[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]
[B. Application of Ruke to Particular Forms of Amendment or Proposition]
[Â§ 18. Amendment Offered to Particular Paragraph, Section, or Title]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 8258-8275]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
 B. APPLICATION OF RULE TO PARTICULAR FORMS OF AMENDMENT OR PROPOSITION
 
Sec. 18. Amendment Offered to Particular Paragraph, Section, or Title

    An amendment must be germane to the particular 
paragraph,(15) section or title of the bill to which it is 
offered. Thus, the Chairman may rule out an amendment as not being 
germane to that section to which it was offered as a motion to strike 
out

[[Page 8259]]

and insert, without passing on the germaneness of the amendment to the 
bill as a whole.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See, for example, 89 Cong. Rec. 1158, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 
        19, 1943.
16. See Sec. 18.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To an amendment proposing to add a new paragraph to a section of a 
bill, an amendment providing that certain procedures not be permitted 
``under this section'' has been ruled out as not germane, as not 
confined to the narrow subject of the amendment to which 
offered.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 18.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted that an amendment, ruled out as not germane to 
that part of an appropriation bill to which offered, has been permitted 
by unanimous consent to be offered to a different paragraph to which it 
was germane where the reading of the bill for amendment had progressed 
beyond the proper paragraph.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 18.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is, of course, proper to offer perfecting amendments to a title 
even when a motion to strike the matter sought to be amended is 
pending.(19) When such a perfecting amendment to text is 
offered pending a vote on a motion to strike out the same text, the 
perfecting amendment must be germane to the text to which offered, not 
to the motion to strike out.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. As to amendments generally, see Ch. 27.
20. See Sec. 19.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The germaneness of an amendment may depend on the point in the 
reading of the bill at which it is offered. It may happen that an 
amendment is ruled out because it is not germane to a particular part 
of the bill, and a similar amendment be allowed subsequently when the 
scope of the bill has been broadened by additional paragraphs passed in 
the reading.(1) An amendment that might be considered 
germane if offered at the end of the reading of the bill for amendment 
may not be germane if offered during the reading, before all the 
provisions of the bill are before the Committee of the Whole for 
consideration. On one occasion, during consideration of a bill relating 
only to procurements by the Department of Defense, an amendment 
concerned with duties of the Comptroller General in connection with 
defense contracts was at first ruled out as not germane to the part of 
the bill to which offered, since at that point in the reading of the 
bill no reference had been made to any agency of government other than 
the Department of Defense.(2) Subsequently, however, when 
the scope of the bill had been broadened by additional paragraphs 
passed in the reading,

[[Page 8260]]

a similar amendment was held to be in order.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id.
 2. See Sec. 18.1, infra.
 3. See Sec. 18.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where an amendment is offered to one part of a bill, a substitute 
amendment which relates to a different part of the bill is not germane 
to the original amendment.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See the ruling of Chairman George A. Dondero (Mich.) at 94 Cong. 
        Rec. 7768, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 10, 1948. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 6396 (Committee on the Judiciary), 
        relating to admission into the United States of certain 
        displaced persons.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Review by Comptroller General of Defense Contracts

Sec. 18.1 During consideration of a bill authorizing military 
    procurement for the current fiscal year, an amendment authorizing 
    the Comptroller General to conduct certain audits of defense 
    projects and contracts and requiring designated contractors to file 
    certain data with the General Accounting Office was held to be not 
    germane to the portion of the bill to which offered.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of the military 
procurement authorization bill for fiscal 1970,(5) the 
following amendment was offered: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 14000 (Committee on Armed Services).
 6. 115 Cong. Rec. 28442, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 3, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Charles W.] Whalen [Jr., of Ohio]: 
    Add a new section to title IV:
        ``Sec. 410. (a) After January 1, 1970, the Secretary of 
    Defense, in cooperation with the Comptroller General, shall develop 
    a reporting system for major acquisition programs. . . .
        ``(e) The Comptroller General shall, through test checks, and 
    other means, make an independent audit of the reporting system 
    developed by the Secretary of Defense. . . .
        ``(f) The Comptroller General shall make independent audits of 
    major acquisition programs and related contracts where, in his 
    opinion, the costs incurred or to be incurred . . . and the 
    effectiveness of performance achieved . . . are such as to warrant 
    such audits. . . .
        ``(g) Procuring agencies and contractors holding contracts 
    selected by the Comptroller General for audit under subsection (f) 
    shall file with the General Accounting Office such data, in such 
    form and detail as may be prescribed by the Comptroller General, as 
    the Comptroller General deems necessary or appropriate to assist 
    him in carrying out his duties.''

    No reference to the Comptroller General or the General Accounting 
Office had been made in the reading of the bill up to the point at 
which the amendment was of

[[Page 8261]]

fered. The following point of order was raised against the amendment:

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order that the amendment is not germane to title 
    IV. . . .

    The Chairman,(7) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
 8. 115 Cong. Rec. 28443, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 3, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Whalen) has offered an amendment 
    inserting a new section in title IV of the bill. . . . The 
    amendment would give the Comptroller General authority to make 
    independent audits of the reporting system developed by the 
    Secretary, as well as authority to obtain records from the defense 
    contractors involved.
        Nothing in this title involves the General Accounting Office or 
    the Comptroller General. . . .
        . . . The amendment is not germane to this title and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.

    A similar amendment was, however, held to be germane when offered 
after the reading of further provisions of the bill.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 18.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.2 To a military procurement authorization bill, which stated in 
    its ``general provisions'' that ``the Committees on Armed Services 
    are authorized to utilize the services . . . of any government 
    agency,'' an amendment directing the Comptroller General to review 
    defense contracts was held to be germane.

    On Oct. 3, 1969, during proceedings relating to a military 
procurement authorization bill for fiscal 1970,(10) Mr. 
Samuel S. Stratton, of New York, offered a motion to strike all of the 
title under consideration.(11) The following amendment was 
then offered: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 14000 (Committee on Armed Services).
11. 115 Cong. Rec. 28454, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 3, 1969.
12. Id. at pp. 28454, 28455.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana] to 
    title V: On page 17, immediately after line 13 insert the 
    following:
        ``Sec. 505. (a) The Comptroller General of the United States 
    (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``Comptroller 
    General'') is authorized and directed, as soon as practicable after 
    the date of enactment of this section, to conduct a study and 
    review on a selective basis of the profits made by contractors and 
    subcontractors on [certain] contracts . . . .
        ``(b) Any contractor or subcontractor referred to in subsection 
    (a) of this section shall, upon the request of the Comptroller 
    General, prepare and submit to the General Accounting Office such 
    information as the Comptroller General determines necessary or ap

[[Page 8262]]

    propriate in conducting any study and review authorized by 
    subsection (a) of this section.''

    A point of order was raised against the Jacobs amendment, as 
follows: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 28455.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    submit that this amendment is not germane because the amendment 
    before embodied is to strike the section. How can you have an 
    amendment to a section that is to be stricken?

    The Chairman (14) stated in response:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has gone through the precedents and has found that 
    where the Committee of the Whole has agreed that the further 
    reading of a title of a bill is dispensed with and open to 
    amendment at any point, a perfecting amendment adding a new section 
    may be offered notwithstanding the fact that an amendment proposing 
    to strike out the title is pending. Perfecting amendments to a 
    title in a bill may be offered while there is pending a motion to 
    strike out such title.

    The Chairman then rejected a further contention by Mr. Joe Skubitz, 
of Kansas, that the Jacobs' amendment was not germane to ``the Stratton 
amendment.'' Subsequently, the following exchange occurred:

        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. My recollection 
    is that on a previous amendment, the Chair ruled it out of order 
    because it brought in another agency.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See the ruling discussed in Sec. 18.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: That was because the Whalen amendment was not 
    germane to that title or section of the bill.
        Mr. Stratton: Does not that same point lie against this 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair has ruled that the Jacobs amendment is 
    germane to Title V.

Naval Authorization Bill

Sec. 18.3 To that section of a bill authorizing the President to 
    suspend certain naval construction in the event of naval arms 
    limitation agreements being entered into by the United States, an 
    amendment proposing certain fundamental naval policies and bearing 
    no relation to the section being amended was held not germane.

    In the 75th Congress, a naval authorization bill (16) 
was under consideration which provided in part: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 9218 (Committee on Naval Affairs).
17. See 83 Cong. Rec. 3698, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 18, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 10. That in the event of international agreement for the 
    further limitations of naval armament to which the United States is 
    signatory, the

[[Page 8263]]

    President is hereby authorized and empowered to suspend so much of 
    its naval construction as has been authorized as may be necessary 
    to bring the naval armament of the United States within the 
    limitation so agreed upon, except that such suspension shall not 
    apply to vessels actually under construction on the date of the 
    passage of this act.

    The following committee amendment was offered:

        Page 5, line 21, strike out all of section 10 and insert in 
    lieu thereof the following:
        ``Sec. 9. It is declared to be the fundamental naval policy of 
    the United States to maintain a Navy in sufficient strength to 
    guarantee our national security, not for aggression, but to guard 
    the continental United States. . . .
        ``It is further declared to be the policy of the United States 
    that an adequate naval defense means not only the protection of the 
    Canal Zone, Alaska, Hawaii, and our insular possessions, but also a 
    defense that will keep any potential enemy many hundred miles away 
    from our continental limits.''

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

        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: . . . There is not a 
    single word in this bill that pertains to anything else but the 
    building of various types of ships for the Navy. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this is an entirely new subject brought forward 
    in the form of an amendment which has for its purpose the 
    definition of a naval policy for the United States. I have some 
    doubt whether this would even come under the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Naval Affairs; but whether it does or not, it is an 
    entirely new subject and one that cannot be offered as an amendment 
    to the bill we are considering at the present time.

    Mr. Maury Maverick, of Texas, in support of the point of order, 
stated:

        . . . [T]he amendment of the committee is not germane to this 
    bill. . . . The amendment claims to concern naval policy, but it 
    concerns foreign policy.

    The Chairman,(18) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
19. 83 Cong. Rec. 3699, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 18, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The sole ground upon which the Chair sustains the point of 
    order is that this amendment . . . is not germane to section 10, 
    for which it was substituted.
        The Chair does not believe it is necessary to pass upon the 
    question of whether the matter is germane to the whole bill or upon 
    the question of jurisdiction of committees of the House.

Neutrality Act--Amendment Concerning Export of Arms to Belligerents

Sec. 18.4 To that section of a joint resolution authorizing the 
    President to issue a proclamation that a state of war ex

[[Page 8264]]

    ists between foreign states, an amendment proposing that upon 
    issuance of such proclamation it shall be unlawful to export arms 
    or ammunition to such states was held not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of the Neutrality Act of 
1939,(20) an amendment was offered (1) as 
described above. Mr. Luther A. Johnson, of Texas, raised the point of 
order that the amendment was not germane to the section under 
consideration.(2) The Chairman, (3) in ruling on 
the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.J. Res. 306 (Committee on Foreign Affairs). See the section read 
        at 84 Cong. Rec. 8282, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1939.
 1. Id. at p. 8312.
 2. Id. at p. 8313.
 3. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair invites attention to the fact that section 1 of the 
    pending resolution provides only that the President shall have 
    authority to issue a proclamation as to the existence of a state of 
    war between foreign states and to name those states. Paragraph (b) 
    of section 1 further provides that whenever the conditions which 
    caused the President to issue any proclamation under the authority 
    of this section has ceased to exist he shall revoke the same. . . .
        The Chair . . . invites attention to the provisions of section 
    4 which, among other things, provide that whenever the President 
    shall have issued a proclamation under the authority of section 1 
    it shall thereafter be unlawful except in accordance with such 
    rules and regulations as the President shall prescribe to export, 
    or transport, or attempt to export or transport . . . articles or 
    material.
        The Chair is . . . of the opinion that if the gentleman's 
    amendment be in order it would have to be offered to section 4 and 
    not to section 1. The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of 
    order.

Sec. 18.5 To that section of a joint resolution authorizing the 
    President to issue a proclamation that a state of war exists 
    between foreign states, an amendment relating to shipment of arms 
    to belligerent states, and striking specified portions of the 
    entire joint resolution, was held to be not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, the Neutrality Act of 1939 (4) was 
under consideration, which provided in part: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.J. Res. 306 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 5. 84 Cong. Rec. 8282, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Section 1. (a) That whenever the President shall find that 
    there exists a state of war between foreign states . . . the 
    President shall issue a proclamation naming the states involved. . 
    . .

    The following amendment was offered: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at pp. 8313, 8314.

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

[[Page 8265]]

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Andrew C.] Schiffler [of West 
    Virginia]: Strike out page 2, line 1, all of pages 2, 3, 4 . . . to 
    and including, and all of lines 1, 2, 3, 4 . . . and 17 on page 14, 
    and insert and include the following as a new paragraph:

                  ``Export of Other Articles and Materials

        ``Section 1. (a) Whenever the President shall have issued a 
    proclamation under the authority of section 1 of Senate Joint 
    Resolution 51 as enacted into law, first session, Seventy-fifth 
    Congress, and he shall thereafter find that the placing of 
    restrictions on the shipment of certain articles or materials in 
    addition to arms, ammunition, and implements of war from the United 
    States to belligerent states . . . is necessary to promote the 
    security . . . of the United States . . . he shall so proclaim, and 
    it shall thereafter be unlawful, except under such limitations and 
    exceptions as the President may prescribe . . . for any American 
    vessel to carry such articles or materials to any belligerent 
    state. . . .''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 8314.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Luther A.] Johnson [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the section to 
    which it is offered.

    Mr. Schiffler contended that the amendment was germane ``because it 
may be considered as an amendment as well as a substitution for all of 
the provisions of House Joint Resolution 306.'' The Chairman 
(8) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Schiffler] offered an 
    amendment which, as the Chair understands it, in effect is to 
    strike out all after the enacting clause of the pending resolution 
    down to and including a certain part at page 13, which would 
    include the striking out of a number of provisions or sections of 
    the bill which have not yet been read.

    Relying on the rule that a substitute for an entire bill may be 
offered only after the first paragraph has been read or after the 
reading of the bill for amendment has been concluded,(9) the 
Chairman sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. The Chairman referred to an earlier ruling, appearing at 84 Cong. 
        Rec. 8288, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the above ruling, Mr. Harold Knutson, of Minnesota, had 
offered an amendment (10) which similarly related to 
shipment of materials to belligerent states and which sought to strike 
the first section of the resolution and insert other language. The 
Chairman ruled the amendment out of order because it affected all 
sections of the bill, not just the section sought to be 
amended.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at pp. 8311, 8312.
11. Id. at p. 8312.

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

[[Page 8266]]

Legislative Reorganization Bill--Amendment Referring to Practices 
    ``Under this Section''

Sec. 18.6 During consideration of that section of a legislative 
    reorganization bill modifying a rule of the House with respect to 
    calling committee meetings, it was held that, to an amendment to 
    such section adding a paragraph relating to selection of temporary 
    committee chairmen, an amendment referring to proxy voting and 
    other practices ``under this section'' was not germane.

    During consideration of that part of the Legislative Reorganization 
Act of 1970 (12) relating to the calling of committee 
meetings, the following amendment was offered: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 17654 (Committee on Rules).
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 24036, 24040, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 14, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: 
    Section 102 of title 1 is amended by adding a new subsection on 
    page 8 after line 19:
        ``(f) Whenever the chairman of any standing committee is unable 
    to discharge his responsibilities, the committee by majority vote 
    shall designate a member with full authority to act as chairman 
    until such time as the chairman is able to resume his 
    responsibilities.''

    To such amendment, an amendment was offered which stated: 
(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 24040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Marion G.] Snyder [of Kentucky]: to 
    the amendment offered by Mr. Fascell: add the following language to 
    the Fascell amendment, after the period:--``Proxy voting shall not 
    be permitted under this section and three (3) days notice of any 
    proposal under this section shall be given in writing to all 
    committee members.''

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

        Mr. [H. Allen] Smith of California: . . . We are not talking 
    about proxies in this particular section. I do not think the 
    amendment is germane to the amendment as offered by the gentleman 
    from Florida.

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

        Mr. Snyder: . . . [W]hile we are not talking about proxy voting 
    in this section, we are talking about the method by which you might 
    de-designate the chairman of the committee and in that regard and 
    when you do that by a vote, then, I think it should be germane. . . 
    .

    The Chairman,(15) without elaboration, ruled that the 
amendment was not germane to the Fascell amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William H. Natcher (Ky.).

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

[[Page 8267]]

Title of Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act Relating to Federal 
    Salaries--Amendment Concerning Appointment of Postmasters

Sec. 18.7 Where a bill consisted of three titles, relating respectively 
    to postal rates, federal salaries, and the mailability of certain 
    material, an amendment concerning the appointment of Postmasters by 
    the Postmaster General, which was offered to the title of the bill 
    relating to federal salaries, was held to be not germane to such 
    title.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of the Postal Revenue 
and Federal Salary Act of 1967,(16) the following amendment 
was offered to the bill: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 7977 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
17. 113 Cong. Rec. 28649, 28650, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 11, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: On 
    page 75, immediately below line 2, insert the following:

             ``Appointment of Postmasters by Postmaster General

        ``Sec. 223. Section 3311 (relating to method of appointment of 
    postmasters) of title 39, United States Code, is amended to read as 
    follows:

        ```Sec. 3311. Method of appointment
        ```(a) The Postmaster General shall appoint postmasters at post 
    offices of the first, second, and third classes in the competitive 
    civil service without term. He shall make the appointments in 
    accordance with the civil service laws and rules. . . .'''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 28651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane to the 
    title of the bill now under consideration and is not germane to the 
    bill itself.
        The bill now under consideration deals with salaries of the 
    classified service, the Foreign Service, and other salary systems 
    and procedures. There is nothing here about the appointment of 
    Federal employees.

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

        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: . . . The bill H.R. 7977 purports to 
    adjust certain postage rates, and for other purposes. Title II of 
    the bill, in various and sundry places in that title, at pages 75 
    and 76 particularly, title 39 of the United States Code, which is 
    the very title to which my amendment is directed, would be amended. 
    Therefore, it would seem to me most appropriate that this bill is 
    open to amendment in relation to title 39, since the bill itself is 
    aimed at that very title.

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

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

[[Page 8268]]

        . . . The title under consideration deals solely with 
    compensation of governmental employees. The amendment deals with 
    the appointment of postmasters by the Postmaster General. The Chair 
    therefore holds that it is not germane to the title under 
    consideration and sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: H.R. 7977, as reported to the House, 
consisted of three titles amending, respectively, three separate parts 
of title 39, USC: Title I of the bill amending the code to adjust 
postal rates; Title II amending the code to adjust federal salaries; 
and Title III amending the code to prohibit mailing of certain 
pandering materials. Had the Steiger amendment relating to the 
appointment of postmasters been offered as a new title at the end of 
the bill, with the purpose of amending a fourth part of Title 39, USC, 
relating to that subject, the proposed amendment probably would have 
been held to be germane.

``Miscellaneous'' Title of Agriculture Bill--Amendment Concerning 
    Determination as Made ``Under Various Provisions'' of Bill

Sec. 18.8 During consideration of a bill establishing programs for 
    producers of various agricultural commodities, it was held that, to 
    the title containing miscellaneous provisions, amendments were 
    germane which related to determination of the acreage ``eligible as 
    set aside under the various provisions of this Act,'' and to 
    certain restrictions on the use of such acreage.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of the Agricultural Act 
of 1970,(20) the following amendments were offered: 
(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 18546 (Committee on Agriculture).
 1. 116 Cong. Rec. 27499, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 5, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendments offered by Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Page 
    57, beginning on line 21, insert:
        ``Sec. 805. The Secretary is directed to establish . . . an 
    inventory for each state which will show:
        ``(1) The cropland other than conserving base which was 
    diverted under a program or tilled in the crop years 1968 or 1969 
    or prior to August 1 in 1970; and
        ``(2) The total conserving base in 1970.
        ``Only the acreage in subsection (1) shall be eligible as set 
    aside under the various provisions of this Act. . . .''
        Page 57, after line 21, add the following new section:
        ``Sec. 806. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
    the Secretary shall not permit grazing or harvesting of any acreage 
    diverted or set aside pursuant to this Act. . . .''

[[Page 8269]]

    Mr. William R. Poage, of Texas, having raised a point of order 
against the amendments, Mr. Findley stated in response:

        Mr. Chairman, this comes under the general provisions title of 
    the bill. The conserving base concept applies to wheat, feed 
    grains, and cotton. So it seems to me sufficient to offer the 
    amendment under the general provisions title rather than to offer 
    three separate amendments. Inasmuch as the subject matter of this 
    amendment is dealt with in its entirety by the bill itself, it 
    seems to me to be fairly germane.

    The Chairman pro tempore,(2) in ruling on the point of 
order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendments. We are now on title 
    VIII, general and miscellaneous provisions of the bill. It is the 
    opinion of the Chair that the matters referred to in the amendments 
    do refer to matters that can be considered in the general and 
    miscellaneous provisions of the bill and are germane thereto. 
    Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Title of Revenue Bill Relating to Tax Liens--Amendment Concerning 
    Publication of Names

Sec. 18.9 To that title of a revenue bill relating to tax liens on 
    securities, transfers of worthless securities, and the like, an 
    amendment relating to the publication of names of taxpayers was 
    held not germane.

    On June 19, 1939, the Revenue Bill of 1939 (3) was under 
consideration, which provided in part: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 6851 (Committee on Ways and Means).
 4. See 84 Cong. Rec. 7500, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 19, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Title IV--Miscellaneous Amendments

        Sec. 402. Tax on transfers of worthless securities by executor, 
    etc.
        Section 1802(b) of the Internal Revenue Code (relating to the 
    tax on transfers of capital stock and similar interests) is amended 
    by inserting at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
        ``The tax imposed by this subsection shall not be imposed upon 
    any delivery or transfer by an executor or administrator to a 
    legatee, heir, or distributee of shares or certificates of stock if 
    it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the value 
    of such shares or certificates is not greater than the amount of 
    the tax that would otherwise be imposed on such delivery or 
    transfer.''

    The following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William J.] Miller [of Connecticut]: 
    Page 39, after the period on line 15, insert a new section, as 
    follows:

            It shall be unlawful for any person to sell . . . any copy 
        . . . of any

[[Page 8270]]

        list . . . authorized to be made public by this act or by any 
        prior act relating to the publication of information derived 
        from income-tax returns. . . .

    Mr. Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, raised the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the title under consideration. The 
Chairman,(5) in sustaining the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The title under consideration deals with transfers of worthless 
    securities. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut 
    [Mr. Miller] deals with making public the names of income-tax 
    payers. The amendment is clearly not germane. . . .

    The following exchange ensued:(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 84 Cong. Rec. 7500, 7501, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 19, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Miller: I intended to have [the amendment] read as a new 
    section.
        The Chairman: The Chair understood it was a new section under 
    title IV, and the amendment offered by the gentleman is not germane 
    to the subject matter of title IV.

--Amendment Concerning Excise Taxes

Sec. 18.10 To that title of a revenue bill relating to tax liens on 
    securities, transfers of worthless securities, and the like, an 
    amendment relating to excise taxes was held not germane.

    On June 19, 1939, the Revenue Bill of 1939 (7) was under 
consideration, containing provisions as described above.(8) 
The following amendment was offered: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 6851 (Committee on Ways and Means).
 8. See Sec. 18.9, supra, for further discussion of the provisions 
        cited.
 9. 84 Cong. Rec. 7501, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 19, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James W.] Mott [of Oregon]: On page 
    39, in line 15, insert a new section, as follows:
        ``Section 3424 (of the Internal Revenue Code) is amended by 
    striking out the following:
        ``The tax imposed by this subsection shall not apply to lumber 
    of northern white pine (Pinus strobus), Norway pine (Pinus 
    resinosa) and western white pine.''

    Mr. Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, raised the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the title under consideration. The 
Chairman,(10) noting that, ``an amendment must be germane to 
the title under which it is offered,'' observed that, ``Section 3424 of 
the revenue law, sought to be amended . . . is classified in the 
general revenue law under `Manufacturers excise and import taxes,''' 
whereas the title under consideration related to taxes on securities. 
He then sustained the

[[Page 8271]]

point of order, and the following exchange ensued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mott: Suppose this amendment were offered as a new title in 
    the pending bill; would it then be germane or not? . . .
        The Chairman: If the Chair understands the gentleman's 
    parliamentary inquiry, the Chair will state in reply that in the 
    Internal Revenue Code, section 3424, sought to be amended by the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon, is under the 
    classification of ``Manufacturers' excise and import taxes.'' Title 
    IV has nothing to do with that subject, but excise taxes are dealt 
    with under title I of the pending bill. Consequently, if the 
    amendment had been germane it would have been germane under title I 
    of the bill rather than under title IV. It would not be in order or 
    germane as a new title, by reason of the fact there is already a 
    title in the bill dealing with the subject matter to which the 
    amendment would have been germane.

Appropriation for Public Works--Amendment Proposing Funds for Survey

Sec. 18.11 To that section of an appropriation bill providing funds for 
    construction of public works, an amendment proposing funds for a 
    survey was held to be not germane.

    In the 86th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(11) making appropriations for certain civil functions 
administered by the Department of the Army, an amendment was offered 
(12) as described above. Mr. Louis C. Rabaut, of Michigan, 
having raised a point of order (13) against the amendment, 
the Chairman (14) ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 7509 (Committee on Appropriations).
12. 105 Cong. Rec. 10056, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 5, 1959.
13. Id. at p. 10057.
14. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment should have been offered under the section of the 
    bill dealing with general investigations and not the section 
    dealing with construction. The amendment is not germane to this 
    part of the bill.

Paragraph Appropriating Funds for Rural Electrification 
    Administration--Amendment Placing Prohibition on Use of Any Funds 
    in Bill

Sec. 18.12 To that paragraph of an agriculture appropriation bill 
    making appropriations for the Rural Electrification Administration, 
    an amendment providing ``That during the period of the war . . . no 
    part of [the] money appropriated under this bill shall be expended 
    for administrative services'' relating to the construction of 
    facilities in specified areas was held to be not germane.

[[Page 8272]]

    In the 77th Congress, during consideration of the Agriculture 
Appropriation Bill of 1943,(15) an amendment was offered 
(16) as described above. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
raised the point of order that the amendment was not germane. The 
Chairman, (17) in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 6709 (Committee on Appropriations).
16. 88 Cong. Rec. 2445, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 13, 1942.
17. Robert Ramspeck (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman's amendment does not simply apply to rural 
    electrification. The gentleman's amendment applies to everything 
    appropriated in the bill. . . .
        The Chair is of the opinion that since the amendment is 
    directed to the entire bill, it is not germane to this paragraph 
    and therefore the point of order is sustained.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 15.6, supra, for discussion of an amendment which sought 
        in similar fashion to limit the use of appropriated funds, but 
        which was offered as a separate section and held to be germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unanimous Consent To Offer Amendment to Different Section of Bill

Sec. 18.13 An amendment, ruled out as not germane to that part of an 
    appropriation bill to which offered, has been permitted by 
    unanimous consent to be offered to a different paragraph to which 
    it was germane but which has already been passed in reading for 
    amendment.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 18.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Sum Appropriated for Weather Bureau--Amendment Relating to 
    Paragraph About Collecting Weather Information

Sec. 18.14 To that part of a general appropriation bill relating to the 
    total sum appropriated for the Weather Bureau, an amendment was 
    held to be not germane which appropriated a sum for a specific 
    Weather Bureau station and which related to another paragraph 
    appropriating sums for collecting and disseminating weather 
    information.

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of a portion, described 
above, of a bill (20) comprising Agriculture Appropriations 
for 1938, the following amendment was offered: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 6523 (Committee on Appropriations).
 1. 81 Cong. Rec. 3763, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 22, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Henry] Ellenbogen [of Pennsylvania]: 
    Page 22,

[[Page 8273]]

    line 20, after the word ``agriculture'', add a new paragraph, as 
    follows:
        ``The sum of $23,940 is appropriated for additional equipment 
    and services for the Weather Bureau station at Pittsburgh, Pa.''

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

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I raise the 
    point of order that the paragraph sought to be added by the 
    amendment is not germane to the portion of the bill to which it is 
    offered, it being offered in connection with the total of the 
    appropriation for the Weather Bureau, and following the language 
    computing the entire division of Weather Bureau appropriation which 
    has already been read.

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

        Mr. Ellenbogen: . . . This entire section deals with the 
    Weather Bureau. The amendment offered not only deals with the item 
    of two-million-and-some-odd-thousand dollars, on page 21, but deals 
    with personnel as well as with gages, and could not properly be 
    offered to any other section of the bill, because the amendment 
    covers gages, telegraph charges, telephone wire, and telephone 
    services, and some personnel to read those gages in the outlying 
    districts. Therefore it is germane to the section entitled 
    ``Weather Bureau'', and that section has not yet been passed.

    The Chairman,(2) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Franklin W. Hancock, Jr. (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair takes the position that the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Ellenbogen] is not germane 
    because it is not offered at the proper place in the bill.
        The Chair bases his ruling upon an opinion rendered by Mr. 
    O'Connor, who stated in substance that there must be some orderly 
    procedure in the consideration of appropriation bills as in the 
    consideration of other bills, and proper amendments, whether in the 
    nature of limitations or otherwise, should be offered at the proper 
    place in the bill.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

    The following exchange ensued:

        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, in the 
    interest of fair hearing and fair consideration of the proposal of 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that he be allowed to offer the 
    amendment at the proper point in the bill.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Georgia?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ellenbogen: On page 21, line 21, 
        strike out ``$2,298,950'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$2,322,870.''

Amendment as Not Germane to Section But Permissible if Offered as New 
    Section

Sec. 18.15 Where a section of a bill authorized improvements for flood 
    control on

[[Page 8274]]

    several waterways, an amendment to such section providing that 'no 
    funds under this act shall be allocated unless actual construction 
    shall have been started prior to this date' was held not germane, 
    although the Chair indicated that the amendment would be germane if 
    offered as a new section.

    In the 79th Congress, the following portion of a bill 
(3) relating to flood control was under consideration: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 6597 (Committee on Flood Control).
 4. See 92 Cong. Rec. 7099, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., June 18, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 17. In addition to previous authorizations, there is 
    hereby authorized to be appropriated the sum of $150,000,000 for 
    the prosecution of the initial stage of the comprehensive plan 
    adopted by section 9a of the act approved December 22, 1944 
    (Public, No. 534, 78th Cong.), for continuing the works in the 
    Missouri River Basin to be undertaken under said plans by the 
    Secretary of the Interior.

    An amendment was offered, as follows: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 7108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [J. Harry] McGregor [of Ohio]: On page 
    28, line 3, after the period insert: ``No funds under this act 
    shall be allocated unless actual construction shall have been 
    started prior to this date.''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at pp. 7108, 7109.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: . . . The 
    language of the amendment has to do with allocations and 
    appropriations. No funds are being allocated or appropriated in 
    this bill. A moment's reflection will show that this language is 
    utterly contradictory. This is an authorization bill authorizing 
    something. Now he undertakes to say that that thing shall not be 
    started. . . . I respectfully submit that this language here is not 
    applicable to an authorization bill, and that the point of order 
    should be sustained because this language is utterly inconsistent 
    and contradictory in an authorization bill, and is certainly not 
    germane to section 17. It is not offered as a new section.

    The Chairman,(7) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. J. Bayard Clark (N.C.).
 8. 92 Cong. Rec. 7109, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., June 18, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment may not be germane to the particular section to 
    which it is offered but the Chair does think it would be germane to 
    the bill as a whole in the nature of a limitation. The Chair 
    sustains the point of order, but calls attention to the fact that 
    it could be offered as a new section to the bill..

Amendment as Germane to More Than One Title

Sec. 18.16 The test of germaneness of an amendment to a

[[Page 8275]]

    bill being read for amendment by titles is its relationship to the 
    title to which offered; even where the amendment would also have 
    been germane to a previous title of a bill which has been passed in 
    the reading, an amendment germane to the pending title is not 
    subject to a point of order on the grounds that it indirectly 
    affects, or is inconsistent with, an amendment adopted to a 
    previous title.

    The proceedings of Sept. 5, 1980, relating to H.R. 7235, the Rail 
Act of 1980, are discussed in Sec. 3.24, supra.

Sec. 18.17 To a diverse title of a bill reforming the economic 
    regulation of railroads being read for amendment by titles, 
    entitled ``railroad inter-carrier practices'' but dealing also with 
    bankruptcy and employee protection issues, an amendment addressing 
    those issues as well as railroad rates and rate-making and 
    including a provision requesting a study of the impact of possible 
    tax law changes relating to railroads, was held germane even though 
    portions of the amendment on rates indirectly affected a previous 
    title of the bill already perfected by amendment.

    The proceedings of Sept. 5, 1980, relating to H.R. 7235, the Rail 
Act of 1980, are discussed in Sec. 3.24, supra.