[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§ 20. Amendment Striking Portion of Text of Bill or Amendment]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 8324-8334]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
 B. APPLICATION OF RULE TO PARTICULAR FORMS OF AMENDMENT OR PROPOSITION
 
Sec. 20. Amendment Striking Portion of Text of Bill or Amendment

    A proposal to strike out a portion of a text may be ruled out of 
order as not germane to the proposition under consideration. Generally, 
an amendment which, by striking out a portion of the text, changes the 
purpose and scope of the bill is not germane.(12) Thus, if 
the effect of an amendment striking out language is to alter the

[[Page 8325]]

scope and import of the text to such extent as to present a different 
subject from that under consideration, the amendment is not 
germane.(13) Similarly, it is sometimes stated that a 
proposal to eliminate portions of a text, thereby extending the scope 
of its provisions to subjects other than those originally presented, is 
in violation of the rule requiring germaneness.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 20.3, 20.4, infra.
13. See Sec. 15.44, supra.
14. See Sec. Sec. 9.12, supra, and 20.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conversely, an amendment which by striking out a portion of the 
text limits, narrows or does not change the purpose and scope of the 
bill may be germane.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 20.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Perfecting amendments to a title in a bill may be offered while 
there is pending a motion to strike out the title, and are required to 
be germane to the text to which offered, not to the motion to strike 
out.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 18.2, supra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment as Changing Scope and Meaning of Text

Sec. 20.1 An amendment simply striking out language already in a bill 
    may not be ruled out as non-germane unless the effect of such 
    amendment would change the scope and meaning of the text.

    The proceedings of June 7, 1977, relating to the Federal Employees 
Political Activities Act of 1977,(17) wherein the Chair 
ruled out amendments to strike language because the effect of the 
amendments was to enlarge the scope of the bill, are discussed in 
Sec. 20.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provision Excluding Uniformed Services From Coverage of Bill Affecting 
    Federal Employees--Amendment To Strike Exclusion

Sec. 20.2 To a bill governing the political activities of a certain 
    class of federal employees, an amendment broadening the scope of 
    the bill to cover another class of federal employees is not 
    germane; thus, where a bill contained a provision excluding from 
    its coverage a particular class (members of the uniformed 
    services), the effect of which was to narrow the scope of the bill 
    to another single class (federal civilian employees), amendments 
    proposing to strike out that exclusion from coverage, thereby 
    broadening

[[Page 8326]]

    the scope of the bill to include the separate class, were held not 
    germane.

    On June 7, 1977,(18) during consideration of the Federal 
Employees' Political Activities Act of 1977,(19) the Chair 
held that an amendment which by deleting an exception to the definition 
of the class covered by the bill and by inserting new provisions has 
the effect of including another class, is not germane. The amendment 
and proceedings related thereto were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 123 Cong. Rec. 17713, 17714, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. H.R. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        Mr. [William] Clay [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I raise the 
    point of order on the grounds that the matter contained in the 
    amendment is in violation of the germaneness rule stated in clause 
    7 of House rule XVI.
        The instant amendment proposes to make the bill applicable to 
    an entirely new class of individuals other than what is covered 
    under the bill.
        The reported bill applies only to civilian employees in 
    executive branch agencies, including the Postal Service and the 
    District of Columbia government, who are presently under the Hatch 
    Act.
        The amendment seeks to add a totally different class of 
    individuals to the bill; namely, military personnel who are not now 
    covered by the Hatch Act. Accordingly the amendment is not germane 
    to the bill. . . .
        Mr. Kindness: Responding [to] the point of order, Mr. Chairman, 
    the bill,

[[Page 8327]]

    as before us at this time, has been expanded in considerable degree 
    by the Clay amendment and by other amendments that have been 
    adopted during the course of the consideration of the bill in the 
    Committee of the Whole.
        However, I would point out that the amendment is germane, and I 
    particularly direct the attention of the chairman and the Members 
    to line 12 of page 28 where, in the definition of the word 
    ``employee'' the words appear, on line 12, ``but does not include a 
    member of the uniformed services.''
        Mr. Chairman, that is the very crux of this whole point. The 
    committee has given consideration, apparently, to the inclusion or 
    exclusion of members of uniformed services under the provisions of 
    this bill. A conscious decision was apparently made; and as 
    reported to the House, this bill has that conscious decision 
    reflected in it not to include members of the uniformed services.
        Mr. Chairman, the issue is directly before the House in that 
    form, so that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio is 
    in order, is pertinent, and is germane. It could not be nongermane.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. James R. Mann (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        The class of employees included in this legislation is confined 
    to civilian employees of the Government, and those specifically so 
    stated and described as being civilian employees of the executive 
    agencies, of the Postal Service and of the District of Columbia 
    government, and a reference to the Hatch Act as currently in force 
    indicates that military personnel are not included in that act.
        It is obvious that the purpose and the scope of the act before 
    us as referred to in its entirety as amended by this bill, is, ``to 
    restore to Federal civilian and Postal Service employees their 
    rights to participate voluntarily, as pri

[[Page 8328]]

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

    Subsequently, Mr. Kindness offered another amendment deleting the 
language excluding the uniformed services from coverage under the bill:

        Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Kindness: Page 8, line 12, strike 
        out ``but does not include a member of the uniformed services'' 
        and insert ``including any member of the uniformed services''.
            Page 35, line 2, strike out ``or a member of a uniformed 
        service.''.

        Mr. Clay: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the 
    amendment is not germane, that it goes beyond the scope of the 
    bill, and that it amends existing law not cited in the bill. . . .
        Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, I carefully listened to the ruling 
    of the Chair on a prior amendment which dealt in greater detail 
    with the subject of members of the uniformed services who are 
    specifically excluded from this bill but only by the language that 
    is included in this amendment. All this amendment does is to strike 
    language that is in the bill. That has to be germane. It has to be 
    a part of the bill before us, in the most germane sense, the most 
    consistent sense.
        I would urge that the point of order is not well taken on its 
    face, because the amendment only strikes language that is in the 
    bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair feels that it covered the point made at 
    this time by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kindness) in its first 
    ruling, in which the Chair cited from the House Rules and Manual of 
    the 95th Congress, paragraph 7, of rule XVI and precedents 
    contained in Cannon's volume VIII, sections 2917-2921.
        Let the Chair quote the language that the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Kindness) would find to be most favorable. The language is as 
    follows:

            In general, an amendment simply striking out words already 
        in a bill

[[Page 8329]]

        may not be ruled out as not germane unless such action would 
        change the scope and meaning of the text.

        The Chair would say that the gentleman's position was stronger 
    in the first instance wherein he did supply language, and the Chair 
    feels in making this second ruling that the broadening aspect of 
    the gentleman's initial language is such as to take it out of the 
    scope of the bill. By reversing that language and striking it out 
    and putting it in affirmative terms, as the gentleman now does, the 
    gentleman's amendment is subject to the point of order, and the 
    ruling is the same.
        The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in 
    order.

Amendment Broadening Definition of Criminal Offense

Sec. 20.3 To a bill making it a penal offense for three or more persons 
    acting in concert without authority of law to kill or injure any 
    person in the custody of a peace officer, an amendment proposing to 
    strike out the words ``in the custody of a peace officer'' was held 
    to be not germane.

    In the 75th Congress, an anti-lynching bill (1) was 
under consideration, which stated: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 1507 (Committee on Rules discharged).
 2. See 81 Cong. Rec. 3544, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 15, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That for the purposes of this act the 
    phrase ``mob or riotous assemblage,'' when used in this act, shall 
    mean an assemblage composed of three or more persons acting in 
    concert without authority of law to kill or injure any person in 
    the custody of any peace officer with the purpose or consequence of 
    depriving such person of due process of law or the equal protection 
    of the laws.

    An amendment was offered, as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: 
    On page 1, strike out all of lines 3 to 9, inclusive, and insert in 
    lieu thereof the following:

            That for the purpose of this act the phrase ``mob or 
        riotous assemblage'' when used in this act shall mean an 
        assemblage composed of two or more persons acting in concert 
        without authority of law to kill, injure, or kidnap any person 
        with the purpose or consequence of depriving such person of due 
        process of law and the equal protection of the law.

    Mr. Joseph A. Gavagan, of New York, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane to the bill. He stated:

        . . . The gentleman's amendment refers to the crime of 
    kidnaping, entirely different from the crime we are attempting to 
    legislate in this bill.

    The Chairman,(3) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The gentleman from Mississippi offers an amendment to the 
    first section of the bill to include kidnaping in addition to the 
    crime of lynching, but in addition thereto the gentleman, by

[[Page 8330]]

    his amendment, strikes out the words in line 7 ``in the custody of 
    any peace officer.'' The gentleman's amendment would extend the 
    class to which this bill applies to kidnaping. The addition of 
    kidnaping might not be objectionable, but this bill applies to the 
    death or injury of persons ``in the custody of a peace officer'', 
    while the proposed amendment takes those words, quoted, out of the 
    bill. The Chair does not think the amendment is germane, and 
    sustains the point of order.

    The following amendment was then offered:

        Amendment by Mr. Colmer: Page 1, line 5, strike out the word 
    ``three'' and insert in lieu thereof the word ``two'', and in line 
    7, strike out the words ``in the custody of any peace officer.''

    Mr. Gavagan having again raised a point of order, the Chairman 
ruled as follows:

        . . . The ruling of the Chair just made on the previous 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi will apply to 
    this amendment, as to the second provision in the amendment 
    striking out the language of the bill ``in the custody of any peace 
    officer.'' The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Exportation of Arms to Spain--Amendment To Strike Reference to Spain

Sec. 20.4 To a joint resolution prohibiting the exportation of arms and 
    ammunition to Spain, an amendment proposing to strike out the 
    reference to Spain was held to be not germane.

    In the 75th Congress, a bill (4) was under consideration 
which prohibited the exportation of arms to Spain.(5) An 
amendment was offered (6) as described above. In response to 
a point of order raised by Mr. Samuel D. McReynolds, of 
Tennessee,(7) the Speaker (8) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. S.J. Res. 3.
 5. See 81 Cong. Rec. 90, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 6, 1937.
 6. Id. at p. 96.
 7. Id. at p. 97.
 8. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Now, what is the purpose and scope of the Senate resolution 
    which is under consideration? There can be no controversy that it 
    relates entirely to the question of the shipment of arms and 
    ammunition to Spain--one particular country--and regulates certain 
    phases of shipments to warring civil factions in that country; but 
    under the suggestion made in the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Texas it certainly departs entirely from the limitation with 
    reference to the shipment of munitions to the one Government of 
    Spain, and broadens the field so as to apply to any government.

    Relying on the principle that, ``an amendment which, by striking 
out a portion of the text, changes the purpose and scope of a bill, is 
not germane,'' the Speaker sustained the point of order.

[[Page 8331]]

Prohibition on Use of Federal Payment Funds for Abortions--Motion To 
    Strike Reference to Federal Payment Funds

Sec. 20.5 A motion to strike out a portion of the text of an amendment, 
    thereby extending its scope to a more general subject, is not 
    germane; thus, to a substitute amendment to the District of 
    Columbia Appropriation bill prohibiting the use of annual federal 
    payment funds therein for the performance of abortions, an 
    amendment striking the reference to federal payment funds, thereby 
    broadening the scope of the substitute to cover any funds contained 
    in the bill (such as ``local'' District of Columbia funds), was 
    held to be not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 4580 (9) in the Committee 
of the Whole on July 17, 1979,(10) the Chair sustained a 
point of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. The District of Columbia Appropriations for fiscal 1980.
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 19064, 19066, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dornan: Page 17, after line 2, add 
        the following new section:
            ``Sec. 221. None of the funds appropriated under this Act 
        shall be used to pay for abortions.''. . .

        Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment 
    as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

    A point of order was made, as follows:

        Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas: . . . As I understand the 
    amendment it in essence takes it back to the original Dornan 
    amendment without providing for the substitute. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, that is not a point of order, it 
    simply is an accurate description of the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I suppose the point 
    of order is that it is a sham amendment in that it just repeats the 
    intent of the original amendment.

[[Page 8332]]

        The Chairman: (11) In the opinion of the Chair, the 
    gentleman from Texas is suggesting that the perfecting amendment 
    broadens the scope of the substitute amendment, and for that reason 
    is not germane. The point of order is sustained under the 
    precedents that a motion to strike cannot broaden the scope of the 
    pending proposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Albert A. Gore, Jr. (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Surplus Agricultural Commodities--Language Concerning Transportation of 
    Commodities

Sec. 20.6 To that provision in a bill authorizing the President to 
    furnish emergency assistance to friendly nations from stocks of 
    surplus agricultural commodities to be made available ``f.o.b. 
    vessels in United States ports,'' an amendment striking out 
    ``f.o.b. vessels in United States ports'' was held germane, taking 
    into account other provisions in the bill already read for 
    amendment.

    In the 83d Congress, during consideration of the Agricultural Trade 
Development and Assistance Act of 1954,(12) an amendment was 
offered (13) as described above. A point of order was raised 
against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. S. 2475 (Committee on Agriculture).
13. 100 Cong. Rec. 8370, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., June 16, 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane in that it extends 
    the scope of authority which is given the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation under this bill. . . . If the amendment were adopted, 
    it would mean that the obligation of the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation would be to furnish transportation anywhere in the 
    world we might ship these commodities. . . .

    In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Thor C. Tollefson, 
of Washington, stated:

        . . . This bill provides for the disposition of agricultural 
    surplus products to foreign nations and involves necessarily the 
    transportation of those surplus farm products. . . . The language 
    of the present bill gives the President authority on page 6, line 
    21, and I read, ``and shall make funds available to finance the 
    sale and exportation of surplus agricultural commodities.''
        That is contained, of course, in section 1, but it is in the 
    bill, and it gives the President authority to finance the sale and 
    to finance the exportation which would exclude the transshipment of 
    products not only in the United States but on vessels to carry them 
    abroad.

    The Chairman,(14) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Gerald R. Ford, Jr. (Mich.).

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

[[Page 8333]]

        It seems to the Chair, on the basis of section 204 of the bill, 
    and other related portions of the bill which deal with the question 
    of transportation of the commodities which are involved in this 
    legislation, that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Washington [Mr. Tollefson] is germane; and the Chair so rules.

Motion To Strike Not Germane as Substitute

Sec. 20.7 During consideration of a bill relating to salaries of 
    government employees, it was held that, to an amendment seeking to 
    change specific dollar amounts, an amendment offered as a 
    substitute proposing to strike out other portions of the bill not 
    amended by the original amendment was not germane.

    In the 77th Congress, a bill (15) was under 
consideration comprising an amendment to the Classification Act of 1923 
to increase certain salaries. An amendment was offered (16) 
whose purpose was described by the proponent as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 6217 (Committee on Civil Service).
16. 88 Cong. Rec. 5885, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., July 1, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Ramspeck [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, this is the 
    amendment which I stated during general debate I would offer for 
    the purpose of eliminating the new salary provisions over and 
    beyond the present range of the Classification Act.
        Under the present classification law the Civil Service 
    Commission has no authority to allocate any position at a salary 
    greater than $9,000 a year unless it is specifically provided for 
    by Congress. Under this bill we originally provided a new grade 
    starting at $9,000 and going to $10,000. The purpose of this 
    amendment is to eliminate this new grade and confine the range of 
    the Classification Act to a top figure of $9,000.

    Mr. Edward H. Rees, of Kansas, offered, as a substitute, an 
amendment striking out specified portions of the bill.(17) 
The following proceedings related to a point of order raised by Mr. 
Cochran:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 5887.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Mississippi]: An amendment is 
    pending. The Clerk read this as an amendment and I doubt if it is 
    germane.
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair rules that the 
    gentleman can offer this after the Ramspeck amendment has been 
    disposed of. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. A. Willis Robertson (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]he question is on the Ramspeck amendment. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. 
    . . .
        The gentleman from Kansas has offered a substitute for the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia. The only way that 
    can fail to receive

[[Page 8334]]

    consideration is by a point of order being made against it.
        The Chairman: The Chair understood that the gentleman from 
    Missouri made the point of order that if (the Rees amendment) was a 
    substitute it was not germane to the Ramspeck amendment and that, 
    therefore, the Ramspeck amendment would have to be disposed of 
    first before the gentleman from Kansas could offer his amendment.

Pro Forma Amendment

Sec. 20.8 A pro forma amendment to ``strike out the last word'' is 
    germane.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 17.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------