provisions of section 6, the fact 
    that a person in the Government service or in the classified civil 
    service is not an American citizen, is declared to be cause for his 
    removal for cause.

    The Chairman,(19) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. Boehne, Jr. (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is . . . of the opinion that the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Georgia goes entirely beyond the scope of the 
    bill under consideration, and therefore sustains the point of 
    order.

Bill Affecting Federal Employees' Retirement Benefits--Amendment 
    Affecting State and Local Retirement Benefits

Sec. 9.52 To a bill which related to retirement benefits of federal 
    employees and which sought to exempt annuity payments from 
    taxation, an amendment affecting recipients of state and local 
    retirement benefits was held not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (20) was under 
consideration to amend the Civil Service Retirement Act to exempt 
annuity payments under such act from taxation. The bill stated: 
(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 2948 (Committee on Civil Service).
 1. 91 Cong. Rec. 9093, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 27, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That section 18 of the Civil Service 
    Retirement Act approved May 29, 1930, as amended, is amended to 
    read as follows:
        Sec. 18. None of the moneys mentioned in this act shall be 
    assignable, either in law or equity, or be subject to execution, 
    levy, or attachment, garnishment, taxation, or other legal process: 
    Provided however, That the exemption from taxation as provided 
    herein shall apply only to so much of any annuity as does not 
    exceed $1,440 in any calendar year.

    The following amendment was offered: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 9095.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


        Amendment offered by Mr. [Reid F.] Murray [of Wisconsin]: Page 
    1, line 6, after the word ``act'', insert ``or moneys received by 
    recipients of State, county, city, or village retirement 
    payments.''

    Mr. Robert Ramspeck, of Georgia, raised the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill. The Chairman,(3) in 
sustaining the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill under consideration deals strictly with civil-service 
    retirement benefits to Federal employees. The gentleman's amendment 
    would include all recipients of State, county, city, and village 
    retirement benefits. It is very clearly outside of the scope of the 
    bill.

[[Page 8024]]

Provision Improving Research Facilities of Library of Congress--
    Amendment To Create Office of Technology Assessment

Sec. 9.53 To a provision designed to improve the research facilities of 
    Congress and concerned primarily with restructuring the appropriate 
    department in the Library of Congress, an amendment creating a new 
    Office of Technology Assessment comprised partly of personnel 
    outside the legislative branch was held to be not germane.

    The following exchange, in which the proponent of the amendment, 
Mr. Emilio Q. Daddario, of Connecticut, explained the purposes of the 
amendment, took place on Sept. 16, 1970: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 116 Cong. Rec. 32210, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 17654, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 
        (Committee on Rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Daddario: Mr. Chairman, I offered this amendment as a 
    proper part of the reorganization bill. It really is an extension 
    of something that the Reorganization Act attempts to do and that is 
    to change the Legislative Reference Service into the Congressional 
    Research Service. . . . It adds to the ability of a Congress to 
    have research done for it through the Congressional Research 
    Service. . . .
        It appears to me that while we are talking about the 
    reorganization of the Congress, that is an all-encompassing term. . 
    . . This amendment, because it is a part of the reorganization, 
    does give to the Congress strengths and abilities it does not have. 
    . . .

    The Chairman, (5) in ruling that the amendment was not 
germane, stated: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 32210, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 16, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment proposes the establishment of an Office of 
    Technology Assessment, in the legislative branch of Government, 
    responsible to the Congress.
        The Office is to consist of a Technology Assessment Board and a 
    Director. The Board is broadly constituted, drawing its membership 
    from the Congress and including in addition . . . the Comptroller 
    General, the Director of the Congressional Research Service, and 
    six public members. . . .
        All . . . agencies of the executive branch . . . are directed 
    to furnish the Office, upon the request of the Director, such 
    information as the Office deems necessary. The Office is directed 
    to maintain a continuing liaison with the National Science 
    Foundation and to report to the President and the Congress annually 
    on its findings and recommendations. It would also provide the 
    Board with subpena powers, authority to hire consultants, and to 
    contract for studies and research. . . .

[[Page 8025]]

        The Chair feels that the creation of this new Office, with the 
    broad authority conferred on it by this amendment, goes beyond the 
    scope of the bill before the committee and is not germane.

Bill Extending Subsidy of Certain Nonprofit Mail--Amendment To 
    Establish New Class of Mail and Postal Rate

Sec. 9.54 A bill extending the phased subsidization of certain 
    categories of nonprofit mail was held insufficiently broad in scope 
    to admit as germane an amendment establishing a new class of mail 
    and postal rate therefor.

    During consideration of S. 411 in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 19, 1974,(7) it was held that, to a bill extending the 
phasing period during which nonprofit mailers in certain categories may 
absorb increased postal rates, and providing that all Postal Service 
appropriations requests be submitted directly to Congress without 
revision by the President, an amendment adding a new section to provide 
a one-cent postage rate for post cards was ruled out as not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 120 Cong. Rec. 19817, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez: Page 3, immediately 
        after line 8, add the following new section:

            Sec. 4. (a) Subchapter V of chapter 36 of title 39, United 
        States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new section:
            ``Sec. 3686. One cent postage rate for postal and post 
        cards
            ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this title or of 
        any other law, the rate of postage for the use (other than any 
        use which is related to a trade or business) of each single 
        postal card and for each portion of a double postal card, 
        including the cost of manufacture, and for each post card and 
        the initial portion of each double post card is 1 cent until 
        otherwise provided by law. . . .

        Mr. [Thaddeus J.] Dulski [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that the 
    amendment is not germane to the bill. . . .
        [T]he question is whether the matter contained in the amendment 
    is in violation of House rule XVI, clause 7, which provides, in 
    part, that--

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

        The bill under consideration, S. 411, relates to the following 
    subject matters.
        The first section amends section 3626 of title 39, United 
    States Code, to extend the rate phasing for certain classes of 
    mail, namely:
        First, from 10 to 16 years for nonprofit and preferred rate 
    second-class mail, nonprofit third-class, and the special library 
    fourth-class rate, and
        Second, from 5 to 8 years for regular second and third-class 
    mail, controlled

[[Page 8026]]

    circulation mail, and special commercial books and records fourth-
    class mail. . . .
        The instant amendment proposes to add a new section to chapter 
    36 of title 39 relating to the establishment of a new class of mail 
    and thus attempts to establish postal rates.
        In my opinion, the subject matter of the amendment is not 
    similar to any of the subject matters involved in S. 411 which I 
    have just outlined and is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Gonzalez: . . . This whole transaction is concerned with 
    the matter of postal rates. The whole thrust of this legislation 
    before the House is that point, a decision made by the Postal Rate 
    Commission.
        My amendment goes to the heart of germaneness . . . It merely 
    says, as my predecessor attempted to do in his amendment in this 
    particular category, as it has been known as a post card, that we 
    shall stimulate for private use, family use, noncommercial use, the 
    penny postcard. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Joseph P. Addabbo (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has listened to the point of order and has studied 
    the bill and the report. In the opinion of the Chair, the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Dulski) has properly characterized the bill. It 
    is very narrow in scope and relates only to a period of phasing of 
    certain classifications of mail and of budget submission.
        It certainly is not broad enough to open the whole subject of 
    postal rate adjustments. The amendment would establish a 1-cent 
    post card, a subject not within the scope of the bill.
        The Chair is not against the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Texas, but the Chair must hold that the amendment is not germane, 
    and sustains the point of order.

Bill Authorizing President To Reactivate Reserve and Retired Military--
    Amendment Restricting Authority Under Bill or Any Other Law

Sec. 9.55 To a bill authorizing the President to order reservists and 
    retired army personnel into active service, an amendment providing 
    that nothing in the bill ``or in any Federal statute or rule or 
    regulation of any Federal department'' shall authorize the 
    President to interfere in any manner with the duties of any 
    federal, state or municipal election official was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of a bill (9) 
relating to compulsory military training, 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. In 
defense

[[Page 8027]]

of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 10132 (Committee on Military Affairs).
10. 86 Cong. Rec. 11723, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Sept. 7, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: [The amendment] is a 
    limitation upon authority. . . .
        . . . (I)t takes out of the class over which the President is 
    given authority, certain officials, State and Federal, which are 
    referred to in the first part of the paragraph.

    The Chairman,(11) stating that the amendment ``goes far 
beyond the purview of the pending bill,'' sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill To Stimulate Volunteer Enlistments in Regular Military and Naval 
    Establishments--Amendment Relating Generally to Discharge of 
    Military Personnel

Sec. 9.56 The Chair ruled that, to a bill proposing to stimulate 
    volunteer enlistments in the Regular Military and Naval 
    Establishments, an amendment dealing generally with the discharge 
    of United States military personnel was not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (12) was under 
consideration which stated in part: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 3951 (Committee on Military Affairs), Armed Forces Voluntary 
        Recruitment Act of 1945.
13. See 91 Cong. Rec. 8646, 8647, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 17, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That this act may be cited as the ``Armed 
    Forces Voluntary Recruitment Act of 1945.''
        Sec. 2. The Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy are 
    authorized and directed to initiate and carry forward intensive 
    recruiting campaigns to obtain volunteer enlistments and 
    reenlistments in the Regular Military and Naval Establishments.

    The following amendment was offered to the bill:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Daniel A.] Reed of New York: Page 1, 
    after line 9, insert a new section to read as follows:
        ``That there shall be discharged from, or released from active 
    duty in, the military and naval forces of the United States, as 
    rapidly as discharge facilities will permit, all members of such 
    forces whose active duty therein has been of a duration of 18 or 
    more months since September 16, 1940, except that no commissioned 
    officer of the Regular Military or Naval Establishment shall be 
    discharged or released under this act, and no member of the 
    military or naval forces who is serving therein under an enlistment 
    need be discharged or released from such forces under this act 
    prior to the expiration of the contract period of enlistment.''
        Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. . . .

    The Chairman (14) ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Kentucky makes the point of order against 
    the

[[Page 8028]]

    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York that it is not 
    germane. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    applies to and affects the Army of the United States, whereas the 
    bill before the Committee is more limited in scope and applies only 
    to volunteer enlistments in the Regular Army. Therefore the 
    amendment is not germane, and the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Bill Authorizing Reactivation of Reservists and Retired Army 
    Personnel--Amendment Authorizing Prohibition on Liquor Sale to all 
    Armed Forces

Sec. 9.57 To a bill authorizing the President to order reservists and 
    retired army personnel into active service, an amendment 
    authorizing the President to prohibit the sale of liquor to all men 
    of the land and naval forces of the United States was held not 
    germane.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(15) relating to compulsory military training, an amendment 
was offered (16) as described above. Mr. Andrew J. May, of 
Kentucky, raised the point of order that the amendment was not 
germane.(17) The Chairman,(18) in ruling on the 
point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 10132 (Committee on Military Affairs).
16. 86 Cong. Rec. 11740, 11741, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Sept. 7, 1940.
17. Id. at p. 11741.
18. Lindsay C. Warren (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If the gentleman from Kansas had confined his amendment to 
    affect only those covered by the pending bill, it would have 
    undoubtedly been germane. . . . However, the amendment is all-
    inclusive and covers the officers and enlisted men of the land and 
    naval forces of the United States. It goes far beyond the scope of 
    this bill. Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Provision Funding Training Vessel for One State Maritime Academy--
    Amendment Affecting All Maritime Academies' Use of Training Vessels

Sec. 9.58 To a Senate amendment providing for a training vessel for one 
    state maritime academy, a proposed House amendment relating to 
    training vessels for all state maritime academies was held not 
    germane as more general in scope.

    During consideration of H.R. 1827 (supplemental appropriations for 
fiscal 1987) in the House on June 30, 1987, (19) it was 
demonstrated that a specific proposition may not be amended by a

[[Page 8029]]

proposition more general in scope, when a point of order against the 
following motion was conceded and sustained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 133 Cong. Rec. 18297, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 33: Page 8, after line 21, insert:

                            operations and training

            Funds appropriated under this head in Public Law 98-396 for 
        a training vessel for the State University of New York Maritime 
        College shall be available for acquisition, preconversion and 
        conversion costs of such vessel.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) The Clerk will 
    designate the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Dan Glickman (Kan.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the motion is as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 33 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, insert 
        the following:
            Funds appropriated under this head in Public Law 98-396 for 
        a training vessel for the State University of New York Maritime 
        College shall be available for acquisition, preconversion and 
        conversion costs of such vessel: Provided, That prior to the 
        obligation of such funds and prior to the obligation of 
        unobligated funds appropriated under this head for state 
        maritime academies in Public Law 99-500 and Public Law 99-591, 
        except for obligations necessary to complete current shipyard 
        work and voyages in progress, all state maritime academies 
        furnished a training vessel shall agree to such sharing of 
        training vessels as shall be arranged by the Maritime 
        Administration: Provided further, That the Maritime 
        Administration shall submit its final plans for such a ship-
        sharing arrangement to the state maritime academies by October 
        1, 1987. . . .

        Mr. [Gerry E.] Studds [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the motion on the ground that the amendment 
    that it purports to add to the Senate amendment is not germane to 
    said amendment. The Senate amendment deals solely with the New York 
    State Maritime Academy. The amendment proposed on the part of the 
    House to the Senate amendment deals with the full range of all the 
    state maritime academies and as such is beyond the scope of the 
    Senate amendment and is not germane thereto. . . .
        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of 
    order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman concedes the point of 
    order.
        The point of order is sustained.

Bill Authorizing President To Requisition Materials and Provide 
    Compensation Therefor--Amendment Providing That Compensation to 
    Certain Foreign Governments Be in Form of Credit on Indebtedness

Sec. 9.59 To a bill authorizing the President to requisition materials 
    for the use of the United States, and con

[[Page 8030]]

    taining a provision for compensation of the owners of such 
    materials, an amendment was held to be not germane which provided 
    that when such material is obtained from a foreign government that 
    is in default of its obligations to the United States, a receipt 
    for partial payment of the obligations shall be given as 
    compensation.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (1) was under consideration 
which stated in part: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 10339 (Committee on Military Affairs).
 2. 86 Cong. Rec. 10767, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Aug. 22, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 2. Whenever the President shall requisition and take over 
    any article or material pursuant to the provisions of this act, the 
    owner thereof shall be paid as compensation therefor such sum as 
    the President shall determine to be fair and just.

    An amendment was offered prohibiting payments to any foreign 
government that is in default in its obligations to the United States, 
and providing instead for credits 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,(3) in sustaining the 
point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Clyde Williams (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . I think the provisions of the amendment are entirely too 
    broad and beyond the scope entirely of this bill, because it says 
    that no payment shall be made to any government, which would cover 
    the entire field of governmental debts. . . .

Provision Making Teachers in Peace Corps Eligible for Partial 
    Cancellation of Education Loans--Amendment To Permit Loan 
    Recipients To Choose Repayment Plan Based on Income

Sec. 9.60 To an amendment adding teachers in the Peace Corps to those 
    eligible for partial cancellation of certain education loans, an 
    amendment permitting loan recipients to choose an alternative 
    repayment plan based on a percentage of their net taxable incomes 
    was held to be not germane.

    In the 88th Congress, a bill (4) was under consideration 
comprising the National Defense Education Act Amendments of 1964. The 
bill stated in part: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 12363 (Committee on Education and Labor).
 5. See 110 Cong. Rec. 19678, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 14, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (3) not to exceed 50 per centum of any such loan (plus 
    interest) shall be cancelled for service as a full-time (A)

[[Page 8031]]

    teacher in a public or other nonprofit elementary or secondary 
    school in a State, in an institution of higher education, or in an 
    elementary or secondary school overseas of the Armed Forces of the 
    United States. . . .

    Mr. James G. O'Hara, of Michigan, offered an 
amendment.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 19685.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. O'Hara of Michigan: Page 6, line 21, 
    after education, strike out ``or''; and on line 23 after the word 
    ``States'' insert ``or in a Peace Corps project as a Peace Corps 
    volunteer''.

    The following amendment was then offered as a substitute for the 
O'Hara amendment: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 19686.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa as a substitute 
    for the amendment offered by Mr. O'Hara of Michigan: On page 8 
    between lines 7 and 8 add a new subsection as follows:

            (D) In lieu of other provisions in this Act relative to the 
        rate of repayment of such a loan, the recipient shall be given 
        an alternative of entering into a written agreement providing 
        that each year beginning with the second taxable year that a 
        scholar who received a loan under this Act is no longer a full-
        time student . . . the recipient shall pay to the Commission a 
        sum equal to 5 percentum of his personal net taxable income. . 
        . .

    Mr. Peter H. B. Frelinghuysen, Jr., of New Jersey, raised the point 
of order that the amendment was not germane to the bill. The 
Chairman,(8) noting that the O'Hara amendment ``deals with 
the problem of forgiveness,'' sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Specific Aircraft Flight Restrictions--General Amendment to Federal 
    Aviation Act

Sec. 

     9.61 To a bill providing for a study of minimum altitude by 
    aircraft flying over units of the national park system and 
    regulating air traffic over a specific national park, an amendment 
    to a law not amended by the bill establishing standards for 
    aircraft collision avoidance not confined to overflights in the 
    national parks was held to be not germane.

    On Sept. 18, 1986,(9) during consideration of H.R. 4430 
in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order 
against the amendment described above, thus demonstrating that a 
specific proposition may not be amended by a proposition more general 
in scope. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 132 Cong. Rec. 24082-84, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Yosemite National Park.--During the applicable study and 
    review period it shall be unlawful for any fixed wing aircraft or 
    helicopter flying under visual flight rules to fly at an altitude 
    of less than 2,000 feet over the surface of Yosemite National Park. 
    . . .

[[Page 8032]]

                    sec. 3. grand canyon national park.

        (a) Noise associated with aircraft overflight at the Grand 
    Canyon National Park is causing a significant adverse effect on the 
    natural quiet and experience of the Park and current aircraft 
    operations at the Grand Canyon National Park have raised serious 
    concerns regarding public safety, including concerns regarding the 
    safety of park users. . . .
        Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            At the end of the bill add the following:

                    sec. 4. collision avoidance system.

            Section 312(c) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 
        U.S.C. App. 1353(c)), which relates to research and 
        development, is amended by inserting ``(1)'' immediately after 
        ``(c)'' and by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(2) In carrying out his functions, powers, and duties 
        under this section pertaining to aviation safety, the Secretary 
        of Transportation shall coordinate and take whatever steps 
        necessary (including research and development) to promulgate 
        standards for an airborne collision avoidance system for all 
        United States aircraft, civil and military, to improve aviation 
        safety. . . .

        Mr. [Bruce F.] Vento [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, under the 
    rule of germaneness, rule XVI, clause 7, no subject different from 
    that under consideration shall be admitted under the color of an 
    amendment. The amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Dornan] violates that rule and I must reluctantly insist on my 
    point of order, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. J. J. Pickle (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] has offered an 
    amendment adding a section 4 pertaining to the collision avoidance 
    system.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the amendment and 
    it is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment is not germane. 
    The bill before us, H.R. 4430, is a narrow one addressing only 
    overflights over certain national park areas.
        The amendment goes to an unrelated subject amending an act not 
    amended by the bill.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Exempting Certain Instances of Joint Operation of Newspapers From 
    Antitrust Laws--Amendment To Prevent Publication of More Than One 
    Newspaper Using Subsidized Class of Mail

Sec. 9.62 To a bill exempting certain instances of joint operation of 
    newspapers from the antitrust laws, an amendment was held to be not 
    germane which sought in part to prevent single owners from 
    publishing more than one newspaper within a normal circulation area 
    if the newspaper ``utilizes any subsidized class of U.S. mail'' for 
    delivery.

[[Page 8033]]

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of the Newspaper 
Preservation Act, (11) the following amendment was offered: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 279 (Committee on the Judiciary).
12. 116 Cong. Rec. 23174, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 8, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (d) It shall be unlawful for any one owner to publish or offer 
    for sale more than one daily or weekly newspaper in any one normal 
    circulation area if the newspaper utilizes any subsidized class of 
    U.S. mail for delivery of any of its papers anywhere or if the sale 
    of any of the papers affect interstate commerce.

    Mr. Robert W. Kastenmeier, of Wisconsin, made the point of order 
that the amendment was not germane. The Chairman,(13) 
sustaining the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Thomas J. Steed (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill deals with a very narrow area of joint operation of 
    newspapers in relation to the antitrust law. The gentleman's 
    amendment obviously goes far beyond the matter covered in the bill 
    and brings into consideration matters of the ownership of 
    newspapers, which is not concerned in the bill. It also brings in 
    the involvement of subsidized mail.