[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§ 19. Amendment Adding New Section or Title to Bill]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 8275-8324]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
 B. APPLICATION OF RULE TO PARTICULAR FORMS OF AMENDMENT OR PROPOSITION
 
Sec. 19. Amendment Adding New Section or Title to Bill

    The rule of germaneness does not require that an amendment offered 
as a separate section be germane to the preceding section of the bill; 
it may be sufficient that it is germane to the subject matter of as 
much of the bill as a whole as has been read,(9) or to the 
title to which offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 19.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To a bill being read for amendment by title, an amendment in the 
form of a new section within a title need not be germane to a specific 
section therein, it being sufficient that it be germane to the title as 
a whole. (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 30476, 30477, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 15, 1976, 
        discussed in Sec. 11, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment adding a new title to a bill being read for amendment 
by titles must be germane to the totality of titles considered up to 
that point.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See, for example, the proceedings of Oct. 18, 1979, relating to 
        H.R. 3000, the Department of Energy Authorization Act for 
        fiscal 1980 and 1981, discussed in Sec. 10.7, infra.

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

[[Page 8276]]

    An amendment adding a new section to the end of a bill must be 
germane to the bill as amended.
    Where a perfecting amendment adding a new section to a title is 
offered pending a vote on a motion to strike out the same title, the 
perfecting amendment must be germane to the text to which offered, not 
to the motion to strike out.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 19.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On occasion, while holding an amendment not to be germane in the 
form in which offered, the Chair has indicated that the same amendment 
might be germane if offered as a new section.(13) Sometimes, 
moreover, an amendment which would be held not germane when offered to 
a particular title of a bill would be considered germane if offered as 
a new title.(14) And an amendment offered in the form of a 
new title in a bill may be germane to the bill even though the same 
amendment might be improper if offered as a substitute for another 
pending amendment.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 18.15, supra.
14. See Sec. 18.7, supra.
15. See Sec. 21.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The general rule that an amendment must be germane to the portion 
of the bill to which offered is limited by the proposition that an 
amendment in the form of a new section or paragraph need not 
necessarily be germane to the section or paragraph immediately 
preceding it.(16) Each precedent should be examined 
separately to determine the structure of the bill to which the new 
section or paragraph is offered. See, for example, the proceedings of 
June 19, 1939,(17) where an amendment offered as a new 
section to a tax bill (to a title dealing with transfers of 
securities), was held not germane, since there was already a section 
dealing with the subject matter to which the amendment would have been 
germane (in a preceding title) and this section had been passed in 
reading for amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. Sec. 2932, 2935.
17. 84 Cong. Rec. 7500, 7501, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In reading a bill by sections in the Committee of the Whole, it is 
not in order except by unanimous consent to return to a section which 
has been passed.(18) On occasion, however, an amendment 
proposing a new section which, in effect, would modify a section 
previously read and passed, has been held to be germane to the bill and 
in order.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 19.11, infra.
19. See Sec. 19.11, infra.

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

[[Page 8277]]

    An amendment may be germane at more than one place in a bill. Thus, 
where the first several sections of a bill pertain to one category 
within the subject under consideration, and the subsequent sections 
introduce other such categories, an amendment adding a further such 
category may be offered at either of two places: the point where, in 
the reading of the text, the sections dealing with the first category 
have been passed; or at the end of the text. An example may be found in 
the Record of the 91st Congress. The Committee of the Whole was 
considering a title of a bill (20) amending the rules of the 
House. The first several sections of the title related solely to the 
committee system, and the remainder of the sections broadened the scope 
of the title by amending other rules. The proponent of an amendment to 
the bill was desirous of withdrawing the amendment for the purpose of 
perfecting it with the understanding that it would be in order to offer 
the amendment at a later time. In response to a parliamentary inquiry, 
Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, indicated that a germane 
amendment in the form of a new section would be in order at the end of 
the title.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 17654, Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (Committee on 
        Rules).
 1. See 116 Cong. Rec. 26046, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 28, 1970 
        (parliamentary inquiry of Mr. 
        Meeds).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Title: Test of Germaneness

Sec. 19.1 The test of germaneness of an amendment adding a new title to 
    a bill is its relationship to the bill read, as perfected by 
    amendments.

    The proceedings of Aug. 10, 1984, relating to H.R. 5640, a bill to 
amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act of 1980, are discussed in Sec. 4.10, supra.

New Title at End of Bill: Test of Germaneness

Sec. 19.2 Where an amendment is in the form of a new title to be 
    inserted at the end of the bill, the Chair, in determining its 
    germaneness, must consider the relationship of the amendment to the 
    bill as a whole and as modified by the Committee of the Whole.

    The proceedings of Oct. 8, 1985, during consideration of H.R. 2100, 
the Food Security Act of 1985, are discussed in Sec. 4.67, supra.

Sec. 19.3 The germaneness of an amendment adding a new title at the end 
    of a bill is determined by its relationship to the bill as a whole 
    in its perfected form.

    The proceedings of July 11, 1985, during consideration of H.R.

[[Page 8278]]

1555, the International Security and Development Act of 1985, are 
discussed in Sec. 4.54, supra.

New Title as Germane to Portion of Bill Already Read; Special Rule 
    Making Certain Proposals in Order

Sec. 19.4 An amendment offered as a new title need not be germane to 
    the immediately preceding title or to the next title not yet read, 
    it being sufficient that the amendment is germane to that portion 
    of the bill already read; and where a resolution providing for the 
    consideration of a bill makes in order a specific amendment to the 
    bill, such amendment may be offered as a new title, and it need not 
    be germane to an existing title.

    In the 88th Congress, the Committee of the Whole was considering 
the Civil Rights Act of 1963,(2) pursuant to a resolution 
providing that certain specific proposals (3) would be in 
order as an amendment to the bill under consideration. Such proposals, 
relating to employment opportunities and economic advancement for 
Indians, were set forth in an amendment in the form of a new title to 
the bill.(4) The following exchange (5) concerned 
a point of order made against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 7152 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 3. The proposals were embodied in H.R. 980.
 4. 110 Cong. Rec. 2738, 2739, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 10, 1964.
 5. Id. at pp. 2739, 2740.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: . . . Mr. Chairman, enough 
    has been read of the amendment to indicate that it is subject to a 
    point of order, and I make the point of order that we have not 
    completed the reading of the bill, therefore this is not the proper 
    place to consider the amendment.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair reminds the gentleman 
    from New York that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    South Dakota has been made in order by the resolution under which 
    this bill is being considered. The gentleman is offering the 
    amendment at this time, and the Chair would be impelled to hold 
    that the amendment is in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order to offer this 
    amendment to title VII, or must there be a new title read?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from South Dakota is offering his 
    amendment as a new title VIII to the bill.

[[Page 8279]]

Bill To Increase Supplies of Fossil Fuels and Promote Conversion to 
    Coal--Amendment To Assist Industry in Liquefaction and Gasification 
    of Coal

Sec. 19.5 To a bill designed to increase supplies of fossil fuels, and 
    increase the use of domestic energy supplies other than petroleum 
    through conversion to coal, and containing an entire title dealing 
    with industrial conversion from oil and gas to coal, an amendment 
    adding a new title providing government loans and other assistance 
    to private industry for the construction and operation of 
    facilities for the liquefaction and gasification of coal was held 
    germane as within the scope of the bill.

    On Sept. 18, 1975,(7) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975 
(H.R. 7014), an amendment was offered to add a new title to the bill to 
which a point of order was raised and overruled. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 29338-41, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tim Lee] Carter [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the form of a new title to title VIII.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Carter: On page 356, line 6, 
        insert the following new Title and renumber subsequent Titles 
        accordingly:

           TITLE VIII--COAL GASIFICATION AND LIQUEFACTION DEVELOPMENT

            Sec. 801. (a) The Administrator shall establish a program 
        of assistance to private industry for the construction and 
        operation of one or more facilities for the liquefaction and 
        gasification of coal. In order to effectuate such program, the 
        Administrator may make loans and issue guarantees to any person 
        for the purpose of engaging in the commercial operation of 
        facilities designed for the liquefaction or gasification of 
        coal.
            (b)(1) For the purpose of making loans or issuing 
        guarantees under this section, the Administrator shall consider 
        (A) the technology to be used by the person to whom the loan or 
        guarantee is made or issued, (B) the production expected, (C) 
        reasonable prospect for repayment of the loans. . . .
            Sec. 802. (a) The Administrator is authorized . . .
            (3) Each lease shall further provide that the lessee shall 
        have options to purchase the facilities at any time within ten 
        years after the date of the respective lease at a price to be 
        agreed upon by the parties. Each option shall be conditioned, 
        however, upon the right of the Administrator within the ten-
        year term to offer the facilities for sale at public auction 
        and the lessee shall be entitled to purchase the facilities if 
        he meets the highest bona fide offer in excess of the agreed 
        option price. In order that an offer may be considered bona 
        fide, it shall be offered by a bidder who shall have been 
        determined by the Administrator to be financially

[[Page 8280]]

        and technically qualified to purchase and operate the 
        facilities. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. . . .
        The point of order is as follows: A reading of the amendment 
    will show that under subsection 801(a), it would authorize a very 
    large program of loans and grants for the construction and 
    operation of facilities for the liquefaction and gasification of 
    coal.
        Nowhere else in the bill are there loans and grants, and 
    nowhere else in the bill are there provisions for that kind of 
    stimulus for the construction of facilities for the liquefaction or 
    gasification of coal.
        In addition to these loans and guarantees, the Administrator is 
    vested with authority to guarantee performance of contracts of 
    persons receiving loans from the administration for the purchase, 
    construction, and acquisition of equipment and supplies necessary 
    to construct and operate such a facility. This again, Mr. Chairman, 
    is not within the purview of the bill.
        In addition to this, construction plans and construction of 
    facilities, further down under (d)(2), could be financed in whole 
    or in part, including exploration and development.
        In addition to this, the possibility of exemptions and 
    exceptions from the air and water pollution laws are included under 
    (c)(2)(d), or, rather, under paragraph (d).
        To go along further, by no stretch of the imagination could my 
    colleagues be anticipated to anticipate an amendment of this kind 
    and character coming to this bill and relating to the air and water 
    pollution laws. Indeed the language is sufficiently broad to make 
    this exempt from State statutes, as well as from Federal statutes, 
    and that is a matter clearly not before the committee at this 
    particular time. Then we have the question of compliance with 
    Federal and State air pollution laws. . . .
        In addition to this, under section 802(a)(3), the amendment 
    provides for acquisition of private interests in all such 
    facilities as may have heretofore been constructed or acquired 
    relating to gasification of coal and other types of energy uses. 
    Again this goes far beyond the scope and sweep of the bill before 
    the committee.
        Again, under section 802(b)(1), these facilities could then be 
    leased or rented under conditions and terms as agreed on by and 
    between the parties, apparently without regard to existing Federal 
    statutes relating to the sale, leasing, or disposal of real estate, 
    and that is a matter which is under the jurisdiction of other 
    committees and which is the subject of control under other statutes 
    not presently before the House and not mentioned or alluded to in 
    the provisions of H.R. 7014 now before the committee. . . . 
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown [of Ohio]: As much as I am reluctant to 
    do so, I would have to suggest to the chairman of the subcommittee 
    that I think that the gentleman's amendment is germane.
        I would like to cite the provisions of the purposes of the act, 
    section 102. Item (3) in that section says, ``to increase the 
    supply of fossil fuels in the United States, through price 
    incentives and production requirements.''

[[Page 8281]]

        The gentleman's amendment squares, it seems to me, specifically 
    with that. As the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Carter) has pointed 
    out, item (6) says ``to increase the use of domestic energy 
    supplies other than petroleum products and natural gas through 
    conversion to the use of coal.''
        This would certainly encourage the use of coal.
        Section 606 in the bill provides similar incentives to those 
    provided by the amendment of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
    Carter) for coal mines. Pollution requirements would not be 
    overridden by the legislation or the legislative modification of 
    the gentleman from Kentucky unless specified, that is, those 
    existing pollution requirements would not be overridden unless they 
    were specified in the amendment, and they are not specified in the 
    amendment. They would, therefore, continue to apply.
        It seems to me that the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Kentucky specifically does encourage the development and use of 
    additional fossil fuels by the various provisions in his amendment 
    and that those provisions are in the bill and have been added by 
    other amendments, and, therefore, would be germane to this 
    legislation.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For substantially the reasons just outlined by the gentleman 
    from Ohio (Mr. Brown), and in view of the fact that title III has 
    several provisions going to the general issue of maximizing 
    availability of energy supplies, including coal, and, as pointed 
    out, title VI encourages industrial conversion from oil and gas to 
    coal, for example, by a similar loan guarantee mechanism as 
    proposed in the amendment, the Chair finds that the amendment 
    inserting a new title is germane to the bill under consideration 
    and overrules the point of order.

Energy Use and Conservation--Energy Used in Production of Beverage 
    Containers

Sec. 19.6 A bill of several titles dealing generally with energy use 
    and conservation and containing a title specifically dealing with 
    efficiency of energy-using consumer products and requiring energy 
    efficiency labeling of such products, was held sufficiently broad 
    in scope to admit as germane an amendment in the form of a new 
    title dealing with energy use in the production of certain non-
    energy consuming products (beverage containers) and incorporating 
    the labeling requirements in the bill to demonstrate energy 
    production requirements of such products.

    On Sept. 18, 1975,(9) it was demonstrated that the test 
of germaneness of an amendment adding a new title to a bill being read

[[Page 8282]]

by titles is the relationship between the amendment and the bill as a 
whole. The proceedings during consideration of H.R. 7014 
(10) in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 29322-25, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. The Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         TITLE V--IMPROVING ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF CONSUMER PRODUCTS

                      Part A--Automobile Fuel Mileage

        Sec. 501. Definitions.
        Sec. 502. Average fuel economy standards applicable to each 
    manufacturer. . . . 

       Part B--Energy Labeling and Efficiency Standards for Consumer 
                      Products Other Than Automobiles

        Sec. 551. Definitions and coverage.
        Sec. 552. Test procedures.
        Sec. 553. Labeling.
        Sec. 554. Energy efficiency standards. . . .
        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jeffords: Page 331, after line 10, 
        add the following:

        TITLE VI--ENERGY LABELING AND EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR BEVERAGE 
                                   CONTAINERS

                            definitions and coverage

            Sec. 601.--For purposes of this part--
            (1) The term ``beverage container'' means a bottle, jar, 
        can, or carton of glass, plastic, or metal, or any combination 
        thereof, used for packaging or marketing beer or any other malt 
        beverage, mineral water, soda water, or a carbonated soft drink 
        of any variety in liquid form which is intended for human 
        consumption. . . .
            (4) The term ``energy efficiency'' means the ratio 
        (determined on a national basis) of: The capacity of the 
        beverage container times the number of times it is likely to be 
        filled, to the units of energy resources consumed in producing 
        such container (including such container's raw materials) and 
        in delivering such container and its contents to the consumer.
            The Commissioner, in determining the energy efficiency 
        shall adjust any such determination to take into account the 
        extent to which such containers are produced from recycled 
        materials. . . .

                                    labeling

            Sec. 603. The provisions of section 553, except paragraph 
        (B) of subsection (a)(1), shall be applicable to beverage 
        containers as defined in section 601. In addition, if the 
        Commissioner determines that a beverage container achieves the 
        energy efficiency target described in section 604, then no 
        labeling requirement under this section may be promulgated or 
        remain in effect with respect to such type. . . . 

               requirements of manufacturers and private labelers

            Sec. 605. The provisions of section 555 of this act with 
        respect to consumer products to which a rule under section 553 
        applies shall be applicable to beverage containers as defined 
        in section 601. . . . 

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the point of 
    order [is] on the ground that the amendment is not germane to the 
    bill before us. The amendment seeks to impose effi

[[Page 8283]]

    ciency standards on the manufacture of beverage containers. There 
    is nothing in the bill relating to beverage containers. The 
    amendment seeks to change efficiency standards imposed upon 
    beverage containers themselves. There is nothing in this bill 
    relating to beverage containers.
        Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, not only is the amendment not 
    germane to the bill but it also fails because it is not germane to 
    the bill as amended because as the Chairman recalls all references 
    to the efficiency standards have been removed from the bill with 
    respect to industrial processes. If the amendment were to be 
    offered relating to efficiency in manufacturing processes, it more 
    appropriately should have been offered in sections relating to 
    efficiency in manufacturing.

        Those have now been deleted, of course. The amendment is not 
    germane because it comes too late in the bill, for that matter, 
    after it has been considered and acted upon in the House.
        The amendment is very, very complex, setting up standards for 
    efficiency in a whole series of devices. With regard to the 
    mechanism we are under, this efficiency is judged and it goes into 
    a lengthy complex set of judgments that must be exercised by the 
    administrators with regard to this efficiency; but dealing solely 
    with the question of bottles and containers. As I pointed out, 
    there is no reference in the bill to bottles and containers. For 
    that reason, the amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: . . . In Cannon's Procedures 
    of the House of Representatives, the rule of germaneness occurs at 
    section 794. It says that while the committee may report a bill 
    embracing different subjects, it is not in order during the 
    consideration of a bill to introduce a new subject. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the nature of the new subject in this 
    legislation, it seems to me, is embraced in section 604 of the 
    amendment as submitted by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
    Jeffords), in which we are not dealing with the set of standards of 
    the operation of appliances as we were in the appliance section, or 
    automobiles, as we were in the automobile standards section; but 
    rather in the design of a nonenergy consuming product which the 
    author of the amendment seeks to prohibit with reference to its 
    possibilities of reuse. It gives the authority to the Secretary to 
    prohibit a product on the basis of its design. So we are, in 
    effect, impacting on the product with reference to the manufacture 
    of the product in some mechanical or energy-consuming way. That, it 
    seems to me, is a new direction or a new subject under the rule of 
    germaneness, as opposed to the other approaches which the bill as 
    reported out of the committee has taken. It is an area which I 
    rather doubt comes under the purview of our committee, in that the 
    purview of the committee relates to the consumption of energy as 
    such and the licensing of that energy and the pricing of it and so 
    forth. . . .
        Mr. [Phillip H.] Hayes of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I simply 
    wanted to add in regard to the standard . . . of looking to the 
    fundamental purpose of an amendment in qualifying its germaneness, 
    that this particular amendment would seek to add for the first time 
    in the bill a class of product which does not in and of itself 
    consume an average

[[Page 8284]]

    annual per household energy factor, nor does it consume in and of 
    itself energy at all. . . .
        Mr. Jeffords: Mr. Chairman, never have I had an opportunity to 
    tell so many distinguished gentlemen that they are wrong at the 
    same time. First, let us go back to the basics here. What are we 
    concerned with when we talk about the germaneness? Let us look at 
    the legislative manual.
        The fundamental purpose of an amendment is that it must be 
    germane to the fundamental purpose of the bill. What is the 
    fundamental purpose?
        Let us take a look at the title, ``Energy Conservation and Oil 
    Policy Act of 1975.'' Look what we are trying to do. We are trying 
    to conserve energy. Let us take a look at title III, with its broad 
    powers over the whole area of development of petroleum. There are 
    tremendous powers over the whole industry in allocation, 
    production, as to where the industry goes. . . .
        Let us get to the argument made by many, and that is it is 
    different because we are talking about energy consumed in the 
    production of the consumer product rather than the consumer 
    himself.
        The FEA is not going to go around this country chasing after 
    people with electric toothbrushes to see whether they brush 
    properly or to see whether they are plugged in properly. They are 
    going to go to the manufacturer and say, ``You have a toothbrush 
    here that has to have a certain energy efficiency improvement.'' So 
    we are saying when the product is sold that particular beverage 
    container must consume less than a certain amount of energy. It is 
    identical in purpose. The bill does not try to go out and nail the 
    consumer. It gets to him by labeling. It says, ``Here is a consumer 
    product that uses less energy.'' My amendment will say, ``Here is 
    something that uses less energy.'' I see no difference whatsoever. 
    Its basic purpose and fundamental purpose is the same as the bill, 
    to conserve energy and conserve oil. How anybody can argue that 
    this is not germane is impossible for me to see.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Indiana, the gentleman from Michigan, the 
    gentleman from Ohio, and the gentleman from Texas have made points 
    of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) on the ground that it is not germane to the 
    bill.
        The Chair would like to state that if the amendment had been 
    offered to title V, the arguments of many of the gentlemen would 
    have more significance.
        The amendment offered would add a new title to the bill 
    relating to energy conservation in the production of beverage 
    containers.
        The test of germaneness in such a situation is the relationship 
    between the new title to be added by the amendment and the entire 
    bill.
        The Chair would state, initially, that he has reexamined the 
    precedents contained in section 6.13 and section 6.19 of chapter 28 
    of Deschler's Procedure, wherein an amendment prohibiting the 
    production of nonreturnable beverage containers was held not 
    germane to the Energy Emergency Act, and finds that the situations 
    are distinguishable.

[[Page 8285]]

        As noted, the germaneness is dependent upon the relationship 
    between the amendment in the form of a new title and the entire 
    bill to which offered.
        The 1973 bill was designed to regulate and promote the 
    production, allocation, and conservation of energy resources and 
    contained no reference to the production of consumer goods. In that 
    context, the nonreturnable container amendment was not germane.
        However, the bill now under consideration contains several 
    diverse titles, all relating to use, consumption, availability, and 
    conservation of energy.
        The Chair notes specifically the provisions of title V relating 
    to end use and energy consumption of certain consumer products.
        The Chair, therefore, believes that the bill is sufficiently 
    broad in scope to admit as germane an amendment in the form of a 
    new title which is drafted in the form presented by incorporating 
    by reference certain standards in the bill, and which relates to 
    the conservation of energy by an industry engaged in the production 
    of a consumer product, specifically, beverage containers.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Bill Authorizing Participation in Inter-American Development Bank and 
    African Development Fund and Addressing Policies Thereof--Amendment 
    To Encourage Institutions in Bill To Promote Energy Measures

Sec. 19.7 To a bill authorizing appropriations for, and increased 
    United States participation in, the Inter-American Development 
    Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the African Development Fund, 
    which had been amended to include titles addressing export 
    opportunity enhancement, human rights reporting and refugee 
    assistance by such institutions, an amendment adding a new title to 
    the bill directing the United States to encourage those 
    institutions to promote and support energy production from 
    renewable resources was held germane.

    As noted by the Chair in his ruling of Mar. 6, 1980, 
(12) the Committee of the Whole, during consideration of 
H.R. 3829, had adopted provisions either in the form of amendments or 
titles of the bill as reported, which stated in part as follows: 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 126 Cong. Rec. 4977, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. Id. at pp. 4960, 4973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Wolff: Page 4, immediately after line 
    21, insert the following new section:

            Sec. 202. The Asian Development Bank Act, as amended by 
        Section 201 of this Act, is further amended by adding at the 
        end thereof the following new section:
            ``Sec. 25(a)(1) Upon the establishment of a special refugee 
        fund ad

[[Page 8286]]

        ministered by the Asian Development Bank, the United States 
        Governor of the Bank is authorized to contribute to that fund 
        on behalf of the United States 25 percent of the total amount 
        contributed by all countries to that fund, subject to the 
        limitation contained in subsection (b) of this section. This 
        special refugee fund shall assist regional developing member 
        countries of the Bank impacted by service as sites for 
        temporary asylum for refugees from South and Southeast Asia 
        prior to their resettlement in third countries.
            ``(2) The special refugee fund should also be available to 
        help any regional developing member country which may wish to 
        formulate development plans for regions of that country which 
        that country judges to be suitable for permanent resettlement 
        of refugees from South and Southeast Asia. . . .
            ``(c)(1) The President shall encourage other countries to 
        support the establishment of, and to contribute to, the special 
        fund described in subsection (a) of this section.
            ``(2) In addition, the President shall encourage the World 
        Bank and other appropriate multilateral development banks to 
        establish funds similar to that described in subsection (a) of 
        this section to aid in the permanent resettlement in third 
        countries of refugees from South and Southeast Asia.'' . . .

                    TITLE IV--EXPORT OPPORTUNITY ENHANCEMENT

            Sec. 401. The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the 
        United States Executive Directors of the Inter-American 
        Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the African 
        Development Fund to take all possible steps to assure that 
        information relative to potential procurement opportunities for 
        United States firms is expeditiously communicated to him/her, 
        the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce. Such 
        information shall be disseminated as broadly as possible to 
        both large and small business. . . .

                        TITLE V--HUMAN RIGHTS REPORTING

            Sec. 501. Section 701 of an Act approved October 3, 1977 
        (Public Law 95-118; 91 Stat. 1069), is amended--(1) in 
        subsection (c)--
            (A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(c)''; and
            (B) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(2)(A) The Secretary of the Treasury shall report 
        quarterly on all loans made by the institutions listed in 
        subsection (a) to the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban 
        Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
        Foreign Relations of the Senate. . . .''

    An amendment was offered:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Long of Maryland: Page 8, after 
        line 25, insert the following new title:

          TITLE VIII--USE OF RENEWABLE RESOURCES FOR ENERGY PRODUCTION

            Sec. 701. The Congress hereby finds that--
            (1) without an adequate supply of energy at affordable 
        prices the world's poor will continue to be deprived of jobs, 
        food, water, shelter and clothing, and poor countries will 
        continue to be economically and politically unstable;
            (2) dependence on increasingly expensive fossil fuel 
        resources consumes too much of the capital available to poor 
        countries with the result that funds are not available to meet 
        the basic needs of poor people;
            (3) in many developing countries the cost of large central 
        generators and long distance electrical distribution makes it 
        unlikely that rural energy by means of a national grid will

[[Page 8287]]

        contribute to meeting the needs of poor people . . .
            (7) recent initiatives by the international financial 
        institutions to develop and utilize decentralized solar, hydro, 
        biomass, geothermal and wind energy should be significantly 
        expanded to make renewable energy resources increasingly 
        available to the world's poor on a wide scale.
            Sec. 702. (a) The United States Government, in connection 
        with its voice and vote in the Inter-American Development Bank, 
        the African Development Fund, and the Asian Development Bank, 
        shall encourage such institutions--
            (1) to promote the decentralized production of renewable 
        energy;
            (2) to identify renewable resources to produce energy in 
        rural development projects and determine the feasibility of 
        substituting them for systems using fossil fuel;
            (3) to train personnel in developing technologies for 
        getting energy from renewable resources;
            (4) to support research into the use of renewable energy 
        resources, including hydropower, biomass, solar photovoltaic 
        and solar thermal;
            (5) to create an information network to make available to 
        policy makers the full range of energy choices;
            (6) to broaden their energy planning, analyses and 
        assessments so as to include consideration of the supply of, 
        demand for, and possible uses of renewable energy resources;
            (7) to encourage the international financial institutions 
        to coordinate the work of the Agency for International 
        Development and other aid organizations in supporting effective 
        rural energy programs. . . .
            (c) The Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the 
        Director of the International Development Cooperation Agency 
        shall report to the Congress not later than six months after 
        the date of enactment of this Act and annually thereafter on 
        the progress toward achieving the goals set forth in this 
        title. . . .

        The Chairman: (14) Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Stanton) insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Robert Duncan (Ore.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. William] Stanton [of Ohio]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio will state his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Stanton: Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long) goes far beyond the scope of the 
    bill that we have under consideration this afternoon. In reading 
    the amendment, in paragraph (7) on the second page, and in the last 
    paragraph of the bill, it continually refers to, No. 1, Mr. 
    Chairman, the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation 
    with the Director of the International Development Corporation. 
    That is not under the scope of this legislation here today. That is 
    point No. 1.
        No. 2, Mr. Chairman, what we have, as I understand it, is an 
    authorizing legislation in dollars and cents for the Asian 
    Development Bank, the African Development Fund, and so forth. This 
    puts definite restrictions on what these particular agencies 
    specifically should do with regard to energy. I would hate to have 
    us start telling the Director of the African Development Fund, for 
    example, that they should do something about synfuels or some 
    particular goal that we have over in our country.
        I think we should leave the operation and the scope of these 
    things up to them. But I would say to the gentleman that I think 
    certainly his lan

[[Page 8288]]

    guage would be absolutely appropriate in his committee, were 
    foreign aid directly given to the Agency for International 
    Development and we pay the full cost of that, and it should go.
        That is my point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair understands the point of order to be 
    made on germaneness, that the amendment goes beyond the scope of 
    the bill.
        Mr. Stanton: That is correct. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order based upon the germaneness of the amendment.
        The Chair notes that the germaneness of the amendment must be 
    applied from the perspective of the bill as it has been perfected 
    by the committee up to the point at which the point of order is 
    made. The Chair notes that title IV of the bill as reported dealing 
    with the export opportunity enhancement, that title V of the 
    committee amendment dealing with human rights reporting, and that 
    the Wolff amendment dealing with a special refugee fund have all 
    been adopted by the committee. In view of the expansion of the 
    scope of the bill by the adoption of those amendments and the 
    existence of title IV in the bill as reported, the Chair is 
    constrained to rule that the amendment is germane and, therefore, 
    overrules the point of order.

Test of Germaneness of Amendment Adding New Section: Senate Provision 
    Contained in Conference Report

Sec. 19.8 The test of the germaneness of that portion of a Senate 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute adding a new section to a 
    House bill is the relationship of that section to the subject of 
    the House bill as a whole.

    On Mar. 26, 1975, (15) during consideration of a 
conference report on H.R. 2166 (Tax Reduction Act of 1975), it was held 
that to a House bill containing several sections amending diverse 
portions of the Internal Revenue Code to provide individual and 
business tax credits, a part of a Senate amendment in the nature of a 
substitute which added a new section relating to tax credits for new 
home purchases and amending a portion of the law amended by the House 
bill was germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 8900, 8902, 8930, 8931, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Conference Report (H. Rept. 94-120)

        The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
    Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2166) to 
    amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide for a refund of 
    1974 individual income taxes, to increase the low income allowance 
    and the percentage standard deduction, to provide a credit for 
    certain earned income, to increase the investment credit and the 
    surtax exemption, and for other purposes, having met, after full 
    and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do rec

[[Page 8289]]

    ommend to their respective Houses as follows:
        That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of 
    the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In 
    lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment 
    insert the following: . . .

           TITLE II--REDUCTIONS IN INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES . . .

        Sec. 208. Credit for purchase of new principal residence. . . .

    TITLE VI--TAXATION OF FOREIGN OIL AND GAS INCOME AND OTHER FOREIGN 
                                INCOME . . .

        Sec. 602. Taxation of earnings and profits of controlled 
    foreign corporations and their shareholders. . . .

                    TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

        Sec. 701. Certain unemployment compensation.
        Sec. 702. Special payment to recipients of benefits under 
    certain retirement and survivor benefit programs. . . .
        Sec. 208. Credit for Purchase of New Principal Residence
        ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter 
    A of chapter 1 (relating to credits allowed) is amended by 
    redesignating section 44 as section 45 and by inserting after 
    section 43 the following new section:

              ``Sec. 44. Purchase of New Principal Residence.

        ``(a) General Rule.--In the case of an individual there is 
    allowed, as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for 
    the taxable year, an amount equal to 5 percent of the purchase 
    price of a new principal residence purchased or constructed by the 
    taxpayer. . . .
        Mr. [Barber B.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    a point of order against the conference report on the ground it 
    contains matter which is in violation of provision 1, clause 7, of 
    rule XVI. The nongermane matter I am specifically referring to is 
    that section of the report dealing with the tax credit on sales of 
    new homes. It appears in section 208 of the conference report, on 
    page 14, as reported by the Committee on Conference. . . .
        [A] careful scrutiny of the titles of the House bill, as it was 
    sent to the Senate, shows many types of tax measures, but nothing 
    relating to the sale of homes. This clearly is an addition of a 
    very divergent nature to the bill and deals with the nonbusiness 
    and nonpersonal type of credit. . . .
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak 
    against the point of order.
        Mr. Speaker, this is a very broad bill. It was a broadly based 
    bill when it left this House to go to the other body. It has many 
    diverse sections and many different kinds of tax treatments. It 
    does deal with tax credits. It did deal with tax credits when it 
    left the House, both for individuals and for corporations.
        Mr. Speaker, it seems to me this falls totally within the 
    purview of the bill as we passed it in the House and should be 
    considered germane to the bill.
        The Speaker: (16) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Carl Albert (Okla).

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

[[Page 8290]]

        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable) makes the point of 
    order against section 208 of the conference report on the bill H.R. 
    2166 on the ground that it would not have been germane to H.R. 2166 
    as passed by the House and is thus subject to the provisions of 
    clause 4, rule XXVIII.
        In passing upon any point of order against a portion of the 
    Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute which the conferees 
    have incorporated in their report, the Chair feels it is important 
    to initially characterize the bill H.R. 2166 in the form as passed 
    by the House. The House-passed bill contained four diverse titles, 
    and contained amendments to diverse portions of the Internal 
    Revenue Code of 1954. Title I of the House bill provided a refund 
    of 1974 individual income taxes. Title II provided for reductions, 
    including credits, in individual income taxes. Title III made 
    several changes in business taxes, and title IV further affected 
    business taxes by providing for the repeal of the percentage 
    depletion for oil and gas.
        The Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute contained 
    provisions comparable to all four titles in the House-passed bill, 
    and also contained a new title IV amending other portions of the 
    Internal Revenue Code, making further amendments to the code with 
    respect to tax changes affecting individuals and businesses, and a 
    new title VI and title VII, relating to taxation of foreign and 
    domestic oil and gas income and related income, and to the tax 
    deferment and reinvestment period extension, respectively. The 
    provision against which the gentleman makes the point of order was 
    contained in section 205 of title II of the Senate amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Chair would call the attention of the House to the 
    precedent contained in Cannon's VIII, section 3042, wherein the 
    Committee of the Whole ruled that to a bill raising revenue by 
    several diverse methods of taxation . . . an amendment in the form 
    of a new section proposing an additional method of taxation--a tax 
    on the undistributed profits of corporations--was held germane. The 
    Chair would emphasize that the portion of the Senate amendment 
    included in the conference report against which the point of order 
    has been made was in the form of a new section to the House bill, 
    and was not an amendment to a specific section of the House bill. 
    As indicated in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 14.4, the 
    test of germaneness in such a situation is the relationship between 
    the new section or title and the subject matter of the bill as a 
    whole.
        The Chair would also point out that section 203 of the House 
    bill, on page 10, amends the same portion of the code which this 
    part of the conference report would amend.
        For these reasons, the Chair holds that section 208 of the 
    conference report is germane to the House-passed bill and overrules 
    the point of order.

New Section at End of Bill; Test of Germaneness

Sec. 19.9 The test of germaneness of an amendment adding a new section 
    at the end of a bill is its relationship to the bill as a whole, as 
    perfected by the Committee of the Whole.

[[Page 8291]]

    On Aug. 1, 1979,(17) during consideration of S. 1030 
(18) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Dante B. 
Fascell, of Florida, ruled that to a bill authorizing the imposition of 
rationing plans by the President to conserve energy, providing 
mechanisms to avoid energy marketing disruptions, and broadened by 
amendment to provide for monitoring of middle distillates and supplies 
of diesel oil, an amendment adding a new section to require a set-aside 
program to provide middle distillates for agricultural production was 
germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 125 Cong. Rec. 21964-68, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. Emergency Energy Conservation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

             monitoring of middle distillate supply and demand

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

    After some debate, Mr. Tauke made a request, as follows, and the 
amendment was agreed to, as modified:(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 21966, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[[Page 8292]]

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

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

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

    Thereafter, Mr. Tauke offered the following 
amendment:(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 21967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

       national middle distillate set-aside program for agricultural 
                                 production

        Sec. 4. (a) Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
    enactment of this Act, the President shall establish and maintain a 
    national set-aside program to provide middle distillates for 
    agricultural production.
        (b) The program established under subsection (a) shall--
        (1) be made effective only if the President finds that a 
    shortage of middle distillates exists within the various regions of 
    the United States generally, or within any specific region of the 
    United States, and that shortage--
        (A) has imparied or is likely to impair agricultural 
    production; and
        (B) has not been, or is not likely to be, alleviated by any 
    State set-aside program or programs covering areas within that 
    region;
        (2) provide that, in regions in which such program is 
    effective, prime suppliers of such fuel be required to set aside 
    each month 1 percent of the amount of the middle distillates to be 
    supplied during that month in that area;
        (3) provide that amounts of fuel set aside under such program 
    be directed to be supplied by such prime suppliers to applicants 
    who the President determines would not otherwise have adequate 
    supplies to meet requirements for agricultural production;
        (4) provide that such prime suppliers may meet such 
    responsibilities for supplying fuel either directly or through 
    wholesale purchasers who resell fuel, but only in accordance with 
    the requirements established under such program; and
        (5) shall not supersede any State set-aside program for middle 
    distillates established under the Emergency Petroleum Allocation 
    Act of 1973.
        (c) For purposes of this section--
        (1) The term ``agricultural production'' has the meaning given 
    it in section 211.51 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, as 
    in effect on the date of the enactment of this section, and 
    includes the transportation of agricultural products.
        (2) The term ``prime supplier'', when used with respect to any 
    middle distillate, means the supplier, or producer, which makes the 
    first sale of the middle distillate into any region for consumption 
    in that region.
        (3) The term ``middle distillate'' has the same meaning as 
    given that term in such section 211.51.

[[Page 8293]]

        (4) The term ``region'' means any PAD district as such term is 
    defined in such section 211.51. Redesignate the following sections 
    accordingly.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is a conservation 
    bill. It deals with conservation of petroleum and petroleum 
    products and energy. It deals also with rationing.
        Mr. Chairman, if the chairman will observe the amendment before 
    him, he will notice it creates a national middle distillate set-
    aside program for agricultural production. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is 
    quite possible this is a highly desirable thing but that is not the 
    question before the Chair. The question before the Chair is Does 
    this bill deal with the set-aside of middle distillates or set-
    asides of other petroleum products?
        The answer to that question is a resounding no. The 
    legislation, S. 1030 before us, contains nothing relating to set-
    aside of petroleum products or matters relating to set-aside of 
    petroleum products.
        The members of the committee could not have reasonably expected 
    set-aside amendments to be laid before them on the basis of the 
    legislation which lies before us; so the purposes of the bill and 
    the purposes of the amendment are quite different and distinct. I 
    would, therefore, urge on the chair that this amendment is not 
    germane.
        I would further state that the proposal goes on to deal with a 
    number of set-aside matters which are not included in the proposal 
    before us, but which are embodied in other statutes, such as the 
    Emergency Petroleum Allocation act. The legislation deals with the 
    term ``agricultural production'' as defined in section 211.51 of 
    title X, which is not under the jurisdiction of the Commerce 
    Committee.
        The proposal deals with and defines the term prime supplier of 
    middle distillate and the term defines a number of other matters 
    which are not found in the legislation here.
        As a matter of fact, it would convert the legislation before us 
    from essentially a conservation program to an allocation program, 
    something which would not be the intention of the committee, as 
    opposed to a rationing program which was. . . .
        Mr. Tauke: . . . Mr. Chairman, in this particular measure that 
    we are considering, we have taken great pains during the past 
    several hours to provide specific consideration for certain 
    businesses that are part of our economy. We considered, for 
    example, nursing homes and health institutions. We have considered 
    with the last amendment of the gentleman from Michigan a whole host 
    of other special businesses in this country. This is a special 
    consideration for the agricultural industry.
        In addition, I think it is appropriate to note that in this 
    measure that the bill has been dealing with the allocation of fuels 
    when supplies are scarce. That is what is the exact purpose of this 
    amendment is, to deal with the allocation of fuels at a time when 
    supplies are scarce.
        So in view of both of those items, it occurs to me that it is 
    appropriate that

[[Page 8294]]

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

        The Chairman: The Chairman is prepared to rule.
        The Chair has examined the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Iowa and considered the point of order as to its germaneness 
    to the bill raised by the gentleman from Michigan.
        The text of a new section in its relationship for germaneness 
    is to the bill as read to this point and in that case

[[Page 8295]]

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

Sec. 19.10 To a bill containing diverse sections (1) continuing United 
    States participation under the International Development 
    Association Act; and (2) repealing existing law which prohibited 
    United States citizens from holding gold, an amendment adding a new 
    section at the end of the bill directing the United States 
    representative to IDA to oppose loans to nations not party to a 
    nuclear non-proliferation treaty was held in order as a germane 
    restriction on authority contained in section 1 of the bill.

    On July 2, 1974,(1) during consideration of H.R. 15465 
(2) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a 
point of order against an amendment, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 120 Cong. Rec. 22029, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. The International Development Association Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Long of Maryland: Page 2, 
        immediately after line 20, insert the following:
            Sec. 3. The International Development Association Act (22 
        U.S.C. 284 et seq.) is amended by inserting at the end thereof 
        the following:
            ``Sec. 15. The United States Governor is authorized and 
        directed to vote against any loan or other utilization of the 
        funds of the Association for the benefit of any country which 
        develops any nuclear explosive device, unless the country is or 
        becomes a State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of 
        Nuclear Weapons (21 UST 483).''
            Redesignate the succeeding section accordingly.

        Mr. [Charles W.] Whalen [Jr., of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . . [T]he Chair has ruled 
    that the amendment previously offered by the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Biaggi) was out of order because it should have been 
    offered during the committee's consideration of section 1 which 
    deals directly with the International Development Association.

[[Page 8296]]

        Mr. Chairman, this is a very similar amendment to the one 
    previously ruled out of order, except it creates a new section 
    instead of amending an existing one.
        This is an effort to thwart the Chair's earlier ruling. 
    Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.
        The Chairman: (3) Does the gentleman from Maryland 
    care to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Long of Maryland: I should respond by saying that the 
    gentleman's objection is specious. The amendment is a genuine 
    amendment. It fits in logically in the place that it is offered. I 
    see no substance at all to the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order raised by the gentleman from Ohio.
        The Chair would observe that when the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Biaggi) offered his amendment it was ruled out of order 
    because section 2 of the bill had already been read; but since the 
    pending amendment is offered as a separate subsequent section, as a 
    new section 3, the amendment is in order and the Chair overrules 
    the point of order.
        The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.

    Parliamentarian's Note: An amendment in the form of a new section 
need not necessarily be germane to the preceding section of the bill, 
it being sufficient where the bill contains diverse subjects that the 
amendment relate to the portion of the bill as a whole which has been 
read.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Section Offered as Qualification of Prior Section

Sec. 19.11 To a bill establishing rules for judicial interpretation of 
    acts of Congress, an amendment proposing a new section limiting the 
    application of a prior section of the bill was held to be germane.

    In the 86th Congress, a bill (5) was under consideration 
establishing rules of interpretation for federal courts involving the 
doctrine of federal preemption. The following exchange (6) 
concerned a proposed amendment, offered as a new section, having the 
effect of modifying a section of the bill previously read and passed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 3 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 6. 105 Cong. Rec. 11790, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 24, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York:] Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent to go back to section 1. I have an amendment to 
    section 1. . . .
        Mr. [Edwin E.] Willis [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, which I send to 
    the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Celler: On page 3, line 7, insert:

[[Page 8297]]

            ``Sec. 3. Section 1 of this Act shall be applicable only to 
        Acts of Congress hereafter enacted.'' . . .

        Mr. Willis: Mr. Chairman, this bill is in two sections. Section 
    1 provides the broad rule of preemption, and section 2 is directed 
    to the decision of the Supreme Court in the specific Nelson case.
        This bill has been read in full; both sections 1 and 2 have 
    been read. An amendment to section 1 is obviously not in order. The 
    addition of section 3, proposed by the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York, is a complete circumvention of the rule 
    because as drafted what does the language of section 3 do? It does 
    one single, solitary thing, that is, to amend section 1. I 
    therefore make the point of order that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York is not in order and is in violation of the 
    rules. It comes too late at this time. . . .
        Mr. Celler: The gentleman from New York simply states that 
    there are more ways than one to offer an amendment, and there is no 
    reason why section 3 cannot be offered to amend any part of the 
    bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (7) . . . The new section is merely a 
    modification of a section already in the bill. The Chair therefore 
    thinks it is germane and overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Clark W. Thompson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 19.12 To a bill providing rules for judicial interpretation of 
    acts of Congress, an amendment qualifying a prior section of the 
    bill by limiting the application of the rules in certain areas of 
    federal regulation was held to be germane.

    In the 86th Congress, a bill (8) was under consideration 
to provide rules for the judicial interpretation of acts of Congress. 
The following amendment, in the form of a new section, was offered as a 
qualification of a prior section of the bill: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 3 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 9. 105 Cong. Rec. 11799, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 24, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Harold R.] Collier [of Illinois]: On 
    page 3, following line 6, add as section 3 the following: Provided 
    however, That nothing . . . contained in this Act shall be 
    construed as subjecting foods . . . or other articles distributed 
    interstate in compliance with . . . requirements of Federal laws 
    and regulations . . . to . . . additional requirements made by or 
    under State laws or regulations.

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

        Mr. [George] Meader [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        As I understand, the gentleman offers his amendment to page 3, 
    line 6, which has to do with amending the title of the code.

    Referring to the ruling of the Chair on a similar 
issue,(10) the

[[Page 8298]]

proponent of the amendment stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 21.20, infra, for discussion of that issue and the ruling 
        thereon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In my opinion the ruling of the Chair on the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lindsay] as to its being in 
    order and as to its propriety, would apply with equal force to this 
    amendment which does nothing more than add as section 3 a 
    clarification of the subject matter of section 1.

    The Chairman,(11) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Clark W. Thompson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Again, the Chair has only to rule on the question of the 
    germaneness of the amendment. The Chair believes the amendment is 
    germane and, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Amendment Offered While Motion To Strike Pending

Sec. 19.13 To that title of a military procurement authorization bill 
    permitting, in part, the Committee on Armed Services to utilize the 
    services and information ``of any government agency,'' an amendment 
    directing the Comptroller General to review defense contracts was 
    held to be germane.

    In the 91st Congress, a bill (12) was under 
consideration comprising military procurement authorization for fiscal 
1970. Subsequent to a motion offered by Mr. Samuel S. Stratton, of New 
York, to strike Title V of the bill, (13) the following 
amendment was offered to Title V: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 14000 (Committee on Armed Services).
13. See 115 Cong. Rec. 28454, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 3, 1969.
14. 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 
        . . . is authorized and directed . . . to conduct a study and 
        review on a selective basis of the profits made by contractors 
        and subcontractors on contracts on which there is no formally 
        advertised competitive bidding entered into by the Department 
        of the Navy, the Department of the Air Force, the Coast Guard, 
        and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration . . . and 
        on contracts entered into by the Atomic Energy Commission to 
        meet requirements of the Department of Defense. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 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, (16) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has gone through the precedents and has found that 
    where

[[Page 8299]]

    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 ruled that the amendment was germane to that part 
of the bill to which offered. The following exchange ensued:

        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.
        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.

Scope of Bill Previously Broadened by Amendment

Sec. 19.14 To a bill establishing a commission to adjust salary levels 
    of certain classes of government employees, broadened by amendment 
    to include legislative employees, an amendment to restrict certain 
    political activities of employees paid from Members' clerk-hire 
    allowances was held to be germane.

    In the 91st Congress, a bill (17) was under 
consideration relating to salaries of government employees. The bill, 
as amended, included legislative employees. The following amendment was 
offered to the bill as a new section: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 13000 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
18. 115 Cong. Rec. 29966, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 14, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William L.] Hungate [of Missouri]: . 
    . . Any person paid from a clerk hire allowance of the House of 
    Representatives who travels to a Congressional district in a State 
    other than the State of the member by which he is employed for the 
    purpose of influencing in any manner the outcome of a Congressional 
    election, including any future Congressional election, shall be 
    paid for only one-half the pay period during which the Clerk of the 
    House is informed of the activities as provided in subsection (b) 
    of this section.

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

        Mr. [William L.] Scott [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill that 
    is being considered.

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

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

[[Page 8300]]

        . . . The Chair would like to point out that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall) that was adopted, 
    goes to the point of clerk hire in the House and also in the 
    Senate. The bill having been opened up on that subject by the 
    adoption of that amendment, and since the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hungate] also addresses itself to the 
    matter of clerk hire in the House, the Chair holds that the 
    amendment is germane and therefore overrules the point of order.

Bill Addressing Agencies Regulation of Energy Conservation--Amendment 
    To Prohibit Use of Fuel for School Busing

Sec. 19.15 The test of the germaneness of an amendment in the form of a 
    new section to a title of a bill being read by titles is the 
    relationship between the amendment and the pending title.

    On Sept. 17, 1975, (20) during consideration of a title 
of a bill (1) designed to enable agencies of the government 
to formulate policies of energy conservation, an amendment thereto 
prohibiting certain uses of fuel (for school busing) by any person and 
imposing criminal penalties for such use was held not germane to the 
fundamental purpose of the title.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 121 Cong. Rec. 28925-27, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. H.R. 7014, Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Collins of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment which has been printed in the Record.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

            energy conservation through prohibition of unnecessary 
                                 transportation

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

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        [T]his is clearly beyond the scope of the matters that are 
    dealt with in this title of the bill. It would very substantially 
    introduce administrative duties that are not provided for in any 
    way in the bill, and it is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of this 
    committee. . . .
        Mr. Collins of Texas: Mr. Chairman, we have had a similar 
    amendment in conservation bills before which have passed the House 
    before, and in this particular bill. It comes in conjunction with 
    sections on energy con

[[Page 8301]]

    servation through van pooling arrangements, through the use of car 
    pools. It is an identical type of conservation measure as the 
    limitation of limousines we discussed earlier, and the conservation 
    of gasoline.
        This is very much consistent because what we are talking about 
    here in conservation, the unnecessary and unneeded uses of 
    transportation. Also, we have the jurisdiction over the FEA, and it 
    seems to me that we would be concerned with this. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman from New York makes 
    a point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Collins) on grounds that it is not germane to title 
    IV. The gentleman from Texas, in responding to the point of order, 
    has cited certain amendments that have been adopted to the bill 
    during debate, and the Chair is not clear as to whether he is 
    talking only about this bill or about earlier bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 8302]]

        In the bill itself, in previous sections, violations were set 
    out and there were penalties of $5,000. There are several sections 
    in the FEA sections that provide for penalties. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair would like to state at the outset that the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ottinger) against 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Collins) is 
    on the ground that the amendment is not germane to title IV, and we 
    are in effect limited in our consideration to the matters contained 
    in title IV.
        As will be clear in the statement which the Chair will make, 
    the ruling that the present occupant of the Chair made under 
    seemingly similar circumstances on an earlier bill is different.
        The amendment would prohibit the use by any person--and that is 
    the key to the ruling of the Chair--of gasoline or diesel fuel for 
    certain transportation of public school students, and would 
    establish a criminal penalty for violation of the amendment's 
    provisions. The Chair has noted the Chair's ruling, cited in 
    Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 26.9, that an amendment 
    restricting the regulatory authority of the President, who was 
    authorized by the bill to establish priorities among users of 
    petroleum products, was germane where the amendment required the 
    product so allocated be used only for certain transportation of 
    public school students.
        It appears to the Chair that the ruling on that occasion was 
    specifically directed to the fact that the bill conferred certain 
    regulatory authority upon the President, and that the amendment 
    placed a specific limitation and direction on the power so 
    delegated. The amendment now in question does not address itself to 
    the authority of an agency of Government, except in its last 
    subsection relating to certain determinations by the Administrator 
    of the Federal Energy Administration. But the direct thrust of the 
    amendment is to prohibit certain uses of fuel by any person.
        It is true that the title to which the amendment is offered 
    deals with the subject of the conservation of energy, but the 
    provisions of title IV address the goal of conservation through 
    actions and encouragement by an agency of Government, not through 
    prohibitions on the use of fuel by any person.
        The Chair is unable to discover in title IV or in the basic act 
    being amended criminal prohibitions applicable to any person using 
    the fuel in a certain way.
        The Chair, therefore, finds that the amendment is not germane 
    to the fundamental purposes of the title to which offered and 
    sustains the point of order.

Bill To Protect Civil Rights--New Title To Establish Commission on 
    Equal Job Opportunity Under Government Contracts

Sec. 19.16 To a bill having as its fundamental purpose the protection 
    of political rights, an amendment in the form of a new title to 
    establish a Commission on Equal Job

[[Page 8303]]

    Opportunity Under Government Contracts was held to be an economic 
    proposition and was ruled out as not germane.

    In the 86th Congress, a bill (3) was under consideration 
relating to enforcement of constitutional rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.  H.R. 8601 (Committee on the Judiciary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The following amendment was offered to the bill: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.  106 Cong. Rec. 5477, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 14, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: On 
    page 12, after title V, insert the following new title VI and 
    renumber the remaining titles and sections accordingly:

                                 ``Title VI

      ``commission on equal job opportunity under government contracts

        ``Sec. 601. There is hereby created a Commission to be known as 
    the `Commission on Equal Job Opportunity Under Government 
    Contracts,' hereinafter referred to as the Commission. . . .
        ``(b) To implement the policy of the United States Government 
    to eliminate discrimination because of race, creed, color, or 
    national origin in the employment of persons in the performance of 
    contracts or subcontracts to provide the Government with goods or 
    services, the Commission shall make recommendations . . . .'

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.  Id. at p. 5478.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I made the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. It is not germane 
    because it introduces to this legislation a subject entirely 
    foreign to the bill, as reported by the committee. There is nothing 
    in the bill relating to the subject of work discrimination. There 
    is nothing in the bill which provides for the appointment of any 
    other commission, and this sets up an entirely new commission and 
    an entirely new bureau and is totally unrelated to all of the other 
    provisions of the bill.

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

        Mr. Celler: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment is offered to 
    the bill as a new title. . . .
        It is not always easy to determine whether or not a proposed 
    amendment relates to a subject different from that under 
    consideration within the meaning of this rule, and it is 
    particularly difficult to do so when, as in the case of this bill 
    under consideration, H.R. 8601, there are separate and distinct 
    subjects which are touched upon in the five titles of the bill.
        The subjects of the bill are, first, the obstruction of court 
    orders; second, flight to avoid prosecution; third, preservation of 
    Federal election records; fourth, the powers of the Civil Rights 
    Commission; and, finally, fifth, the education of the children of 
    members of the Armed Forces. It is logical, therefore, that the 
    addition of a new subject as contained in this amendment is germane 
    to the subject matter contained in the bill itself. In effect, 
    adding one more stone to the necklace.

[[Page 8304]]

    . . . In determining germaneness, one must look to the fundamental 
    underlying purpose of the bill. Here there is no question that the 
    fundamental purpose of the legislation under consideration is to 
    provide means for the enforcement of constitutional rights called 
    civil rights as well as for other purposes. This is the identical 
    same purpose of the amendment. The subject matter of the amendment 
    is to provide a remedy to enforce the right of a person to work 
    without discrimination, a civil right, where a Government contract 
    is involved. This is consistent with the purpose of each of the 
    five titles contained in the bill.
        We must keep in mind that this is not a narrow, single-purpose 
    bill; but, on the contrary, this is a broad multi-purpose bill 
    which has as its objective the enforcement of constitutionally 
    guaranteed rights. . . .
        In Cannon's Precedents, volume VIII, section 3010, we find:

            To a bill including several propositions of the same class 
        an amendment adding another proposition of that class is 
        germane. . . .

    The Chairman,(6) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.  Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
 7.  106 Cong. Rec. 5479, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 14, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question of germaneness depends entirely on the basic 
    purpose of the bill under consideration. The basic purpose of this 
    bill is to preserve certain rights. True, it is, there are sections 
    that relate to other subjects, but the basic purpose, the 
    fundamental purpose, that the gentleman spoke about in the 
    precedents he recited is the matter contained in the bill before 
    us.
        The pending amendment introduces an economic question of 
    whether or not employment should be interfered with or affected 
    through the enactment of legislation which it seems to the Chair is 
    foreign to the purpose of the pending bill.
        For that reason, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point 
    of order. In the opinion of the Chair, this amendment does not 
    introduce a subject matter that is in the same class as the 
    legislation under consideration.

    An appeal was taken from the decision of the Chairman:

        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, I most respectfully appeal from the 
    ruling of the Chair.
        The Chairman: The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair 
    stand as the judgment of the Committee?
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Celler) there were--ayes 157, noes 67.
        So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the 
    Committee. .

--Amendment To Enfranchise Citizens of District of Columbia .

Sec. 19.17 To a bill to eliminate deprivation of the right to vote 
    because of race or color, an amendment to enfranchise citizens of 
    the District of Columbia was held to be not germane.

    In the 86th Congress, a bill (8) was under consideration 
relating

[[Page 8305]]

to political rights including voting rights. The following amendment 
was offered to the bill: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 8601 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 9. 106 Cong. Rec. 6388, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 23, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: On page 12, 
    after line 7, add a new title and insert:

            Citizens of the District of Columbia eligible to vote for 
        delegates to national conventions to political parties shall 
        here have the right to vote for President and Vice President of 
        the United States in the same manner and on the same dates as 
        elections for President and Vice President are held in the 
        various States.

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

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane; that it concerns 
    rights to be granted to citizens of the District of Columbia in 
    connection with presidential elections, which is a subject entirely 
    separate and distinct from the general tenor and import and 
    specific provisions of the bill itself. In any event, it is a 
    constitutional amendment.

    The Chairman,(10) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
11. 106 Cong. Rec. 6389, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 23, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Ohio goes beyond the scope of the bill under consideration, 
    the bill being confined entirely to deprivation of the right to 
    vote because of race or color. For that reason the point of order 
    is sustained. .

Bill Authorizing Attorney General To Bring Proceedings To Prevent 
    Abridgment of Civil Rights--Amendment To Permit Certain Proceedings 
    Against Attorney General by Persons Affected

Sec. 19.18 To a bill authorizing the Attorney General to institute 
    proceedings against persons engaged in, or about to engage in, acts 
    abridging an individual's civil rights, an amendment to permit an 
    individual to institute proceedings against the Attorney General 
    upon belief that the Attorney General was about to institute such 
    proceedings against him, was held to be germane.

    In the 84th Congress, a bill (12) was under 
consideration relating to the protection of civil rights of persons 
within the jurisdiction of the United States. The following amendment 
was offered to the bill: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.  H.R. 627 (Committee on the Judiciary).
13.  102 Cong. Rec. 13742, 13743, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 20, 1956.

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

[[Page 8306]]

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: 
    On page 25, after line 6, insert a new section:

            Fourth--subsection (a). Whenever any private individual 
        believes the Attorney General or any representative of the 
        Federal Government has engaged or is about to engage in any 
        acts or practices authorized in this act, such private 
        individual may institute for the real party in interest a civil 
        action or other appropriate proceeding for redress, or 
        preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or 
        temporary injunction. . . .

    The following exchange (14) concerned a point of order 
raised against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 13743.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, this amendment which has been 
    presented, would attempt to give to the people of the country 
    somewhat the same rights that this act would give to the Attorney 
    General. . . . Whenever a citizen saw that the Attorney General, or 
    any representative of the Federal Government, was about to engage 
    in any action, which would bring people into court as parties 
    defendant, then that individual could go into a Federal court, with 
    the Federal Government standing the cost so that at least such 
    private individual would be in a position of equality before the 
    court. . . .
        This bill is broad enough to make this amendment germane, and I 
    refer to its title as follows:

            To provide means for further securing and protecting the 
        civil rights of persons within the jurisdiction of the United 
        States. . . .

        Mr. Keating: Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, we are here seeking to amend section 1980 of the 
    Revised Statutes. The first three sections provide for certain 
    remedies in cases of interference with a United States officer in 
    the performance of his duty. . . .
        What the gentleman from Mississippi is seeking to do, as I read 
    his amendment, is to give a cause of action to an individual 
    against the Attorney General. Perhaps we should broaden, extend, or 
    consider the statutes relating to the liability of a public 
    official for not doing his duty, or going beyond the scope of his 
    duty. These are statutes on our books having to do with the 
    violation of duty by a public official and the right of those 
    injured thereby. But that has nothing to do with legislation we are 
    considering here today. Therefore, the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman is not germane to the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair has examined the 
    language of the bill and also the language of the amendment and 
    comes to the conclusion that the language of the amendment is 
    merely a reversal of the medal of the language as appears in the 
    bill and for that reason concludes that the amendment is germane 
    and, therefore, overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Aime J. Forand (R.I.). .

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

[[Page 8307]]

Defense Authorization Bill: Amendment Adding New Section Repealing 
    Prohibition on Funds for Legal Officers' Training

Sec. 19.19 To a general authorization bill for the Department of 
    Defense, an amendment adding a new section providing for legal 
    training of armed forces officers at civilian institutions and for 
    the repeal of legislation prohibiting such legal training, was held 
    to be germane to the bill as a whole.

    In the 84th Congress, a bill (16) was under 
consideration which was intended in part to enact into permanent law 
certain provisions included at the time in the Department of Defense 
Appropriation Act and the Civil Functions Appropriation Act. The 
following amendment was offered to the bill: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 7992 (Committee on Armed Services).
17. 102 Cong. Rec. 13843, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 21, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Page 
    13, line 23, add a new section 27, as follows:

            Sec. 27. (a) The number of officers of the regular 
        components of the Armed Forces detailed each year to commence 
        training in law at civilian institutions shall not exceed the 
        following numbers: Army, 15; Navy, 5; Air Force, 15; and Marine 
        Corps, 10. . . .

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

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that this amendment is not germane to the bill. The bill 
    relates to points of order. This is not an item that would have 
    been subject under the rules of the House to a point of order. It 
    is a provision whereby without other action by the House it would 
    permit the Department to go ahead and spend money. It is an 
    elaborating proposition, and it practically constitutes an 
    appropriation. Under the circumstances it is not only not germane 
    but it constitutes an appropriation by a committee not authorized 
    by law to bring in such a proposition.

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

        Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Chairman, I realize that all the gentleman has 
    said is true with regard to the former section 10, but this bill is 
    for stated and other purposes. This subject is under the 
    legislative cognizance of the Congress of the United States. 
    Therefore, it is a subject that is cognizant with respect to this 
    bill and therefore germane.

    The Chairman,(18) without elaboration, ruled that the 
amendment was germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Charles B. Deane (N.C.).

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

[[Page 8308]]

Section of Bill Authorizing Military Construction--Amendment To Strike 
    and Insert Provision Repealing Prohibition on Funds for Legal 
    Officers' Training

Sec. 19.20 To that section of a bill authorizing certain minor military 
    construction and repealing the monetary limitation on minor naval 
    construction, a committee amendment striking that provision and 
    inserting a provision for legal training of armed forces officers 
    at civilian institutions and repealing legislation prohibiting use 
    of funds for such legal training, was held to be not germane.

    The following exchange (19) in the 84th Congress took 
place during consideration of a bill (20) which sought to 
enact into permanent law certain provisions included at the time in the 
Department of Defense Appropriation Act and the Civil Functions 
Appropriation Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 102 Cong. Rec. 13841, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 21, 1956.
20. H.R. 7992 (Committee on Armed Services).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: I make the point of order 
    against the amendment to section 10 which reads as follows:
        On page 5, line 20, strike lines 20 through 25, inclusive, and 
    on page 6, strike lines 1 through 6, inclusive, and insert the 
    following:

            Sec. 10. (a) The number of officers of the Regular 
        components of the Armed Forces detailed each year to commence 
        training in law at civilian institutions shall not exceed the 
        following numbers: Army, 15; Navy, 5; Air Force, 15; and Marine 
        Corps, 10.
            (b) Section 623 of the Department of Defense Appropriation 
        Act, 1956, approved July 13, 1955, is repealed--

        On the ground that the amendment is not germane to the matter 
    sought to be stricken. . . .
        Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: May I say to the gentleman that 
    the Armed Services Committee has jurisdiction under the rules of 
    the House over any legislation in this or any other form if it 
    relates to the Department of Defense. This deals with certain 
    specific statutes. It does not make any difference whether they 
    originated in the Appropriations Committee or they are something 
    new that we are writing in. We are well within our jurisdiction 
    when we deal with this particular subject matter.

    The Chairman,(1) without elaboration, sustained the 
point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Charles B. Deane (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authorities of Department of Defense--Amendment Prohibiting Use of 
    Lands for Defense Purposes Pending Study

Sec. 19.21 To a bill containing diverse provisions relating to

[[Page 8309]]

    authorities of the Department of Defense, an amendment adding a new 
    title precluding that department from utilizing certain real 
    property for deployment of a weapons system pending a study was 
    held germane as confined solely to activities of the Defense 
    Department and not extending to issues of the release of public 
    lands through another department.

    On May 21, 1980,(2) during consideration of H.R. 6974 
(3) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Dan 
Rostenkowski, of Illinois, overruled a point of order in the 
circumstances described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 126 Cong. Rec. 11972, 11973, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. The Department of Defense Authorization for fiscal 1981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [David D.] Marriott [of Utah]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Marriott:

         TITLE X--RESPONSE TO MX/MPS SYSTEM IMPACT BY THE SECRETARY OF 
                                    DEFENSE

            Sec. 1000. The Secretary of Defense may not use any land 
        made available for the deployment of any part of the MX/MPS 
        system until the Secretary of Defense has provided Congress and 
        the States affected by the system with the following--
            (1) A report setting forth specific social, economic and 
        environmental impacts of the MX/MPS system on the people, 
        lands, and resources affected, and detailing the amount of 
        public land to be partially or completely closed to any or all 
        public use, and setting forth any circumstances which would 
        require the use of area security, rather than point security, 
        for the system;
            (2) A proposal outlining the methods of addressing the 
        social, economic, and environmental impacts of the MX/MPS 
        system so as to minimize the negative effects of such impacts, 
        including specific steps that can be taken to eliminate delays 
        in delivery of necessary impact aid funds to affected states, 
        counties, and communities;
            (3) A study of the feasibility of basing parts of the MX/
        MPS system in more than two States, so as to minimize the 
        social, economic, and environmental impacts on any single 
        State. . . .

        Mr. [Richard H.] Ichord [of Missouri]: . . . I observe that the 
    amendment applies to the MX-MPS system which is contained in title 
    II and was fully debated by the committee.
        The gentleman sets up a new title X applying solely to MX 
    lands.
        Mr. Chairman, I would raise a point of order against the 
    amendment on two grounds. First, the amendment is not now in order 
    as a separate title X. It should have been offered to title II.
        The gentleman would have to ask unanimous consent to open up 
    the MX issue.
        Mr. Chairman, as a second ground, fully appreciating the good 
    and honorable intentions of the highly esteemed gentleman from Utah 
    in offering this amendment, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment is not germane to the legislation under consideration 
    today since this bill in even a remote

[[Page 8310]]

    respect, Mr. Chairman, does not authorize the acquisition of public 
    lands in any fashion, nor are the agencies of Government concerned 
    nor the public lands within the jurisdiction of this bill.
        If we examine the amendment, the gentleman deals strictly with 
    three conditions for the withdrawal of land. Therefore, such an 
    amendment would not properly find its place in H.R. 6974. In fact, 
    Mr. Chairman, the law is such that if we make a withdrawal of land 
    over 5,000 acres it has to be done by other legislation. I am 
    constrained, even though appreciating the good intentions of the 
    gentleman from Utah, to make the point of order that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Marriott) is not germane to 
    the bill under the provisions of House rule XVI, clause 7. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair observes that the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Marriott) 
    has offered his amendment as a new title X, which is an amendment 
    which must be germane to the bill as a whole and, the Chair feels 
    that the amendment certainly relates to the bill, and that under 
    the precedent a subject may be germane at more than one place in 
    the bill.
        The Chair also makes the observation that the amendment only 
    addresses the authority of the Secretary of Defense to use any 
    available lands for research on and deployment of the MX. Such an 
    amendment is germane since it is not addressed to the question of 
    the acquisition of public lands or the release of public lands by 
    the Department of the Interior and since other authorities of the 
    Defense Department are contained in the bill. Therefore, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order raised by the gentleman from Missouri.

Bill Amending Universal Military Training and Service Act--New Section 
    on Subject Not Covered in Bill or Act (Combat Pay)

Sec. 19.22 To a bill amending the Universal Military Training and 
    Service Act, an amendment relating to additional pay for combat 
    service for all of the armed forces was held to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a bill (4) was under consideration 
amending the Universal Military Training and Service Act. The following 
amendment was offered to the bill: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. S. 1-1951 (Committee on Armed Services).
 5. 97 Cong. Rec. 3781, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 12, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Olin E.] Teague [of Texas] to the 
    amendment offered by Mr. [Graham A.] Barden [of North Carolina]: 
    Page 20, after line 18, add a new section, as follows:

            That members of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force 
        entitled to receive basic pay shall in addition thereto be 
        entitled to receive a special pay at the monthly rate of $100 
        per month for officers and $75 per month for enlisted persons 
        for combat duty while actually engaged in combat. . . .

[[Page 8311]]

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

        Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that the amendment is not germane, as it relates to combat 
    pay, and there is nothing in this bill or the Original Draft Act of 
    1948 dealing with the question of pay or combat pay at all.

    The Chairman,(6) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
 7. 97 Cong. Rec. 3783, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 12, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair invites attention to the fact that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Texas covers a subject matter which 
    is not covered in the pending bill or in the act which is sought to 
    be amended by the pending bill.
        The Chair is of the opinion therefore that the amendment is not 
    germane to the pending bill and sustains the point of order.

Defense Production Act--New Title Amending Housing Act

Sec. 19.23 To the Defense Production Act of 1950, establishing a system 
    of priorities and allocations for materials and facilities, an 
    amendment proposing to amend the Housing and Rent Act of 1947 was 
    held not germane.

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of the Defense 
Production Act of 1950,(8) the following amendment was 
offered: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 9176 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 9. 96 Cong. Rec. 11751, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 3, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Title VII--Rent Control

        Sec. 501. Section 4(c) of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as 
    amended, is amended by striking out ``June 30, 1951'' and inserting 
    in lieu thereof, ``June 30, 1952. . . .''
        Sec. 508. Section 204(i) of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, 
    as amended, is amended to read as follows:

            (3) The Housing Expediter, upon recommendation of a local 
        advisory board, or upon his own initiative, whenever in his 
        judgment such action is necessary or proper in order to 
        effectuate the purposes of this title or to promote national 
        defense, may by regulation or order establish or reestablish 
        maximum rents for any or all housing accommodations in any 
        defense-rental area. . . .

    In response to the point of order raised by Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, 
of Michigan, that the amendment was not germane to the subject matter 
of the bill, the proponent of the amendment (10) stated: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Barratt O'Hara (Ill.).
11. 96 Cong. Rec. 11752, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 3, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, this is a bill of controls. Certainly nothing 
    could be more germane to such a bill than control over the prices 
    that people can charge for housing. . . .

    The Chairman,(12) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Howard W. Smith (Va.).

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

[[Page 8312]]

        The Chair has considered the amendment rather briefly. It seems 
    to relate to a subject that is nowhere touched on in this present 
    bill now before the Committee.
        The Chair is constrained to rule . . . that the amendment is 
    not germane to the pending substitute; therefore sustains the point 
    of order.

Bill as Amended Addressing Diverse Aspects of Foreign Policy, Foreign 
    Aid and Trade--Amendment To Remove Sanctions Against Rhodesia Under 
    Certain Conditions

Sec. 19.24 The test of germaneness of an amendment adding a new section 
    at the end of a bill is its relationship to the entire bill as 
    perfected; thus, where a bill authorizing foreign military 
    assistance had been broadened in its scope by amendments relating 
    to economic assistance to other nations, trade and other aspects of 
    relations with the Soviet Union, matters of foreign policy with 
    respect to human rights abroad, actions to be taken by various 
    countries respecting their internal affairs in order to qualify for 
    assistance from the United States, and issues pertaining to 
    Congressional travel expenses, an amendment to remove military and 
    economic trade sanctions against Rhodesia under certain conditions 
    was held germane to the bill as a whole in its perfected form.

    During consideration of H.R. 12514 (13) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Aug. 2, 1978,(14) the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. The International Security Assistance Authorization, fiscal 1979.
14. 124 Cong. Rec. 23936-38, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    further amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: On page 19, after line 20, 
        insert the following new section:
            Sec. 26. Section 533(d) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
        1961 is amended by inserting the number ``(1)'' after the 
        phrase ``Section 533(d)'' and by striking out the period at the 
        end of the paragraph, inserting a semicolon, and adding the 
        following:
            ``(d)(2) In furtherance of this section and the foreign 
        policy interests of the United States, the government of the 
        United States shall not enforce any sanctions against the 
        government and people of Rhodesia before October 1, 1979, 
        unless the President shall determine that (a) the transitional 
        government of Rhodesia has not committed itself to negotiate in 
        good faith at an all-parties conference held under 
        international auspices on all relevant issues; and (b) the 
        transitional government has made no definite plans for the hold

[[Page 8313]]

        ing of free and fair elections including all population groups 
        under recognized international observation. This section shall 
        take effect upon enactment.'' . . .

        Mr. [Charles C.] Diggs [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Maryland on the question of the germaneness, clause 7 of House 
    rule XVI.
        An amendment of this nature is subject to two tests of 
    germaneness. First, it has to be related to the subject matter 
    under consideration; and second, the fundamental purpose of the 
    amendment must be germane to the fundamental purpose of the bill. 
    In my view, the gentleman's amendment fails both tests. With 
    respect to the subject matter, as compared to the content of the 
    amendment, we note that the amendment in no way really deals with 
    grant military assistance or military training or foreign military 
    sales or narcotics control assistance or economic assistance to 
    Turkey or the various elements of the subject of this bill, H.R. 
    12514.
        To the contrary, the fundamental purpose of the amendment is to 
    lift existing economic trade sanctions against the Government of 
    Rhodesia, an action not within the scope of the bill before us 
    which has as its principal purpose the authorization of 
    international security assistance programs for the fiscal year 
    1979.
        In addition, the bill has other provisions which primarily 
    relate to other kinds of bilateral U.S. assistance. It in no way 
    addresses the issue of nonmilitary trade or economic trade 
    sanctions in general, nor does it seek to apply or to lift such 
    sanctions against any individual company, and it in no way 
    addresses the issue of U.S. imports from any source. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Diggs) has correctly stated the basic rule that applies to any 
    amendment to be offered to a bill, and that is under rule XVI, 
    clause 7, any amendment must be germane to the bill before the 
    Committee of the Whole.
        However, the relationship of the amendment to the bill to be 
    judged is to the bill as modified by all actions of the Committee 
    of the Whole. If one applies the fundamental purpose test to the 
    bill now before us, it is easy, I think, for the Chair to determine 
    that while the fundamental purpose of the legislation does deal 
    with military assistance to foreign countries, the bill, both as 
    reported by the committee and as modified by the Committee of the 
    Whole, goes well beyond the scope of that single purpose, and the 
    bill has been broadened by amendment to the point where this 
    amendment is in order.
        I refer the Chair first to the bill, as reported. On page 2, in 
    section 3, we find an amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 
    1961 which deals with International Narcotics Control. The 
    pertinent section under International Narcotics Control, section 
    481 of the 1961 act, does not deal with military assistance but 
    with international trade in drugs which, while illicit, is 
    certainly commercial in character. Under that section, section 481, 
    of the 1961 act, the President is given the power to suspend 
    ``economic and military assistance furnished under this or any 
    other act'' if the countries involved in the drug trade do not in 
    fact live up to the

[[Page 8314]]

    standards set in the act. That is a commercial transaction over 
    which the President has control.
        I would refer the Chair further to the section of the bill 
    dealing with assistance to Turkey, and that is on page 13 of the 
    bill. Section 16 of the bill provides economic assistance to Turkey 
    and not military assistance. It is conceded that this would have 
    belonged in the previous economic aid authorization bill, but it 
    was added to this bill, obviously broadening the scope of the bill 
    at that point.
        On the point of economic assistance to Turkey, I would refer to 
    page 29 of the committee report, where it is stated that the 
    specific economic aid given in the bill is under the International 
    Development and Food Assistance Act, which, I believe, permits 
    sales to foreign countries as well as outright grants. That is a 
    commercial transaction and not a military assistance transaction.
        I would call the attention of the Chair to an additional 
    section of the bill, section 5, which allows assistance to police 
    and other law enforcement agencies in foreign countries. On pages 
    14 and 15 of the report there are references to the section, as 
    amended, which would affect principally commercial exports of 
    munitions items. It requires reports of private commercial sales to 
    be made to the State Department, and it transfers jurisdiction from 
    the Commerce Department over this kind of commercial activity.
        I refer the Chair to the Wolff amendment which was adopted 
    today by the Committee of the Whole, a new section on page 19, line 
    20, in which the gentleman from New York offered an amendment that 
    requires that the President conduct a full review of U.S. policy 
    toward the Soviet Union, and this review will cover but is not 
    limited to subparagraph (3) on page 1, ``what linkages do exist,'' 
    and so on, including, ``arms control negotiations, human rights 
    issues, and economic and cultural exchanges.'' And, further, in 
    subparagraph (10), ``United States economic, technological, 
    scientific and cultural relations. . . .''
        It is the contention of the gentleman from Maryland that the 
    amendment before the House is germane since it amends the 1961 act 
    and the amendment covers not only commercial and economic sanctions 
    against Rhodesia, but specifically also covers military and 
    security sanctions against Rhodesia. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) . . . The Chair might point out 
    that the amendment comes at the end of the bill. While the bill, 
    when it was reported from the Committee on International Relations, 
    was primarily confined to bilateral security assistance and related 
    policies, this bill, as perfected in the Committee of the Whole, 
    has been significantly broadened in scope, as well as subject 
    matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill now deals with the use of funds for travel expenses of 
    Members and employees of Congress, as well as matters relating to 
    security and economic assistance to other nations, furnished by 
    this country.
        The bill also now addresses the full range of our relations 
    with the Soviet Union, including all trade and economic matters, 
    and contains broad statements of foreign policy in relation

[[Page 8315]]

    to human rights abroad, relationships with Turkey, Greece, Cyprus, 
    Chile, and Korea, and the actions which other countries must take 
    in relation to their internal affairs in order to receive military 
    or other assistance from the United States.
        It therefore appears to the Chair that the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Maryland is germane as a further direction on 
    the use of our foreign assistance and on the operations of foreign 
    relations, and for the reasons stated, the Chair overrules the 
    point of order.

Foreign Assistance--Commission To Administer All Foreign Aid

Sec. 19.25 To a bill authorizing appropriations for assistance to 
    Greece and Turkey through the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, 
    an amendment proposing the creation of a Foreign Funds Control 
    Commission, which was to have control over funds proposed in the 
    bill and over funds made available under other legislation, was 
    held to be not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, a bill (16) was under 
consideration relating to assistance to Greece and Turkey. The 
following amendment was offered to the bill: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 2616 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
17. 93 Cong. Rec. 4930, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., May 9, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Fred L.] Crawford [of Michigan]: On 
    page 4, line 22, after the period, add a new section:

            Sec. 3a. There is hereby created the Foreign Funds Control 
        Commission, which shall be an independent agency of Government 
        directly responsible to the Congress. . . .
            1The Commission is hereby directed to administer all funds 
        hereafter granted by the Treasury of the United States or 
        previous grants if directed by the Congress to foreign 
        countries, their nationals and agencies of whatever kind or 
        nature.

    In response to the point of order made by Mr. Charles A. Eaton, of 
New Jersey, that the amendment was not germane to the bill, the 
Chairman (18) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
    proposes to create a Foreign Funds Control Commission, to be an 
    independent agency of the Government and to have control not merely 
    over the funds proposed to be authorized by the pending legislation 
    but over funds that might be made available under other 
    legislation. Consequently the Chair sustains the point of order and 
    rules that the amendment is not germane.

--Waiving Provisions of Other Laws

Sec. 19.26 To a bill amending the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
    providing new authorizations and policy declarations, an amendment 
    to pro

[[Page 8316]]

    hibit use of any funds available notwithstanding any other law 
    until the question of further assistance under the act had been 
    approved in a national referendum was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
1963,(19) the following amendment was offered: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 7885 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
20. 109 Cong. Rec. 15608, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 22, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 310. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, is amended by 
    adding at the end thereof the following new section:

            Sec. 648. Notwithstanding any other provision of this or 
        any other Act, none of the funds available to carry out the 
        provisions of this Act, shall be expended until the following 
        question be submitted to qualified electors in a National 
        Referendum.
            Shall the United States continue the Foreign Assistance Act 
        of 1961, or any amendments thereto, subsequent to June 30, 
        1964?

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

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane to the foreign aid bill.

    The following exchange (1) concerned a point of 
procedure:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert J.] Dole [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, is it not true 
    that all points of order have been waived on this bill?
        The Chairman: (2) Under the rule, all points of 
    order are waived as to the text of the bill, as reported by the 
    committee. Points of order are not waived as to amendments that 
    might be offered to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

        . . . The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Morgan] makes the 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane to the bill before the Committee. The Chair is of the 
    opinion that the amendment is not germane to the bill.
        The point of order is sustained.

Bill Establishing Silver Content of Certain Coins--Amendment To Limit 
    Silver Exports. .

Sec. 19.27 To a bill establishing the silver content of certain coins, 
    an amendment limiting the export of silver from the United States 
    was held to be not germane.

    In the 89th Congress, a bill (3) was under consideration 
relating to coinage. The following amendment was offered to the bill: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 8926 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 4. 111 Cong. Rec. 16839, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 14, 1965.

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

[[Page 8317]]

        Amendment offered by Mr. (Ed) Reinecke [of California]: Page 5, 
    immediately after line 13, insert the following new section:
        ``Sec. 107. During each of the first five fiscal years ending 
    after the date of enactment of this Act, aggregate exports of 
    silver from the United States shall be limited to an amount not 
    exceeding the aggregate imports of silver during such year. . . . 
    The policies set forth in section 2 of the Export Control Act of 
    1949 shall be deemed to include the limitation of exports of silver 
    in accordance with this section.''

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

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment. The amendment is not germane to this 
    bill. It attempts to amend the Export Control Act, section 2, which 
    is enforced by the Secretary of Commerce, and not connected with 
    the Department of the Treasury. . . .

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Mr. Chairman, it is pretty obvious that the reason we are 
    discussing this legislation today is the extreme shortage of silver 
    in the U.S. Treasury and any continued abuse or misuse of that 
    silver will have an adverse effect on our coinage situation.
        The Chairman,(6) in ruling on the point of order, 
    stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Frank M. Karsten (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the amendment 
    and the bill. The Chair would call attention to the fact that the 
    bill provides for the coinage of the United States and the 
    amendment relates to exports, which is a foreign matter to the 
    subject matter of the bill.
        The Chair holds that the subject is not germane.

Bill Extending Title of Agricultural Act Authorizing Secretary of Labor 
    To Assist in Supplying Agricultural Workers From Mexico--Amendment 
    Requiring Secretary of Agriculture To Prescribe Safety and Health 
    Regulations for Such Workers

Sec. 19.28 To a bill extending Title V of the Agricultural Act of 1949, 
    as amended, authorizing the Secretary of Labor to assist in 
    supplying agricultural workers from Mexico, an amendment requiring 
    the Secretary of Agriculture, after consultation with the 
    Interstate Commerce Commission, to prescribe employer regulations 
    for the adequate safety, health, and welfare of workers being 
    transported, was held to be germane.

    In the 84th Congress, a bill (7) was under consideration 
amend

[[Page 8318]]

ing title V of the Agriculture Act of 1949, as amended, by striking out 
the termination date. The following amendment was offered to the bill: 
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 3822 (Committee on Agriculture).
 8. 101 Cong. Rec. 10019, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 6, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 4. Title V of such act, as amended, is further amended by 
    adding at the end thereof the following new section:
        ``Sec. 510. The Secretary of Agriculture, after consultation 
    with the Interstate Commerce Commission, shall prescribe such 
    regulations as may be necessary to require employers to provide 
    adequately for the safety, health, and welfare of workers while 
    they are being transported from reception centers to the places of 
    their employment and returned from such places to reception centers 
    after termination of employment. . . .''

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

        Mr. [Ezekiel C.] Gathings [of Arkansas]: The amendment is not 
    germane inasmuch as it calls for consultation by the Secretary of 
    Agriculture with the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the 
    Interstate Commerce Commission is not in anywise affected by this 
    legislation. Furthermore, the Secretary of Agriculture does not 
    administer this program; the program is administered by the 
    Secretary of Labor. . . .

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

        Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, I think it is 
    very evident that the amendment itself only directs that the 
    Secretary of Agriculture after consultation with the Interstate 
    Commerce Commission shall prescribe such regulations as may be 
    necessary. The fact is that this legislation is given to the 
    Secretary of Agriculture for administration, and we leave it with 
    him for that purpose with consultation merely a factor so that he 
    may be assisted in proper regulations as far as they may be 
    enforced by the Interstate Commerce Commission. . . .

    The Chairman,(9) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Jamie L. Whitten (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        From a reading of the amendment it is apparent that all the 
    actions are required of the Secretary of Agriculture; no specific 
    action is required of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
        The amendment attempts to change the provisions of the bill 
    having to do with employee safety, health, and welfare; and it is 
    quite clearly, in the opinion of the Chair, germane to the bill.

Agricultural Commodities: Support and Storage Programs--Amendment To 
    Impose Criminal Penalties Relating to Certain Fees Paid for Storage

Sec. 19.29 To an omnibus agricultural bill being considered by titles 
    and containing a title relating to various commodity conservation, 
    support, and storage programs, including conferral of court

[[Page 8319]]

    jurisdiction over discrimination cases, an amendment in the form of 
    a new section providing a criminal penalty for payment or receipt 
    of gratuities ``as an inducement for . . . storage of any . . . 
    commodity in any warehouse . . .'' was held germane to the title to 
    which offered.

    The following exchange in the 87th Congress, which took place 
during consideration of the Food and Agricultural Bill of 
1962,(10) concerned a point of order made by Mr. Harold D. 
Cooley, of North Carolina, against an amendment offered by Mr. Ross 
Bass, of Tennessee: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 12391 (Committee on Agriculture).
11. 108 Cong. Rec. 14186, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., July 19, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cooley: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that it is not germane to the section to 
    which it is offered. The section . . . provides no penalty for any 
    violations of any section of the law. This amendment sets out a 
    criminal offense . . . which is not related to . . . warehousing. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair would like to remind 
    the gentleman . . . that the amendment is not to amend the section 
    but to add a new section to title III. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If the gentleman . . . will examine the feed grains program, 
    title III in its entirety, he will find many sections in existing 
    law and also in the title which made the amendment germane to this 
    title.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Appropriations for Flood Damage--Amendment To Create Federal Flood 
    Claims Commission

Sec. 19.30 To a joint resolution making appropriations for 
    rehabilitation of flood-stricken areas, an amendment creating a 
    Federal Flood Claims Commission and providing for payment of 
    indemnities for flood damage was held to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a proposition was under consideration relating 
to aid for flood-stricken areas.(13) An amendment was 
offered as follows: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.J. Res. 341 (Committee on Appropriations).
14. 97 Cong. Rec. 12647, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 4, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Errett P.] Scrivner [of Kansas]: On 
    page 1, line 6, add a new section entitled ``Federal Flood Claims 
    Commission,'' and the following:

            There is hereby created a Federal Flood Claims Commission, 
        hereinafter referred to as the Commission, to be composed of 
        the Director of Defense Mobilization, the Adminis

[[Page 8320]]

        trator of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, and the 
        Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, to direct 
        and supervise under such regulations as it may adopt, the 
        payment of claims for losses of tangible personal property 
        suffered by individuals whose property was damaged by the 
        floods of July 1951 in areas designated by the President as 
        disaster flood areas; and local Federal flood claim boards in 
        each county . . . to receive and process such claims.
            No claim shall be considered for a minimum of less than 
        $300, and the maximum allowable to any one claimant shall be 
        $3,000; no claim shall be entertained from individuals found to 
        be eligible to relief under any other of the provisions of this 
        act. . . .

    Mr. William F. Norrell, of Arkansas, reserved a point of order 
against the amendment, and Mr. Scrivner then discussed the amendment. 
Subsequently,(15) Mr. Jamie L. Whitten, of Mississippi, 
moved to strike the last word, and the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 12648.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Norrell: Mr. Chairman, I am willing to further reserve my 
    point of order if I do not waive anything by permitting the 
    gentleman from Mississippi to discuss the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) It is not the practice of the 
    House to reserve a point of order and then debate another 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William M. Colmer (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thereafter, Mr. Norrell stated the point of order as follows:

        I make the point of order, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment is 
    not germane to the pending House joint resolution; that it sets up 
    a Claims Commission and establishes an indemnification for flood-
    control damages, and the House joint resolution does not do that. 
    It is not germane to the pending resolution; either the paragraph 
    or the entire resolution. There is nothing in it with reference to 
    that.

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

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas would set up 
    a new commission. The general purposes of the amendment would be to 
    bring about the payment of indemnities, a matter beyond the scope 
    of the pending bill. Therefore, the point of order against this 
    amendment would have to be sustained. . . .

Bill Defining Jurisdiction of Courts and Regulating Recovery of Portal-
    to-Portal Pay--Amendment To Repeal Wages and Hours Provisions in 
    Existing Law

Sec. 19.31 To a bill to define and limit the jurisdiction of the courts 
    and regulate actions arising under certain laws, and particularly 
    to regulate the recovery of portal-to-portal pay, an amendment 
    proposing the repeal of the wages and hours provisions of the Fair 
    Labor Standards Act of 1938 was held not germane.

[[Page 8321]]

    On Feb. 28, 1947, the following part of a bill (17) 
under consideration was read for amendment: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 2157 (Committee on the Judiciary).
18. 93 Cong. Rec. 1564, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 3. No action or proceeding . . . shall be maintained to 
    the extent that such action is based upon failure of an employer to 
    pay an employee for activities . . . engaged in by such employee 
    other than those activities which at the time of such failure were 
    required to be paid for either by custom or practice of such 
    employer at the plant or other place of employment of such employee 
    or by express agreement at the time in effect between such employer 
    and such employee or his collective-bargaining representative.

    An amendment was offered, as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Sam] Hobbs [of Alabama]: On page 5, 
    after section 2, insert a new section as follows:

            Sec. 2\1/2\. The whole of section 6, the whole of section 
        7, and the whole of section 16(b), Public Law 718, of the 
        Seventy-fifth Congress, are hereby repealed.

    The following point of order was raised against the amendment:

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. It is not germane. It deals 
    with sections of the Fair Labor Standards Act not within the scope 
    of this bill.

    The Chairman (19) without elaboration, sustained the 
point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Thomas A. Jenkins (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill To Amend Interstate Commerce Act Regarding Status of Certain 
    Carriers--Amendment Addressing Rates of All Common Carriers

Sec. 19.32 To a bill to amend the Interstate Commerce Act to clarify 
    the status of freight forwarders and their relationship with 
    ``motor'' common carriers, an amendment concerned with rates of all 
    common carriers was held not germane.

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(20) to amend the Interstate Commerce Act, the following 
amendment was offered: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 5967 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
 1. 96 Cong. Rec. 12011, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 8, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: 
    Page 5, line 9, insert a new section to read as follows:

            Sec. 4. It shall be unlawful for any carrier subject to 
        this act, to charge or receive for the transportation of 
        property from any point of origin to any point of destination 
        compensation which is greater or less than the compensation 
        charged or received by such carrier for the transportation of 
        like kind of property from such point of destination to such 
        point of origin.

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

[[Page 8322]]

        Mr. [Arthur G.] Klein [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane; it 
    deals with rates of common carriers and the bill has nothing 
    whatever to do with rates.

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

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, what I am trying to say is that this 
    is a transportation bill. It is a bill that affects transportation 
    and it is brought in here by the committee that has that 
    responsibility. . . .

    The following exchange then occurred: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at pp. 12011, 12012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (3) Does the gentleman's amendment 
    apply to freight forwarders or motor vehicles or what?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John McSweeney (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: Motor vehicles or railroads or any other common 
    carriers. Anything that is affected by this bill would be included. 
    The people would be protected under this amendment from this 
    violent and unjust discrimination. . . .
        Mr. Klein: Mr. Chairman, may I point out to the Chairman that 
    this bill refers to compensation of common carriers. In my opinion, 
    the bill that is before the committee at this time simply governs 
    payments between forwarders and motor carriers under contract and 
    has nothing to do with compensation of any other kind of carrier. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: . . . [T]he amendment, 
    as I understand it . . . has to do with all freight rates, all 
    transportation rates, as covered under any title of the act. The 
    legislation that is before us is limited specifically to freight 
    forwarders and their utilization of transportation by motor 
    carriers. . . .

    The Chairman, in ruling on the point of order, stated: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 96 Cong. Rec. 12012, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 8, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The gentleman from Mississippi admits that the amendment 
    applies to all common carriers. This bill deals exclusively with 
    motor carriers. The Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Providing for Investigations by Civil Service Commission--
    Amendment Requiring Reports on Investigations Be Made Available to 
    Congressional Committees

Sec. 19.33 To a bill to provide for certain investigations by the Civil 
    Service Commission in lieu of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
    an amendment providing that all findings, records, and reports on 
    such investigations be made available to the committees of Congress 
    upon request was held to be germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a bill (5) was under consideration 
relating to investigations by the Civil

[[Page 8323]]

Service Commission. The following amendment was offered to the bill: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. S. 2077 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
 6. 98 Cong. Rec. 2127, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 11, 1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: After line 2 
    on page 5, add a new section to read as follows:

            All findings, records, and reports made or compiled by the 
        Civil Service Commission under this act shall be made available 
        to the committees of the Congress upon the request of such 
        committee.

    Mr. Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, made a point of order against 
the amendment on the ground that it was not germane to the 
bill.(7) In defending the amendment, the proponent stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 2128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I believe it is germane. In checking the bill 
    itself, we find we are considering acts having to do with the 
    control of atomic energy, assistance to Greece, the joint 
    resolution providing for relief and assistance to people of 
    countries devastated by war, and the reincorporation of the 
    Institute of Inter-American Affairs, and many other such items. It 
    seems to me from the bill itself in setting up this agency, 
    Congress has a right at the same time to say that the records and 
    findings of the committee that is being set up now should be made 
    available to the committees of the Congress when the committee so 
    requests.

    The Chairman,(8) without elaboration, overruled the 
point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section of Bill Providing for Assistance to States in Collecting 
    Cigarette Taxes--New Section To Provide for Payment of Portion to 
    Federal Treasury

Sec. 19.34 To that portion of a bill proposing to assist states in 
    collecting sales and use taxes on cigarettes, an amendment 
    providing that any state recovering taxes by virtue of the 
    enforcement of such provisions should pay into the Treasury of the 
    United States 10 percent of the taxes recovered was held not 
    germane.

    In the 81st Congress, a bill (9) was under consideration 
which contained the following provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 195 (Committee on Ways and Means).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 2. Any person selling or disposing of cigarettes in 
    interstate commerce whereby such cigarettes are shipped to other 
    than a distributor licensed by or located in a State taxing the 
    sale or use of cigarettes shall, not later than the 10th day of 
    each month, forward to the tobacco tax administrator of the State 
    into which such shipment is made, a memorandum or a copy of the 
    invoice covering each and every such shipment of cigarettes. . . .

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 95 Cong. Rec. 6365, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., May 17, 1949.

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

[[Page 8324]]

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Earl] Chudoff [of Pennsylvania]: On 
    page 3, at the end of the page add a new section, as follows:

            Sec. 4. Any tax recovered by any State by virtue of the 
        enforcement of this act shall pay into the Treasury of the 
        United States a sum equal to 10 percent of all such taxes 
        recovered.

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

        Mr. [Jere] Cooper [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane to this 
    bill or any provision of the bill.

    The Chairman,(11) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. James W. Trimble (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania adds a 
    new section, section 4, which is, by its own language, legislation 
    that is not germane to the bill in question. The point of order is 
    sustained.

Bill Amending Small Business Act--Senate Amendment Providing for Legal 
    Fees for Parties Prevailing Against United States

Sec. 19.35 To a House bill narrowly amending the Small Business Act 
    reported from the Committee on Small Business, a Senate amendment 
    adding a new title providing for the payment of attorney fees and 
    other court expenses to parties prevailing against the United 
    States in court litigation and amending title 28 (within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary) was held not 
    germane (pending a motion to recede and concur in the Senate 
    amendment with an amendment including such provisions, after the 
    conference report on the bill had been ruled out of order).

    The proceedings of Oct. 1, 1980, relating to H.R. 5612 (addressing 
small business assistance and reimbursement for certain fees), are 
discussed in Sec. 26.26, infra.